CAR_Public/150114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 10


                             Headlines

ABE'S FINEST: Recalls 80,050 Lbs. of Hickory Smoked Sliced Bacon
AIM DIRECTIONAL: "Chance" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALPHA RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMD IMPORTS: Recalls 35,275 Lbs. of Australian Lamb Products
APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Case Dismissal

APOLLO EDUCATION: Parties to Present Settlement in Teamsters Case
APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Against "Gonzalez" TCPA Action
APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Paredes" Suit Over Deceptive Practices
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Suit Alleges Calif Labor Code Violation
APOLLO EDUCATION: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Saleh" Action

ARRINGTON GROUNDS: Removes "Ettel" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
B. ROBERT'S FOODS: Recalls 4,474 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup
BAKER TILLY: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
BANK OF AMERICA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Swift" Suit Claims
BLAZER REAL: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BLUE GENTIAN: Falsely Marketed X-Hose Pro Products, Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA BANK: Sued Over Failure to Provide ATMs for Blinds
CAMPOS FOODS: Recalls 5,300 Lbs. of Chicken Products
CAPITAL ONE: $7.2-Mil. Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
CARMAX INC: Provides Updates on "Fowler" Class Action

CARMAX INC: Received $20.9MM From Toyota Class Action Settlement
CELADON GROUP: Ordered to Pay $3.8 Million to Overcharged Drivers
CK FRANCHISING: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: "Talkington" Suit Moved to N.D. W. Virginia
COOK MEDICAL: Faces Suit in Ind. Over IVC Filter-Related Injuries

CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Zori" Action Claims
CVS HEALTH: Faces "Baugh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DABECCA NATURAL: Recalls 3,450 Lbs. of Bacon Products
DANIEL WEAVER: Recalls 7,092 Lbs. of Halal Beef Products
DOLLAR GENERAL: Removes "Pleasant" Class Suit to C.D. California

EMPIRE EAST: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Shuts Down Ad Buyers' Class Action
FALLSBURG CENTRAL: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
FAMILY DOLLAR: NC Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Certification
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Suit Wins Final Approval

FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Case Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Jan. 22 Oral Argument Set in "Itterly" Case Appeal
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Class Action
FAMILY DOLLAR: Provides Updates on "Scott" Gender Pay Action
FAMILY DOLLAR: Delaware Court Rejects Bid to Certify Appeal

FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Class Action in Initial Stages
FANNIE MAE: Removes "Romo" Class Suit to Illinois District Court
FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Employee Background Checks
FLORIDA: Medicaid Program for Children Inadequate, Judge Rules
FOOD SAFETY NET: Faces "Duyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

FRESH FOOD: Recalls 35,865 Lbs. of Chili Products
GARCIA FOODS: Recalls 190,450 Lbs. of Pork Products
HAUSMAN FOODS: Recalls 38,400 Lbs. of Beef and Pork Products
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kittrell" Suit Says
HEB MEAT: Recalls 83,666 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding

HOPE PROGRAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
ICHIRO SUSHI: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
INTER-CON SECURITY: Appeals Court Denies Individual Arbitration
J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 45,904 Lbs. of Chicken and Beef Products

J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 9,909 Lbs. of Chicken Products
JIMMY JOHN'S: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JINON CORPORATION: Recalls 359 Lbs. of Boneless Beef Products
KATADYN NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls 2,719 Lbs. of Spicy Sausage
LA TOVA: Faces "Che" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MCCOY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
MIAMI YACHT: Removes "Oliver" Suit to Florida District Court
MINNESOTA: Feb. Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Class Action
MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Bibb Medical Monitoring Action Final
MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Personal Injury Cases Now Final

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Most of Granitville Derailment Suits
OLD REPUBLIC: Customer's Bid to Revive Class Action Moot
OPTICAL EXPRESS: Faces Claims Over Artificial Lens Issues
PITA GRILL: Faces "Xochimitl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Removes "Ledyard" Suit to E.D. New York

QUALITY MEATS: Recalls 44,372 Lbs. of Frozen Pork Belly Product
REAL FOODS: Recalls 308 Lbs. of Chef Salad With Ham and Turkey
REITER BUNSIC: "Bernabe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Got $2.1MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit
ROADVIEW INC: Faces "Holmes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Mississippian Trusts Seek Indemnification
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Hart" Class Action
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Securities Class Action
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Securities Class Action

SINGING RIVER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees' Plan, Suit Claims
SLEEP TRAIN: Accused of Not Providing Disabled-Accessible Paths
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TD BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees
TILE SHOP: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

UNIBRIGHT FOODS: Recalls 48,139 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Sukiyaki Beef
US POSTAL: Employees' Health Information Compromised in Hacking
VERIFIED HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Says
VISION'S: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff

WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $14.5 Million
WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ligon" Class Suit to Florida District Court

* High School Football Participants Rise Despite Concussion Risk


                            *********


ABE'S FINEST: Recalls 80,050 Lbs. of Hickory Smoked Sliced Bacon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abe's Finest Meats, a Palatka, Fla. establishment, is recalling
approximately 80,050 pounds of hickory smoked sliced bacon
products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

These items, produced on various dates between July 23 and
December 11, 2014, are subject to recall:

   -- 10-lb. bulk frozen packages of "Cedar Creek Hickory Smoked
      Sliced Bacon."

These products bear establishment number "EST. 18747" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  They were shipped to distributors in
Florida and Georgia.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
label review.  The product ingredient sodium nitrite is not
declared on the product label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Ricky Brown,
Plant Manager, at (386) 328-5157.  Media with questions about the
recall can contact Ricky Brown, Plant Manager, at (386) 328-5157.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


AIM DIRECTIONAL: "Chance" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aim Directional Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00002
(S.D. Tex., January 5, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Aim Directional Services, LLC is a multi-service drilling company
based in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Errol Wright, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-07586
(E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


AMD IMPORTS: Recalls 35,275 Lbs. of Australian Lamb Products
------------------------------------------------------------
AMD Imports Inc., a Houston, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 35,275 pounds of Australian lamb products because
they were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  Without the benefit of full inspection,
a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The product subject to recall includes:

Lot A, 17,500lbs: 416 containers of Australian Bone-In Lamb
Shoulder weighing from 36 to 51 lbs each with package code
"730030".  The product was packaged by Wagstaff Canbourne on dates
ranging from Sept. 8, 2014 - Oct. 10, 2014.

Lot B, 17,775lbs: 416 containers of Australian Bone-In Lamb
Shoulder weighing from 36 to 51 lbs each with package code
"730030".  The product was packaged by Wagstaff Canbourne on dates
ranging from Sept. 8, 2014 - Oct. 10, 2014.

The product bears the Australian mark of inspection with
establishment number "2773."  The product was shipped to AMD
Imports Inc., a distributor in Houston, Texas which was also the
point of entry and further distributed to other distributors and
retail locations.

The problem was discovered using the Public Health Information
System (PHIS) when FSIS import staff reviewed records and
discovered that the independent third party carrier did not
present the products for USDA inspection at the U.S. point of
entry.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Dan Martinez at (713) 928-3111.


APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint in the
Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group).

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming us, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles
B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and Gregory J.
Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and misleading
statements regarding our business practices and prospects for
growth. That complaint asserted a putative class period stemming
from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A substantially similar
complaint was also filed in the same Court by John T. Fitch on
September 23, 2010 making similar allegations against the same
defendants for the same purported class period. Finally, on
October 4, 2010, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth against the
same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and
Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of allegations,
but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007 to August 3,
2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed
motions to consolidate the related actions and be appointed the
lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint
asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13,
2010.

"On April 19, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss and oral argument
on the motion was held before the Court on October 17, 2011. On
October 27, 2011, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 6, 2011, the lead
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
which alleges similar claims against the same defendants. On
January 9, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the Court
granted our motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in our
favor," the Company said.  "On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On December 16, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's
dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint."


APOLLO EDUCATION: Parties to Present Settlement in Teamsters Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the parties
in the Securities Class Action (Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and
Welfare Funds) plan to present a stipulation of settlement to the
district court for approval in the near term.

"On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased our stock between November 28,
2001 and October 18, 2006," the Company said.  "The complaint,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is
entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo
Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that
we and certain of our current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning our stock option granting
policies and practices and related accounting."

The defendants are Apollo, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E.
Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy
F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone,
John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.

"On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal
claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations
of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On
April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint,
which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against
the same defendants.

"On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this
ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On
April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency
of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter and, at the request of the parties, the Ninth
Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on April 30, 2014. The
parties plan to present a stipulation of settlement to the
district court for approval in the near term.

"As of November 30, 2014, we have accrued an immaterial amount
reflecting the agreed-upon settlement. We intend to pursue
reimbursement of the settlement amount from our insurance
carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery efforts is
uncertain at this point."


APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Against "Gonzalez" TCPA Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Mundy
Gonzalez filed on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint
against University of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, which is
captioned Gonzalez v. The University of Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279 and
which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, alleges that University of Phoenix violated the
TCPA by using automatic dialing systems to place unsolicited
telephone calls to the cellular telephones of plaintiff and other
individuals. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of
plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Paredes" Suit Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Ashley
Paredes filed on November 13, 2014, a class action complaint
against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group, Inc.
alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of
California law. The complaint, which is captioned Paredes v. The
University of Phoenix, Inc. and was filed in California Superior
Court in San Bernadino County, purports to assert claims on behalf
of the class of students who enrolled in the University's
educational programs for Psychology, Education, Nursing, Health
Administration and Criminal Justice, and Technology from November
10, 2011 through November 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that the
University misled class members regarding transferability of
credits earned at the University and by promising or guaranteeing
employment upon completion of studies. The complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the
class.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Suit Alleges Calif Labor Code Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Carmin
Tandy, who was previously employed as a faculty member at
University of Phoenix, filed on December 24, 2014, a class action
complaint against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and University of
Phoenix alleging violations of the California Labor Code
pertaining to the manner in which University of Phoenix faculty in
California were compensated. The complaint, which is captioned
Tandy v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., was filed in
California Superior Court in San Diego County, purports to assert
claims on behalf of faculty who were employed by defendants in
California within either four, three, or one years of the filing
of the complaint, and seeks to recover repayment of wages and
other damages and relief under California law.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Saleh" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the
plaintiff in the Securities Class Action (Nader Saleh) voluntarily
dismissed the complaint.

On April 24, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Nader
Saleh naming Apollo Education Group, Inc., Gregory W. Cappelli,
and Brian L. Swartz as defendants and asserting a putative class
period stemming from October 19, 2011 to April 1, 2014. The
complaint is entitled Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., 2:14-
cv-00877-SRB and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, among other complaints. On November 12, 2014,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint, and the district
court subsequently terminated the case on November 13, 2014.


ARRINGTON GROUNDS: Removes "Ettel" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ettel, et al. v. Arrington Grounds
Maintenance, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-008457-CI, was removed from
the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-
03246-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week but no provision was made to compensate them at the rate
of time and one-half for the hours in excess of 40 that they
worked each week.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lindsey C. Kofoed, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683-2604
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: lck@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karen Maryellen Morinelli, Esq.
          Lara J. Peppard, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 N Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 512-3210
          Facsimile: (813) 512-3211
          E-mail: karen.morinelli@ogletreedeakins.com
                  lara.peppard@ogletreedeakins.com


B. ROBERT'S FOODS: Recalls 4,474 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup
------------------------------------------------------------
B. Robert's Foods, a Charlotte, N.C. establishment, is recalling
approximately 4,474 pounds of chicken noodle soup due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The Chicken Noodle Soup product is formulated with egg, a known
allergen.  However, the product was released with a Chicken and
Wild Rice Soup side label, which does not declare this allergen.

