CAR_Public/150119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 13


                             Headlines

AFFORDABLE WELDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approves Settlement in "Mas" Case
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Makena Case
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: One Product Liability Suit Still Unsettled
AMERICAN EAGLE: "Legg" Suit Transferred From Florida to New York

AMERICAN GREETINGS: Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint
ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AU OPTRONICS: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling Against Motorola's LCD Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: "Silfee" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
B & D WATERBLASTING: Faces "Thede" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BANK OF KENTUCKY: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Class Suit
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Burger" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Kaiser" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Robertie" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Alien Tort Case Plaintiffs Turn to High Court

COMMERCIAL METALS: Settlement in Standard Iron Works Suit Okayed
COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice in Indirect Purchasers Suit
CONDE NAST: Settles Intern Class Action for $5.85 Million
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Accused of Discrimination and Harassment
CR BARD: Files Motion to Suspend Future Pelvic Mesh Trials

CREDIT PROTECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CREDIT SUISSE: RMBS Suit Ruling Preserves Martin Act's Reach
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Richard" Employment Suit in S.D. Florida
DAP PRODUCTS: "Joseph" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Maryland
DELTA AIR: Faces "Oman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

DENTAL ASSOC DAVIE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sosa" Suit Claims
ELECTRONIC ARTS: NFL Players Can Pursue Right-of-Publicity Suit
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FACEBOOK INC: Beats Back Appeal in Ad Click Class Action
FIAMMA INC: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court

FIVE BELOW: Faces "Haan" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
FOSTER AND MONROE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
G 7 HOLDINGS: "Olivas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Misleading Promotional Campaign
H.J. HEINZ: Court Sets Aug. 1, 2016 Trial Date in "Stez" Suit

HOME DEPOT: "Harnish" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Class Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
INSTANT CHECKMATE: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
JK MIAMI: "Aguila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Foreign Exchange Rate Manipulation Claims

LOFTON INDUSTRIES: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Can Reply to "Thomas" Suit Until Feb. 27
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE: Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Case Upheld
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: March 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approves Withdrawal of Claim

MEMPHIS, TN: Class Action Attorney Disqualified in Rape Kit Suit
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MGM RESORTS: Court Rules on Discovery Bids in CityCenter Action
NAVISTAR INC: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines
OCB RESTAURANT: Faces "Drake" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

OURI'S MARKET: "Bonilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
PENFORD CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Expedited Discovery
PLANTATION GOLF: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PRIORITY 1 JANITORIAL: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PUBLIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Accused of Race Bias in S.D. New York
REDFIN CORP: Removes "Sandoval" Suit to California District Court
RELIABLE COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Paint Products
SERGIO'S TREE: Faces "Acevedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SONY PICTURES: Hires Wilmer Attorneys to Defend Data Breach Suits
STANDARD INSURANCE: Jan. 22 Case Management Conference in "Knox"
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
SYNGENTA CORP: 3 County Farms Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Bentlage" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

SYNGENTA CORP: "Cox" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Greer" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Hostler" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Islington" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Pfaff" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

SYNGENTA CORP: "Schultz" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Wilson Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Defective Airbags
THREE GUYS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
THUNDER RIDGE: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

UNITED STATES: No Need to Revise FDA Egg-Labeling Regulations
US BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Force-Placed Insurance
VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Langere" in Cal. Over Warranty Program
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Received $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Braun Ruling Shows State-Federal Class Suit Rift

WAL-MART STORES: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Ruling Significant

* Wage-and-Hour Suits to Hit Employers in 2015, Report Says


                            *********


AFFORDABLE WELDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Arzeta-Hinojosa, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Affordable Welding, US, Inc. and
Peter Zizzo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00177 (N.D. Ill., January 9, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a welding shop in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      Consumer Law Group, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approves Settlement in "Mas" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri certified the class for purposes of
settlement and entered orders approving the settlement and
attorneys' fees as agreed in the class acton complaint filed by
Joseph Mas.

On December 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al. On
January 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint
against the Company also in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.  On January 21, 2009,
plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System filed a complaint
against the Company, again in the Eastern District of Missouri,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.

The operative complaints in these three cases purport to state
claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), on behalf
of a putative class of stock purchasers. On April 15, 2009, the
Unvericht and Norfolk County cases were consolidated into the Mas
case. The amended complaint for the consolidated action, styled
Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., was filed on
May 22, 2009.

Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 27, 2009.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all
individual defendants in February 2010.  On March 18, 2010, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the order of dismissal
and to amend their complaint, and also filed a notice of appeal.

On October 20, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
relief from the order of dismissal and to amend pleadings. On
November 1, 2010, Plaintiffs' filed a notice of appeal. On
September 21, 2011, an appeal was argued before the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the matter.

On June 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the
action to the District Court for further proceedings.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Plaintiffs did
not adequately plead the Company made false or misleading
statements about earnings as they relate to the manufacture of
Metoprolol and that the scheme liability claims alleged against
certain individual defendants should be dismissed. The Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the remainder of the action holding
that plaintiffs had adequately plead that the Company's statements
regarding the Company's compliance with FDA regulations and cGMP
were false or misleading. The Court also directed the District
Court to grant Plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint.

The parties agreed to settle this matter for $12.5 million,
payable entirely by the Company's third party insurance.  On
December 20, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the proposed class action settlement.  The Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on January 28, 2014. On
April 23, 2014, the parties participated in a fairness hearing,
and the Court certified the class for purposes of settlement and
entered orders approving the settlement and attorneys' fees as
agreed.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Makena Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that oral argument related to an appeal in the
class action lawsuit regarding the Company's Makena product has
not yet set a date.

On October 19, 2011, plaintiff Frank Julianello filed a complaint
against the Company and certain individual defendants, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of the Company between February 14, 2011 and April 4,
2011. The complaint alleges class members were damaged by paying
artificially inflated stock prices due to the Company's
purportedly misleading statements regarding Makena(R) related to
access and exclusivity.

On October 31, 2011, plaintiff Ramakrishna Mukku filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011. The complaint alleges
class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated stock
prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading statements
regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On November 2, 2011, plaintiff Hoichi Cheong filed a complaint
against the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company, who purchased or otherwise acquired K-V
securities between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges
class members were damaged by purchasing artificially inflated
stock prices due to the Company's purportedly misleading
statements regarding Makena(R) related to access and exclusivity.

On March 8, 2012, the Julianello, Mukku and Cheong cases were
consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V
Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 11CV1816
AGF.  On May 4, 2012, the Court approved the Anderson Family's
motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff in the matter.  On April
22, 2013, the individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
and oral argument was held before the Court on November 26, 2013.
Pursuant to the Plan, the Company's liability is limited to the
extent of any applicable insurance policies.  However, the Company
has indemnification obligations to certain of its current and
former officers who were named as co-defendants.

On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to file a second amended
complaint with respect to a limited issue of whether the Company's
statements about the Company's financial assistance program for
Makena were materially false or misleading.

On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff's filed a motion to reconsider
asking the Court to reconsider its order restricting the scope of
Plaintiff's ability to amend its complaint.  The Court denied
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and entered a judgment granting
the Company's motion to dismiss on June 6, 2014.  On July 1, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court and briefs have
been submitted to the Court.  The Court has not set a date for
oral argument.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: One Product Liability Suit Still Unsettled
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that the Company and/or ETHEX Corporation are
named defendants in one remaining unsettled product liability
lawsuit that relates to the voluntary product recalls initiated by
the Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiff in this
lawsuit, as well as dozens of others that are now settled or
dismissed, alleged damages as a result of the ingestion of
purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and
2008. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability were based on various
theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict
liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding,
fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims. The Company
possesses third party product liability insurance, which the
Company believes is applicable to the claims in this remaining
lawsuit and this lawsuit has been settled in principle for an
allowed general unsecured claim in the Company's bankruptcy
proceedings and a payment from the Company's insurer. A few other
similar lawsuits have been settled, but not yet formally
dismissed, for either an allowed general unsecured claim in the
Company's bankruptcy proceedings or for a combination of an
allowed general unsecured claim and an amount to be paid by the
Company's third party product liability insurance carrier under
the applicable policy.


AMERICAN EAGLE: "Legg" Suit Transferred From Florida to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Legg v. American Eagle
Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-61058, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00039-LTS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Keogh, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St., Sutie 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  mhilicki@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

Movant eBay Enterprise Marketing Solutions, Inc. is represented
by:

          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., 31st Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-9900
          Facsimile: (305) 789-9302
          E-mail: bfrontino@stroock.com

               - and -

          Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556-5819
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: lsimonetti@stroock.com

Defendant American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is represented by:

          Craig J. Mariam, Esq.
          GORDON AND REES LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-7856
          Facsimile: (877) 306-0043
          E-mail: cmariam@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Eric Robert Thompson, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 428-5300
          E-mail: ethompson@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Kirstie M. Simmerman, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 231-4660
          E-mail: ksimmerman@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Richard T. Victoria, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 577-7400
          E-mail: rvictoria@gordonrees.com

Defendant Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher Martin Lomax, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 714-9719
          E-mail: clomax@jonesday.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2014, that plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit filed a Second Amended Complaint to add
claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure to
provide meal periods in violation of California Law.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture
installation crew members for special projects, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against
American Greetings Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation (1) failed to pay overtime
wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders ("California Law"); (2) failed to make
payments within the required time in violation of California Law;
(3) failed to provide properly itemized wage statements in
violation of the California law; and (4) engaged in unfair
competition in violation of California's Business and Professions
Code. Plaintiffs claim to represent a class of all persons who, at
any time since June 4, 2010, were employed by the Corporation in
California as non-exempt employees and certify subclasses therein
with respect to the California Law violations detailed above. In
addition, plaintiffs claim to assert a nationwide collective
action under the FLSA. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. In addition,
plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation
acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair
competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and
the proposed classes.

The Corporation was served with the Complaint on July 16, 2014 and
on July 31, 2014, the Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss. On
August 3, 2014, prior to the Court ruling on the defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.
The Corporation vacated its Motion to Dismiss and filed its answer
to the First Amended Complaint on August 21, 2014.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
to add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Law and on
December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newly
added claims.


ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Armando Alvarez Gonzalez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Asecoexport International, Inc. and
Jaime Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-20059 (S.D. Fla., January 8, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarding service
company in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


AU OPTRONICS: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling Against Motorola's LCD Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AU OPTRONICS CORP.,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-8003, accuses foreign
manufacturers of LCD panels of having violation section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., by agreeing with each other on the prices
they would charge for the panels.

Motorola and its 10 foreign subsidiaries buy LCD panels and
incorporate them into cellphones that they manufacture.

The district judge ruled that Motorola's suit, insofar as it
relates to the 99% of panels purchased by the foreign
subsidiaries, is barred by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 6a(1)(A), (2), which are
sections of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 6a.

On review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment.

The appellate court's amended opinion dated January 12, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/H4YGqifrom Leagle.com.


AUTOMATIC DATA: "Silfee" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Silfee v. Automatic Data
Processing, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04908, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Scranton).  The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-00023-RDM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged unauthorized deduction from
wages, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          PNC Park
          115 Federal St., Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James S. Urban, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          E-mail: jsurban@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Joseph Kernen, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 4900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3300
          Facsimile: (215) 656-3301
          E-mail: joseph.kernen@dlapiper.com


B & D WATERBLASTING: Faces "Thede" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Thede, Freddie Mincey, William Hurst, Barry Cline, and
Virgil Bill, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. B & D Waterblasting Company, Inc. d/b/a B&D
Enterprises Co. Inc., and Donald Hess, Jr., Case No. 6:15-cv-00033
(M.D. Fla., January 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an underground pipe inspection and
repair company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, PA
      2300 E Concord St
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
              rlabar@labaradams.com


BANK OF KENTUCKY: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 9, 2015, that BKYF and BB&T Corporation
("BB&T") entered on January 8, 2015, into an agreement in
principle with plaintiff regarding the settlement of a putative
class action captioned Sector Grid Trading Company v. Bank of
Kentucky Financial Corporation, et al., No. 14-C1-2302 (the
"Kentucky Action"), pending before the Kenton Circuit Court of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky (the "Kentucky Court").

The Kentucky Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of September 5, 2014, by and between BB&T and BKYF (the
"Merger Agreement") providing for the merger of BKYF with and into
BB&T (the "Merger").

BKYF, BB&T, the other named defendants, and the plaintiff have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Kentucky Action
and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger,
subject to approval of the Kentucky Court. Under the terms of the
agreement in principle, plaintiff's counsel also has reserved the
right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the
Kentucky Court approves the settlement contemplated by the
agreement in principle, the Kentucky Action will be dismissed with
prejudice.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to BKYF's shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing
of the special meeting of BKYF's shareholders, scheduled for
January 14, 2015 in Erlanger, Kentucky, to vote upon a proposal to
approve the Merger Agreement.

BKYF, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the allegations
made by plaintiff in the Kentucky Action and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, BKYF, BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Kentucky Action in order to avoid the costs,
disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Burger" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Burger v. Building Materials
Corporation of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-00513, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).
The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00070-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew T. Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 W. 9th, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 North Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3018

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacqueline Kathleen Matthews, Esq.
          Rand L. McClellan, Esq.
          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          65 E State Street, Suite 2100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-1541
          Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
          E-mail: jmatthews@bakerlaw.com
                  rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com
                  reckelberry@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Rossman, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com
                  douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Kaiser" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kaiser v. Building Materials
Corporation of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-02229, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00072-
JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577.

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
          Caitlin Conroy McHugh, Esq.
          Thomas M. Rogers, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
          One Tabor Center, Suite 3000
          1200 17th Street
          Denver, CO 80202-5855
          Telephone: (303) 628-9532
          Facsimile: (303) 623-9222
          E-mail: MPlachy@LRRLaw.com
                  CMcHugh@LRRLaw.com
                  trogers@lrrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          65 E State Street, Suite 2100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-5189
          Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
          E-mail: reckelberry@bakerlaw.com


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Robertie" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robertie, et al. v. GAF Building
Materials Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00165, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).
The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00067 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5020
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: matt@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  dan@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Blake, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          4140 Parklake Ave., Suite 200
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 877-3808
          Facsimile: (919) 877-3141
          E-mail: chris.blake@nelsonmullins.com


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Alien Tort Case Plaintiffs Turn to High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
months after a federal appeals court rejected efforts to hold
Chiquita Brands International Inc. liable for facilitating war
crimes in Colombia, human rights lawyers have turned to the U.S.
Supreme Court in hopes of resurrecting their claims under the
beleaguered Alien Tort Statute.

Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
filed a Supreme Court petition on behalf of thousands of
Colombians who allege their relatives were murdered by the United
Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, a paramilitary group that
Chiquita has admitted to supporting.

The plaintiffs' cert petition -- filed Dec. 30 but first announced
on Jan. 7 by EarthRights International -- challenges a July
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
which found that Chiquita's alleged conduct didn't have enough
connection to the U.S. for the court to hear the case.

Siding with Chiquita and its lawyers at Covington & Burling, the
Eleventh Circuit invoked the Supreme Court's 2013 holding in
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that the courts must reject Alien
Tort Statute claims that don't "touch and concern" the U.S. "with
sufficient force."

Mr. Hoffman is a leader in ATS litigation who also argued for the
plaintiffs at the Supreme Court in Kiobel. (In addition to Hoffman
and EarthRights, the plaintiffs are represented by ATS veteran
Terrence Collingsworth -- tc@conradscherer.com -- of Conrad &
Scherer, Agnieszka Fryszman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and
others.) In his high court petition, Hoffman argues that the
Eleventh Circuit "erroneously adopted an extreme interpretation"
of Kiobel.

"The Chiquita case clearly meets the test set out in Kiobel,"
Hoffman said in a statement on Jan. 7.  "We have a U.S.
corporation making decisions from the United States to finance
terrorism in violation of U.S. law, and our nation has a strong
interest in addressing this egregious conduct."

Covington & Burling's John Hall -- jhall@cov.com -- who led the
Eleventh Circuit appeal efforts for Chiquita, said in an email on
Jan. 7 that he's confident the Supreme Court won't take up the
appeal.

"Much as plaintiffs would like to portray it differently, there is
no denying that their complaints assert claims for alleged
violence in Colombia, by Colombians, against Colombians," said
Hall.  "The Eleventh Circuit's decision that the ATS does not
provide jurisdiction for such claims is entirely consistent with
Kiobel."

In their Dec. 30 petition, Hoffman and cocounsel noted that the
Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits have all interpreted Kiobel's
"touch and concern" test differently in cases involving U.S.
companies.  Under any of those three different interpretations,
the petition argues, "Chiquita's substantial acts from the United
States which abetted abuses in Colombia would meet the Kiobel
test."

With the high court appeal, the plaintiffs in the Chiquita case
are looking to put the brakes on the federal courts' recent
narrowing of the Alien Tort Statute's scope and its application to
overseas conduct.  In addition to limiting the extraterritorial
reach of the ATS, the Second Circuit in Kiobel sharply restricted
the exposure faced by corporations under the statute.  The
justices largely sidestepped that issue when the case reached the
Supreme Court, but the unsettled question of corporate liability
still hangs over ATS plaintiffs.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Settlement in Standard Iron Works Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that a court granted
final approval of the settlement in the class action brought by
Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a purported
class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies,
including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The
lawsuit, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all parties who purchased steel products directly
from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008
(collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement
agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that
final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid approximately
$4.0 million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration
for the full and final release of all claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs. The Company maintains that the claims lacked
merit and that it has full and complete defenses to all of the
claims asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter
into the settlement agreement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted
litigation. On October 17, 2014, the court granted final approval
of the settlement.


COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice in Indirect Purchasers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that no motion practice
or discovery has taken place in the purported nationwide class of
indirect purchasers.

On September 24, 2008, a case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
a purported nationwide class of indirect purchasers naming the
same defendants and containing allegations substantially identical
to those of the complaint filed by Standard Iron Works. The
lawsuit sought damages, including reasonable attorney fees and
other amounts recoverable by statute. Some document production has
occurred in the case. Another action was filed in Tennessee state
court on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers in
Tennessee naming the same defendants but seeking recovery for
purchases through 2010. The lawsuit sought damages and costs,
including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest. The case has been removed to federal court, and was
transferred to United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in March 2012. No motion practice or
discovery has taken place.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans
to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the
information available as of the date of this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
relating to these cases.


CONDE NAST: Settles Intern Class Action for $5.85 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
thousands of interns who worked at Conde Nast Publications for
meager pay stand to share in a $5.85 million settlement of a
proposed class and collective action given preliminary approval by
a New York magistrate judge.

An estimated 7,500 interns may be eligible for as much as $1,900
each to make up for compensation they contend they should have
been paid -- but weren't -- by the New York media company, a
division of Advance Publications Inc.  The interns had worked at
Vanity Fair, Vogue and the New Yorker magazines, among others.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York gave his tentative blessing on
Dec. 29 to the resolution in Ballinger v. Advance, which alleged
the company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by deeming the young workers exempt from
minimum wage, overtime and other related provisions.  Conde Nast
ended its intern program after the suit was filed on June 13,
2013.

The settlement proposes awarding $660,000 in fees and expenses to
the firm Outten & Golden, which has represented plaintiffs in a
series of actions on behalf of interns at media and entertainment
companies, including Warner Music Inc., Fox Searchlight Pictures
and Hearst Magazines.  In October, the firm scored another
settlement agreement, this one for $6.4 million -- and $1.1
million in proposed attorney fees -- between interns and NBC
Universal Inc.

In the Conde Nast action, plaintiff Lauren Ballinger alleged she
was paid just $12 a day for what she described as onerous grunt
work at W Magazine.  Fellow lead plaintiff, New Yorker magazine
intern Matthew Leib, alleged he was paid a total of $800 for two
summers' proofreading and copy editing work.

The interns will fall into two groups, according to the settlement
agreement.  One will be those included in a class action claim
alleging FLSA violations, and encompassing interns who worked for
Conde Nast between June 13, 2010 and Dec. 29.  The other will be
those in a collective action alleging violations of New York's
labor law by interns who worked for Conde Nast between June 13,
2007 and Dec. 29.

Plaintiffs attorneys at Outten & Golden include Rachel Bein and
Adam Klein.  Conde Nast is represented by attorneys at the firm
Proskauer Rose.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Accused of Discrimination and Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ivancich v. Consolidated Edison Company of NY Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00049-KBF (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) is action to
recover damages for alleged discrimination and harassment on the
basis of disability in the terms, conditions and privileges of
employment under the New York Executive Law and the Administrative
Code of the City of New York.

The Plaintiff is a person with a disability.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. is a domestic
corporation with its principal office located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Scott Stark, Esq.
          THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP
          75 Rockefeller Plaza, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 687-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 697-2521
          E-mail: cstark@dwecklaw.com


CR BARD: Files Motion to Suspend Future Pelvic Mesh Trials
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a pelvic mesh manufacturer moved to halt a bellwether trial
next month after an online news article reported that a federal
judge implied the company should settle nearly 10,000 lawsuits
against it.

C.R. Bard Inc. is one of seven manufacturers facing lawsuits
alleging that the devices, which are implanted in women to treat
pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, have caused pain
and required subsequent surgeries to remove them.  Bard is set to
go to trial on Feb. 18 against an Ohio woman who had its Avaulta
device implanted in 2007.

On Dec. 24, Bard filed a motion to continue the trial and suspend
all future trials based on statements made by U.S. District Judge
Joseph Goodwin, who is managing about 60,000 lawsuits filed across
the country over pelvic mesh litigation.  Judge Goodwin said
during a Dec. 9 hearing that Bard faced potentially "billions of
dollars" in liability and should consider settling its cases,
according to the motion. Such statements, Bard attorney Lori Cohen
-- cohenl@gtlaw.com -- wrote, were "distorted" by a Bloomberg.com
news story and financial analysts.

"Because these reports contain statements that bear the imprimatur
of this federal court, they carry a significant risk of unfairly
prejudicing Bard and tainting the jury pool," she wrote.

Last month, Judge Goodwin rejected a similar motion filed by
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc., which sought to
continue a Dec. 4 bellwether trial for 60 days in light of
increased news coverage and "pervasive advertising by attorneys"
following two recent verdicts against Boston Scientific Corp. --
one for $18.5 million and another for $26.7 million.

Judge Goodwin later rescheduled the Ethicon trial for March 2.
Lead plaintiffs attorneys called Bard's move "the latest in a
series of efforts by Bard to conduct this litigation through delay
and deflection of blame" in a Dec. 29 court filing.  Bard's move
is an attempt to put off Goodwin's plans to remand large groups of
cases in coming months, lead plaintiffs attorney Joseph Rice --
jrice@motleyrice.com -- said.
"Bard either needs to try to decide the cases in some overall
fashion, or the court does what the [multidistrict litigation] is
supposed to do and sends cases back to the courts where they came
for trial," said Mr. Rice, co-founder of Motley Rice in Mount
Pleasant, S.C.

As for the news coverage and lawyer advertising, Mr. Rice noted
that an analyst report predicted that Bard would largely be
absolved of liability.  Additionally, Bard would have an
opportunity to ask jurors what they had read about the case, he
said.  "The fact that we have a country that honors the freedom of
speech doesn't change our judicial system."

Two Bard representatives did not respond to requests for comment;
Ms. Cohen, chairwoman of Greenberg Traurig's pharmaceutical,
medical device and health care litigation practice and of the
trial practice in the firm's Atlanta office, declined to comment.