The items with the following label, produced on Dec. 12, 2014,
subject to recall include:

   -- 16-oz. (454g) refrigerated packages of "Harris Teeter Fresh
      Foods Market Chef's Recipe Chicken and Wild Rice Soup" with
      UPC code "6108819179," product code "57878" and a "Sell-By
      01/31/15" in the bottom right corner of the label.  The
      products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
      19198" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  They were
      distributed to grocery stores in Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
      Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
      Virginia and Washington, D.C.

A grocery store employee discovered that "Chicken Noodle Soup"
products were incorrectly labeled as "Harris Teeter Fresh Foods
Market Chef's Recipe Chicken and Wild Rice Soup."  The grocery
store reported the error to B. Robert's Foods which found that the
products had been incorrectly labeled.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
B. Robert's Foods Quality Assurance Manager Antonio Gilges at
(704) 944-5311.


BAKER TILLY: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kachun Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited, Andrew David Ross, and
Helena Laiha Kwok, Case No. 2:14-cv-09959 (C.D. Cal., December 31,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited is a PCAOB-registered audit firm
based in Hong Kong.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Baker
Tilly Hong Kong Limited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Swift" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Swift, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, NB Holdings Corporation,
and FIA Card Services, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-01539 (M.D. Fla.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
negligently and willfully placing calls to the cellular telephones
of the Plaintiff for non-emergency purposes using an automatic
telephone-dialing system.

The Defendants own and operate a multinational banking and
financial services corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
              jcohen@forthepeople.com


BLAZER REAL: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel J. Morales v. Blazer Real Estate Services, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00003 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

Blazer Real Estate Services, LLC is a real estate developer doing
business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn W. Patterson Jr., Esq.
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2820
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 961-9688
      Facsimile: (713) 961-0941
      E-mail: glenn.patterson@gmail.com


BLUE GENTIAN: Falsely Marketed X-Hose Pro Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dumone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Gentian, LLC, a Florida Corporation, National
Express, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, Emson USA, Inc., a New
York Corporation, DAP PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
Does I through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-04046 (D. Md.,
December 31, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's false and
misleading representations of its X-Hose Pro products that it is
made from a tough, multi layered expandable inner hose and a
folded outer covering made from durable super-strong webbing, when
in fact it often develops pinhole leaks, breaks, rips, cracks,
leaks, explodes after minimal use.

The Defendants specialize in the design, manufacture, marketing
and distribution of X-Hose Pro products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Ulwick, Esq.
      KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
      One South Street, Suite 2600
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 752-6030
      Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
      E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

         - and -

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Sara Avila, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
              savila@milsteinadelman.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com


CALIFORNIA BANK: Sued Over Failure to Provide ATMs for Blinds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. California Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:14-cv-03039 (S.D.
Cal., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired
individuals.

California Bank & Trust operates nearly 100 banks in California
with headquarter located at11622 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200, San
Diego, CA, 92130.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com


CAMPOS FOODS: Recalls 5,300 Lbs. of Chicken Products
----------------------------------------------------
Campos Foods, LLC, a Caryville, Tenn. establishment, is recalling
approximately 5,300 pounds of chicken products due to misbranding
and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The recalled
products contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared
on the product label.

The items produced on Dec. 2, 2014, that are subject to recall
includes:

Bulk boxes containing various weights of 90 pieces of "Rockin'
Roasted Roasted Chicken Drum & Thigh (With Back) Smoke Flavor
Added".

16-lb. bulk boxes containing approximately 32 pieces of "Rockin'
Roasted Roasted Chicken Quarters Smoke Flavor Added".  The
products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-2260T"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  They were shipped to
distribution centers nationwide.

The problem was initially discovered when the firm was notified by
a supplier that an ingredient was recalled by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Chris
Rodney, VP Sales, at (405) 603-7500. Media with questions about
the recall can contact Jim English, President/COO, at (405) 603-
7500.


CAPITAL ONE: $7.2-Mil. Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, Igor Kossov and Cara Salvatore, writing for
Law360, report that a Virginia federal judge on Jan. 2
preliminarily approved a settlement in which Capital One Bank
(USA) NA agreed to pay at least $7.2 million in a class action
claiming the bank deceived customers about fees and conditions
applied to the use of their zero percent annual percentage rate
checks.

U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding
over the case led by Margaret Murr and David Reign, said in her
ruling that the proposed settlement appeared within the range of
reasonableness.

Under the deal, Capital One plans to mail checks totaling more
than $4.1 million to a group of customers who accepted a zero
percent offer, and will invite customers who accepted more than
one offer to submit claims that will add up to a minimum of $3.1
million, according to the settlement agreement.

Each affected customer would receive either $2 or $5.50 in cash,
providing them with "significant" monetary recovery, according to
the settlement.

"Class members will recover up to 44 percent of the average
interest paid by class members as a result of the charges at issue
in this lawsuit, despite Capital One's vigorous dispute over the
amount that would be owed, even if liability was established," the
agreement said.  "These tiered payments reflect that not all class
members were injured through Capital One's grace period and
interest charge practices, and that some were harmed more than
others."

Capital One has also improved the disclosures in its zero percent
offer materials, particularly with respect to its grace period and
payment allocation effects, according to the settlement.  The bank
has also agreed to pay up to $1.5 million in attorneys' fees and
costs to class counsel, the filing said.

Judge Brinkema also conditionally certified the class, which
includes customers who, between Aug. 1, 2008, and Jan. 2, 2015,
accepted a zero percent offer from Capital One through his or her
own account using an access check or no-hassle check, according to
the ruling.

Ms. Murr sued in September 2013, claiming Capital One manufactured
payment shortfalls in her account to extract fees from her, in
violation of her contract.  When she tried to pay off her monthly
purchase balances, the bank allocated part of each payment to
cover the access check balance, ensuring that Ms. Murr constantly
owed the bank interest on a segment of her account, according to
the complaint.

Ms. Murr also alleged that Capital One tried charging her interest
on a zero percent APR transaction before the contractual grace
period expired and submitted "derogatory" information about her to
credit-rating agencies after she refused to pay certain fees
associated with the transaction.

The suit accused Capital One of breach of contract or, in the
alternative, fraud for its failure to disclose the contractual
terms, according to the settlement.   Mr. Reign was added as a
plaintiff in an amended complaint filed in December.

Last June, Judge Brinkema granted the card company's motion to
dismiss claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act and partially
granted its motion to dismiss breach of contract claims, but kept
claims for common-law fraud and constructive fraud, violation of
the Truth in Lending Act, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J.
O'Reardon II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- of
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP; Daniel M. Cohen, Robert J.
Cynkar and Pamela Gilbert of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and John
A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA.

Capital One is represented by Mary C. Zinsner --
mary.zinsner@troutmansanders.com -- S. Mohsin Reza and David N.
Anthony of Troutman Sanders LLP and Aaron D. Van Oort --
aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Amanda J. Rome and Peter Cunningham
Magnuson of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

The case is Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, case number 1:13-
cv-01091, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Provides Updates on "Fowler" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
CarMax Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on a class action
lawsuit filed by John Fowler.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. Fowler filed the lawsuit against CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.  Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v.
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part
of the Fowler case.  The allegations in the consolidated case
involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or
compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of
terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks
and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply
with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair
competition; and (6) California's Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act.  The putative class consisted of sales consultants,
sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the
company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009,
the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply
with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court
also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard
to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's
ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.

On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
ruling in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition of
Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a
result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer a part of
the lawsuit.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending
the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated
third parties but related legal issues.  Subsequently, CarMax
moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims
into arbitration on an individual basis, which the court granted
on November 21, 2011.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling
to the California Court of Appeal.

On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel
arbitration.  On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme
Court.

On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted
CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of
Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of
Appeal for further consideration.

The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
these matters," the Company said.


CARMAX INC: Received $20.9MM From Toyota Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company is a
class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit
(In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litig., Case No. 10-2151 (C.D.
Cal.), consolidated as of April 9, 2010) against Toyota Motor
Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (collectively, "Toyota")
related to the economic loss associated with certain Toyota
vehicles equipped with electronic throttle controls systems and
the potential unintended acceleration of these vehicles.

"On July 9, 2014, we received $20.9 million in the settlement of
this matter and recorded the gain at the time of receipt," the
Company said.


CELADON GROUP: Ordered to Pay $3.8 Million to Overcharged Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Schouten, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that owner/operator drivers for Celadon Group Inc. do a lot of
fueling at Pilot and Flying J truck stops, where they can use a
charge card provided by Celadon to buy fuel at a discount to the
cash price.

After fueling, drivers get a receipt showing the charge -- an
amount Celadon later deducts from their pay.

But Celadon does not actually pay the same fuel price it charges
back to its drivers, court documents show.  The Indianapolis-based
trucking giant pays a more deeply discounted rate, as much as 50
cents less per gallon of diesel, thanks to a bulk-purchase
agreement with the travel center operator.

A Marion County judge in December said the company's practice of
withholding the higher price from its owner/operator drivers and
keeping the savings breaches the terms of its agreement with 2,262
current and former drivers.

Marion Superior Court Judge Michael D. Keele on Dec. 12 ordered
Celadon to pay $3.8 million -- the amount the company over-charged
drivers for fuel purchases over a 10-year period -- and another
$1.7 million in pre-judgment interest.  The judgment proceeds
would be split among two truckers acting as lead plaintiffs, the
other affected truckers, and attorneys at Cohen & Malad LLP who
brought the case in October 2013 on a contingent-fee basis.

Celadon spokesman Joe Weigel said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

But a veteran trucking-industry analyst told IBJ that it's
standard industry practice for large trucking firms to pass along
only some of their bulk-purchase fuel savings to owner/operator
drivers.

If contract drivers don't want to buy fuel through the company's
program, they don't have to.  In Celadon's case, the program
offered a 6-cent discount off the cash price for fuel in addition
to the relative ease of accounting for the expense.

"An individual owner/operator is not going to get the price
Celadon pays, or J.B. Hunt or any other big trucker," explained
the analyst, who did not want to be named for fear of being called
for a deposition.  "If you're buying lower volumes, you don't get
the better rate."

The analyst described the suit as a "nuisance" action that at most
would lead big trucking firms to rework the fine print of
contracts with owner/operator drivers.  Rest assured, he said,
they won't be passing along more fuel savings to contract drivers.

The Marion County judgment against Celadon cites the company's
contractor operating agreement, which allows withholding of
compensation to cover "advances and other extensions of credit."
The judge ruled that fuel discounts pocketed by Celadon are
neither an advance nor an extension of credit.

Celadon does not disclose to drivers that it pays the
significantly lower price for gas, the suit says.

"Based on this profit-making scheme -- disguised as a fuel-charge-
back program -- Celadon improperly diverts significant portions of
those drivers' hard-earned compensation to its own corporate
coffers," the suit argues.

Celadon responded to the judgment by filing a motion Dec. 19 to
move the case to federal court, which has jurisdiction in class-
action cases where damage amounts exceed $5 million.

Richard Shevitz, the plaintiffs' attorney and a partner at Cohen &
Malad, said the $5 million threshold is for actual damages, but
Celadon is trying to tack on interest in hopes of finding a
friendlier court.

"We view their removal to federal court as a cynical effort to
take a second bite at the apple," Mr. Shevitz said.

Legal matters with the contract aside, it's not unreasonable for a
trucking company to expect a return on what amounts to a credit
arrangement with its contract drivers, said Joseph Schofer, a
transportation policy expert and professor at Northwestern
University's transportation center.

There's a question as to what amount of profit is excessive, but
ultimately drivers have the choice of buying from another vendor.

"If owner/operators are not required to but continue to buy this
way, there must be some advantage to them," Mr. Schofer said.

Pilot Flying J, which is not a named party in the suit, is facing
its own legal troubles over alleged fraud in its fuel-rebate
program.  The privately held company has agreed to pay $92 million
to settle a federal criminal case and $85 million to settle a
civil case, after the FBI and IRS raided its Tennessee
headquarters in 2013.