Bard, based in Murray Hill, N.J., settled 500 mesh cases last year
but for the most part has taken its chances at trial.  It lost the
first trial over pelvic mesh devices in 2012 and, on Nov. 19, a
California appeals court upheld that $5.5 million award.  In 2013,
Bard lost a $2 million verdict and settled two other bellwether
trials under confidential terms.

In its motion, Bard argued that the impending trial and all future
trials should be placed on hold until Judge Goodwin decides its
motion for new trial that challenges a key ruling he made just
before the 2013 verdict.  Over Bard's objection, Judge Goodwin
prohibited the company from telling jurors that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration had cleared its device as safe for sale.
"Although Bard's motion raising this issue has been fully briefed
for more than a year, during which time Bard has repeatedly
inquired about its status, that motion remains undecided,"
Ms. Cohen wrote.


CREDIT PROTECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie McDonald, on behalf of himself and otherse similarly
situated v. Credit Protection Association, L.P., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00003 (S.D. Ala., January 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road #500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


CREDIT SUISSE: RMBS Suit Ruling Preserves Martin Act's Reach
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that in
refusing to toss a multibillion-dollar fraud lawsuit against
Credit Suisse AG, New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman
didn't just disappoint the bank and its lawyers at Cravath, Swaine
& Moore.  The judge also poured coal in the stockings of other
defendants looking for vulnerabilities in New York's 93-year-old
Martin Act, the state's fearsome tool for combating financial
fraud.

In her Dec. 24 decision, Judge Friedman allowed New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman to press forward with claims that Credit
Suisse knew about flaws in loans packaged into residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and misrepresented the quality
of those loans, causing about $11.2 billion in investor losses.

Judge Friedman shot down the Swiss bank's argument that suit was
brought too late, handing the state a win that could make it
harder for others on Wall Street to dodge state-launched investor
fraud cases in New York.

Mr. Schneiderman's office sued Credit Suisse in November 2012
under the Martin Act, a powerful antifraud statute passed in 1921
that allows New York's attorney general to pursue securities
actions without meeting the pleading requirements of federal
securities cases.

Credit Suisse's lawyers, led by Cravath's Richard Clary --
rclary@cravath.com -- argued in their motion to dismiss that Mr.
Schneiderman waited far too long to bring the suit, which
concerned securities packaged and sold in 2006 and 2007.  Common
law fraud claims typically carry a six-year limitations period in
New York.  But because the AG sought to hold the bank liable under
the Martin Act, the bank maintained that a three-year statute of
limitations should apply.

According to Mr. Clary and his team, Credit Suisse wouldn't face
liability in the AG's case "but for" the Martin Act.  And, the
bank asserted, the AG's claims were "substantively different" from
common law fraud claims, since the Martin Act didn't require the
AG to plead two key elements of a common law fraud claim --
namely, that Credit Suisse had knowledge of the alleged fraud and
that investors relied on its alleged misrepresentations.

Judge Friedman disagreed, ruling that the suit's Martin Act claims
concerned allegations that could also be brought in a common law
fraud case.

"This court finds that the essence of plaintiff's claims under
. . . the Martin Act is that defendant made false representations
in order to induce investors to purchase their securities," Judge
Friedman wrote.  "These claims thus seek to impose liability on
defendants based on the classic, long-standing common law tort of
investor fraud."

Judge Friedman also refused to dismiss claims that Credit Suisse
sometimes found defective loans underlying its securities and
obtained payouts from the loans' originators, but didn't pass any
of that settlement money on to investors.  The bank argued,
unsuccessfully, that those "bulk settlement" claims were barred
because the bank previously reached a deal with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission over similar transactions.

Credit Suisse had also argued that the state failed to provide
sufficiently specific allegations to back its RMBS fraud claims.
But the judge ruled that the state met its burden by alleging a
"systematic abandonment" of the bank's underwriting guidelines.

Credit Suisse has vowed to appeal, so New York's First Judicial
Department may soon have a chance to weigh the bank's arguments.
But if Judge Friedman's decision is ultimately upheld, it closes
off a potential escape hatch for Martin Act defendants accused of
years-old misconduct.

Some of the country's most prominent financial institutions,
including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America
Corp., have already settled RMBS-related claims with state and
federal regulators, including with Mr. Schneiderman's office.  But
the New York AG has indicated that his office is also looking into
other banks that sold and promoted RMBS in the run-up to the
financial crisis.

Mr. Schneiderman's office said in a statement that it looks
forward to continuing the case against Credit Suisse and "pursuing
accountability for those who contributed to the near collapse of
our economy."

The bank said in a statement that it would continue to fight the
case.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Richard" Employment Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Richard and other similarly situated individuals v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20022-RNS (S.D. Fla., January 6,
2015) alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


DAP PRODUCTS: "Joseph" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Joseph v. DAP Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-07628, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The Maryland District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00016-WDQ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.


DELTA AIR: Faces "Oman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dev Anand Oman, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00131 (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages to
its flight attendants.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia that operates flights throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      One Embarcadero Center
      Suite 720
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 277-7234
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
              helland@nka.com


DENTAL ASSOC DAVIE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Sosa" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Haydee Sosa v. Dental Associates of Davie, Inc., South Dade Family
Dentistry, Inc. and Alfredo Corpas, Case No. 1:15-cv-20057 (S.D.
Fla., January 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate dental clinics in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: NFL Players Can Pursue Right-of-Publicity Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cleared a lane on Jan. 6
for retired National Football League players to sue Electronic
Arts Inc. over their portrayal in the Madden NFL video games.

The three-judge panel rejected arguments by EA Games' lawyer that
the First Amendment protects the company's depiction of the
athletes in its multibillion-dollar game franchise.  It's an
argument that largely has been doomed since 2013, when the same
court ruled against EA Games in a nearly identical suit involving
college football players.  That decision, Keller v. Electronic
Arts, was hailed as a major victory for plaintiffs in video game
right-of-publicity suits.

"In Keller, we rejected several of the First Amendment defenses EA
raises here on materially indistinguishable grounds," wrote Judge
Raymond Fisher in a unanimous opinion joined by judges Stephen
Reinhardt and Marsha Berzon.

Arguing before the court in September, EA lawyer Alonzo Wickers IV
-- alonzowickers@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine claimed the
retired players' avatars make up just a few of the thousands of
virtual athletes in the game and should be protected as an
incidental use of the players' likenesses.

But the panel ruled the avatars are vital to EA Games' main
commercial purpose.

"Accurate depictions of the players on the field are central to
the creation of an accurate virtual simulation of an NFL game,"
Judge Fisher wrote.

Sunnyvale attorney Brian Henri represents the retired NFL players.

The litigation began in 2010 when retired NFL players Michael
Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe Dupree sued EA Games for
infringing their right of publicity.  The video game company paid
current NFL players licensing fees to use their names, likenesses
and uniforms, but did not compensate the roughly 6,000 retired
players depicted in its historic teams.  EA did not name the
retired players in the games, but it created avatars using their
skin tone, height, weight, position and skill level.

EA Games tried to get the suit thrown out in 2011 under
California's anti-SLAPP law, claiming it was an attack on the
company's right to free expression.  Judge Richard Seeborg of the
Northern District of California rejected that argument, and EA
Games appealed in 2012.  The case was stayed pending resolution of
Keller.

In Judge Fisher's view, EA's counsel did not try to distinguish
the NFL case from the college football case.  Instead, the lawyers
raised the same First Amendment arguments to preserve them for
review by an en banc panel or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The company could face an uphill battle.  In September, the
Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in
the Keller case.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alvester Harris Jr. and Eric R. Clark, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated present and former instructors at
Defendant v. Employment Services, Inc. d/b/a Centura College
(Virginia Beach CI) and Tidewater Tech, Case No. 2:15-cv-00012
(E.D. Va., January 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 40 schools across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Colt North, Esq.
      751-A Thimble Shoals Blvd.
      Newport News, VA 23606
      Telephone: (757) 873-1010
      Facsimile: (757) 873-8375
      E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com


FACEBOOK INC: Beats Back Appeal in Ad Click Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook
Inc.'s lawyers at Munger, Tolles & Olson have beat back an appeal
in a case challenging the company's online advertising fees.

Plaintiffs had accused Facebook of charging for invalid clicks in
its pay-per-click advertising system.  Ruling on Dec. 26, a three-
judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
agreed with the district judge that there was no way to
distinguish between valid and invalid clicks on a classwide basis.

"Because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a
workable class-wide methodology to determine what constitutes a
'valid click,' the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying class certification because 'common issues do not
predominate,'" the judges wrote in a brief unpublished decision.

The panel, made up of Ninth Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and
Richard Paez and U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist of the Western
District of Michigan sitting by designation, heard arguments
Dec. 9.

Though the plaintiffs' expert claimed he could develop algorithms
to determine whether Facebook did its due diligence to prevent
invalid clicks, the panel wrote, he never provided an actual
method to determine valid clicks.

Munger Tolles partner Kristin Myles -- Kristin.Myles@mto.com --
argued for Facebook, and Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com --
of Seeger Weiss argued for plaintiffs.

On the same day it heard the Facebook case, the panel also
considered a similar case involving Google Inc.  Plaintiffs in
Levitte v. Google, 12-16752, had accused Google of inappropriately
charging to place ads on error pages. U.S. District Judge Edward
Davila of the Northern District of California declined to certify
the class, and plaintiffs appealed.

That appeal was still pending on Dec. 29.


FIAMMA INC: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rodriguez v. Fiamma, Inc., Case
No. 2014-CA-12692-O, was removed from the Circuit Court, Orange
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:15-cv-00010-GKS-TBS to the proceeding.

The case is brought for damages for breach of agreement and unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Hoogerwood, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Beaudine, Esq.
          LATHAM, SHUKER, EDEN & BEAUDINE, LLP
          111 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 481-5800
          Facsimile: (407) 481-5801
          E-mail: beaudine@lseblaw.com


FIVE BELOW: Faces "Haan" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Haan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Five Below, Inc., David Schlessinger, Thomas G.
Vellios, Joel D. Anderson, and Kenneth R. Bull, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00094 (E.D. Pa., January 9, 2015), 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.

Five Below, Inc. is a specialty discount retailer targeted at
teens and pre-teens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, PC
      100 Penn Square East, John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
      E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      110 West A Street, Suite 750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frank@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

      Michael I. Fisel Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3104
      Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
      E-mail: michealf@johnsonandweaver.com


FOSTER AND MONROE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aharon Braun, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Foster and Monroe LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00047 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


G 7 HOLDINGS: "Olivas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Olivas and other similarly situated individuals v. G 7
Holdings Inc., Gregory R. Davis, and Adriana Davis, Case No. 1:15-
cv-20062 (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

G 7 Holdings Inc. is engaged in the retail of automobile
accessories in Japan and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Misleading Promotional Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------
Oula Zakaria, individually and as a representative of the class v.
Gerber Products Co., a corporation, d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, and Nestle Nutrition North America, Case No.
2:15-cv-00200 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2015), arises out of the
false representations and misleading marketing and sale practices
made by the Defendant in Good Start Gentle's promotional campaign.

The Defendants manufacture and distribute baby food and baby
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
      Dan C. Bolton, Esq.
      KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
      28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 342-7442
      Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
      E-mail: dkeller@kfjlegal.com
              dbolton@kfjlegal.com

         - and -

      Stephen J. Fearon Jr., Esq.
      Paul V.  Sweeny, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 421-6492
      Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
      E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
              paul@sfclasslaw.com


H.J. HEINZ: Court Sets Aug. 1, 2016 Trial Date in "Stez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court has set August 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.,
as the trial date in the lawsuit MICHAEL STEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff(s), v. H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant(s), Case No.: 14-
1871 PJH (N.D. Cal.)

Dispositive motions are set to be heard by April 6, 2016, at 9:00
a.m.

A copy of the District Court's November 24, 2014 Case Management
and Pre-trial Order is available at http://is.gd/W8gDdFfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael Stez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Robert Ahdoot --
Rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore
Walter Maya --- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.
& Tina Wolfson --- twolfson@adhootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C.

Jill Lawrence, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, Barbara Ann Rohr, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Robert
Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

H J Heinz Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston
& Strawn LLP, Kathleen Bridget Barry -- kbarry@winston.com & Sean
D. Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.


HOME DEPOT: "Harnish" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harnish, et al. v. The Home Depot,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-14075, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00042-
TWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          GILMAN & PASTOR, LLP
          60 State Street, 37th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com


HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Class Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Pearman, and Jodi Lee v. Hooters of Trussville, LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00015-SLB (N.D. Ala., January 6, 2015) is brought to
recover unpaid compensation, in the form of unpaid wages and
overtime, owed to the Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated
servers employed by the Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Hooters of Trussville, LLC is a corporation conducting business in
the state of Alabama.  The Company has a location in Trussville,
Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
          Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
          L. William Smith, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC.
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com
                  darciniegas@wigginschilds.com
                  wsmith@wigginschilds.com


INSTANT CHECKMATE: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Instant Checkmate Inc., a company that promises to compile a
comprehensive online background search on anyone, allegedly rips
off consumers with a classic bait-and-switch scheme, according to
a proposed class action.

California plaintiff Milo Illich alleges the company's website
entices consumers with hints of "shocking" revelations that can
help you "learn the truth about the history of your family and
friends."

But Mr. Illich, like other consumers who have unloaded grievances
with the San Diego, Calif., company on online complaint sites,
alleges the information the company provides is generally
outdated, incomplete and available only at previously undisclosed
costs.

"It is, in essence, a classic 'bait and switch' marketing
practice," the complaint asserts in Illich v. Instant Checkmate,
filed on Dec. 20 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

Instant Checkmate, which describes itself as "one of the largest
online people search engines in the world," says on its website
that it "provides people-finder, public record and criminal record
information to individuals to help them form and strengthen
personal relationships."

Mr. Illich contends that those who request a search are led
through a protracted process that includes the presentation of
website graphics and wording that imply the search is getting
"hits" on arrests, marriages and divorces, lawsuits and other
information, including sex offender registrations.

Consumers who want to see the report are led through a series of
charges and rules that are not disclosed at the start, the
complaint alleges.  There is a $9.86 monthly subscription fee,
which, Mr. Illich alleges, the consumer later learns is available
at that price only if he or she pays $59.86 for a six-month
subscription.  The subscription entitles the consumer to
"unlimited reports," according to the complaint.

Mr. Illich alleges that he requested a search in August, and
Instant Checkmate's site indicated it had found and compiled
specific information about the person, including "police records"
such as "driving citations, speeding tickets, felonies,
misdemeanors, sexual offenses, mugshots" and more, according to
the complaint.

But to access the report, Mr. Illich would have to pay $22.86 -- a
charge not disclosed previously, he alleges.  He paid, but found
the information from the search incomplete, stale and no more
informative than a simple Google search would have been.  "The
report contained grossly inaccurate information, information that
would otherwise be freely available on the Internet, and did not
include the subject's police records already known to Plaintiff
Illich," the complaint alleges.

Instant Checkmate told Mr. Illich it had found more information
about the person, but Mr. Illich would have to pay $19.99 to get
it via a "premium report," according to the complaint.  Mr. Illich
refused to pay.

Mr. Illich alleges six causes of action, including violations of
California's false advertising, consumer protection and antifraud
statutes, as well as fraud in the inducement and fraud by
omission.  He asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, along
with actual damages.

Mr. Illich is represented by attorneys with the firm Edelson P.C.
and Law Offices of Douglas J Campion.


JK MIAMI: "Aguila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Aguila, and other similarly situated individuals v. J.K.
Miami Corp., a Florida Profit Corporation, Jae Wung Oh, and Kyong
S. Oh, Case No. 1:15-cv-20083 (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

J.K. Miami Corp. is a manufacturer and exporter of hair
accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Foreign Exchange Rate Manipulation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom have laid down their arms in antitrust litigation
accusing a dozen banks of manipulating foreign exchange rates.

Skadden, along with plaintiffs lawyers from Hausfeld LLP and Scott
& Scott, signaled in a letter on Jan. 5 to U.S. District Judge
Lorna Schofield in Manhattan that JPMorgan has settled claims that
it participated in a scheme to rig foreign exchange rates, such as
the benchmark World Markets/Reuters Closing Spot Rates.  The terms
of the deal weren't immediately available in public filings,
though the letter noted that high-profile mediator
Kenneth Feinberg oversaw the settlement talks.

Peter Greene -- peter.greene@skadden.com -- is one of the Skadden
lawyers leading the defense for JPMorgan.  JPMorgan spokesman
Brian Marchiony declined to comment.  Michael Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- one of the lead plaintiffs lawyers on
the case, told The Litigation Daily the settlement was a
"responsible move" by JPMorgan.

"The agreement should set the tone for further developments
favorable to the plaintiffs," Mr. Hausfeld said.

The JPMorgan deal marks the first settlement in the forex
litigation, which was launched by proposed class of investors in
November 2013.  The plaintiffs -- which include the city of
Philadelphia, public employee pension plans and hedge funds --
allege widespread manipulation of the approximately $5 trillion-
per-day foreign exchange market.  The investors sued 12 major
financial institutions in all, including Bank of America Corp.,
Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.

In late May, the banks, including JPMorgan, urged Ms. Schofield to
throw out the case.  Among several arguments, the banks claimed
the investors hadn't alleged a plausible conspiracy and had failed
to tie the alleged rate rigging to the banks' efforts to secure
business in the market for foreign exchange services.

"At best, plaintiffs have alleged -- based on unsubstantiated
conjecture and hypotheses -- that dealers may have engaged in
improper trading practices designed to take advantage of their
customers who put in orders to trade at the fix -- conduct that,
although allegedly manipulative, is not conduct that the antitrust
laws are designed to police," the banks wrote in their dismissal
brief.

The judge held a hearing on the banks' motion on Nov. 20,
according to court records.  JPMorgan reached its deal with the
plaintiffs before Schofield issued a decision.

Separate from the investor suit in front of Ms. Schofield,
JPMorgan and other banks have faced civil and criminal probes
launched by regulators in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world.
In November, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
announced that JPMorgan, Citibank NA, HSBC Bank PLC, The Royal
Bank of Scotland PLC and UBS AG had agreed to pay a total of $1.4
billion in penalties for allegedly attempting to rig foreign
exchange benchmarks.

In addition to JPMorgan, the defendants in the foreign exchange
antitrust suit include Bank of America Corp. (represented by
Shearman & Sterling); Barclays PLC (represented by Sullivan &
Cromwell); BNP Paribas, (represented by Allen & Overy); Citigroup
Inc. (represented by Covington & Burling); Credit Suisse Group AG
(represented by Cahill Gordon & Reindel); Deutsche Bank AG
(represented by Kirkland & Ellis); Goldman Sachs & Co.
(represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton); HSBC Holdings
PLC (represented by Locke Lorde); Morgan Stanley (represented by
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
PLC (represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell); and UBS AG
(represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher).


LOFTON INDUSTRIES: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Harrison and Frank Saenz, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Lofton Industries, Inc. and M-I, LLC
d/b/a Alpine Specialty Chemicals, Case No. 4:15-cv-00057 (S.D.
Tex., January 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Lofton Industries, Inc. is a family of staffing companies that
supplies personnel to a variety of industries, including the oil
and gas industry.

M-I, LLC offers a variety of oilfield products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Can Reply to "Thomas" Suit Until Feb. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar approved a stipulation extending
defendants' time to respond to the corrected amended class action
complaint filed by Keith Thomas, et al., against MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp, et al., through February 27, 2015.

If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss the Corrected Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs will have 60 days to respond to the motion.

If MagnaChip restates its financial statements on or before
February 27, 2015, however, Defendants will not be required to
respond to the Corrected Complaint by February 27.  Instead,
Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the filing date of the
restatement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
file a further amended complaint.  If Plaintiffs do not file a
further amended complaint, Defendants will have 60 days following
Plaintiff's deadline for filing the further amended complaint to
respond to the Corrected Amended Complaint.

The purported class action is KEITH THOMAS and RICHARD HAYES,
Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., SANG PARK, TAE YOUNG
HWANG, MARGARET SAKAI, R. DOUGLAS NORBY, ILBOK LEE, NADER
TAVAKOLI, RANDAL KLEIN, MICHAEL ELKINS, and AVENUE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT II, L.P., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01160-JST (N.D.
Cal.).  The Corrected Amended Complaint was filed on October 1,
2014. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws.

A copy of the judge's November 26, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/njZmv6from Leagle.com.

JONES DAY, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com & Kelsey Israel-
Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- San Francisco, CA, Attorneys
for Defendant MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, Daniel J. Kramer,*
-- dkramer@paulweiss.com ; Jacqueline P. Rubin,* --
dkramer@paulweiss.com -- New York, NY, and Alex Young K. Oh,* --
aoh@paulweiss.com -- Washington, DC, *Admitted pro hac vice,
Attorneys for Defendants MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., R. Douglas
Norby, Ilbok Lee, and Nader Tavakoli.

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Michael A Asaro,* --
masaro@akingump.com , Christopher M. Egleson --
cegleson@akingump.com , Steven F. Reich,* -- sreich@akingump.com
-- New York, NY, *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Defendants
Avenue Capital Management II, Randal Klein, and Michael Elkins.

POMERANTZ LLP, Marc I. Gross -- , Jeremy A. Lieberman, Michael
Wernke, New York, NY, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP Lionel Z.
Glancy, Michael Goldberg, Robert V. Prongay, Los Angeles, CA. and
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Laurence Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -
-- Los Angeles, CA, and Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- New
York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Keith Thomas and Richard
Hayes.


MARINE SPILL RESPONSE: Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Case Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON" IN
THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010, MDL NO. 2179, District
Judge Carl J. Barbier denied the Class Counsel's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Louisiana District Court's July 23, 2014
order regarding the so-called "Chronic Specified Physical
Conditions."

In its July 23, 2014 order, the Court affirmed the Claims
Administrator's interpretation of the Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA") that classified physical
conditions that are first diagnosed after April 16, 2012 as
"Later-Manifested Physical Conditions" (LMPS) rather than
"Specified Physical Conditions."

In its motion, Class Counsel argued the Claims Administrator's
interpretation results in "all those who have lived with their
compensable exposure injuries since the time of the spill are now
left with no recourse other than to file a back-end litigation
suit in this Court. This is not what the parties intended or what
the MSA requires."

On thorough review, the District Court reaffirmed its original
ruling.  The Court says the contract terms are unambiguous.

The Court also denied The Downs Law Group's Motion for
Reconsideration.

A copy of the District Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/gDmCDCfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy, Domengeaux,
Wright, Roy & Edwards & Stephen J. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz &
Cotlar, LLP.

Marine Spill Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan
Mark Weigel of Blank Rome LLP.

Airborne Support, Inc., Defendant, represented by Francis Xavier
Neuner, Jr. of NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux,  NeunerPate & Jed M.
Mestayer, NeunerPate.

Airborne Support International Inc, Defendant, represented by
Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr., NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux,
NeunerPate & Jed M. Mestayer, NeunerPate.

Dynamic Aviation Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Leo Raymond
McAloon, III, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & Michael D.
Cangelosi, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC.

International Air Response Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin
Richard Tully, Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Howard Carter
Marshall, Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

Lane Aviation, Defendant, represented by George Edmond Crow, Law
Office of George E. Crow.

National Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C. Lyttle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward O'Keefe,
Montgomery Barnett, Philip S. Brooks, Jr., Montgomery Barnett &
Sylvia E. Simson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.
DRC Emergency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold J.
Flanagan, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre, Flanagan
Partners, LLP, Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP &
Stephen M. Pesce, Chevron USA, Inc..

Lynden Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Carter Marshall,
Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Kevin Richard Tully, Christovich &
Kearney, LLP.

Tiger Rentals Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell R.
Simms, City Attorney's Office.

Modern Group GP-SUB Inc., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell R.
Simms, City Attorney's Office.

Modern Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell R.
Simms, City Attorney's Office.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by David J. Beck, Beck, Redden &
Secrest, LLP, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Don Keller Haycraft, Liskow & Lewis, Donald E.
Godwin, Godwin Lewis PC, J. Andrew Langan, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP,
Kerry J. Miller, Frilot L.L.C., Ky E. Kirby, Bingham McCutchen,
LLP, Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP &
Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

O'Brien's Response Management L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C.
Lyttle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward
O'Keefe, Montgomery Barnett, Philip S. Brooks, Jr., Montgomery
Barnett & Sylvia E. Simson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP.

Federal Government Interests, Interested Party, represented by R
Michael Underhill, U. S. Department of Justice.

State Interests, Interested Party, represented by Luther J
Strange, III, Attorney General's Office.

Lynn C Greer, Interested Party, represented by Lynn C Greer,
BrownGreer PLC.


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: March 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9,
2015, that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, issued on January 6, 2015, an order
preliminarily approving a proposed settlement by and among Maxwell
Technologies Inc. (the "Company"), the plaintiffs, and all named
individual defendants in the shareholder derivative action
entitled In re Maxwell Technologies Inc., Derivative Litigation,
No. 13-CV-966-BEN (RBB). If approved by the court, the release
contained in the settlement would release the claims asserted in
the above described action as well as those asserted in the
related consolidated claims in California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, entitled Warsh v. Schramm, et al., Case No.
37-2013-00043884, and Neville v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 37-2013-
00044911-CU-BT-CTL, and the related shareholder demand action
under California Corporations Code Section 1601 dated November 13,
2013.

A hearing to determine whether the court should issue an order of
final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for March 16,
2015, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Roger T. Benitez, Edward
J. Schwarz United States Courthouse, Courtroom 5A, Suite 5135, 221
West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, 60604. Pursuant to the court's
order, any objections to the settlement must be filed in writing
with the court by no later than March 2, 2015.

A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement is available
at http://is.gd/ItoWxR

A copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Shareholder Derivative Actions is available at http://is.gd/H4puIu

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
     Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     110 West A Street, Suite 750
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
     E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonandweaver.com
             BrettW@johnsonandweaver.com
             ShawnF@johnsonandweaver.com


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approves Withdrawal of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9,
2015, that the Israeli Court approved the request of a class
action plaintiff to withdraw its claim.

On February 20, 2013, a complaint was filed in the District Court
of Tel Aviv, Israel (the "Israeli Court") in the matter of Avigdor
Weinberger v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 39214-02-13), in which
the plaintiff alleged that the  Company, the board members, the
Company's President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO
were responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
were responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time
(the "Claim"). In addition, the plaintiff filed a motion to
certify the complaint as a class action.  The Company was served
with the complaint on February 27, 2013.

On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the securities class action filed against the
Company in the United States ("US Action"). On April 24, 2013, the
Israeli court approved this procedural agreement and stayed the
Israeli proceedings.

On January 7, 2015, the plaintiff, with the consent of the
Company, filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class
action claim) against the Company and the other defendants (the
"Withdrawal Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the
dismissal of the US Action, reached the conclusion that it would
be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and have the
complaint approved as a class action. Neither the plaintiff nor
its attorneys have received nor will receive any benefit in return
for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2015, the Israeli Court approved the Withdrawal
Petition and dismissed the Claim.


MEMPHIS, TN: Class Action Attorney Disqualified in Rape Kit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Tennessee federal magistrate has disqualified a Memphis trial
attorney representing plaintiffs in a putative class action over
unprocessed rape evidence kits, ruling his past tenure as city
attorney bars his participation in the case.

Citing the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, U.S Magistrate
Charmiane Claxton of the Western District of Tennessee ruled
Jan. 5 that attorney Robert Spence should play no role in the
action accusing the city of Memphis of failing to test 15,000 kits
of evidence collected from female sexual assault victims over the
past 25 years.  That alleged failure rendered arrests and
prosecutions unlikely in thousands of cases, the plaintiffs in Doe
v. City of Memphis allege.

Magistrate Claxton agreed with Memphis' attorneys that, because
Mr. Spence served as city attorney from 1997 to 2004, and thus was
in office during part of the span when the evidence went untested,
he played a role in the core issues of the case by virtue of his
post as the city's chief legal officer.

"The scope of Mr. Spence's role as city attorney was exceptionally
broad, and its relationship to the former matter is closely
intertwined because of his role in policymaking and leadership --
both of which are at issue in Plaintiff's case," the magistrate
wrote in her order.

The city had also moved to disqualify The Spence Law Firm, but
Magistrate Claxton denied the request.

In his Oct. 15 response to the city's motion to disqualify him,
Mr. Spence argued he had no knowledge of, or involvement in, rape
evidence kits while city attorney.  He said he played no
substantial role in any issues involving police investigations.

Mr. Spence also disputed the city's allegation that he was privy
to confidential discussions and information that would provide him
an edge in the rape-kit litigation.  He denied having any insights
on the city's legal strategies, particularly since his tenure
ended more than a decade -- and several city administrations --
ago.

Magistrate Claxton disagreed that the passage of time negated
Spence's inside familiarity with the ways of city government.

"(T)here is no evidence that the city has altered these general
strategies or preferences with changes in the administration and
city leadership, and Mr. Spence possesses far great insight into
these than an attorney who has not previously served as city
attorney," Magistrate Claxton wrote.

Mr. Spence also questioned why the city waited 10 months after he
filed the complaint in December 2013 to initiate its push to
disqualify him.  He suggested the city did so for an improper
strategic purpose.

The magistrate acknowledged the city has not articulated any
reason for the delay, and that "it certainly would have been most
prudent to have immediately raised this issue."  But, Magistrate
Claxton ruled, "the court does not find that the delay is so
substantial as to warrant waiver."


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00055 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MGM RESORTS: Court Rules on Discovery Bids in CityCenter Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE MGM MIRAGE SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 2:09-CV-1558-GMN-
VCF, (D. Nev.) involves the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et
al.'s class action against MGM Resorts International, et al. under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78a et seq.

The case involves MGM Resorts multi-billion development plan on
the Las Vegas strip called the "CityCenter Project," which
included numerous high rise buildings, a luxury hotel and casino,
luxury condominiums and 55,000 square feet of retail, dining and
entertainment space.  The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
alleges that between 2007 and 2009, MGM knowingly mislead
investors about its financial health and the success of the
CityCenter Project.

Presently, MGM and the Lead Plaintiffs are conducting discovery in
the action.  MGM filed a Motion to Compel, seeking answers to
interrogatories and responses to several requests for production
of documents.  The Lead Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Compel,
seeking an order that require the Tutor Perini Building
Corporation, which is not a party to the action, to produce
everyting it has regarding the CityCenter Project.  In response,
MGM filed a Motion for a Protective Order to protect Perini from
the Plaintiffs' document subpoena.

In a November 25, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/KEKydVfrom
Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach ruled on three motions:

  -- MGM Resorts International's Motion to Compel is granted.

  -- Arkansas Teacher Retirement System's Motion to Compel is
     denied.

  -- MGM Resorts International's Motion for a Protective Order
     is denied.

Halcrow, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Leland E. Backus,
Backus-Carranza.

Tutor Perini Building Corp., Interested Party, represented by
Amanda C Yen, McDonald Carano Wilson, William A. S. Magrath, II,
McDonald Carano Wilson & George F. Ogilvie, III, McDonald Carano
Wilson LLP.

Robert Lowinger, Plaintiff, represented by David Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack G Fruchter, Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Abraham Fruchter &
Twersky LLP, Joseph Russello, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, Ross C Goodman, Goodman Law Group, Samuel H. Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E Beckworth, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP,
Curtis B. Coulter, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter PC, Darren J.
Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Erik Peterson, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jeffrey J Angelovich, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Lisa Baldwin, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, Matt Keil,
Keil & Goodson P.A., Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Sean M.
Handler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Susan Whatley, Nix,
Patterson & Roach, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Eli R Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Jennifer Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, John Goodson,
Keil & Goodson P.A., Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Stacey M. Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Bradley E Beckworth, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Christopher Nelson, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Curtis B. Coulter, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter
PC, Darren J. Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Eli R
Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Erik Peterson,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jeffrey J Angelovich, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Jennifer Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
John Goodson, Keil & Goodson P.A., Lisa Baldwin, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Margaret Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Matt Keil, Keil & Goodson P.A., Paul A Breucop, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Sean
M. Handler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Stacey M. Kaplan,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Susan Whatley, Nix, Patterson
& Roach, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Luzerne County Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E Beckworth, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP,
Christopher Nelson, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Curtis B. Coulter, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter PC, Darren J.
Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Eli R Greenstein,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Erik Peterson, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Jeffrey J Angelovich, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP,
Jennifer Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, John Goodson,
Keil & Goodson P.A., Lisa Baldwin, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP,
Margaret Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Matt Keil,
Keil & Goodson P.A., Paul A Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Sean M. Handler,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Stacey M. Kaplan, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Susan Whatley, Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Ryan A.
Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Robert W Kegley, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R.
Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog & Griffith H
Hayes, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog.

DeKalb County Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by James M
Wilson, Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, Robert W. Killorin, Chitwood
Harley Harnes LLP, Ze'eva K Banks, Chitwood Harley Harnes & M
Nelson Segel, M Nelson Segel, Chartered.

Khachatur Hovhannisyan, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Diaz,
Law Office of Charles C. Diaz.

Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Bradley E Beckworth, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Curtis B. Coulter, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter PC, Jeffrey J
Angelovich, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, Lisa Baldwin, Nix,
Patterson & Roach, LLP, Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Susan Whatley, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, Arthur C.
Leahy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eli R Greenstein, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Erik Peterson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Jennifer Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd., Matthew I Alpert, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC &
Stacey M. Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
MGM Mirage, Defendant, represented by George M Garvey, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Matthew David Rowen, Munger, Tolles & Olson,
Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC, Benjamin J Maro, Munger, Tolles
& Olson LLP, Brad Brian, Gregory D. Phillips, Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP & Jarrod L. Rickard, Pisanelli Bice PLLC.
James J Murren, Defendant, represented by Charles Elder, Irell &
Manella LLP, Margaret Claire O'Sullivan, Irell & Manella LLP,
William K Briggs, Irell & Manella, Akke Levin, Morris Peterson,
David Siegel, Irell & Manella LLP, Glenn K Vanzura, Irell &
Manella LLP & Steve L. Morris, Morris Law Group.

Daniel J D'Arrigo, Defendant, represented by Charles Elder, Irell
& Manella LLP, Margaret Claire O'Sullivan, Irell & Manella LLP,
William K Briggs, Irell & Manella, Akke Levin, Morris Peterson,
David Siegel, Irell & Manella LLP, Glenn K Vanzura, Irell &
Manella LLP & Steve L. Morris, Morris Law Group.

Robert C Baldwin, Defendant, represented by Charles Elder, Irell &
Manella LLP, Margaret Claire O'Sullivan, Irell & Manella LLP,
William K Briggs, Irell & Manella, Akke Levin, Morris Peterson,
David Siegel, Irell & Manella LLP, Glenn K Vanzura, Irell &
Manella LLP & Steve L. Morris, Morris Law Group.

Deborah Hower Lanni, Co-Executor of the Estate of J. Terrence
Lanni, Defendant, represented by Charles Elder, Irell & Manella
LLP, Glenn K Vanzura, Irell & Manella LLP, Margaret Claire
O'Sullivan, Irell & Manella LLP, William K Briggs, Irell & Manella
& Steve L. Morris, Morris Law Group.