Celadon does not mention its suit under "legal matters" in its
most recent quarterly report, for the period ended Sept. 30.

"We are party to certain lawsuits in the ordinary course of
business," the filing states.  "We are currently not party to any
proceedings which will have a materially adverse effect."

Only about 600 of Celadon's roughly 3,000 drivers are
owner/operators; the company pays the fuel bill directly for its
salaried operators.

Still, a $5.5 million judgment would be more than a drop in the
bucket for Celadon; the company reported a quarterly profit of $8
million for the period ended Sept. 30.

In the Marion County suit, Celadon has filed counterclaims against
the lead plaintiffs, Charles Wilmoth and Kent Vassey, alleging
they defaulted on their contracts.  Mr. Wilmoth is from
Mississippi, and Vassey is from Arkansas.

About 113 of the class members are from Indiana, Celadon says in
court filings.  The company on its website says it has 4,000
employees.  Its fleet consists of 3,000 tractors and 8,700
trailers.


CK FRANCHISING: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Morris, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. CK Franchising, Inc., MD Enterprises LLC, and Marlin Duncan,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00018 (M.D. Pa., January 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

CK Franchising, Inc. is the franchisor for a network of over 600
home care businesses operating under the Comfort Keepers brand
name.

MD Enterprises LLC is a franchisee of Comfort Keepers businesses
in Hazleton, Wilkes-Barre, Pottsville, Bloomsburg, and Allentown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Garrison, Esq.
      Jerry Martin, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202

         - and -

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center
      Suite 211, 715 Twining Rd
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: "Talkington" Suit Moved to N.D. W. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Third Party Defendant Chartis Specialty Insurance Company removed
the class action lawsuit entitled Talkington v. Columbian
Chemicals Company, Case No. 13-C-65K, from the Marshall County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia (Wheeling).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:14-cv-00166-JPB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Wear, Esq.
          Clayton J. Fitzsimmons, Esq.
          FITZSIMMONS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1609 Warwood Avenue
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 277-1700
          Facsimile: (304) 277-1705
          E-mail: brent@fitzsimmonsfirm.com
                  clayton@fitzsimmonsfirm.com
                  lawyers@fitzsimmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Herman D. Lantz, Esq.
          LANTZ LAW OFFICES
          518 Seventh Street
          Moundsville, WV 26041
          Telephone: (304) 810-4020
          Facsimile: (304) 810-4021
          E-mail: herman@lantzlawoffice.com

Defendant Columbian Chemicals Company is represented by:

          Jay T. McCamic, Esq.
          MCCAMIC, SACCO & MCCOID, PLLC
          56-58 Fourteenth Street
          P O Box 151
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 232-6750
          Facsimile: (304) 232-3548
          E-mail: jtmccamic@mspmlaw.com

Third Party Defendant Chartis Specialty Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Don C. A. Parker, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          PO Box 273
          300 Kanawha Blvd., East
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340-3896
          Facsimile: (304) 340-3801
          E-mail: dparker@spilmanlaw.com


COOK MEDICAL: Faces Suit in Ind. Over IVC Filter-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Arsanto and Kenneth Arsanto, individually and as husband
and wife v. Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook Medical, Inc.;
Cook Incorporated; Cook Group, Inc. and William Cook Europe APS,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02130-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., December 31, 2014) is
an action for damages relating to the Defendants' development,
testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling,
preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and selling the
defective product sold under the name "inferior vena cava filter."

The Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the
Cook Filter's defects, Plaintiff Lindsey Arsanto suffered
significant and severe injuries to her body resulting in
significant expenses for medical treatment, as well as incurred a
substantial loss of earnings, as well as non-economic damages.

Cook Medical Incorporated, also known as Cook Medical, Inc. is an
Indiana Corporation with a principal place of business located in
Bloomington, Indiana.  Cook Incorporated is the parent company of
Cook Medical Incorporated and is an Indiana Corporation also
headquartered in Bloomington.

Cook Group, Inc. is the parent company of Cook Medical
Incorporated and Cook Incorporated and is an Indiana Corporation
with a principal place of business in Bloomington.  William Cook
Europe APS is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business in Bjaverskov, Denmark.  Cook Europe's business form most
closely resembles that of an American Corporation.

Cook develops, manufactures, sells and distributes medical devices
for use in various medical applications including endovascular
cardiology, and surgical products throughout the United States and
around the world.  Cook's products include the Gunther Tulip Vena
Cava Filter and the Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter, which are used
for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism via placement
in the vena cava.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy A. Brenes, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Zori" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisam Zori, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Credit Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00009 (S.D. Cal., January 5, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
deceptive, unfair, and unlawful debt collection practices.

Credit Collection Services, Inc. owns and operates a debt
collection agency with a principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CVS HEALTH: Faces "Baugh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Junius Baugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Health, CVS/Pharmacy, Case No. 2:15-cv-00014 (E.D.
Pa., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours per week.

CVS Health is a pharmacy innovation company that owns and manages
7,700 retail pharmacy stores.

CVS/Pharmacy is a retail division of CVS Health located at 1 CVS
Drive, Woonsocket, RI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net


DABECCA NATURAL: Recalls 3,450 Lbs. of Bacon Products
-----------------------------------------------------
DaBecca Natural Foods, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling
approximately 3,450 pounds of bacon products due to misbranding,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The bacon products were produced on Nov. 13, 2014.  The products
subject to recall includes:

   -- 15-lb. bulk case of DaBecca Sliced Uncured Apple Smoked
      Bacon (12 - 14 slices per lb.) with case code 114670 30814

The products subject to recall, though produced under inspection,
were packaged and shipped with labels that did not bear the USDA
mark of inspection.  These products were shipped to institutional
distributors in California and Texas.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review conducted
by FSIS inspectors at a distribution facility.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Jon Pederson, Director of Operations at (800) 793-6207.


DANIEL WEAVER: Recalls 7,092 Lbs. of Halal Beef Products
--------------------------------------------------------
The Daniel Weaver Company, a Lebanon, PA establishment, is
recalling approximately 7,092 pounds of Halal Beef products due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains peanuts, a known allergen which is not
declared on the product label.

The Halal Beef Soujouk products were produced between Nov. 13 and
Dec. 3, 2014.  The products subject to recall includes:

   -- 16-oz. hoops of "Yoruk Brand Halal Beef Soujouk Dried Beef
      Sausage."

   -- 16-oz. links of "Yoruk Brand Halal Beef Parmak Soujouk Dried
      Beef Sausage."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
669" and were shipped to a distribution location in New Jersey.

The problem was discovered when The Daniel Weaver Company was
notified by its spice supplier that the cumin in a spice mix used
to formulate the sausage may have been contaminated with peanut
allergens.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Customer
Service at (717) 274-6100.  Media with questions about the recall
can contact Media Relations at (215) 256-8867.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Removes "Pleasant" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General
Corporation, et al., Case No. CIVDS1417709, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Riverside).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-02645-JFW-KK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          KENNETH H. YOON LAW OFFICES
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3393
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara A. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: bfitzgerald@morganlewis.com
                  kmcguigan@morganlewis.com


EMPIRE EAST: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jie Yi Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Empire East 34, Inc. d/b/a East Pacific Pan-Asian Bistro, Hui Ping
Xiao, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Case No. 1:14-cv-10237 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 120 E. 34th
Street, New York, NY 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Shuts Down Ad Buyers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, report that
the Ninth Circuit has shut down a putative contract and unfair
competition class action brought by online advertisers who alleged
Facebook overcharges for cost-per-click advertising, ruling that
the plaintiffs never showed how "legitimate" clicks could be
distinguished on a classwide basis.

Lead plaintiffs Steven Price and Nathan Fox, who used the social
media site to advertise their businesses, had accused Facebook of
charging them for cost-per-click advertising, even when the clicks
were "fraudulent," and did not result in any benefit to their
companies.  Messrs. Price and Fox contended this violated their
contract with the social media giant, and had told a district
court during their unsuccessful bid for class certification that
their claims were common to more than 100,000 advertisers who used
the service.

In an unpublished memorandum issued on Dec. 26, a three-judge
panel rejected the advertisers' argument that Facebook's use of
uniform rules and algorithms when billing advertisers renders the
class certifiable.  The appeals panel wrote that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification
because the plaintiffs' expert never backed up his claim that he
could develop algorithms to determine if Facebook properly
filtered out fraudulent clicks from the so-called legitimate
clicks -- requests made by a human with an intent to view the
link's content.

"Nowhere in his report or deposition, however, did [the expert]
provide the actual method for distinguishing between valid and
invalid clicks.  Further, in his deposition he acknowledged that
he knows of no sources, including the [Interactive Advertising
Bureau] guidelines, that provide specific parameters for
determining what constitutes a valid click," the appeals panel
wrote.

On Dec. 26, Facebook Associate General Counsel Sandeep Solanki
told Law360 via email that the company is, "pleased with the Ninth
Circuit's decision affirming that the case should not proceed as a
class action."

The suit was brought in 2009 by a group of advertisers who had
contracts with the social media site after using its publicly
available self-service ad system.  They each paid Facebook a rate
for every click-through to their businesses' websites from an
online ad, the court said.

The advertisers claimed, however, that Facebook had charged them
for clicks that shouldn't have counted because they resulted in no
gain to their businesses, according to court filings.

In April 2012, U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton shot down
their attempt, holding that although the advertisers met some of
the standards needed to certify the class, they failed to show
that Messrs. Fox and Price adequately represented the interests of
the proposed class because neither had proved that Facebook's
alleged wrongdoing caused them or their businesses any damage.

The proposed class would have included all individuals or
businesses that paid Facebook for cost-per-click advertising from
May 2009 to present.

The proposal would have encompassed a wide range of businesses and
corporations, some of which might have used another Facebook
advertising channel, which involves direct negotiation with the
social media site as opposed to the self-service system used by
Messrs. Fox and Price.  Because of the potential differences in
interests, the two proposed lead plaintiffs are unfit
representatives, Judge Hamilton said.

On Dec. 9, when the case came before the Ninth Circuit for oral
arguments in San Francisco, Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP,
representing the plaintiffs, argued that Judge Hamilton erred by
rejecting the plaintiffs' interpretation of the contract -- the
merits of the case -- before addressing whether the issue should
resolved on a classwide basis.

On Jan. 2, Mr. Shub told Law360 via email that the advertisers are
"disappointed in the court's order," and are considering their
available options.

Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Richard A. Paez and U.S.
District Judge Gordon Jay Quist sat on the panel that issued the
Dec. 26 memorandum.

The plaintiffs are represented by TerriAnne Benedetto --
tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com -- David R. Buchanan, Christopher A.
Seeger and Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP; Steven Nathan Berk
of Berk Law PLLC; Gordon M. Fauth Jr. of Litigation Law Group; J.
Paul Gignac -- j.paul@aogllp.com -- of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP;
Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown & Kellner LLP; Rosemary M. Rivas
-- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- of Finkelstein Thompson LLP;
Richard J. Burke and Jeffrey A. Leon of Quantum Legal LLC; and
Jordan Sander Esensten of Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten
LLP.

Facebook is represented by Matthew Michael Brown, Michael Graham
Rhodes and Whitty Somvichian of Cooley LLP and Kristin Linsley
Myles and Jonathan H. Blavin -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- of
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is Fox Test Prep et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 12-
80104, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


FALLSBURG CENTRAL: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Hoag v. Fallsburg Central School District, Case No. 1:14-
cv-10238 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014) is brought to remedy
alleged discrimination based upon sex in the terms and conditions
of the Plaintiff's employment, hostile work environment sexual
harassment and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a female and currently resides in the state of
New York, Sullivan County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: NC Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the
North Carolina Multi-District Misclassification Litigation.