NAVISTAR INC: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fike Logistics, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00254 (N.D.
Ill., January 9, 2015), alleges that Defendant's Advanced EGR
emission control system did not reduce exhaust emissions to the
Environmental Protection Agency Emission Standard and was
defective, causing the MaxxForce Engines to not function on a
consistent and reliable basis, even after repeated warranty
repairs and replacements.

Navistar, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of medium and
heavy trucks and mid-range diesel engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Whitfield, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      19 N. Main Street
      Madisonville, KY 42431
      Telephone: (270) 821-0656
      Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
      E-mail: john@wbmllp.com


OCB RESTAURANT: Faces "Drake" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Drake f/k/a Monica Barrera and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. OCB Restaurant Company, LLC
d/b/a Hometown Buffet, Case No. 0:15-cv-60046 (S.D. Fla., January
9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

OCB Restaurant Company, LLC owns and operates Hometown Buffet
restaurant in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


OURI'S MARKET: "Bonilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Bonilla, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Ouri's Market, Inc. d/b/a Ouri's Fruit and Juice
From The Raw, Gil Galili and Tal Galili, Case No. 1:15-cv-00121
(E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a factory and two locations under
the common trade names Ouri's Fruit and Juice from the Raw in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
(Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2015, that the settlement and award of
fees and expenses in a class action lawsuit remains subject to the
approval of the court in the action.

On October 3, 2014, Continuum Capital, a Transcept shareholder,
filed a purported shareholder class action on behalf of themselves
and the other stockholders of Transcept in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Contra Costa, against
Transcept, its directors, and the Company. The lawsuit alleges
that Transcept's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Transcept's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger and acted on the basis of alleged conflicts of interests,
and that Transcept's registration statement dated September 29,
2014 contains material misstatements and omissions. The lawsuit
also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that Transcept and its Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties, injunctive relief including enjoining the
Merger and the issuance of shares of Transcept to the Company's
stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and an award of
compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

On October 20, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in-
principle providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the
above-referenced action on the terms and conditions set forth in a
stipulation of settlement that will be filed with the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa. Pursuant
to the terms of the settlement, Transcept made certain disclosures
in a Current Report on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC on
October 20, 2014, and which amended and supplemented the
definitive proxy statement/prospectus/information statement filed
by the Company on October 2, 2014 in connection with the proposed
merger. Under the settlement, the parties also agreed to an award
of attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$550,000. The settlement and award of fees and expenses remains
subject to the approval of the court in the action. This
settlement was included in Transcept's general and administration
expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2014.


PENFORD CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Expedited Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Penford Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery in
support of a planned motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin the
scheduled January 29, 2015 shareholder vote to approve a proposed
merger.

On October 14, 2014, the Company and Ingredion Incorporated
("Ingredion") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") pursuant to which Ingredion will acquire the
Company in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $340.0
million. Upon closing of the merger, each outstanding share of the
Company's common stock will be converted into the right to receive
$19.00 in cash. The merger is subject to certain closing
conditions and covenants and provides certain termination rights
for the parties to the Merger Agreement.

In connection with the proposed merger with Ingredion, two
purported class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
Penford Corporation shareholders in the Superior Court of
Washington, King County. A complaint captioned Pill v. Penford
Corp. et al., No. 14-2-29641-0 SEA was filed on October 30, 2014,
and a complaint captioned Toth v. Penford Corp, et al., No. 14-2-
31935-5 SEA, was filed on November 25, 2014. The complaints named
as defendants Penford Corporation, all of the members of Penford
Corporation's board of directors, Ingredion and Prospect Sub, Inc.
(referred to as "Merger Sub"). The complaints allege, among other
things, that the members of Penford Corporation's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by
failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value or to engage
in a fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition
of the Company by Ingredion.

These actions were consolidated on December 18, 2014 under the new
consolidated caption In re Penford Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, No. 14-2-29641-0 SEA. Pursuant to the consolidation
order, plaintiffs were required to file a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Appointment of
Lead and Liaison Counsel seeking an order appointing co-lead and
liaison counsel for plaintiffs and establishing a structure for
coordination and communication among plaintiffs and their counsel.
On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint naming the same defendants as the Pill and
Toth complaints. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the members of Penford's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value or to engage in a fair sale process
before approving the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Ingredion. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the
consideration to be paid by Ingredion is inadequate in light of
the Company's current value and potential for future growth. The
amended complaint also alleges that the Company's transaction
process was designed to ensure that only Ingredion had the
opportunity to acquire the Company and that the use of certain
deal protection mechanisms improperly precluded the Company from
seeking out competing offers.

The amended complaint further alleges that the members of
Penford's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of
candor by failing to disclose to shareholders certain purportedly
material information and by causing materially misleading
information to be disseminated to the Company's shareholders in
the Definitive Proxy Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act filed by the Company with the SEC on December 29,
2014. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose material information concerning Penford's
financial advisor's analyses and potential conflicts of interest,
the Company's financial projections and the Company's transaction
process.

The amended complaint further alleges that Ingredion and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the Penford Corporation board of directors. Plaintiffs seek relief
that includes an injunction prohibiting the completion of the
proposed merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have
already been implemented and payment of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs.

Also on December 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited
Discovery in support of a planned motion seeking to preliminarily
enjoin the scheduled January 29, 2015 shareholder vote to approve
the proposed merger. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling expedited
production of documents by Penford and depositions of certain
members of Penford's board of directors.


PLANTATION GOLF: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Christie v. Plantation Golf and Country Club, Inc., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00034 (M.D. Fla., January 8, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a private golf and tennis club in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Rd, Ste 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


PRIORITY 1 JANITORIAL: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Albaro Cerda-Castro, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Priority 1 Janitorial Services,
Inc. and Glen H. Trebilcock, Case No. 1:15-cv-00189 (N.D. Ill.,
January 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial cleaning and
janitorial services company in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


PUBLIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Accused of Race Bias in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria M. Pico v. Public Health Solutions, Louise Cohen, and
Sheelah A. Feinberg, in their individual and official capacities,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00055-GBD (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) is brought
to remedy alleged violations grounded in discrimination in the
terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of
age, race, and national origin under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Plaintiff is a 43-year old female and is of Ecuadorian
national origin.  She is a resident within Princeton, Mercer
County, state of New Jersey.  She was employed by Public Health
Solutions as the Borough Manager for its tobacco program, the NYC
Coalition for a Smoke-Free City's Manhattan Borough Partnership
located in New York, New York.

Public Health Solutions, is a registered not-for-profit
corporation, EIN 13-5669201, duly authorized, licensed and
registered under the laws of the state of New York with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are officers and employees of Public Health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerardo Elias Mejia, Esq.
          MEJIA LAW FIRM LLC
          305 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 924-9244
          Facsimile: (888) 864-8580
          E-mail: gmejia@mejia-law.com


REDFIN CORP: Removes "Sandoval" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Maurice Sandoval v. Redfin
Corporation, Case No. CIV529735, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-00089-TJH-SH to the proceeding.

The case arose from alleged employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  piya@bamlawca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
          Kathryn M. Weeks, Esq.
          Michael A. Hoffman, III, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          Facsimile: (415) 520-0446
          E-mail: rarena@arenahoffman.com
                  kweeks@arenahoffman.com
                  mhoffman@arenahoffman.com


RELIABLE COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Youmans, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Reliable Collection Agency, Inc., and
Stewart J. Miller, Case No. 1:15-cv-00057 (E.D.N.Y., January 6,
2015) accuses the Defendants 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


RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Paint Products
----------------------------------------------------------
David Sullivan and Kathleen Sullivan, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, RPM
International Inc., and Synta Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00023 (S.D.
Ill., January 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants' paint product
contains serious design and manufacturing defects, making them
susceptible to bubbling, peeling, cracking, flaking, chipping, and
general degradation after proper application.

Rust-Oleum Corporation makes protective paints and coatings for
homes and businesses.

RPM International Inc. the holding company for Rust-
Oleum Corporation and Synta Incorporated.

Synta Inc. is a wholesale paint manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burke, Esq.
      QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (847) 433-4500
      Facsimile: (8470 433-2500
      E-mail: richard@QUlegal.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market St., Suite 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


SERGIO'S TREE: Faces "Acevedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Acevedo, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Sergio's Tree Removal, Inc. and Sergio
Navarro, Case No. 1:15-cv-00218 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides landscaping
and tree services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


SONY PICTURES: Hires Wilmer Attorneys to Defend Data Breach Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that a series
of class actions filed against Sony Pictures Entertainment in the
wake of a massive cyberattack has prompted the company to hire a
team of attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

David Marcus, vice chair of Wilmer's litigation and controversy
department, and Wilmer counsel Christopher Casamassima each filed
notices of appearance as the attorneys for Sony Pictures in some
of those cases, in which the company is accused of failing to
protect its employees' personal information.

Other Wilmer attorneys listed as representing Sony Pictures in
court documents are litigation partners Felicia Ellsworth --
felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com -- William Lee --
william.lee@wilmerhale.com -- and Noah Levine --
noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- and counsel Alan Schoenfeld --
alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com

Wilmer declined to comment on its involvement in the class
actions.

This is the second time in the past several months that Wilmer has
been tapped to represent a company at the center of a high-profile
cyberattack.  In October, The New York Times reported that JP
Morgan Chase would retain the firm after the bank was hacked over
the summer, resulting in a data breach that affected 76 million
households and 7 million businesses.

Wilmer has also been beefing up its cybersecurity expertise,
hiring former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director Robert
Mueller III earlier this year, according to sibling publication
Legal Times.  Mueller has spoken publicly about cybersecurity
threats faced by businesses, calling for legislation that would
allow companies to share cybersecurity information with the
government without the fear of lawsuits, as reported by sibling
publication Corporate Counsel.

For its part, Sony Pictures has been trying to manage its hacking
scandal on multiple fronts.  Earlier in December, it hired Boies,
Schiller & Flexner to go after media outlets that published
information leaked about the company by the hackers, The Am Law
Daily reported.

In one of at least four class actions filed against Sony Pictures
since the hack in November, the plaintiffs allege that "Sony
Pictures failed to adhere to standard business practices for
protecting employee [personal identification information],"
allowing hackers to conduct a widespread data breach into the
company's network and servers. The plaintiffs say they are
bringing the case on behalf of 47,000 former and current
employees.

As a result of the data breach, five films were stolen and shared
online, including one that had not yet been released;
controversial emails between top executives were leaked to the
press; and, according to the plaintiffs, the personal information
of thousands of employees was released to the public.

Though the FBI claimed that the hackers, who call themselves
Guardians of Peace, were working on behalf of the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea in response to the release of the comedy
film "The Interview," North Korea's government has denied
involvement, and security researchers have recently suggested that
the attack actually came from former Sony Pictures employees.

Sony has been vulnerable to hacks in the past, as plaintiffs point
out.  In 2011, a hacker obtained personal information of Sony's
PlayStation Network customers, forcing the company to temporarily
close the accounts of 77 million gamers.  Class actions ensued,
resulting in a settlement that was granted preliminary approval in
July of this year, according to court documents.  In that case,
Sony was represented by a slew of Am Law 200 firms, including DLA
Piper, Ropes & Gray, Jones Day, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn
and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.


STANDARD INSURANCE: Jan. 22 Case Management Conference in "Knox"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit KATHLEEN KNOX, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04469-PJH (N.D. Cal.) has been
reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Judge Hamilton has ordered that a Case Management Conference will
be held in the case on January 22, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California.

A copy of the Court's November 24, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/W8gDdFfrom Leagle.com.

Kathleen Knox, Plaintiff, represented by:

     David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
     DL LAW GROUP
     345 Franklin Street
     San Francisco, CA 94102

Standard Insurance Company, Quantum Corporation Group Long Term
Disability Plan, Defendant, represented by Linda Marie Lawson --
llawson@mmhllp.com -- Meserve Mumper & Hughes LLP & Cindy Nguyen
Mader -- cmader@mmhllp.com -- Meserve Mumper & Hughes LLP.


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zion Fieg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00054-ILG-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) seeks relief
from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SYNGENTA CORP: 3 County Farms Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled 3 County Farms v. Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00153, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas
City).   The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-02029-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Halkett McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-1401
          Facsimile: (662) 234-3060

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Lee Thomas, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          P.O. Box 1789
          Jackson, MS 39215-1789
          Telephone: (601) 592-9912
          Facsimile: (601) 592-1412
          E-mail: sthomas@babc.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Bentlage" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Bentlage, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05151, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).
The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02033-
JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Frederic Speer, Esq.
          SPEER LAW FIRM, PA
          104 W. 9th Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472-3560
          Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
          E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
          James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
                  dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
                  jobrien@seegerweiss.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Cox" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cox v. Syngenta Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04345, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02028-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Randall Alphin, Esq.
          Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
          Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
          STROM LAW FIRM
          2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Telephone: (803) 252-4800
          Facsimile: (803) 252-4801

The Defendants are represented by:

          Henry L. Parr, Jr., Esq.
          Wallace K. Lightsey, Esq.
          WYCHE LAW OFFICE
          44 E Camperdown Way
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 242-8209
          Facsimile: (864) 235-8900
          E-mail: hparr@wyche.com
                  wlightsey@wyche.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Greer" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Greer v. Syngenta Corporation, et
al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04197, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02022-JWL-JPO to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          5200 Norwest Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
          555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Peters, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Klosowski, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 334-5017
          Facsimile: (612) 334-5050
          E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Hostler" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Hostler v. Syngenta Seeds Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04162, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02027-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Swier, Esq.
          Jake Fischer, Esq.
          SWIER LAW FIRM, PROF. LLC
          202 North Main Street
          Avon, SD 57315
          Telephone: (605) 286-3218
          Facsimile: (605) 286-3219
          E-mail: scott@swierlaw.com
                  jake@swierlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
          Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
          Telephone: (205) 238-6757
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 550-4511
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
          Manmeet Walia, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com
                  vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
                  mwalia@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Portera, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
          E-mail: jpotera@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3880
          E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Talbot J. Wieczorek, Esq.
          GUNDERSON, PALMER, NELSON & ASHMORE, LLP
          PO Box 8045
          Rapid City, SD 57709-8045
          Telephone: (605) 342-1078
          Facsimile: (605) 342-0480
          E-mail: TJW@gpnalaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Islington" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Islington Plantation, et al. v.
Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00681, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02020-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
                  scott@bohrerlaw.com

               - and -

          Chet G. Boudreaux, Esq.
          MCKERNAN LAW FIRM
          5630 Bankers Avenue
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 926-1234
          Facsimile: (225) 926-1202
          E-mail: chet@getgordon.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Fewell, Esq.
          RICHARD FEWELL, JR., APLC
          1315 Cypress St.
          West Monroe, LA 71291
          Telephone: (318) 388-3320

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark Christopher Surprenant, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE, LLP
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras St., Suite 4500
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-3234
          Facsimile: (504) 566-0210
          E-mail: mark.surprenant@arlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Pfaff" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pfaff, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04770, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02025-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: flaheym@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2021 Auburn Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45219
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 381-0394
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Peters, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Klosowski, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 334-5017
          Facsimile: (612) 334-5050
          E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Schultz" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Schultz, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04869, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02026-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
          17 Washington Ave. N, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
                  jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                  kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                  bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Peters, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Klosowski, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 334-5017
          Facsimile: (612) 334-5050
          E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Wilson Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wilson Farm Inc., et al. v.
Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01908, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).
The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02032-
JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
          Jason Sapp, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5620
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
                  ggarrison@grgpc.com
                  jsapp@grgpc.com

               - and -

          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          Andrew K. York, Esq.
          Alex Fuller, Esq.
          GRAY, REED & MCGRAW P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com
                  dyork@grayreed.com
                  afuller@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          Brian Vines, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com
                  bvines@hwnn.com

               - and -

          Jason Earley, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 225-5500
          Facsimile: (501) 225-5001
          E-mail: jason@hwnn.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS LLP
          202 S. Franklin St., 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (219) 329-0034
          E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lipman, Esq.
          LIPMAN LAW FIRM
          8450 Hickman Road, Suite 16
          Des Moines, IA 50325
          Telephone: (515) 276-3411
          Facsimile: (515) 276-3736
          E-mail: lipmanlawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc Harding, Esq.
          HARDING LAW OFFICE
          1217 S.W. Army Post Road
          Des Moines, IA 50315
          Telephone: (515) 287-1454
          Facsimile: (515) 287-1442
          E-mail: marc@iowalawattorneys.com

               - and -

          Warren Bell, Esq.
          WESTERFIELD, JANOUSH & BELL P.A.
          307 Cotton Row, Suite 1
          Cleveland, MS 38732
          Telephone: (662) 846-1716
          Facsimile: (662) 846-7134
          E-mail: wbell@wesjan.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert F. Goodwin, Kalpna Chauhan, Gerdgene Karl Veser, and Teddy
K. Veser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-10078
(E.D. Mich., January 9, 2015), alleges that defective vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      101 North Main Street, Suite 565
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 769-2144
      Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
              ktucker@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
      Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
      Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
      POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1520
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 941-4204
      Facsimile: (610) 941-4245
      E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
              tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com
              asciolla@pbmattorneys.com


THREE GUYS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Baez-Ramos, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Three Guys Pizza & Burgers Inc.
d/b/a Roll and Go, Noam Svilem, and Nin Titler, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00151 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief
available by Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Roll and Go restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, PC
      277 Broeadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (211) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (211) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com


THUNDER RIDGE: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weston Herring, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Thunder Ridge Trucking & Filtration, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00062 (D. Colo., January 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Thunder Ridge Trucking & Filtration, Inc. is a company that
contracted with other companies to deliver sand for oil and gas
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


UNITED STATES: No Need to Revise FDA Egg-Labeling Regulations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
California federal court has refused to order federal agencies,
including the U.S. Federal Drug Administration, to adopt
regulations requiring egg producers to label their egg cartons
according to the way they treat their hens.

Instead, the court said the agencies enjoy broad discretion over
how to allocate their resources, throwing out a lawsuit brought by
six consumers and two national animal-advocacy organizations,
Compassion Over Killing and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.  These
plaintiffs argued that eggs from caged hens are nutritionally
inferior and carry a greater risk of salmonella contamination.

Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in Oakland on Dec. 23 granted in full the
FDA's and other defendants' motion for summary judgment, entering
judgment in their favor.

In addition to the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission and two
agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Agriculture Marketing Service and the Food Safety Inspection
Service, were named as defendants.

Between 2006 and 2013, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully petitioned
the agencies to revise or impose regulations requiring producers
to label their eggs as either "free range," "cage free," or "eggs
from caged hens" and provide specific definitions for these terms.

The plaintiffs argued that consumers care about production methods
and rely on the labeling on egg cartons to make purchasing
decisions.  The terms and imagery now used on egg labels are
misleading, often suggesting to consumers that caged hens receive
more humane treatment than the producers actually provide, they
asserted.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the agencies in March 2013,
alleging each denial of the petitions was in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments, Judge Chhabria wrote,
"Under the APA, an agency decision may be disturbed only if it is
'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law.' "

The judge continued, "Here, the FDA detailed the agency's
competing priorities given its limited resources and explained it
had determined that the plaintiffs' proposed rulemaking was not
the best use of its limited resources."  He noted that this was
not a case of an agency being mandated by statute to adopt
regulations on a particular topic.


US BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Force-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Barnard, Dennis Sherman, and Stacey Payton individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
Assurant, Inc., Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, and American
Security Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00008 (S.D. Ohio,
January 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the  mortgage contracts of the Plaintiffs and other Class
members, specifically by charging borrowers for significantly
backdated force-placed insurance policies and by arranging for
kickbacks for themselves and its affiliates in connection with
force-placed insurances.

U.S. Bank, N.A. is one of the nation's largest banks, and has its
principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Assurant, Inc. is a provider of specialized insurance products and
related services.

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company and American Security
Insurance Company are insurance company writing FPI policies in
all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
      Michael J. Boyle Jr., Esq.
      MEYER WILSON
      1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 384-7031
      E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
              mboyle@meyerwilson.com

         - and -

      Kai Richter, Esq.
      Megan Yelle, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com
              myelle@nka.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Langere" in Cal. Over Warranty Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Langere, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00191 (C.D.
Cal., January 9, 2015), arises from a massive fraud perpetrated by
the Defendant in connection with its selling and marketing of its
extended warranty program for mobile phones, specifically by,
failure to disclose to consumers that the phone manufacturer's
express warranty runs concurrently with the extended warranty for
the first year of coverage, and provides no additional benefits
during that time.

Verizon Wireless Services, LLC operates one of the largest
wireless networks in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
      Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
      ESENSTEN LAW
      12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 273-3090
      Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
      E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
              jesensten@esenstenlaw.com


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Received $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voxx International Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 12, 2015, that the Company reported total other expenses
for the nine month period ended November 30, 2014 of $5.2 million
as compared to total other income of $10.5 million in the
comparable period last year.  In Fiscal 2015, the Company recorded
a $6.7 million charge representing the devaluation loss related to
its Venezuelan bonds that were remeasured at August 31, 2014,
resulting in a net Venezuela currency devaluation and translation
loss for the nine months ended November 30, 2014 of $6.2 million.
Additionally, Other, net, decreased by $9.9 million, primarily as
a result of $5.2 million received in a class action settlement,
$4.3 million from an unanticipated customer contract settlement,
and $0.9 million related to Klipsch recoveries.  This was offset
by an accrual of $1.2 million for estimated patent settlements
with certain third parties, among other factors.  The net result
was a $15.7 million decline in total other income (expense) for
the comparable periods.


WAL-MART STORES: Braun Ruling Shows State-Federal Class Suit Rift
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
while the state Supreme Court's recent decision in Braun v.
Wal-Mart might mean a payout of more than $150 million for the
class of employees claiming the retail giant shorted them on work
breaks, according to some attorneys who spoke with Law Weekly, the
decision definitely means a division is brewing between state and
federal courts regarding class actions.

On Dec. 17, 2014, the justices decided, in a 4-1 vote, not to
overturn an approximately $154 million class action damages award
against Wal-Mart.  The majority held that, despite the size of the
188,000-member class, the method used to extrapolate liability and
damages to each member did not constitute an improper "trial by
formula," a practice the U.S. Supreme Court disapproved of in its
2011 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

"In this case, where systemic wage-and-hour violations were
asserted, evidence was presented by appellees that, if believed,
supported an inference that Wal-Mart managers companywide were
pressured to increase profits and decrease payroll by
understaffing stores through the preferred scheduling system, and
that these factors, including the managers' annual bonus
compensation program, impeded the ability of employees, across the
board, to take scheduled, promised, paid rest breaks," the opinion
said.  "The lack of proof of class commonality present in Dukes is
not present here."

However, Justice Thomas G. Saylor issued a dissenting opinion, in
which he said the majority's decision relaxed the approach to
class action law in Pennsylvania.

"Here, the appellee class was permitted to effectively project the
anecdotal experience of each of six testifying class members upon
30,000 other members of the class at large, to extrapolate
abstract data concerning missed and mistimed 'swipes' from 16
Pennsylvania stores to 139 others, to overlay discrete data taken
from several years' experience across a distinct four-year period,
and to attribute a single cause to missed and mistimed swipes, all
despite indisputable variations across store locations, management
personnel, time and other circumstances," Justice Saylor said.

Shannon D. Farmer -- farmers@ballardspahr.com -- a labor and
employment attorney at Ballard Spahr, said that despite the fact
that the Braun case dealt with wage collection claims under state
law, attorneys will not likely see a similar decision from a
federal court.  Ms. Farmer said that while the decision is
arguably an expansion of the standard for establishing a class in
state court, it is definitely a change from how federal courts
handle similar cases.

"It is different than the way more recent cases under the federal
court have looked at the standard," Ms. Farmer said.

According to Ms. Farmer, a number of recent federal cases have
applied the Dukes decision to say that internal policies and a
significant amount of statistical data are not enough to show that
every member of a class suffered losses.

Pete Winebrake, a principal at Winebrake & Santillo, which focuses
on wage and overtime collection, said that while he did not feel
the Braun decision broadened class certification standards in
state court, it departed from a growing trend in federal courts of
being more restrictive on the issue.

Mr. Winebrake said the division between state and federal courts
has less to do with state law becoming more plaintiff-friendly and
more to do with federal law becoming more restrictive.  He said
the trend has been developing over the past decade, and that the
Dukes case was an example of federal courts "clamping down" on
class actions.

"The fact of the matter is that the class certification standards
under state law have always been more plaintiff-friendly, and I
think that the Wal-Mart decision is reinforcing that distinction,"
he said.

Thomas More Marrone, who heads the class action and complex
litigation practice at Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores,
however, disagreed that state court is typically more plaintiff-
friendly than federal court.  The Dukes decision, he said, was
based on varied claims, and whether there was harm at all was
dependent on a specific manager's decision regarding a specific
time.

"There were so many what-ifs," he said.  "Dukes didn't surprise
me."

However, he added that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
continued to support the notion that not all claims in a class
action suit will be identical, or that each claim must be
individually proven.

The Braun decision, he said, has broad applicability.  Along with
the 2009 decision in Liss & Marion PC v. Recordex Acquisition,
which the justices cited in Braun and which Marrone argued, the
decision, he said, will provide solid guidance for trial and
appellate courts regarding class action certification.

"Braun spin-proofs prior Pennsylvania jurisprudence on class
actions," he said.

Mr. Winebrake said the state court reaffirming its position on
class actions could accelerate the trend of plaintiffs attorneys
bringing employment-related claims in state rather than federal
courts.  Mr. Winebrake noted that five years ago his firm was
filing 80 to 90 percent of its claims in federal court, but now
the percentage is closer to 50-50.

Along with more lax certification standards, the substantive law
for state claims is often more plaintiff-friendly than related
claims under federal statutes, Mr. Winebrake said.  He speculated
that plaintiffs attorneys might increasingly abandon their federal
claims in order to litigate claims in state court.

"You have these areas where the class action law is better and the
substantive law is better, so why even bother with asserting a
federal claim," he said.

However, Mr. Winebrake noted that state courts in more rural
districts might not be adept at handling class claims, and so
there still would be an advantage to filing in federal court.

"I think there's a question as more plaintiffs lawyers start
filing" in state courts, he said.  "Are the upstate courts
equipped to handle class actions?"

Mr. Winebrake said he could also see defense attorneys seek to
have claims tossed from state to federal courts.  One way, he
said, would be to argue an increased value of the class' claim
because the federal Class Action Fairness Act allows for diversity
citizenship jurisdiction in class actions worth more than $5
million.

"As the rift widens between federal and state courts, and how they
look at class actions, the maneuvering to remove cases is going to
be more aggressive by defense counsel," Mr. Winebrake said.

Ms. Farmer agreed that the Braun decision may spur more
collections actions to be filed in state courts, and added that,
more broadly, plaintiffs attorneys may seek to push the court's
use of statistical data and questionable internal company policies
in establishing liability -- particularly, she said, when
liability in a case is difficult to prove.

"If people believe that all they need to use is some statistical
data," the ruling could be used to try to expand existing law,
Ms. Farmer said.

But, she added, that brings up a new batch of questions over the
documentation, the types of the breaks and the nature of data
itself.


WAL-MART STORES: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Ruling Significant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea M. Kirshenbaum and William J. Flannery, writing for The
Legal Intelligencer, report that on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania made clear how costly wage-and-hour litigation can be
to Pennsylvania employers by affirming an award of over $187
million dollars against Wal-Mart for claims relating to rest
breaks and off-the-clock work in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2014
Pa. LEXIS 3324 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014).

The dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas G. Saylor in the case is
a clarion call to Pennsylvania employers (as well as the
Pennsylvania legislature) to stand up and take notice of the
significance of this decision.  Opining that the trial court and
Superior Court implemented "a severely lax approach to the
application of governing substantive law in the issuance and
sustainment of an almost $200 million verdict based on proof which
was insufficient to establish liability and damages across a
187,000-member class," Justice Saylor went on to say as follows:
"Although I take no issue with the majority's observation that the
burden of proof may be relaxed to some degree in wage-and-hour
cases, the latitude extended in this case is of an untenable
magnitude.  Here, the appellee class was permitted to effectively
project the anecdotal experience of each of six testifying class
members upon 30,000 other members of the class at large, to
extrapolate abstract data concerning missed and mistimed 'swipes'
from 16 Pennsylvania stores to 139 others, to overlay discrete
data taken from several years' experience across a distinct four-
year period, and to attribute a single cause to missed and
mistimed swipes, all despite indisputable variations across store
locations, management personnel, time, and other circumstances.
. . . It is very troublesome for the same to be relied upon in
courts of law as the essential support for a large-scale class
action verdict."

The Braun class consisted of 187,979 hourly paid employees who
worked for Wal-Mart from March 19, 1998, to Dec. 27, 2005.  The
class members claimed that they were not given the paid breaks
that they were promised in the employee handbook, and that they
were often forced to work "off-the-clock," in violation of a
handbook provision stating that they would be paid for all time
worked.  After a lengthy jury trial that included the presentation
of fact and expert witnesses, the jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs.  The size of the verdict was significantly enhanced by
the liquidated damages and attorney fees provisions of the Wage
Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) to the tune of more than $96
million dollars.

At trial, plaintiffs' expert presented testimony to the jury that
store managers were financially incentivized with significant
year-end bonuses keyed to store profitability.  This created,
according to plaintiffs, an incentive to understaff stores and
require employees to miss breaks and work off-the-clock as a means
of minimizing expenses.  The defendant presented an expert who
testified that there was no link between Wal-Mart's managers'
bonus compensation program and rest breaks and that the
plaintiffs' expert testimony was based on an "erroneous comparison
of employee hours and store profitability."

At issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether Wal-
Mart was improperly subjected to "trial-by-formula," a process
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes,
131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
(2013), on due process grounds.

The Braun court rejected Wal-Mart's due process "trial-by-formula"
argument explaining that, from the court's perspective, the record
in the case contained actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of
the Wal-Mart, not just factual projections, and that the formula
process was limited to the calculation of damages, and not to
establishing liability.  The court reasoned that the evidence of
Wal-Mart's liability to the "entire class" was "established at
trial by presentation of Wal-Mart's own universal employment and
wage policies, as well as its own business records and internal
audits."  While the state Supreme Court attempted to distinguish
its holding from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dukes, as
Saylor stated in his dissent, the opinion of the court in Braun
effectively relaxes the burden of proof in the wage-and-hour class
action context in Pennsylvania state courts.

The decision in Braun is all the more stark in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk,
(Dec. 9, 2014, No. 13-433), issued just days before Braun.  The
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing held that time
spent waiting in line to pass through security checkpoints is not
compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Would
Integrity Staffing have turned out differently under Pennsylvania
law? Perhaps.  As with its federal counterpart, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) does not define the term "work."  It
parrots the FLSA, which defines to "employ" to mean "to suffer or
to permit to work."  But, unlike the FLSA, the PMWA does not
include identical portal-to-portal precepts.  The PMWA
specifically authorizes the secretary of Labor and Industry to
make and revise regulations implementing the act.  Section 231.1
(b), paragraph nine defines "hours worked" as follows:

"The term includes time during which an employee is required by
the employer to be on the premises of the employer, to be on duty
or to be at the prescribed workplace, time spent in traveling as
part of the duties of the employee during normal working hours and
time during which an employee is employed or permitted work;
provided, however, that time allowed for meals shall be excluded
unless the employee is required or permitted to work during that
time, and provided further, that time spent on the premises of the
employer for the convenience of the employee shall be excluded."

Would time waiting in line to pass through an employer-mandated
security clearance be considered time "required by the employer to
be on the premises of the employer . . . or to be at the
prescribed workplace"? A state court certainly could reach that
conclusion.

The clear message for employers emerging from Braun is that
employers in Pennsylvania must review their employee handbooks
with a renewed awareness that under the WPCL any promises made
will create WPCL obligations beyond those of traditional wage-and-
hour laws like the FLSA and PMWA.  Moreover, employers in
Pennsylvania should be acutely aware that if promised, paid breaks
must be provided or else employees will be entitled to additional
compensation for time worked during breaks.  More generally,
Pennsylvania employers should be mindful of potential distinctions
between Pennsylvania and federal wage-and-hour law, and analyze
their policies to comply with both.

As a result of Braun, Pennsylvania employers are now on notice
that class action cases under the WPCL likely will increase.
Reliance on well-established federal law principles is not enough
to protect against wage-and-hour liability in the state.  For
Pennsylvania employers it is time to review wage-and-hour
policies, to provide managerial training on all relevant policies,
and to take the steps necessary to ensure that payroll and
workplace practices are in compliance with both federal and state
law.

Employers in Pennsylvania can take comfort that under the WPCL,
they are the masters of their own fate.  Unlike other laws,
employers have the ability to define the scope of their legal
obligations under the WPCL.  Employers should seize upon the
opportunity to delineate the contours of those obligations and
consider revising their policies to mitigate against potential
risks under the WPCL post-Braun.


* Wage-and-Hour Suits to Hit Employers in 2015, Report Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
growing number of wage and hour lawsuits will continue to be a
source of significant financial exposure for employers in 2015 and
is "the No. 1 headache in corporate America today in terms of
workplace issues," according to attorney Gerald Maatman Jr.,
author of a new litigation trends report.

If employers or general counsel are thinking of spending
compliance dollars in 2015, Mr. Maatman told CorpCounsel.com on
Jan. 6, "at the very top of the list has to be how to pay
employees and make sure payroll systems are compliant with federal
and state laws."

Mr. Maatman, cochairman of Seyfarth Shaw's class action defense
group, authored the 844-page "Workplace Class Action Litigation
Report" after he and colleagues analyzed 1,219 class action
rulings by state and federal courts in 2014.

"The wave of wage and hour filings has yet to crest," the report
states, warning that employers can expect to see novel litigation
theories and more off-the-clock litigation brought by nonexempt
employees.  Such suits would attack rounding practices and seek
pay for increased work-related use of mobile electronic devices
while off duty.

Increased litigation also is expected over independent contractor
classification, joint employer liability, other off-the-clock
work, unpaid overtime, missed or late meal and rest breaks, time
shaving and improper tip pooling, according to the report.

The report also warns of increased activity by federal agencies.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission "continued their aggressive litigation
approaches" in 2014 despite some setbacks in federal courts.
Their aggregate settlement recoveries, however, were significantly
lower in 2014 than at any time since 2006, according to the
report.

But Mr. Maatman suggested employers also pay special attention to
the state level, where 2014 saw many changes in workplace laws,
including changes to the minimum wage.  "Legislative systems sneak
up on employers," he said.  "Keeping current with what the law
requires needs someone assigned full time to make sure the
employer is compliant."

Mr. Maatman said he is seeing more large corporations appointing
assistant general counsel to take charge of employment law and
focus full time on compliance.

"If I were general counsel," he added, "I would also invest in
self-audits and continuous programs of enhancements" to workplace
compliance systems.


                             *********

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  * * *