Since 2001, the Company has been involved in a series of cases in
which certain store managers ("Store Managers") have alleged they
were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers
have filed lawsuits alleging the Company violated the FLSA and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation. The majority of the
complaints also request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was
created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA
violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases
were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In
each of these cases, the court entered orders finding the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither
nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was
appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 60
summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as
exempt from overtime.

Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the
remaining cases in the MDL, for which the NC Federal Court has not
decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may result from these cases.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Suit Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Court
granted final approval of the settlement in the Farley class
action.

Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on February 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation
for a class of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On
March 21, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013 and class
discovery concluded in January 2014. In May 2014, the parties
preliminarily agreed to settle the litigation and on October 30,
2014 the Court granted final approval of the settlement for an
amount not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Case Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement in the Hegab class action.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and
allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers
under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed
without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been
certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed
to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis for an amount not
material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. On June 6,
2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved
the settlement on October 3, 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Jan. 22 Oral Argument Set in "Itterly" Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Third
Circuit court has preliminarily scheduled oral argument on the
appeal for January 22, 2015, in the Itterly class action.

Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was
formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania
Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly
classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.
Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed
summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was
properly classified as exempt from overtime.

The District Court granted the Company's motion on January 30,
2014, and the case is now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals. Appellate briefing has been concluded. The Third
Circuit has preliminarily scheduled oral argument on the appeal
for January 22, 2015.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company
currently awaits the ruling on its motion in the Premo class
action.

Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in
Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for
alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26,
2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs
challenged the removal to federal court.

On March 28, 2014, the court remanded the claim back to state
court. On April 7, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory
petition for appellate relief from the remand decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and awaits
the appellate court's ruling. In the interim, the Company filed
its answer to the lawsuit on May 13, 2014. The Company currently
awaits the Court's ruling on its motion.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Provides Updates on "Scott" Gender Pay Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the
Gender Pay Litigation entitled Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the
Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as
a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial
court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider,
based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed
as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied
further en banc review of the decision.

On January 24, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014,
the United States Supreme Court denied further review of the
Fourth Circuit's decision. The case is now back with the district
court. On September 8, 2014, the district court entered a new
Pretrial Order and Scheduling Plan and the parties will proceed
with limited discovery pursuant to those Orders.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will
participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the status of the case.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Delaware Court Rejects Bid to Certify Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the
Delaware court denied an application in the Shareholder Litigation
to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive
relief to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub,
Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to
merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of
Chancery:

     -- Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 9985, filed on July 31, 2014,

     -- Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and

     -- Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10080, filed on September 3, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all
three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB.

Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges,
generally, that the members of the Family Dollar board breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the pending Dollar Tree
merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the
plaintiff alleges did not ensure adequate and fair consideration
to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege
that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary
injunction enjoining the acquisition. On September 3, 2014, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate
its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar board to deem
the terms of Dollar General's proposal sufficient to warrant
entering into negotiations with Dollar General under the terms of
the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a hearing on September 10,
2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded that the temporary
restraining order application did not merit scheduling a hearing
to consider such relief, and declined to do so.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014, the
Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On December
24, 2014, plaintiffs filed an application in the Delaware Court of
Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary
injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which application
the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2, 2015. The
Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to the
preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these
lawsuits.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Class Action in Initial Stages
-----------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the case
Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is in the
initial stages of litigation.

On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly
situated, received SMS text message advertisements from the
Company, without providing express written consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has
requested that the court enter an order certifying the action as a
class action, and appointing him as representative of the class.
Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in favor of himself, and the
proposed class, for all damages available under the TCPA,
including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per willful
violation.

The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.

The case against the Company is in the initial stages of
litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations
contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary
status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may result from this case.


FANNIE MAE: Removes "Romo" Class Suit to Illinois District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Romo v. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Case No. 2014-CH-18393, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10508 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
          Mark William Lenihan, Esq.
          Stephen Victor D'Amore, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: lcoberly@winston.com
                  mlenihan@winston.com
                  sdamore@winston.com


FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Employee Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shanita Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Fedex Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00013 (D. Colo., January 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide stand-alone up-front notice
before procurement of consumer reports about its applicants and
employees and failure to provide its applicants and employees with
a copy of such report and a summary of Fair Credit Reporting Act
rights before taking adverse action against them.

The Defendants own and operate one of the largest courier delivery
services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (970) 673-9075
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


FLORIDA: Medicaid Program for Children Inadequate, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that
a Florida federal judge on Dec. 31 ruled that children in the
state's Medicaid program are not receiving adequate medical and
dental care as required by federal law, ending a long-running
class action challenge to the program.

U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan found that the requirements
under federal law that children receive preventative care are not
being met, saying that surveys show "serious shortages of
specialist care for Medicaid."

In the 153-page opinion, issued after more than 90 days of trial
over a two-year period, Judge Jordan said that one-third of
Florida's children on Medicaid are not getting the preventative
care they are supposed to receive.  He also found that many of
these children have to travel to other parts of the state or wait
months to get care, according to the opinion.

The judge added that 79 percent of the children enrolled in
Medicaid get no preventative dental services, according to the
opinion.  In addition, the judge found violations of federal law
through improper terminations of eligibility for children,
transfers of children's providers without notifying their parents
and failure to provide outreach to potential eligible users.

Judge Jordan said he will hold additional hearings to determine
what remedies should be ordered, though evidence presented at
trial showed that Medicaid reimbursement rates are too low and
should be increased to be closer to those of the Medicare program.

"Given the record, I conclude that plaintiffs have shown that
achieving adequate provider enrollment in Medicaid -- and for
those providers to meaningfully open their practices to Medicaid
children -- requires compensation to be set at least at the
Medicare level," Judge Jordan said.

Tommy Schechtman, president of the Florida chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, one of the plaintiffs in the case,
applauded the decision and said it "should help ensure that all
children of Florida receive a healthy start."

In the lawsuit, which dates to 2005, the Florida Pediatric Society
accused the state of failing to provide essential medical and
dental services to children enrolled in federal medical assistance
programs. Among other issues, the suit took aim at the state's
physician reimbursement rates, which the plaintiffs said are so
low that many doctors will not treat Medicaid patients.

The state had tried to get the suit dismissed as moot because of
the new Medicaid Managed Assistance Program, which would result in
the vast majority of children on Florida Medicaid receiving
improved services through eligible managed care programs.

But Judge Jordan declined to dismiss the suit in July, saying that
issuing a finding of mootness at that point would require him to
speculate on whether rates would actually increase under the MMA
program and on what would happen with the Affordable Care Act.

The Florida Pediatric Society is represented by Carl E. Goldfarb,
Stuart H. Singer and Lauren Fleischer Louis of Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP and Benjamin D. Geffen of the Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia.

The state is represented by Stephanie A. Daniel, Albert J. Bowden
III and Chesterfield Smith Jr. of Florida's Office of the Attorney
General and Robert D.W. Landon III -- rdl@knpa.com -- of Kenny
Nachwalter PA.

The case is Florida Pediatric Society et al. v. Secretary of the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration et al., case number
1:05-cv-23037, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


FOOD SAFETY NET: Faces "Duyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mehmet Duyar, Michael Mitchell, Thelma Hilliard and Temeka Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Food Safety Net Services, Ltd., Case No. 3:15-cv-00017 (N.D. Tex.,
January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Food Safety Net Services, Ltd. has operations throughout the
United States in which it performs laboratory analysis to verify
food quality and safety.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel Blvd, Ste 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Telephone: (817) 416-5060
      Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


FRESH FOOD: Recalls 35,865 Lbs. of Chili Products
-------------------------------------------------
Fresh Food Manufacturing, a Freedom, Penn. establishment, is
recalling approximately 35,865 pounds of chili products due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains peanuts, a known allergen which is not
declared on the product label.

The products subject to recall includes:

24-ounce plastic cup containers of "Giant Eagle Market District
Firehouse Chili With Beans" with Sell By dates of 12/21/14,
1/1/15, 1/11/15, 1/21/15, or 1/29/15.

24-ounce plastic cup containers of Good Cents "Chili With Beans"
with Sell By dates of 12/21/14, 1/1/15, 1/11/15, 1/21/15, or
1/29/15.

5-pound plastic bags of bulk "Market District Firehouse Chili with
Beans" with Sell By dates of 1/16/15, 1/26/15, or 2/3/15 (sold hot
by retail establishments).

The products were produced on various dates from Nov. 21, 2014,
through Dec. 30, 2014.  The products bear the establishment number
"40211" inside the USDA mark of inspection and have the sell by
date printed on the product label.  The products were shipped to
retail outlets in Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

The problem was discovered when Fresh Food Manufacturing was
notified by its spice supplier that cumin used in the chili may
have been contaminated with peanut allergens.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Giant Eagle
Customer Service at 1-800-553-2324.  Media with questions about
the recall can contact the Giant Eagle media relations hotline at
(412) 967-4551.


GARCIA FOODS: Recalls 190,450 Lbs. of Pork Products
---------------------------------------------------
Garcia Foods, Inc., a San Antonio, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 190,450 pounds of pork products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not
declared on the product label.

The Hill Country Fare Chorizo products were produced between
Oct. 5, 2014 and Dec. 24, 2014.

   -- 12-oz. vacuum-packed, raw pork sausage link pieces of "Hill
      Country Fare Chorizo."

   -- 8-oz. vacuum-packed, raw pork sausage chubs of "Hill Country
      Fare Chorizo."

The products to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 13205A"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products were shipped
to retail locations in Texas.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Pete Santos, SQF Practitioner, at (210) 349-6262 Ext. 224.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


HAUSMAN FOODS: Recalls 38,400 Lbs. of Beef and Pork Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Hausman Foods, LLC, a Corpus Christi, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 38,400 pounds of beef and pork products
due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.  The products contain peanuts, known allergens which
are not declared on the product label.

They were produced on various dates from Sept. 17 to Dec. 6, 2014.
The products subject to recall includes:

   -- 800-lb. combo corrugate boxes containing "Fully Cooked
      Barbacoa."

   -- 15-lb. boxes containing six 2.5 lb vacuum sealed packages of
      "Pork Chorizo."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
7190" or "EST. 7190A" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were
shipped to processing and foodservice establishments in Texas.

The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Food &
Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Butter
Protein in Cumin Products," which is directly related to this
recall.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Jerry
Simpson, Vice President, at (361) 883-5521.  Media with questions
about the recall can contact Steven R. McClure, President.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kittrell" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Kittrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. t/a Heartland Campus
Solutions ECSI, Case No. 2:15-cv-00022 (E.D. Pa., January 5,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically by purporting falsely
to come from the creditor DeVry University and by impermissibly
referencing Important Account Information.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. engages in the collection of
consumer debts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore E. Lorenz, Esq.
      FLITTER LORENZ, P.C
      450 North Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
      Narberth, PA 19072
      Telephone: (610) 822-0781
      Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
      E-mail: lorenz@consumerslaw.com


HEB MEAT: Recalls 83,666 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEB Meat Center, a San Antonio, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 83,666 pounds of pork products due to misbranding
and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on
the product label.

The chorizo and pork products were produced on various dates
between Oct. 16, 2014 and Dec. 26, 2014.  The products subject to
recall include:

   -- Random weight vacuum-packed clear packages containing "Pork
      Chorizo."

   -- Random weight clear covered trays containing "HEB Mi Comida
      Chorizo Pork Chorizo."

   -- Random weight vacuum-packed clear packages containing
      "Seasoned Mexican Style Pork For Carne Al Pastor."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
7231" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products were
shipped to retail HEB stores in Texas.

The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods &
Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In
Cumin Products," which is directly related to this recall.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact HEB Customer
Relations, at (800) 432-3113. Media with questions about the
recall can contact Dya Campos, Director Public Affairs, at (210)
938-8075.


HOPE PROGRAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mundy Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The H.O.P.E Program, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00010 (S.D.
Cal., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The H.O.P.E Program, LLC is a company operating nationwide for the
purposes of assisting customers in their efforts to buy a home of
their own.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Claude Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.C. Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00048 (D.N.J., January 5, 2015), seeks to redress the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

I.C. Systems, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal
office located at 444 Highway 96 East, St. Paul, MN 55164.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
      1669 East 12th Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


ICHIRO SUSHI: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Li, Jianhui Wu, Bin Zhang, De Ping Zhao, and Kai Zhao, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ichiro
Sushi, Inc., d/b/a Ichiro Sushi Restaurant, New Ichiro Sushi Inc.
d/b/a Ichiro Sushi Restaurant, Ichiro Asian Fusion, Inc. d/b/a
Ichiro Fusion, Hiu Chen, Vincent Chan, Winson Chan, Joe Chow, Jame
Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-10242 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Ichiro Sushi Restaurant located at
1694 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10128.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com


INTER-CON SECURITY: Appeals Court Denies Individual Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appeals court on Dec. 31 refused to force a putative class action
overtime suit against Inter-Con Security Systems Inc. into
individual arbitration, ruling the company waived its right to
arbitration after it requested discovery documents relating to the
entire potential class.

Former security guard Brian Bower sued Inter-Con in August 2011,
alleging it failed to give armed guards required meal and rest
periods.  Inter-Con didn't immediately move to compel arbitration,
but said a series of arbitration agreements prevented Mr. Bower
from bringing representative actions.

But despite claiming it was only responding to Bower's individual
claims, Inter-Con gave at least one substantive answer to Mr.
Bower's discovery request on class issues and sent its own
requests on classwide issues.  Inter-Con said wage and hour
defendants often seek information on individuals with similar
claims, so seeking classwide discovery was not inconsistent with
its right to arbitrate.

"We will simply reiterate the trial court's response to Inter-
Con's claim: 'Come on.  Of course it is,'" Justice William R.
McGuiness wrote for a unanimous panel.  "Discovery concerning
individuals who may support a plaintiff's factual claims is
distinct from classwide discovery."

Inter-Con had objected to most of Mr. Bower's discovery requests
on the grounds that he had to arbitrate his claims and generally
refused to give information about others in the proposed class.
But in response to a special interrogatory, the company said it
employed 29 armed guards who fit the class description, according
to the opinion.  It also sent a substantial number of requests for
documents pertaining to the whole class, the panel held.

Inter-Con only sought to force arbitration after Mr. Bower
indicated he would amend his complaint to include unarmed guards
as well.  The company argued its actions did not prejudice Bower
because it didn't give Inter-Con an unfair advantage in the
litigation, other than having him pay some court costs and legal
expenses by responding to its discovery requests.

The panel, however, ruled that causing Mr. Bower an unreasonable
delay in taking advantage of the efficiencies of arbitration was
enough to waive its right to compel.  Inter-Con's tactics,
including pursuing a classwide settlement, made Mr. Bower believe
the company intended to keep the dispute in court, according to
the opinion.  The legal expenses were also spent on work that
would be useless in arbitration because it was beyond the scope of
Bower's individual claims.

"The crux of the prejudice suffered by Bower is that he suffered
delay and incurred costs in litigating and attempting to settle
class claims that Inter-Con led him to believe would be
encompassed within the litigation," Justice McGuiness wrote.

Inter-Con also argued a lower court improperly focused on the
amount of discovery the company asked for instead of how much it
actually obtained. Inter-Con gained no unfair advantage because
Bower refused to give substantive answers, it claimed.

"A party's actions in litigation that are inconsistent with the
right to arbitrate cannot be ignored simply because they did not
succeed in achieving that party's goals," Justice McGuiness wrote.

Justices William R. McGuiness, Stuart R. Pollak and Peter J.
Siggins sat on the panel that reached the Dec. 31 decision.

Mr. Bower is represented by Mathew R. Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com
-- and Molly A. DeSario of Scott Cole & Associates APC.

Inter-Con is represented by Ronald W. Novotny --
rnovotny@aalrr.com -- Robert R. Roginson and Amber M. Solano of
Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PLC.

The case is Brian Bower v. Inter-Con Security Systems Inc., case
number A135940, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
First Appellate District.


J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 45,904 Lbs. of Chicken and Beef Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
J & B Sausage Co., a Waelder, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 45,904 pounds of chicken and beef products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not
declared on the product label.

The chicken and beef products were produced on various dates
between Aug. 25, 2014 and Dec. 15, 2014.  These products are
subject to recall:

   -- 5-lb. packages of fully cooked "Chefs-In-A-Bag CHICKEN TACO
      FILLING."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Texas Style BEEF CHILI
      No Beans."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Taqueria Style PICADILLO
      Seasoned Ground Beef with Potatoes, Onion, Tomatoes and
      Peppers."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED CARNE GUISADA Seasoned
      Beef in Gravy."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
7066 or P-7066" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These
products were shipped to HEB retail locations and Garland
Independent School District in Texas.

The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods &
Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In
Cumin Products," which is directly related to the recall.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Bonnie Hyman, Risk Management, at (830) 203-9002.


J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 9,909 Lbs. of Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------------
J & B Sausage Co., a Waelder, Texas establishment, is recalling an
additional 9,909 pounds of chicken product due to misbranding and
undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products may
contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the
product label.

The recall expansion includes items produced on various dates
between Aug. 19, 2014, and Dec. 2, 2014.  This product is subject
to recall:

   -- 12-oz. packages of fully cooked "CAJUN HOLLAR BRAND INC.
      CREOLE STYLE BOUDIN."

On Dec. 27, 2014, the company recalled 45, 904 pounds of Chicken
and Beef products that were produced between August 25 and
Dec. 15, 2014.  These products were included in the initial
recall.

   -- 5-lb. packages of fully cooked "Chefs-In-A-Bag CHICKEN TACO
      FILLING."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Texas Style BEEF CHILI
      No Beans."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Taqueria Style PICADILLO
      Seasoned Ground Beef with Potatoes, Onion, Tomatoes and
      Peppers."

   -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED CARNE GUISADA Seasoned
      Beef in Gravy."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
7066 or P-7066" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These
products were shipped to retail locations in Texas.

The problem was initially discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods &
Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In
Cumin Products," which is directly related to this recall.
The additional product was discovered by the establishment while
reviewing records as part of their recall activity.  They then
notified FSIS personnel of the issue.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Bonnie Hyman, Risk Management, at (830) 203-9002.


JIMMY JOHN'S: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Rodriguez, Kerry Kavanagh, Peter Womack, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jimmy John's, LLC,
Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, and Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00002 (M.D. Fla., January 5, 2015), seeks to
recover overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Jimmy John's Sandwich Shops
franchise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile:  (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com
              seth@klafterolsen.com

          - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
      Ossai Miazad, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      29th Floor, 3 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
              mnl@outtengolden.com
              om@outtengolden.com


JINON CORPORATION: Recalls 359 Lbs. of Boneless Beef Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jinon Corporation, dba Nijiya Market, a Torrance, Calif.
establishment, is recalling approximately 359 pounds of frozen
boneless beef products produced in Japan that were not presented
at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse
health consequences exists.

These products are subject to recall:

Packages of various sizes containing cuts of Tender Loin, Chuck
Roll, Ribeye, Strip Loin, Brisket, Chuck Short Ribs, Inside,
Outside, Short Ribs, Top Sirloin Butt, Clod, Knuckle, Short Plate
and Shank all sold with a Nijiya Market label

These items were produced in Japan on Aug. 6, 2014 and imported in
September of 2014.  The importer cut, repackaged and sold the
products at a retail store in Torrance, California.

The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records
and discovered that the importer did not present the products for
USDA inspection at the U.S. point of entry.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mitsuhiro
Ueda, Merchandising Purchasing Manager at (310) 787-3305.  Media
with questions about the recall can contact Seiji Kurata,
Merchandising Department Director at (310) 787-3305.


KATADYN NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls 2,719 Lbs. of Spicy Sausage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katadyn North American Foods, LLC, a Rocklin, Calif.
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,719 pounds of spicy
sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Spicy Sausage Pasta products were produced on various dates
from June 14 - Nov. 13, 2014.  The products subject to recall:

   -- 5 -oz. foil laminated pouches containing "ALPINEAIRE SPICY
      SAUSAGE PASTA."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
8132" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  They were shipped to
retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
label review.  The label indicates that the product contains beef,
but is actually formulated with pork sausage.  Pork is not
indicated on the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Tim Pratt, General Manager, at (800) 322-6325 x-15.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


LA TOVA: Faces "Che" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Guangzhao Che and Jian Zheng, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. La Tova, Inc., Griffon Sportswear, Inc.,
Gropius Design Purchasing Group, Inc., Billburg LLC, Atilon, Inc.,
Noarc II, Inc., Wonderland Workshop, LLC, John Doe 01-05
Corporations, Case No. 1:14-cv-10243 (S.D.N.Y., December 31,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Corporate Defendants operate around a dozen specialty sneaker
and apparel stores in the New York metro area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com


MCCOY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rivera, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. McCoy Corporation
d/b/a/ McCoy's Building Supply, Case No. 2:15-cv-00003 (D.N.M.,
January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

McCoy Corporation owns and operates 86 building supply retail
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Powers Milstein
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Blvd.
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: milstein.law.office@gmail.com


MIAMI YACHT: Removes "Oliver" Suit to Florida District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Oliver v. Miami Yacht & Engine
Works, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-028610 CA01, was removed from the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
24917-JLK to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges a cause of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and seeks recovery of minimum wages and overtime,
among other claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          Phillips Point - East Tower
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 659-1911
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
                  edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com

               - and -

          H. Clay Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS & DURKE
          Alhambra Towers, Penthouse I
          121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1603
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-1700
          Facsimile: (305) 442-2559
          E-mail: roberts@rdlawnet.com


MINNESOTA: Feb. Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catharine Richert, writing for MPR News, reports that in February
2014, a federal judge warned that the state's sex offender program
is unconstitutional.  And in late 2014, a federal court-appointed
task force issued a report that recommended individual evaluations
for locked-up sex offenders and urged that the state's civil
commitment law be applied only to the most dangerous.

The task force is the result of a class action lawsuit filed by
some in the program who say the law is unconstitutional.  The
trial is set for February.

The Legislature failed to take action on the issue last session.
The question now is whether it will make changes to the law based
on the recommendations or wait for the court to act.  Dayton and
Bakk have said they want to move on the issue.

But Rep. Tara Mack, R-Apple Valley, who will chair the Health and
Human Services Reform committee this year, told MPR News that
she's wary of doing anything before the court makes a decision.

"The risk we take in crafting legislation is potentially putting
something into a bill . . . prematurely, prior to the court's
ruling," Ms. Mack said.


MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Bibb Medical Monitoring Action Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the settlement in
the Bibb medical monitoring class action is final and the parties
have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. ("Allen") v. Monsanto, et
al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against
Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named
as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The
alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the
source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly
owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint
venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. ("Akzo
Nobel"). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case
but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy
proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs,
loss of real estate value, funds to test property for
contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future
medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction
against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has
agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys
defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both
Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action
certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. ("Bibb") v. Monsanto et al.,
because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a
class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On
Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered
an order decertifying the property class.

After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began
on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as
to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The
proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring
program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million.

On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the parties'
proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held on June 18, 2012,
resulting in the trial court's final approval of the settlement.
Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and
appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov.
22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements.

The objector filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court which was denied. The settlement is final and the
parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement.


MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Personal Injury Cases Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the settlement in
personal injury cases is final and the parties have commenced
performance of the terms of the settlement.

In October 2007 and November 2009, a total of approximately 200
separate, single plaintiff civil actions were filed in Putnam
County, West Virginia, against Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel
(and several of its affiliates), Flexsys America Co. ("Flexsys
America") (and several of its affiliates), Solutia, and Apogee
Coal Company, LLC ("Apogee Coal"). These cases allege personal
injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by the Nitro
Plant during production of 2,4,5T (1949-1969) and thereafter.
Monsanto has agreed to accept the tenders of defense in the
matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo Nobel, Flexsys America, and
Apogee Coal under a reservation of rights. During the discovery
phase of these several claims, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve all pending personal injury claims which is
reflected in the above liability. The settlement is final and the
parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Most of Granitville Derailment Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reports that in
the aftermath of the Graniteville train derailment, thousands of
people filed suit or joined in class-action lawsuits against
Norfolk Southern.

With lightning speed in the legal world, the company agreed to
settle most of the lawsuits filed on behalf of the survivors of
those who died of chlorine poisoning, those who were injured,
those who were traumatized, those whose property was damaged and
nearly 5,400 people who had to be evacuated on Jan. 6, 2005.

According to federal court records and annual reports from Norfolk
Southern, the largest settlement was to the owners of Avondale
Mills, which closed in 2006.

The total paid was not revealed, but even after its insurance
companies paid on the settlements, $13 million was not covered.
The company later lost a dispute with one insurance company that
rejected coverage of $43 million, according to an annual report to
stockholders.

According to an earlier report in The Augusta Chronicle, the
class-action lawsuit settlement said those who were injured would
receive from $10,000 to several hundred thousands of dollars.

Norfolk Southern was sued by the U.S. government through the
Environmental Protection Agency, which accused the company of
polluting Horse Creek, Flat Rock Pond and Bridge Creek Pond,
according to court records.

In 2008, the company entered a consent decree and paid a $4
million civil penalty.  It also agreed to special training for
emergency cleanup of hazardous materials, and it agreed to restock
the affected waters with 1,000 fish -- catfish, bluegill, warmouth
sunfish, largemouth bass and black crappie.  Norfolk Southern was
also responsible for an estimated $100,000 job of restoring
vegetation in the Horse Creek watershed.

Avondale Mills employees who lost their jobs after the plant
closed were unsuccessful in their lawsuit.

According to court records, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret B.
Seymour ruled that there was no direct or special relationship
between the railroad company and mill employees in a way that
Norfolk Southern could be found negligent and responsible for the
lost jobs.


OLD REPUBLIC: Customer's Bid to Revive Class Action Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
has dismissed as moot an Old Republic Home Protection Co.
customer's bid to revive his putative class action alleging the
home warranty company violates California's consumer protection
law, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because he settled his
individual claims against the company.

Former Old Republic customer Douglas Campion had alleged the
company, which takes a monthly premium in exchange for a promise
to replace or repair damaged or defunct home goods, denies
qualified claims and issues lowball payments in violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Mr. Campion had urged
the appeals court to overturn a district court's grant of partial
summary judgment to Old Republic and find that the company's home
warranties are a consumer service regulated by the CLRA, not
insurance.

In the Dec. 31 published opinion, a split three-judge panel held
that the appeals court does not need to evaluate the merits of
Campion's arguments because he settled his individual claims
against Old Republic before he appealed the lower court's summary
judgment ruling.

"Although Campion expressly retained his right to appeal the
putative class claims, that fact makes no difference," the panel
wrote in the per curiam opinion.  "Campion argues that he has a
personal stake in getting the class certified because he maintains
an interest in the matter as a private attorney general. Our case
law, however, requires a more concrete interest."

Mr. Campion filed suit in San Diego Superior Court in March 2009,
alleging Old Republic, which sells home-warranty plans in
California and 21 other states, uses false and misleading
statements to advertise its services, improperly denies legitimate
claims, performs cheap "Band-Aid" fixes and shifts most repair
costs to consumers, according to his opening appeal brief.  A
month later, Old Republic removed the case to federal court.

Mr. Campion alleged causes of action for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and other claims including violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and the CLRA.

In January 2011 U.S. District Judge Jan M. Adler denied Campion's
motion for class certification, and in March 2012 Judge Adler
granted summary judgment to Old Republic, ruling that the CLRA
does not apply to the home warranty plans.  After the judge denied
Campion's motion to remand the case to state court, he and Old
Republic filed a joint motion dismissing with prejudice Campion's
individual claims and dismissing without prejudice all class
claims.

During oral arguments in October, Yury Kolesnikov of Bottini &
Bottini Inc., representing Mr. Campion, urged the panel to revive
the suit and overturn Judge Adler's rulings, arguing that
Mr. Campion maintained a personal stake in the matter, and that on
the merits, the home warranty plans should be categorized as a
service, not insurance.

Mr. Kolesnikov argued that the California Supreme Court's 2009
decision Fairbanks v. Superior Court, which ruled that life
insurance is not a "good" or "service" subject to the CLRA, also
provides a framework for ruling that home warranties are a
"service," because unlike life insurance, they do not provide
simply for cash payments, but for actual repair services to be
provided.

On Dec. 31, Circuit Judge John B. Owens issued a dissenting
opinion with the panel's opinion, saying he believes Campion's
appeal should have remained viable because he retained a personal
stake in representing the proposed class.  But despite finding
that Campion's appeal should have been decided with the merits,
Judge Owens wrote that he agreed with the panel's ultimate result,
because the district court ruled correctly.

Circuit Judges Andrew Kleinfeld, Susan P. Graber and John B. Owens
sat on the panel that issued the Dec. 31 opinion.

Mr. Campion is represented by Francis A. Bottini Jr., Albert Y.
Chang and Yury A. Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc.

Old Republic is represented by Jay N. Varon -- jvaron@foley.com --
Tammy H. Boggs and Marshall J. Hogan of Foley & Lardner LLP.

The case is Douglas J. Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection
Company Inc., case number 12-56784, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.


OPTICAL EXPRESS: Faces Claims Over Artificial Lens Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Boffey, writing for The Guardian, reports that the
multibillion-pound corrective eye surgery industry has been thrust
into the spotlight as regulators announced they were investigating
claims that a new artificial lens implanted into the eyes of
thousands of patients had caused serious loss of vision.

Officials have launched their inquiry after a number of concerned
surgeons submitted testimony that patients had complained of
defective vision, with some, according to one doctor, struggling
to see clearly beyond the outstretched length of their arms.

Around 120,000 people seeking a life without glasses undergo
corrective eye surgery every year either by laser or, often in the
case of the over-50s, through the replacement of their natural
lenses through surgery.  It is believed that over the last year
many thousands were fitted with the Mplus X lens in a boom time
for the industry fuelled by marketing and the promise of interest-
free credit on bills, which can be in excess of GBP3,000 an eye.

The lens in question, manufactured by German company Oculentis and
introduced into the UK last January, was supposed to offer an
improved performance on previous models.

The Observer has learned, however, that Moorfields Eye Hospital
NHS Trust, the largest ophthalmic centre in Europe, submitted an
official report about the lens after four of its six patients who
had had the implant reported a worrying loss of quality of vision.

Oculentis's chief executive, Ben Wanders, also confirmed that its
Australian distributor had decided "this is not a lens for the
Australian people" after complaints in that country from surgeons.

A surgeon who worked until December for the market leader in
corrective eye surgery, Optical Express, claimed that he voiced
concerns about the performance of the Mplus X lens in the UK to
his then employer earlier last year.

George Settas, who worked as a surgeon at Optical Express for four
years, said: "I told them, on more than one occasion, that I had
concerns regarding the performance of the Mplus X lens, as I felt
that there were a lot more patients experiencing quality of vision
problems with this lens than other lenses.  Explanting -- ie
removing -- such a lens is not an easy procedure at all.
Concerned by what I felt was an increase in the number of explants
with the Mplus X lens, I raised the issue within Optical Express.
In the end I had to file a report with the appropriate regulatory
authority."

He added: "The patients were complaining that they couldn't see
clearly, usually at distance.  Most were saying that they could
read but that they could not see properly beyond their arm's
length, which was a bit surprising.  You would not expect people
to have a problem at that distance."

Optical Express confirmed that Mr. Settas did express concerns
about quality of vision problems with the Mplus X lens but said
that the surgeon's experience was anecdotal while its scientific
study of outcomes suggested there was no cause for concern.
Mr. Settas also claimed that Optical Express only finally removed
stocks of the Mplus X lenses from its clinics in late November,
despite him raising concerns in September.

Optical Express's clinical services director, Stephen Hannan, said
that some banks of the lens remained in clinics and that concerns
about the lens had not been the reason for the withdrawal of
others.  He denied that any concerns were raised by Mr. Settas
until October.

Mr. Hannan said that the company had concluded that there was no
advantage in continuing to stock the new Mplus X version rather
than the older model as it had similar outcomes.  He said: "The
Mplus X lens has excellent ocular outcomes for patients. Our
experience and detailed assessment of these ocular outcomes
confirms this to be the case."

On Jan. 3, lawyers who represented a 28-year old-woman to whom
Optical Express was ordered to pay GBP500,000 in damages in
September after her eyes were left so damaged by laser eye surgery
that she has to wear sunglasses during the day said 45
complainants against the firm had contacted them since the case,
and that some had been fitted with the Mplus X lens, which may
form part of a class action.

Nick Grant, a partner at Devonshires solicitors, said: "I think
there will be further individuals seeking to make a claim against
Optical Express and expect that, based on the number of claims
coming in, Devonshires will be bringing a class action against
Optical Express in the near future on this Mplus X lens issue.
Devonshires are currently obtaining copies of clients' medical
records before reviewing and instructing an expert to prepare a
report.  My advice is that anyone who thinks they may have been
given an Mplus X lens and had a disappointing outcome should seek
legal advice."

A spokesman for the Medical Health Regulatory Authority said: "We
are currently investigating and will take action if necessary."


PITA GRILL: Faces "Xochimitl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timoteo Xochimitl, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pita Grill of Hell's Kitchen Inc., eta al., Case No.
1:14-cv-10234 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pita Grill of Hell's Kitchen Inc. owns and operates a chain of
health food restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Removes "Ledyard" Suit to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Ledyard v. Prudential Insurance Company of
America, Case No. 709379/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07578-NG-VVP to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a group disability insurance
policy issued to The City of New York Management Benefits Fund.
The Plaintiff applied for long-term disability benefits, which
Prudential initially approved.  Prudential subsequently terminated
the Plaintiff's LTD benefits after finding that the Plaintiff did
not meet the definition of disability as set forth in the
insurance policy.

The Plaintiff now seeks to recover LTD benefits by way of a breach
of contract claim.  The Plaintiff also asserts claims for
deceptive practices under N.Y. General Business Law, unfair claim
settlement practices in violation of New York Insurance Law
Section 2601, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Delott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY DELOTT
          366 North Broadway, Suite 410k-3
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (888) 572-0861
          Facsimile: (516) 942-4385
          E-mail: jeffdelott@iwantmydisability.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tara M. Conroy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-5510
          Facsimile: (917) 344-1310
          E-mail: tconroy@seyfarth.com


QUALITY MEATS: Recalls 44,372 Lbs. of Frozen Pork Belly Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Meats, Inc., an Omaha, Neb., establishment, is recalling
approximately 44,372 pounds of frozen pork belly product because
they were not presented at the border for USDA-FSIS Import
Inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  Without the benefit of full
inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

Product subject to recall includes:

Various weight cases of "rosderra IRISH MEATS Swine Pork Belly"

The Frozen Pork Single Ribbed Bellies product was packaged
March 18, 2014 through April 10, 2014.  The product subject to
recall bears the Ireland establishment number "IE 356 EC."  This
product was shipped to retail establishments and distributors in
Georgia, Illinois, and Washington where the products would have
been repackaged.

The problem was discovered during a routine review using the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database.  ACE is a web-
based portal for the collection and use of international trade
data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the
country of origin recalls the product.  FSIS issues a recall for
imported product when the product is not presented for inspection
at the U.S. border.

A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present a
shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product
entering U.S. commerce.  Failure-to-present will result in the
recall of the product.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Ton Kelly, Owner, at (402) 509-2765.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


REAL FOODS: Recalls 308 Lbs. of Chef Salad With Ham and Turkey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Real Foods LLC, a Kent, Wash., establishment, is recalling
approximately 308 pounds of Chef Salad with Ham and Turkey due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains fish (anchovies), a known allergen which is
not declared on the product label.

The product subject to recall:

   -- 12.5-ounce clear plastic containers of "CHEF SALAD WITH HAM
      (WATER ADDED) AND TURKEY."

The product was produced on Dec. 6, 2014.  The product bears the
establishment number "34834" inside the USDA mark of inspection
and has "Sell by: 12/11/2014" printed on the product label.  The
product was shipped to retail outlets in Oregon and Washington.

The problem was discovered by a customer, who notified the
company.  The product is labeled for Ranch dressing, but contains
a Caesar salad dressing pouch.  The Caesar salad dressing contains
anchovies.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Erin Sherry,
sales manager, at (206) 432-3426.  Media with questions about the
recall can contact Bill Trazewich, sales manager, at (214) 354-
1662.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


REITER BUNSIC: "Bernabe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph G. Bernabe, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
and Louis Bunsic, individually, Case No. 9:15-cv-80008 (S.D. Fla.,
January 5, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc. provides services such as building
various types of commercial business and residential structures,
home renovation and remodeling service and outdoor structure
building projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Got $2.1MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson Electronics, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that during the
first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company received a settlement in
the amount of $2.1 million related to an anti-trust class action
lawsuit settlement.


ROADVIEW INC: Faces "Holmes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brannon Holmes and Anthony McMahan v. Roadview, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-00004 (W.D. Wis., January 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Roadview, Inc. a transportation engineering company located at
4801 Tradewinds Parkway, Madison, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin Marie Madden, Esq.
      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL EHLKE & PERRY, S.C.
      222 West Washington Ave, Ste. 450, PO Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: cmadden@hq-law.com
              dzoeller@hq-law.com


S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan John Figueroa, Omar Camacho, Leonardo Bryan, and Demetrius
Tompkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. S. Katzman Produce Inc., Stephen Katzman, Stefanie
Katzman, and Mario Andreani, Case No. 1:15-cv-00002 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 5, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate S. Katzman Produce, a leading
wholesaler of produce to the New York City Terminal Market at
Hunts Point.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Mississippian Trusts Seek Indemnification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that each of the
Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it
for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities
Litigation.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other
defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the
Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered
into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former
CEO Tom Ward.

The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the
court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if
any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal
theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants'
defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not
established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.
Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company
indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the
Securities Litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Hart" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and
the other defendants intend to defend the lawsuit filed by James
Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other
similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs
further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in
work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims
against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act,
(iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
complaint was filed on November 10, 2014, in the U. S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current
and former directors and officers of the Company in the case
styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward,
James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D. Cooley. The
complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased SandRidge securities between March 1, 2013, through
November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by
the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that,
throughout the class period, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business,
operations and future prospects because such statements failed to
properly account for the penalties SandRidge accrued under its
treating agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a
result, SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and
misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably
possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this
time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to
this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
complaint was filed on November 11, 2014, in the U. S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current
and former directors and officers of the Company in the case
styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward,
James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint asserts a
federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between February 28, 2013,
and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused
by the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that,
throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) SandRidge was improperly accounting for
penalties owed to Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating
agreement on an annual basis when it was required to do so on a
quarterly basis; (ii) SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial
and operating results for the periods ending December 31, 2012
through June 30, 2014, were overstated and required restatement;
(iii) defendant Ward engaged in improper related party
transactions; (iv) SandRidge lacked proper internal controls over
financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and
misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably
possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this
time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to
this action.


SINGING RIVER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees' Plan, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Cobb, Susan Creel, Phyllis Denmark, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly-situated v. Singing River Health System, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00001 (S.D. Miss., January 5, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants has failed to adequately fund its Employees'
Retirement Plan since at least plan year 2008.

Singing River Health System owns and operates Singing River
Hospital, a 435-bed hospital in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas L. Tynes Jr., Esq.
      TYNES LAW FIRM, PA
      P. O. Box 966
      Pascagoula, MS 39568
      Telephone: (228) 769-7736
      Facsimile: (228) 769-8466
      E-mail: monte@tyneslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Dustin N. Thomas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC
      P. O. Drawer 1270, 525 Krebs Ave.
      Pascagoula, MS 39568-1270
      Telephone: (228) 696-8881
      Facsimile: (228) 696-8991
      E-mail: dustin@dustinthomaslaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Keith Miller, Esq.
      MILLER & MILLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
      P.O. Box 1269
      Pascagoula, MS 39568
      Telephone: (228) 762-8912
      Facsimile: (228) 762-8913
      E-mail: millerandmilleratty@gmail.com


SLEEP TRAIN: Accused of Not Providing Disabled-Accessible Paths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Levine and Veronica Guzman v. The Sleep Train, Inc.; Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc.; Coastal Breeze Limousine, LLC; BGE
Yuba, LLC; and Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00002-WBS-AC
(E.D. Cal., December 31, 2014) involves the alleged denial of
accessible paths of travel and proper and sufficient accessible
parking facilities to the Plaintiffs in the Sleep Train
Amphitheatre.

Mr. Levine is a qualified disabled person.  He has difficulties
walking and standing due to multiple physical disabilities.  Ms.
Guzman is his fiancee.  She often drives his vehicle and
transports him.

The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees of
the businesses, property, buildings, parking lots, overflow
parking facilities, paths of travel or portions thereof located at
in Wheatland, California, and also known as the "Sleep Train
Amphitheatre," a major concert and entertainment venue.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul L. Rein, Esq.
          Celia McGuinness, Esq.
          Catherine M. Cabalo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN
          200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 832-5001
          Facsimile: (510) 832-4787
          E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com
                  cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com
                  ccabalo@reinlawoffice.com


SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasio Garcia Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00014 (C.D. Cal., January
2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
adequately safeguard its current and former employees' personal
information including, names, home and email addresses, Social
Security numbers, visa and passport numbers, account routing
information, salary and retirement plan data, and health insurance
and medical information.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is a multi-billion dollar movie
and television production and distribution company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
      Valerie Brender, Esq.
      RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-1800
      Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
      E-mail: stindall@rhdtlaw.com
              vbrender@rhdtlaw.com


TD BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Koshgarian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10250 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), arises out
of the unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with
Defendants' assessment and collection of improper and excessive
overdraft fees.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its designated main office
in the State of New Jersey.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian-chartered bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Batson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. BATSON
      8 Bedford Rd.
      Katonah, NY 10536
      Telephone: (914) 523-2278
      E-mail: jamespbatsonlegal@gmail.com

         - and -

      Steve Owings, Esq.
      OWINGS LAW FIRM
      1400 Brookwood Drive
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 661-9999
      E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com


TILE SHOP: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriel Osorio, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. The Tile Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00015 (N.D. Ill.,
January 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Tile Shop, LLC owns and operates a tile retail stores located
in New Mexico and Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Roberson-Young, Esq.
      Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
      PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
      1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2255
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 787-2717
      E-mail: liza@progressivelaw.com
              markb@progressivelaw.com


UNIBRIGHT FOODS: Recalls 48,139 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Sukiyaki Beef
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unibright Foods Inc., a Bell Gardens, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 48,139 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat
sukiyaki beef and gingered pork products that may be contaminated
with metal extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

These products are subject to recall:

   -- 2.2 lb. packages of "MISHIMA SUKIYAKI BEEF" bearing the
      establishment number "EST.1163" inside the USDA mark of
      inspection and package ID number "15069."

   -- 1.7 lb. packages of "MISHIMA GINGERED PORK" bearing the
      establishment number "EST.1163" inside the USDA mark of
      inspection and package ID number "15059."

The beef product was produced between Aug. 12, 2014, and Dec. 16,
2014.  The gingered pork product was produced between Aug. 5,
2014, and Aug. 6, 2014.  The products were shipped to institutions
and retail outlets in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Illinois, New Jersey, and New York.

The problem was reported to Unibright Foods, Inc. by a distributor
who was notified by a restaurant in Illinois that they found a
stainless steel wire in a sukiyaki beef product.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of injury or illness from
consumption of the product.  Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness from consumption of these products should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Jacob Fernandez at (562) 806-3221.


US POSTAL: Employees' Health Information Compromised in Hacking
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nextgov reports that network intruders compromised health
information on current and former U.S. Postal Service employees
who filed for workers' compensation, USPS officials say.

The files were accessed during a previously reported September
cyber intrusion that netted the Social Security numbers of about
800,000 USPS employees.  Details of the health data breach are
just now being revealed for the first time.

The agency does not face health data security fines or Health and
Human Services Department breach notification violations, because
the data was not part of an insurance plan.

About 485,000 employees, former employees and retirees whose
medical details were potentially exposed received a notification
letter last month, USPS spokesman David Partenheimer said.

The information potentially compromised was stored in "a file
relating to injury compensation claims," USPS Chief Human
Resources Officer Jeffrey Williamson said in the letter dated Dec.
10.  "In addition, some of your medical information" associated
with the claims may have been breached.

Unlike many hacked organizations, the agency had a leg up in
tracking down the current home addresses of victims because of its
mission.

"The Postal Service took steps to obtain current addresses for as
many affected employees as possible through private contractors
who used, among other sources, the Postal Service's own National
Change of Address database," Mr. Partenheimer said.

The medical data at issue consisted of injury diagnoses and
procedure codes, as well as the physical location of the bodily
harm, according to the letter, which Nextgov reviewed.

"Codes concerning the anatomical location and the nature of the
work related injury" were potentially compromised, Williamson
said. The data also included codes for medical, surgical and
diagnostic services that were used for billing.

Victims are eligible for free credit monitoring, as are all USPS
employees, who were notified of the general incident in November.

Can USPS Employees Sue for Breach of Medical Privacy?

About 4.9 million service members and their families affected by a
2011 Tricare military health insurance breach -- and, more
recently, Sony employees victimized by a November hack -- filed
class action lawsuits after their medical files were compromised.

USPS officials said they have not seen evidence that the data
stolen from the agency has been used for identity theft or other
malicious purposes.

Health records maintained by agencies, aside from federal benefit
plans like Tricare, are not covered by the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. HIPAA mandates
organizations use certain safeguards to keep electronic health
information confidential and disclose breaches to victims within
60 days.

USPS did not notify HHS of the breach because the agency is
"excluded from reporting breaches under HIPAA," said Rachel
Seeger, senior adviser for the HHS Office for Civil Rights.

However, the compromised employee records are covered by federal
privacy law.

In the case of the Postal Service, "what's most interesting to me
is that the Privacy Act of 1974 gives federal employees a right to
sue as a class for data breaches," said Deborah Peel, director of
Patient Privacy Rights and a practicing psychiatrist.

Military personnel affected by the Tricare breach sued under the
Privacy Act.  The latest reported move in that litigation was a
May 2014 decision by a D.C. federal judge to dismiss most of the
charges.  The court ruled that data loss alone, without evidence
that the information was misused, did not merit damages.


VERIFIED HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mundy Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Verified Health, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00011 (S.D.
Cal., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Verified Health, LLC sells premium health supplements to
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


VISION'S: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Christie and Cindy Boyce, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Vision's, Todd Laury,
Individually and as Defendants Officer and/or Director of
Vision's, Andrea Laury, Individually and as Officer and/or
Director of Vision's, Randy McGill, Individually Officer and/or
Director of Vision's, Case No. 4:15-cv-00001 (E.D. Ark., January
2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club at 7900
Bicentennial Road, Maumelle, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      Joshua Lee West, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
              west@sanfordlawfirm.com


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that to date the
Court has not entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff in the
Securities class action lawsuit.

"On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, styled Brian Ford
vs. VOXX International Corporation, et al., was filed against us
and two of our present executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York," the Company said.
"The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements between May 15, 2013
and May 14, 2014 regarding our earnings guidance for fiscal 2014
and the anticipated future performance of our business. Plaintiff
claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of
our stock and that purchasers of our stock during the relevant
period were damaged when the stock price later declined. Plaintiff
seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the
alleged class, counsel fees and costs. We believe we have
meritorious legal positions and defenses and will continue to
represent our interests vigorously in this matter.  On September
8, 2014, three members of the alleged class moved to be appointed
the lead plaintiff in the action.  To date, the Court has not
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff."


WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company is defending a legal action filed in the Superior
Court of California for San Diego County, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30,
2014.

On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David
Wolf v. WD-40 Company).  Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action
status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code
Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and
intentional recording of "a communication transmitted between two
cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a
landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone
and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular
radio telephone" without the consent of both parties to the
communication.  Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number
for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his
call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation
of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private
right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the
statute.  If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may
recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual
damages sustained by the plaintiff.

The Company asserts that the Company has not violated the
California Penal Code and the Company intends to vigorously defend
this action.  At the present time, the Company is unable to
estimate the extent of possible loss or a range of possible loss
that could result from this legal proceeding.


WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $14.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Wells Fargo agreed to pony
up $14.5 million as part of a preliminary settlement agreement
reached in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action
lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of millions of
customers who alleged Wells Fargo Bank NA called them on their
cellphones to collect credit card debt.

Brought by lead plaintiff Lillian Franklin, the Wells Fargo
settlement motion, if approved, will resolve her suit claiming the
bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
automated calls to alleged debtors without their consent. She
filed suit in August, claiming the financial institution called
her multiple times on her cellphone in 2010, to collect an alleged
debt on her credit card.  The calls featured a pre-recorded
message and were made without Franklin's consent, according to the
lawsuit.

According to the settlement terms, a settlement fund will be
shared evenly between class members who submit claims.  Currently,
the class consists of 4 million members.  The fund will
established after consideration of attorneys' fees and
administration costs, according to the motion.

The case is Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 3:14-cv-
02349, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ligon" Class Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ligon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 14-008282-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03242-CEH-AEP to the
proceeding.

The action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid wages, overtime and liquidated damages owed to the
Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees of the
Defendant that are similarly situated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA
          2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 302-7253
          Facsimile: (813) 302-7256
          E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com
                  greg@bouzasowens.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine R. Sensenig, Esq.
          SENSENIG LAW FIRM
          2055 Wood Street, Suite 103
          Sarasota, FL 34237
          Telephone: (941) 953-2828
          Facsimile: (941) 953-2044
          E-mail: csensenig@senseniglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Frederick T. Smith, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Glaser, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com
                  jglaser@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com


* High School Football Participants Rise Despite Concussion Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Stevens, writing for Charlotte Observer, reports that there
are players throughout the United States who are choosing to play
football in the face of studies linking concussions with long-term
health complications.  After a five-year decline in high school
football participation across the country, the National Federation
of State High School Associations reported an upturn in 2013, when
almost 1.1 million boys and girls played the sport.

Bob Gardner, the national federation's executive director, says
the increase suggests that many parents have been reassured that
the game can be played without a high risk of brain injury.

Concussion management has been emphasized on the state and
national levels.  The federation has changed rules to reduce
injuries. Every state in the U.S. has a law mandating concussion
protocols.

"With the precautions that are in place nationwide to address
concussions in all high school sports, including football, we have
maintained that the risk of injury is as low as it ever has been,"
Mr. Gardner said.  "It isn't much of an increase in football
participation, but it is an increase."

The N.C. High School Athletic Association has seen some
fluctuation in the number of players, but not the steady decrease
that had been registered nationwide before 2013.

The number of high school football players in the North Carolina
in 2013 was an all-time high of 36,273.  The number of players
fell from 33,753 in 2006 to 29,5469 in 2007, but the number of
players jumped more than 6,000 in 2009 and has been above 35,000
each year since.

"I believe parents are weighing the benefits of participating
against the chances of an injury and are deciding the benefits
outweigh the concerns," said Davis Whitfield, the commissioner of
the N.C. High School Athletic Association.  "North Carolina has
been in the forefront for years in keeping our children as safe as
possible.  That always is our No. 1 priority.  Safety will always
be the No. 1 priority."

But there is still concern.

Nationally, at least four high school football players died this
season from head trauma -- including Isaiah Langston at Wake
County's Rolesville High, in September.  According to the National
Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University
of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 17 players died from direct or
indirect causes while playing high school football in 2013.

Various former NFL players, including Kurt Warner, have expressed
qualms about their children playing football.  NFL Hall of Fame
quarterback Terry Bradshaw said he expects to see fundamental
changes to the game.

The Illinois High School Association, which is similar to the N.C.
High School Athletic Association, faces a class-action complaint
that the association has been derelict in its duties to protect
children.

A slight uptick

Gardner believes more high schoolers are playing because of
changes made in recent years to help prevent concussions.

For example, the national federation changed rules governing where
players line up on kickoffs.  A player whose helmet comes off
during play must leave the game until it can be properly fitted
and secured.

Every state in the country now has legislation regulating the
treatment of concussions on the interscholastic level. Many state
associations, but not the NCHSAA, are limiting the amount of
contact in practice.

"With the rule changes and the protocols, playing football may be
safer than it has ever been," Gardner said.

But there are still serious risks.

Langston, a Rolesville High linebacker, collapsed during pregame
warmups on Sept. 26 and later died. According to the state medical
examiner, he had been injured by a blow to the head in practice
and had been held out of practice for two days.  It is unclear
whether a doctor had cleared the junior to return to football.

One of the dangers from concussions is returning to physical
activity too soon, before the brain has healed, following an
injury.

The brain is suspended in fluid within the skull.  Physical force
can shake the brain or cause it to strike the inside of the skull.
The movement can disrupt the chemical reactions within the brain,
which is a traumatic brain injury or a concussion.  If the brain
is shaken again while still healing, the results can be fatal.

The accepted treatment for concussions is rest.  Athletes are told
not return to competition or practice until they no longer have
any symptoms, which can include headaches, blurred vision, nausea,
light sensitivity, confusion, memory loss or a wide assortment of
indicators that the brain is not functioning at its normal level.
The symptoms usually clear up within a few days.

New rules after concussions

Jaquan Waller, a player at Greenville J.H. Rose High School, died
during a game in 2008 after being tackled. He had been concussed
during practice earlier in the week.  Matthew Gfeller of Winston-
Salem R.J. Reynolds died that same year after being hit in a game.

The two deaths prompted the state General Assembly to pass the
Gfeller-Waller Concussion Awareness Act in 2011.

The law requires every public middle school and high school in the
state to educate players, coaches and parents about concussions;
to develop an emergency action plan; and to implement a post-
concussion protocol that must be followed before a player with a
suspected injury can return to play or practice.

But there is no penalty for violating the law. And the law is
being violated.

The N.C. Department of Public Instruction audited the state's high
schools and found 13 of 115 districts were not in compliance.
Most of the violations were for things such as failing to have an
emergency action plan posted at every athletic venue, according to
Que Tucker, a deputy assistant commissioner of the NCHSAA.

"A key point is that a big majority of the state's systems were in
compliance," said Burt Jenkins, a healthful living consultant for
the department, which asked the NCHSAA to develop penalties for
member high schools that are in violation of the law.

Mr. Whitfield, the NCHSAA commissioner, said the proposed measures
would include fines and other penalties for different infractions.
Failing to have a parental signature on a form describing the
dangers of concussions and concussion symptoms might carry one
fine and not following return-to-action protocols would have
another.

If a school failed to get a parental signature, for instance, the
player could be ruled ineligible and any game in which the player
participated might be forfeited.

"The biggest goal is to educate," Mr. Whitfield said.  "The fines
and penalties are to help get their attention."

The NCHSAA has no authority over middle schools, which also are
covered by the Gfeller-Waller Act.  Recreation and youth league
teams and prep teams at schools that are not a part of the NCHSAA
are not covered by the state law.

Thirteen states have laws that cover all youth sports, not just
high school and middle school athletics.  Colorado, for example,
requires concussion education for all coaches who work with
children from 11 to 18 years old.

Kevin Guskiewicz, the head of the Matthew Gfeller Center, a
sports-related traumatic brain injury research facility at UNC-
Chapel Hill, said the legislature considered having the law cover
all youth sports.

"There were questions about how you enforce it," Mr. Guskiewicz
said.  "The key may be that you regulate groups that use public
fields.  Expanding the law might be the next step."

Bob Cantu, a prominent concussion expert, says children should not
be allowed to play any collision sport, including football, before
the age of 14 because adolescent brains still are developing.
Several states have limited the amount of contact allowed during a
week of football practice.

A legal challenge

Joseph Siprut, a lawyer who brought a class action suit against
the NCAA on the concussion issue, has filed a class action suit
against the Illinois High School Association for not doing enough
to protect high school football players.

Mr. Siprut told CNN that his goal is to challenge every high
school athletic association in the country.

The 2013 increase in participation puts 1.1 million high school
players on the football field, compared to about 68,000 NCAA
football players.  All of the football-related deaths during the
last two years have involved high school players. None were
reported in professional, college or youth football.

The NCHSAA's Whitfield said the association will watch the
Illinois lawsuit closely.

"I believe that the NCHSAA has been a national leader in
concussion awareness," Mr. Whitfield said.  "Even before the
Gfeller-Waller Act we had our Sports Medicine Advisory Committee
working to develop policies and procedures."

Mr. Bower is represented by Mathew R. Bainer and Molly A. DeSario
of Scott Cole & Associates APC.

Inter-Con is represented by Ronald W. Novotny, Robert R. Roginson
and Amber M. Solano of Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J.
O'Reardon II of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo
of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP; Daniel M. Cohen, Robert J.
Cynkar and Pamela Gilbert of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and John
A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA.

Capital One is represented by Mary C. Zinsner, S. Mohsin Reza and
David N. Anthony of Troutman Sanders LLP and Aaron D. Van Oort,
Amanda J. Rome and Peter Cunningham Magnuson of Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

During oral arguments in October, Yury Kolesnikov of Bottini &
Bottini Inc., representing Mr. Campion, urged the panel to revive
the suit and overturn Judge Adler's rulings, arguing that

Mr. Campion is represented by Francis A. Bottini Jr., Albert Y.
Chang and Yury A. Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc.

Old Republic is represented by Jay N. Varon, Tammy H. Boggs and
Marshall J. Hogan of Foley & Lardner LLP.

The Florida Pediatric Society is represented by Carl E. Goldfarb,
Stuart H. Singer and Lauren Fleischer Louis of Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP and Benjamin D. Geffen of the Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia.

The state is represented by Stephanie A. Daniel, Albert J. Bowden
III and Chesterfield Smith Jr. of Florida's Office of the Attorney
General and Robert D.W. Landon III of Kenny Nachwalter PA.

The plaintiffs are represented by TerriAnne Benedetto, David R.
Buchanan, Christopher A. Seeger and Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss
LLP; Steven Nathan Berk of Berk Law PLLC; Gordon M. Fauth Jr. of
Litigation Law Group; J. Paul Gignac of Arias Ozzello & Gignac
LLP; Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown & Kellner LLP; Rosemary M.
Rivas of Finkelstein Thompson LLP; Richard J. Burke and Jeffrey A.
Leon of Quantum Legal LLC; and Jordan Sander Esensten of Wasserman
Comden Casselman & Esensten LLP.

Facebook is represented by Matthew Michael Brown, Michael Graham
Rhodes and Whitty Somvichian of Cooley LLP and Kristin Linsley
Myles and Jonathan H. Blavin of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *