CAR_Public/150122.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 16


                             Headlines

5TH AVENUE MARKET: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Cloud Subscription Fees
AHOLD: Period to Appeal From Class Action Settlement Expires
ALIPHCOM: N.D. California Court Dismisses "Frenzel" Class Suit
ALLIANCE HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Bank" Suit Says

ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Preliminary OK of Settlement Denied Again
AMERICAN REALTY: Sued for Misrepresenting Secondary Offering
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
APCO OIL: Entered Into MOU in Shareholder Actions
BARCLAYS PLC: Great Pacific Suit Consolidated in LX Dark Pool MDL

BB FRANCHISING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
BEACON WINE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BITCASA INC: Court Rules on Injunction Bid in "Romack" Suit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed
CAMELOT INFORMATION: May 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CB FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed All Claims in "Sutton" Case
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Arnold" Derivative Action Dismissed
CHICAGO, IL: May Refund Speed Camera Fines Under Class Action
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Sued Over Employment Bias and Retaliation
CONSUMER ENERGY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims

CPS SECURITY: On-Call Workers Must Be Compensated for Hours Worked
CVS PHARMACY: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
DART CHEROKEE: Class Action Removal Pleading Standard Clarified
DEER CONSUMER: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Securities Laws
DENTSPLY INT'L: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Claims
ELECSYS CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Madden" Class Action
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid to Depose Plaintiff Over Evidence Nixed

FLORIDA GAS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim
FIVE BELOW: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
FORD MOTOR: Removes "Ellis" Suit to California District Court
GENTIVA HEALTH: Entered Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Litigation
GEORGIA: Motion to Dismiss Same Sex Marriage Class Action Denied

GUCCI AMERICA: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court
HORVAT DESIGN: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JRK RESIDENTIAL: Court Certifies Background Check Class Action
KINROSS GOLD: Clarifies Leave Test in Securities Class Action

LIFETOUCH CHURCH: Sued in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LINCARE INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
LINCOLN PARK MOTEL: Judgment in "Zhao" Minimum Wage Suit Upheld
MAG & SOK: "Ferreiro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASSACHUSETTS: Eases Rules for Homeless Families in Danvers

MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Lawson" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid
MIA MAX: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MONTREAL MAINE: Settles Lac-Megantic Rail Disaster Class Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeal in Brain-Injury Class Suit Is Premature

NAVISTAR INC: Faces Suit in Minnesota Alleging Product Liability
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Foreclosure Policies
ON DEMAND SEDAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
ONE PLUS: "Portillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

ONE STOP: "Redouane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
PACIFIC BELL: Meal Break Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid
PILOT FLYING J: Judge Seeks More Details on Business Arrangements
PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

RECORDS IMAGING: Insurer's Suit Stayed Pending Class Action
RED ONE: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Summary Judgment Bids in "Luftig" Case Denied
SAFEWAY INC: Class Claims Nixed in "Richards" All Natural Case

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Oklahoma
SANTANDER DRIVE: Plaintiffs Dismiss State Court Complaint
SANTANDER DRIVE: DBTCA Reviewing Newly Filed Pleadings
SKECHERS USA: Faces 8 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
SPARKLE INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime, Suit Claims

SRA ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Runsick" Suit in Arkansas District Court
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Hodgson" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TELECHECK SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in "Huff" Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Data Sharing
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Dismissal Motion in Junk Fax Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Removes "Carlson" Suit to Georgia District Court
UNITED WELLNESS: Plaintiff's Bid for Default Judgment Granted
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Attorney Fees Unreasonable, Court Rules

WESBANCO INC: Has Deal to Resolve ESB Merger Class Suit
WET SEAL: Appeal Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration Motion

* Consumer Group to Help Food Scandal Victims File Class Action
* Ontario Law Commission Evaluates Class Action Procedures
* Use of Cy Pres Relief in Settlements Raises Controversy


                            *********


5TH AVENUE MARKET: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 5th Avenue Market Inc. d/b/a Fifth Avenue Market, 434
Market & Deli Inc. d/b/a Fifth Avenue Market, Mohamed Ali, and
Resk Ali, Case No. 1:15-cv-00189 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 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 a 24-hour deli and grocery store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: morales@pechmanlaw.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Cloud Subscription Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that
a California federal judge on Jan. 8 tossed a putative class
action accusing Adobe Systems Inc. of charging an illegal
termination fee for its cloud subscription service to blockbuster
applications such as Photoshop, ruling the fee was an alternative
to performance rather than a penalty.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Adobe's motion to dismiss the
June 2014 suit, which claimed the company's early termination fee
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.  Plaintiff Scotty Mahlum alleged the fee, which can
run hundreds of dollars, was an unlawful liquidated damages
provision.

Judge Koh, however, held that when a contract allows a party to
terminate the agreement early in exchange for a lump payment, it
is not considered a penalty.  The termination fee isn't triggered
when a subscriber breaches the deal, such as by failing to pay a
monthly fee, but gives them a legitimate option when they change
their mind and want to cancel the deal.

"Because the ETF is not imposed as a result of breach, it is not a
liquidated damages clause," Judge Koh wrote.  "Plaintiff only
alleges that the ETF is imposed upon the customer's affirmative
and voluntary cancellation of the subscription agreement."

Judge Koh gave Mr. Mahlum two weeks to amend the complaint,
writing he could successfully bring claims based on other
provisions of the contract that show the fee is imposed as a
result of a breach.  But Mr. Mahlum's attorney said during a case
management conference on Jan. 8 he would rather appeal the order
instead of filing a new complaint.

Subscribers pay $49.99 per month for access to Adobe's complete
cloud suite or $9.99 per month for access to individual programs.
But if they end their contracts early, Adobe charges them 50
percent of the remaining value of the contract -- a profit,
according to Mr. Mahlum's complaint.  The entire fee is a windfall
because Adobe has no expenses after a subscriber downloads its
software, Mr. Mahlum claimed.

The Creative Cloud programs include Photoshop, Illustrator,
InDesign, Premiere, After Effects, Audition, Dreamweaver and other
programs.

Mr. Mahlum argued the court couldn't determine the nature of the
fee on a motion to dismiss because it was a factual issue and that
his complaint sufficiently alleged the fees met the definition of
an invalid penalty.

But Judge Koh sided with Adobe and found it was not a factual
issue, and that it was up to courts to decide even before summary
judgment.  A case cited by Mr. Mahlum was distinct because it
involved a fee that was imposed involuntarily without consumer
consent, according to the opinion.

The court found the fee was an alternatives means of performance
because it offered customers a rational choice: they can pay the
remaining monthly installments left on their plan, cancel and pay
half as a fee or refuse to pay entirely, thereby breaching the
agreement.

"We don't think this is a close question," Trenton H. Norris --
Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP, representing
Adobe, told Law360.  "A contrary decision would invalidate
standard subscription-based pricing models across all sorts of
industries and would come close to mandating a 'pay as you go' or
'month-to-month' pricing model, at least in California."

In a December 2013 earnings report, Adobe revealed it had ended
the 2013 fiscal year with 1.4 million Creative Cloud paid
subscriptions, an increase of 1.1 million over the course of the
year.  The complaint claimed that the company's revenue from the
cloud model jumped from $160 million in the second quarter of 2012
to $255 million in the second quarter of 2013.

Mr. Mahlum is represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com
-- and Yeremey Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor &
Fisher PA.

Adobe is represented by Trenton H. Norris, Zachary B. Allen and
Jonathan L. Koenig -- Jonathan.Koenig@aporter.com -- of Arnold &
Porter LLP.

The case is Scotty Mahlum v. Adobe Systems Inc., case number 5:14-
cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


AHOLD: Period to Appeal From Class Action Settlement Expires
------------------------------------------------------------
Ahold on Jan. 9 disclosed that the appeal period regarding the
court approval of the settlement of the class action in the United
States, which it has referred to in its annual reports as the
"Waterbury litigation", has expired and the settlement is now
final.  Ahold previously announced on May 21, 2014 that it had
reached the settlement which was subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The settlement was approved by the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut in December 2014 and the
settlement amount of $297 million has been paid from Ahold's
existing provision.  Accordingly, the Waterbury settlement has now
become final, and the potential liability for Ahold in this class
action has been resolved.


ALIPHCOM: N.D. California Court Dismisses "Frenzel" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed on
December 19, 2014, a putative class action against Aliphcom for
its fitness-tracking wristband.

The case is Robert Frenzel v. Aliphcom, Case No. 3:14-cv-03587-
WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ALLIANCE HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Bank" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliance Health Networks, LLC, formerly Alliance
Health Networks, Inc., Ingram Medical Administration, Inc., a/ k/a
Ingram Medical, and Medsource RX Pharmacy, LLC, d/b/a Medsource
Diabetic, Medsource RX, and Your Diabetic Pharmacy, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00213 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
used an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message to
advertise the commercial availability or quality of diabetic-
testing equipment.

The Defendants own and operate an innovative technology company
whose mission is to improve health outcomes, lower costs and
foster a more consumer-centric healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
      119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 520-7125
      E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Preliminary OK of Settlement Denied Again
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato issued a second order on January 9,
2015, denying preliminary approval of class action settlement in
JOAN MYLES, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-05761-JD, (N.D. Cal.).

In this complaint, Joan Myles, on behalf of herself and a putative
class of approximately 11,500 security officers, has sued her
former employer, AlliedBarton Security Services, for penalties
under California Labor Code Section 203. The parties previously
moved for approval of a proposed class settlement, which the Court
denied on November 12, 2014, because the proposed deal was replete
with indicia that it would benefit the defendant and class counsel
at the expense of the absent class members. The parties filed a
second proposed class settlement on December 12, 2014.

According to Judge Donato's ruling, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/kNEeF1from Leagle.com, "While they tried to
portray the new proposal as a fresh start, they failed correct
many of the prior problems that doomed the first effort.
Consequently, the Court denies the proposed class settlement for a
second time and restores this case to the trial schedule
previously ordered."

"[T]the parties have not addressed the two most fundamental
issues. First, the settlement amount is extremely low in
comparison to the only mathematical estimates of liability
provided by the parties, and the parties have not provided any
justification for the steeply discounted settlement amount," he
said.  "Second, because the release covers putative class members
who received notice even if they made no claim for money,
"[AlliedBarton's] liability would be limited on a 'claims-made'
basis. . . . But the release is not imposed on a 'claims-made'
basis."

The Court previously informed the parties that such a wide
disjunction between the scope of the release and the scope of
liability would be grounds for denial, but the parties did not
take that instruction to heart, noted Judge Donato. That, in
combination with the proposed settlement's other flaws,
necessitates denial of preliminary approval.

AlliedBarton mentioned at the hearing that it plans to move for
summary judgment. The most recent scheduling order in this case
sets the deadline for motions for summary judgment and motions for
class certification as February 9, 2015. The parties are expected
to hold to those deadlines, and to the previously ordered trial
schedule.

Joan Myles, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh
Law Group.

AlliedBarton Security Services LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeremy T. Naftel -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP & Nicole A. Legrottaglie --
nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante Freudenberger
LLP.


AMERICAN REALTY: Sued for Misrepresenting Secondary Offering
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that American
Realty Capital Properties raised nearly $1.6 billion in a
secondary offering of common stock based on material
misrepresentations, a federal class action alleges.

The City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund filed the
complaint on December 29 against ARCP, which it describes as a
Maryland-based real estate investment trust with offices in New
York.

Founded in 2010, the trust had 3,809 properties as of March 31,
2014, consisting of 101.8 million square feet of leasable space,
according to the complaint.  The class takes aim at the "untrue
statements" that the trust allegedly included in the registration
statement prepared in connection with its sale of 138 million
shares of common stock for its May 21, 2014, secondary offering,
at $12 a share.

In addition to a $12 million overstatement of its noncontrolling
interests in the calculation of adjusted funds from operations
(AFFO), the trust overstated AFFO by $10.9 million for the fiscal
period ended June 30, the class alleges.

AFFO measures a trust's net income, according to the complaint.

The class says the trust also failed to disclose inadequate
internal controls.

Five months after the offering brought in net proceeds of $1.59
billion, the trust announced on Oct. 29 that the forms it
previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
should not be relied upon.

Because the trust "admitted that its registration statement and
its disclosures and filings incorporated . . . were materially
false and misleading," the trust announced that it would be
restating its audited consolidated financial results.

Shares fell 36 percent in intraday trading to as low as $7.85 on
Oct. 29, according to the complaint.

Among the trust's revelations on Oct. 29 was "that its audit
committee determined that the financial statement
misrepresentations were 'intentionally made' and 'intentionally
not corrected' and that the company's chief financial officer and
chief accounting officer who 'had key roles in the preparation of
those financial statements' had resigned and were no longer with
the company," according to the complaint.

Soon thereafter, "news spread quickly that investigations were
being launched" by the SEC, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York, the class says.

Among the late 2014 executive departures at American Realty
Capital Properties were Nick Schorsch, who stepped down as
executive chairman and from board of directors; and David Kay, who
stepped down as CEO and from the board.

Both are named as defendants, among various other officers and the
companies that handled the trust's underwriting.

The underwriters are Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.;
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Barclays Capital Inc.; JP Morgan
Securities LLC; Capital One Securities Inc.; Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Wells Fargo
Securities LLC; Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc.; Ledenburg Thalmann &
Co. Inc.; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; JMP Securities LLC; Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC; Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; PNC Capital
Markets LLC; Piper Jaffray & Co.; and RBS Securities Inc.

The class seeks compensatory damages and rescission for violations
of federal securities law.

The Class is represented by:

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          28 West 44th Street #2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2015,
that the Company and BTU International, Inc., along with the other
defendants, entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
two separate putative stockholder class action lawsuits relating
to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

As disclosed, Amtech Systems, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated
October 21, 2014, by and among the Company, BTU International,
Inc. ("BTU"), and BTU Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into BTU with BTU surviving
as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").

In connection with the Merger, the Company and BTU filed a
definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy
Statement"), dated December 23, 2014, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The special meeting of the
Company's stockholders is scheduled to be held on January 29, 2015
at The Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, 60 East 5th Street, Tempe,
Arizona.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle two separate putative
stockholder class action lawsuits relating to the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including the Merger
(together, the "Stockholder Actions"), which were previously
disclosed in the Proxy Statement under the caption, "The Merger --
Litigation Relating to the Merger." Pursuant to the MOU, the
parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims
made therein and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain
additional disclosures regarding the Merger, as set forth herein.
The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and
conditions, including court approval, and will include an
agreement by the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, on behalf
of each stockholder class, to provide a release of all claims
against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named
therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law
claims. In addition, as part of the settlement, BTU, or its
successor, has agreed to be responsible for the payment of certain
amounts in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in connection
with the settlement. The Company and BTU entered into the MOU
solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
such settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The following disclosures are intended to supplement the sections
of the Proxy Statement referenced therein and should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement. These additional disclosures
will not affect the timing of the special meeting of stockholders
of the Company to vote upon the proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement and to approve the Merger. Page references in the
following disclosures are to the Proxy Statement, and defined
terms used, but not otherwise defined, in the following
disclosures shall have the meanings set forth in the Proxy
Statement.


APCO OIL: Entered Into MOU in Shareholder Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Apco Oil and Gas International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 16, 2015, that parties to the Shareholder Actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims asserted in the Shareholder
Actions.

As disclosed, on October 2, 2014, Apco Oil and Gas International
Inc. ("Apco" or the "Company"), Pluspetrol Resources Corporation
("Parent") and Pluspetrol Black River Corporation, a subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Apco, with Apco surviving the merger as a
subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by
the Company on December 22, 2014 (the "Definitive Proxy
Statement"), following the announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, three putative class actions
were filed in the District Court of Tulsa County in the State of
Oklahoma on behalf of purported shareholders of the Company
against the Company, its directors and the Company's majority
shareholder, WPX Energy, Inc. ("WPX"). The first putative class
action, which is captioned Michael Italiaander v. Apco Oil and Gas
International Inc. et al., CJ-2014-04027, was filed on October 23,
2014 (the "Italiaander Action"). The plaintiff in the Italiaander
Action filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2014. The second
putative class action, which is captioned Brian Buckholz v. Apco
Oil and Gas International Inc. et al., CJ-2014-04416, was filed on
November 17, 2014 (the "Buckholz Action"). The third putative
class action, which is captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Apco Oil and
Gas International Inc. et al., CJ-2014-04417, was also filed on
November 17, 2014 (the "Stein Action"). A fourth putative class
action, which is captioned Assad v. Apco Oil and Gas International
Inc. et al., 4:14-cv-00707-GKF-TLW, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of
purported shareholders of the Company against the Company, its
directors, Parent, and Merger Sub on November 24, 2014 (the "Assad
Action") (together with the Italiaander Action, the Buckholz
Action, and the Stein Action, the "Shareholder Actions"). On
December 3, 2014 the Italiaander Action, Buckholz Action, and
Stein Action were consolidated into a single action, captioned In
Re Apco Oil And Gas International Inc. Purported Class Action
Litigation, Master File No. CJ-2014-04027.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate
consideration, by engaging in a flawed sales and negotiation
process, by agreeing to improper deal-protection terms in the
Merger Agreement, and by approving the preliminary proxy statement
as filed with the SEC on October 31, 2014, which allegedly
contained material misrepresentations and omissions. Additionally,
each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that certain of the
Company's directors had conflicts of interest in approving the
Merger due to their respective affiliations with WPX. The Assad
Action further alleges that Parent and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the Company's directors' breaches of fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders; that the Company's directors violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; and that
the Company's directors, Parent, and Merger Sub violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Each of the Shareholder Actions seeks,
among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief against the
Merger and costs and fees.

On January 16, 2015, the parties to the Shareholder Actions
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
an agreement in principle to resolve the claims asserted in the
Shareholder Actions (the "Settled Claims"). The MOU provides that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into
a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the settlement contemplated by the MOU will be submitted to the
District Court of Tulsa County in the State of Oklahoma for
approval. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, the
Settled Claims will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of the
settlement, the Company, its directors, WPX, Parent and Merger Sub
(the "Defendants") deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny
that the disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement were
inadequate, but have agreed to provide supplemental disclosures.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the Extraordinary
General Meeting of Apco stockholders or the Merger, or the amount
of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Shareholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and
to minimize the expense of defending such action, Apco has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  Apco and the other
named Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously
to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the
commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were alleged in the Shareholder Actions, and
expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied
with their fiduciary and other legal duties and are providing
these supplemental disclosures solely to seek to eliminate the
burden and expense of further litigation, to put to rest claims
relating to the Merger that have been or could have been asserted,
and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that
might arise from further litigation. Nothing in this Current
Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth.


BARCLAYS PLC: Great Pacific Suit Consolidated in LX Dark Pool MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Great Pacific Securities v.
Barclays PLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01210, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 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-00168-JMF to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Barclays Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading
Litigation, MDL No. 2589.

The consolidated litigation concerns the operation of the Barclays
Liquidity Cross or "LX" dark pool.  The Plaintiffs assert that
Barclays misrepresented the LX dark pool as a safe haven for
investors -- a place insulated from aggressive and predatory high
frequency trading (HFT) practices.  In reality, according to the
complaints, Barclays actively courted HRT firms for the dark pool,
providing them with material nonpublic information and associated
perks that gave them an unfair advantage over other traders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com
                  fbottini@bottinilaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq.
          Kevin Patrick O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: etran@cpmlegal.com
                  jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  kobrien@cpmlegal.com
                  mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
                  nnishimura@cpmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam S. Paris, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
          Telephone: (310) 712-6600
          Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
          E-mail: parisa@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com


BB FRANCHISING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Aventura Chiropractic Care Center, Inc., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. BB Franchising LLC and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-20137 (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2015), seeks to redress
the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

BB Franchising LLC offer an effective, non-medical and non-
pharmaceutical program designed to help children become more
focused in their everyday activities, improve their academic
performance, and increase their occurrence of positive behavior,
resulting in enhanced communication and social interaction skills.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (8470 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BEACON WINE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Alvarez Ortega, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated cashiers v. Beacon Wine and Spirits, Mitchell's
Wine and Liquor Store and Chiyoung Chung, individually, Case No.
1:15-cv-00257 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages, and liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two liquor stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


BITCASA INC: Court Rules on Injunction Bid in "Romack" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted, in part, Plaintiff's request
for preliminary injunction in the case captioned SHAWN ROMACK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BITCASA, INC., Defendant, No. C 14-05005 WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Shawn Romack filed a putative class action involving
cloud data-storage services by Defendant Bitcasa Inc. seeking to
represent a class of all persons in the United States who were
enrolled in Bitcasa's Infinite data storage plan.

Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Further,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Bitcasa was holding its customers
data ransom with an insufficient amount of time to decide whether
to pay ten times more for an inferior service or risk losing all
of their data.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction asking (1) to enjoin
Bitcasa from, among others, deleting, disabling, or impeding
access to any data or content stored on Bitcasa's cloud computing
platform and (2) to require Bitcasa to meet-and-confer with
plaintiff regarding an "agreement on a reasonably sufficient
period of time to remove their data from Bitcasa's cloud computing
platform or other similar systems.

Defendant Bitcasa filed its opposition and moved to dissolve the
temporary restraining order.

In his Order, Judge Alsup partly granted Plaintiff's Preliminary
Injunction by ruling that Plaintiff failed to show that he is
entitled to the vast injunction requested because all or almost
all of his alleged damages can be avoided or mitigated and that
Plaintiff also failed to show evidence that a class-wide
injunction is necessary to remedy the alleged harm. In addition,
Judge Alsup recognized Plaintiff's admission that he has retrieved
approximately two terabytes of his 7.7 terabytes of data and
emphasized that Plaintiff can pay $99 for a one-month extension of
time so that he can migrate and download his data.

A copy of the Order dated November 19, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/jq3WWDfrom Leagle.com.

Shawn Romack, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S Elias, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Roger Norton Heller --
rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Bitcasa, Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown --
mbrown@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the request of Caesars
Entertainment Corp. to dismiss, in its entirety, the purported
class action complaint filed by Frederick Barton Danner.

Judge Scheindlin granted, in part, and denied, in all other
respects, the request of CEC to dismiss the complaint filed by
MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Funds, LP, Relative Value-
Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds Trust, SB 4 CF LLC,
CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC.
Specifically, the judge said the MeehanCombs Complaint is
dismissed with respect to the section 316(a) claim, without
prejudice.  The Court said MeehanCombs et al. have until January
29, 2015 to file an amended complaint.

A conference is scheduled for February 3, 2015 at 4:30 p.m.

The MeehanCombs and Danner plaintiffs are holders of notes issued
by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., pursuant to
indentures, and -- until the issuance of supplemental indentures
in August 2014 -- guaranteed by CEC.  Plaintiffs allege that the
August 2014 Transaction violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
and breached the governing Indentures as well as the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Amendments effectively left CEC free to transfer CEOC's assets
without any obligation to back CEOC's debts.  Furthermore, the
purchase price paid for the Notes of the noteholders who approved
the August 2014 Transaction, the Favored Noteholders -- par plus
accrued interest and transactional fees and costs represented an
extraordinary 100% premium over market.  In exchange for receiving
all amounts owed under their Notes, the Favored Noteholders
promised to: (1) support any future restructuring proposed by
Caesars; (2) consent to "the removal and acknowledgment of the
termination of the CEC guarantee of the Securities"; and (iii)
consent to the "modification of] the covenant restricting
disposition of 'substantially all' of CEOC's assets to measure
future asset sales based on CEOC's assets as of the date of the
amendment."

Plaintiffs contend that the August 2014 Transaction removed the
Guarantees given by the asset-rich parent company, CEC, leaving
plaintiffs and the other bondholders with a worthless right to
collect principal and interest from the issuer, CEOC, a company
divesting itself of assets and holding approximately $17 billion
of senior secured debt. The crux of plaintiffs' allegations is
that the release of the Guarantees effected a non-consensual
change to plaintiffs' payment rights and affected plaintiffs'
practical ability to recover payment in violation of section 316
of the TIA and the governing Indentures.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In view of the filing of an involuntary Chapter 11 petition
against CEOC, this action is stayed as to CEOC pursuant to section
362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, this action is not stayed
as to non-debtor defendant CEC.

A copy of the Court's January 15, 2015 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/OVmgD2from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs MeehanCombs, Global Credit Opportunities, Funds, LP,
Relative Value-Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds
Trust, SB 4 CF LLC, CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy
Portfolio Company, LLC, are represented by:

     James H. Millar, Esq.
     Kristin K. Going, Esq.
     Clay J. Pierce, Esq.
     Tracy S. Combs, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
     1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
     New York, NY 10036-2714
     Tel: (212) 248-3140
     Fax: (212) 248-3141
     E-mail: James.Millar@dbr.com
             Kristin.Going@dbr.com
             Clay.Pierce@dbr.com
             Tracy.Combs@dbr.com

Plaintiff Frederick Barton Danner is represented by:

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Meagan Farmer, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212 905 0509
     Fax: 212 905 0508
     E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             jnotis@gardylaw.com
             mfarmer@gardylaw.com

          - and -

     Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
     Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
     Elizabeth Shofner, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (646) 722-8505
     E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
             gnovod@gelaw.com
             lshofner@gelaw.com

Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation is represented by:

     Lewis R. Clayton, Esq.
     Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq.
     PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
     1285 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: 212-373-3215
     Fax: 212-492-0215
     E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com
             jhurwitz@paulweiss.com

Defendant Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., is
represented by:

     Eric Seiler, Esq.
     Philippe Adler, Esq.
     Emily A. Stubbs, Esq.
     Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
     7 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 833-1103
     Fax: (212) 373-7903
     E-mail: eseiler@fklaw.com
             padler@fklaw.com


CAMELOT INFORMATION: May 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP on Jan. 9 issued a statement regarding the Camelot
Information Systems Inc. Securities Litigation:

In re CAMELOT INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00086-PGG

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

TO:

ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") OF CAMELOT INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.
("CAMELOT"): (I) ISSUED PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO CAMELOT'S JULY
21, 2010 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF ITS ADSs; (II) ISSUED PURSUANT
OR TRACEABLE TO CAMELOT'S DECEMBER 10, 2010 SECONDARY PUBLIC
OFFERING OF ITS ADSs; AND/OR (III) ON THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JULY 21, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2011, INCLUSIVE,
AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for $2,750,000 has been
proposed.  A hearing will be held on May 12, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 705,
New York, NY 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice, and the releases
specified and described in the Settlement Agreement dated March
19, 2014 should be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Co-Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with this
Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Camelot Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera,
CA 94976-0990, or find them on the Internet at
www.camelotsecuritiessettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim form by mail or online no later than March 31, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments entered by the Court in this Litigation.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than April 21, 2015, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All Members
of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the
request by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court and
delivered to each of the following recipients such that they are
received no later than April 21, 2015:

To Co-Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
SAMUEL H. RUDMAN
DAVID A. ROSENFELD
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747


KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
JOHNSTON de F. WHITMAN, JR.
JENNIFER L. ENCK
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087

To Counsel for Defendants Camelot Information Systems Inc., Yiming
Ma, Heidi Chou, Ajit Bhushan, Ching-Hua Ho, Shang-Wen Hsiao, and
Claude Leglise:

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
SCOTT D. MUSOFF
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036

To Counsel for Defendant Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Goldman
Sachs & Co., Barclays Capital Inc., William Blair & Company,
L.L.C., Cowen & Company, LLC, and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.:

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER& JACOBSON LLP
WILLIAM G. McGUINNESS
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004


PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Co-Lead Counsel, Rick Nelson, c/o Shareholder Relations, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, CA 92101, 1-800-449-4900.  Further information may also
be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to the Claims
Administrator, Gilardi & Co. LLC, at the address listed above.

DATED: December 11, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


CB FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed All Claims in "Sutton" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 15, 2015, that the Court dismissed all
claims as to all defendants with prejudice in the case Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), against the Company, each of FedFirst Financial's
directors, and CB Financial. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached their
fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders by
agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial stockholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleged that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst Financial directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
rescinding and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.

On June 20, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014 the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim that the
Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the merger
contained material misstatements and omissions.

The Company believed the factual allegations in the complaint, as
amended, were without merit. On September 22, 2014, the Court
dismissed all claims as to all defendants with prejudice,
including claims against FedFirst Financial and its directors as
well as claims against CB Financial.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Arnold" Derivative Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation filed as an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 16, 2015, a Notice of Proposed Voluntary Dismissal of
Derivative Action.

The notice relates to a proposed voluntary dismissal of a
shareholder derivative action and is being given pursuant to an
order of The U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. The purpose of the notice is to advise Chesapeake
shareholders that plaintiff, M. Lee Arnold, in the below
referenced action wishes to voluntarily dismiss the case.

On September 6, 2011, M. Lee Arnold filed a purported shareholder
derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, Arnold v. McClendon et al., Case No. CIV-11-
986, against members of the Company's board of directors (the
"Derivative Action"). The Derivative Action alleges a cause of
action for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to exercise
oversight responsibilities against all defendants for alleged
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with disclosures and alleged failures to disclose
information in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's July 2008 common stock offering, which was the subject
of an earlier-filed securities class action, United Food and
Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al.,
Case No. CIV-09-1114 (the "Securities Class Action").

Because the disclosure claims in the Securities Class Action were
based on the same essential facts and issues, the parties to the
Derivative Action agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of
the Securities Class Action. On February 13, 2013, the Securities
Class Action was dismissed on summary judgment, and on August 8,
2014 the dismissal of the Securities Class Action was affirmed by
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In light of the dismissal of the Securities Class Action,
Plaintiff has sought leave to voluntarily dismiss the Derivative
Action. On November 20, 2014, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation Voluntarily Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice.
This notice of the proposed voluntary dismissal of the Derivative
Action will be posted in the Investor Relations section of
Chesapeake's website for two weeks. Chesapeake shareholders are
hereby advised:

Chesapeake shareholders may intervene and continue prosecution of
the Derivative Action. Any shareholder who wishes to intervene
must file a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
73102, not later than February 9, 2015. Any motion to intervene
must be filed in writing, and must include: (i) the caption of the
Derivative Action; (ii) the name of the shareholder; (iii) proof
or certification of the date the intervening shareholder purchased
Chesapeake stock, and that the intervening shareholder has held
its shares continuously since the date of purchase, and (iv) a
statement of the basis for the intervention.


CHICAGO, IL: May Refund Speed Camera Fines Under Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that Chicago
could be forced to refund millions of dollars in speed camera
fines issued to "tens, if not hundreds of thousands" of motorists
on "non-school days," under a class-action lawsuit that accuses
City Hall of thumbing its nose at state law.

The previously undisclosed lawsuit, quietly filed in Circuit Court
on Halloween night, accuses Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration of
"blatantly and intentionally" ignoring the ground rules
established by the Illinois General Assembly before speed cameras
were installed around Chicago's schools and parks.

The statute clearly states, "Violations shall be recorded, only on
school days."

In spite of that language, plaintiffs' attorney Jacie Zolna said
the city issued more than 34,000 tickets at 58 locations during
July and August alone.

Additional tickets were issued during Thanksgiving break, when
school was not in session.  The pattern was probably repeated
during Christmas break, although those violations have not been
posted on the city's website.

Ms. Zolna represents the only named plaintiff in the case.
Ken Maschek was slapped with and paid a $100 ticket on June, 26,
2014, on a day when school was not in session.  He was allegedly
driving 41 mph in a 30 mph zone near Lane Tech High School.

But the lawsuit, which has not yet been granted class-action
status, demands that the cash-strapped city stop all ticketing
when school is not in session and refund all fines similarly paid
by motorists ticketed during non-school days.

Since motorists get off with a warning after the first violation,
motorists subsequently ticketed could also be due refunds. City
Hall may ultimately owe refunds to "tens, if not hundreds of
thousands of citizens issued warnings or violations that were
illegal and unconstitutional," the suit contends.

"The city had no power under the state constitution to be
enforcing those speed cameras during the times they were. We're
asking the city to void all of those illegal tickets and warnings
and refund the money," Ms. Zolna said on Jan. 9.

"They're trying to run these things as often as they can to
collect as much money as they can."

Mr. Emanuel dodged questions about the lawsuit at an unrelated
news conference on Jan. 9.

"I'm not a lawyer. . . . I haven't looked at the lawsuit. My Law
Department will look at it," the mayor said.

Told his administration is already seeking to have the suit thrown
out of court, the mayor said, "Then, you have the answer.  They're
seeking to dismiss it."

In its motion to dismiss, the city has argued that, since there
were some classes held during the summer, those days count as
school days and that, therefore, speed camera violations were
permitted.

Law Department spokesman John Holden said: "This baseless suit was
filed several months ago and the city expects to prevail in its
motion to dismiss."

Ms. Zolna scoffed at the city's argument.

He noted that state law defines the regular academic year as
including at least 176 days of "actual pupil attendance . . .
excluding summer school."

To count as school days, there must be: "not less than five hours"
of school work under "direct supervision" of licensed teachers" or
school personnel; "50 percent or more of district students" in
attendance and education "at all grade levels."

"Everyone knows what a school day is. Go to bed early.  It's a
school day tomorrow.  It's a day when classes are held and all
students are there," he said.

Chicago's first speed camera went live at a school on Nov.25,
2013.

As of July 3, 2014, the city had issued 230,000 tickets at 51
safety zones around schools and parks and 1.25 million warnings.

Chicago now has 132 speed cameras at 60 safety zones, some of them
with more than one camera.

Mr. Emanuel has insisted that the controversial program is about
children's safety -- not about raising money.


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Sued Over Employment Bias and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Wana Simpson v. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00089-SD (E.D. Pa., January 9, 2015) arises from the
alleged employment discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful
termination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is a non-profit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Judith P. Rodden, Esq.
          POZZUOLO RODDEN
          2033 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 977-8200
          E-mail: judy@pozzuolo.com


CONSUMER ENERGY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Laub, DDS and Alan L. Laub, DDS, Inc., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Consumer Energy Solutions, Inc.,
Direct Energy Services, LLC, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:15-cv-
00073 (M.D. Fla., January 13, 2015), seeks to redress the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants offer natural gas and electricity supply services
in Clearwater, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 436-0598
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CPS SECURITY: On-Call Workers Must Be Compensated for Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Dolan, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that employees
who while on call are required to stay at a worksite should be
compensated for all their hours, including sleep time, the
California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Jan. 8.

In a decision written by Justice Carol A. Corrigan, the state's
highest court said security guards who were obligated to stay in
trailers on worksites in case they were needed were entitled to be
paid for their time, even if they spent it watching TV, scouring
the Internet or dozing.

Lawyers said the decision has potential to have a wide impact,
depending on the particular requirements an employer placed on
workers while they were on call.  The greater the control a
private employer exerted on on-call workers, the more likely that
employer would be obligated to pay for all employees' hours.

Golden Gate University law professor Hina B. Shah, who sided with
employees in the case, called the decision "a tremendous victory
for California workers."

It was the right decision.  California workers should not be
denied their rights by less protective federal law.  These guards
deserved to be paid for the service they provided and for which
CPS collected millions of dollars.

"This decision will ensure that absent an explicit exemption,
on-call workers in any industry are entitled to payment for all of
their time," said Ms. Shah, who represented nonprofit groups as
friends of the court.

She said the ruling would particularly affect domestic workers who
live in homes while attending children or the elderly.  Hospital
and government workers would not be affected, she said.

Jim Newman, general counsel for CPS Security Solutions Inc., the
defendant in the case, agreed the impact would be "huge,"
potentially affecting live-in domestic workers, agricultural
employees and private contractors who patrol parks, fight fires or
clean up after environmental disasters.

"The unintended consequences of this ruling are likely to be
devastating for the state's economy, only now beginning to recover
from the recent recession," Mr. Newman said.

The ruling stemmed from class-action lawsuits filed by security
guards employed by the Gardena-based firm, which has 1,500
employees.

The company paid guards for the hours they patrolled a worksite
but gave them no compensation for on-call time in company trailers
unless the workers had to respond to an alarm or emergency or had
asked to leave the premises for personal business and been denied
a replacement, the court said.

Workers received pay for the entire eight hours they were on call
only if they worked at least three, the court said.

The guards were under their employers' control because their
movements were restricted, and they had to respond immediately if
summoned, could not easily trade their on-call responsibilities
and could not leave the worksite if another employee was
unavailable to relieve them, the courts said.

"CPS exerted control in a variety of other ways," Corrigan wrote.
"Even if relieved, guards had to report where they were going,
were subject to recall, and could be no more than 30 minutes away
from the site.  Restrictions were placed on nonemployee visitors,
pets, and alcohol use. "

The Jan. 8 ruling partially overturned an appeals court decision,
which said the guards were covered by minimum wage and overtime
rules but did not have to be paid for the time they slept.

CPS said it was told 10 years ago by the state labor commissioner
that its compensation package met the state law's requirements.
The court acknowledged that the company had sought to comply with
the law, but said it was the court's responsibility, not the
commissioner's, to clarify the law.

"We acknowledge CPS's efforts to ascertain whether its policy
complied with California's labor laws and recognize the difficulty
it and other employers can face in this regard," the court said.

The court blamed a lack of state funding and urged the Legislature
to address the problem.


CVS PHARMACY: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shani Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00259 (D.N.J.,
January 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
transmitting unsolicited commercial text messages to the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. owns and operates a chain of pharmacies in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

         - and-

      Stephen Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


DART CHEROKEE: Class Action Removal Pleading Standard Clarified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stern, Esq. -- emily.stern@kattenlaw.com -- and Zachary D.
Denver, Esq. -- zachary.denver@kattenlaw.com --
Zachary.Allen@aporter.com -- of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that the US Supreme
Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in
controversy in its notice of removal to federal court.  Only a
plausible allegation is required that the amount in controversy
meets or exceeds CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional requirement.
This decision clarifies that there is no higher pleading standard
to remove a class action under CAFA than in an individual action.

Plaintiff, Brandon Owens, filed a class action in a Kansas state
court alleging defendants, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company,
LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC (Dart), underpaid royalties
owed to class members under oil and gas leases.  The complaint did
not allege a specific amount in controversy.  Dart removed to
federal court under CAFA, which permits federal jurisdiction for
certain class actions if the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.  In its notice of removal, Dart stated the alleged
underpayments totaled more than $8.2 million.  Mr. Owens moved to
remand to the state court arguing the removal was deficient
because it included no evidence of Dart's $8.2 million estimate.
The district court accepted Mr. Owens's argument, reading Tenth
Circuit precedent to require proof of the amount in controversy in
the notice of removal itself.  The Tenth Circuit denied review.

The Supreme Court held that evidence of the amount in controversy
is not required because the removal statute expressly requires
only a short plain statement of the grounds for removal.  The
majority reasoned that the defendant's pleading burden in a notice
of removal is the same as the plaintiff's in its complaint, and
that an amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted if
plausible, made in good faith and not contested by the plaintiff
or the court.  The Court also rejected any notion of a presumption
against removal in CAFA cases.  Thus, evidence establishing the
amount in controversy is not required to remove under CAFA.
Rather, evidentiary submissions will only be required post-removal
if the plaintiff or the district court questions the defendant's
allegations.  The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. (2014).


DEER CONSUMER: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Bocker; Sadie LaBerge; and Jay Wise v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc.; Yuehua Xia; Zongshu Nie; Arnold Staloff; Qi Hua
Xu; Yongmei Wang; Man Wai James Chiu; Walter Zhao; Edward Hua;
Bill Ying He; Goldman Kurland Mohidin LLP; and Ahmed Mohidin, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00046-JZB (D. Ariz., January 9, 2015) is a federal
securities fraud action brought by the Plaintiffs for the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiffs purchased approximately $344,000 in Deer securities
(30,050 shares) and sold $15,426 in Deer securities between March
2010 and May 2010.  At the time of purchase, the Plaintiffs
contend that they were unaware that the SEC reports filed by Deer
and audited by GKM were false.

Deer is a Nevada holding company that operates through
subsidiaries in the People's Republic of China.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Accounting firm Goldman Kurland Mohidin, LLP, located in Encino
California, became Deer's registered independent auditor on
September 3, 2008.  Ahmed Mohidin was the primary auditor for
Deer; however, GKM conducted these audits through a Beijing-based
audit firm.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonah A. Toleno, Esq.
          SHUSTAK & PARTNERS PC
          401 W A St., Suite 2330
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-9500
          Facsimile: (619) 615-5290
          E-mail: jtoleno@shufirm.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Sherman v. Dentsply International, Inc., Howard Bowne,
Individually and in his Professional Capacity, and Maureen
MacInnis, Individually and in her Professional Capacity, Case No.
1:15-cv-00112 (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2015) is brought to seek
redress for the Defendants' alleged egregious and repeated acts of
gender discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation committed
against the Plaintiff during her employment.

Ms. Sherman is a Hispanic female of Honduran national origin, and
a resident of the County of Nassau, New York.

DENTSPLY is a foreign corporation incorporated in the state of
Delaware, with its principal place of business located in York,
Pennsylvania.  The Individual Defendants are officers or agents of
the Company.

DENTSPLY is a huge conglomerate, with approximately 12,000
employees, and is made up of seven different franchises:
Orthodontics, Preventative, Restorative, Endodontics, Implants,
Prosthetics and Education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bennita L. Joseph, Esq.
          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: bennittaj@gmail.com
                  norinsberg@aol.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Tax Refund Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against a
healthcare facility alleges the organization failed to file tax
refund claims for its former employees after a court ruled the
employees were exempt from the Federal Insurance Contribution Act
(FICA).

Eric Joseph Rodriguez, Patrick Fredenberg and Edward Gerace, Jr.
filed the lawsuit Dec. 30 against Dignity Health and its
subsidiary St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.  The lawsuit
is seeking class status for medical residents who were at the
healthcare facility between Jan. 1, 1996, and May 31, 2005.
According to the lawsuit, Dignity withheld FICA taxes from the
plaintiffs' paychecks and paid the employee share and employer
share of the taxes.

However, the hospitals argued that medical residents were students
and should be exempt from the FICA taxes under the student
exception in the IRS code.  A circuit court ruled in favor of the
hospitals in 1998, and the hospitals began filing for refund
claims for the taxes paid by them and the medical residents.

Dignity did not file the FICA claims for the plaintiffs, the
lawsuit said.  In 2010, the IRS officially acknowledged that
medical residents were exempt from the FICA tax, the lawsuit said,
and agreed to refund the taxes paid plus interest if hospitals
applied for the refunds in a timely matter.

"Plaintiffs have not received, and will not receive, FICA refunds
because defendants failed to file refund claims and further failed
to advise plaintiffs that defendants did not intend to file refund
claims," the lawsuit said.  "If plaintiffs would have known that
defendants were not going to file refund claims, they could have
filed their own individual claims.  But by the time plaintiffs
finally discovered defendants' failure, the time for plaintiffs to
file their own individual claims with the IRS had expired."

The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages from Dignity.
The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Schneider --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Michael C. McKay --
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com -- and Patrick J. Van Zanen --
pvanzanen@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell,
Konecky, Wotkyns, LLP.

United States District Court for the Northern District of
California case number 3:14-cv-05661.


ELECSYS CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Elecsys Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 15, 2015, that
the Company and the other defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of the consolidated class
action complaint.

On December 23, 2014, Elecsys Corporation ("Elecsys") filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive
proxy statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), dated December
23, 2014, for the special meeting of Elecsys stockholders
scheduled to be held on January 22, 2015 (the "Special Meeting")
to approve the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November
4, 2014, by and among Elecsys, Lindsay Corporation ("Lindsay"),
and Matterhorn Merger Sub ("Merger Sub").

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, three purported
class action complaints relating to the merger have been filed in
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas on behalf of putative
classes of Elecsys' public stockholders.  The complaints name as
defendants the members of the Elecsys Board of Directors, Elecsys,
Lindsay and Merger Sub.  The complaints generally allege that
members of the Elecsys Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elecsys' stockholders by, among other things, omitting
information alleged to be material to stockholders and that the
other defendants aided and abetted that breach.  The cases were
subsequently consolidated by court order dated January 7, 2015.

Elecsys believes these lawsuits are without merit and no further
disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive Proxy
Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on January 14, 2015, Elecsys and the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"Memorandum of Understanding") regarding settlement of the
consolidated complaint. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release all claims that were or could have been asserted in the
consolidated complaint.  In consideration for such settlement and
release, the parties to the consolidated complaint have agreed
that Elecsys will make certain supplemental disclosures to the
Definitive Proxy Statement, all of which are set forth below. The
Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of
settlement to be submitted to the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas for approval at the earliest practicable time. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and approval by the court, which
will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following
final approval by the court, the action will be dismissed with
prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the merger is
not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be
null and void and of no force and effect.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to stockholders
of Elecsys in the proposed merger.


ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Electro Rent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that in the second
quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company recognized other income from a
$1.4 million settlement received as one of the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit involving the purchase of certain computer
products.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Madden" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Wiedey, writing for Sporting News, reports that the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Electronic Arts' attempt to end
a lawsuit brought by three retired NFL players over the use of
their likenesses in "Madden NFL" video games from 2001 to 2009.
This is the same court that allowed the O'Bannon v. NCAA lawsuit
to go forward and is now handling the NCAA's appeal of a judge's
ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Former Rams quarterback Vince Ferragamo, former Cowboys tight end
Billy Joe Dupree and former Buccaneers running back Tony Davis are
leading a class-action group of about 6,000 retired players.  The
"Madden" games included classic teams from the past, but the
players' names weren't used, part of a strategy by the company to
avoid paying the retired players a licensing fee.  It wasn't hard
to figure out that a jersey number and a profile of a certain
player (position, skill set, skin tone, height, years in the
league) represented a specific person who played on a particular
team.

EA claimed First Amendment protection related to free expression
and artistic works, similar to what other forms of entertainment,
such as movies and television, receive.  The company essentially
made the same argument in the O'Bannon case, which it lost in
2013.  That same year however EA successfully had a similar case
from Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown thrown out when the court
ruled it as an "expressive work" and covered under the First
Amendment.

Consider the 2010 movie "The Social Network." Facebook founder
Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the making of the film or
publication of the book from which it was adapted, yet his name,
likeness and story were used and he had no legal recourse.

EA also cited the Doctrine of Incidental Use, essentially arguing
the use of the likenesses was minimal.  The company argued that
using the likenesses for historical teams was not central to the
product, which focuses on the current-day NFL in features and
marketing.

"We hold EA's use of the former players' likenesses is not
incidental, because it is central to EA's main commercial purpose
-- to create a realistic virtual simulation of football games
involving current and former NFL teams," Circuit Judge Raymond
Fisher wrote in the court opinion.

In 2009, the NFL Players Association settled with a class of
retired players for $26 million after the group claimed the union
did not seek out the best marketing deals possible and conspired
with EA on a deal that did not maximize the players' value.
E-mails that were entered as evidence showed the NFLPA advised EA
on how to hide the identities of players on the rosters of classic
teams.

The current class-action case will not threaten the future of the
"Madden" franchise as the O'Bannon case did the "NCAA" franchise
and other potential college video games.  The last "NCAA" game was
released in 2013.  "Madden" doesn't rely on creating players meant
to represent real-life athletes while avoiding names and images.
EA no longer is using arguably unauthorized likenesses, as it now
secures licenses for each player individually.  The legends are
used primarily in the game's "Ultimate Team" mode.

EA settled the O'Bannon lawsuit for $40 million, a relative drop
in the bucket for a company that makes hundreds of millions each
year on revenue-driven "Ultimate Team" modes within their sports
games.  A potential settlement here would likely be for far less
and wouldn't include stipulations that would affect the
development of the product going forward.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid to Depose Plaintiff Over Evidence Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross denied Defendant's "Motion for Leave
to Depose Plaintiff on the Limited Issue of Recently Destroyed
Evidence" in the case captioned REGINALD MOORE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY
DOLLAR STORES, INC., Defendant. No. 4:14-CV-1542-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Reginald Moore filed a putative class action against
Defendant Family Dollar Stores, Inc. over unsolicited text
messages sent without obtaining Moore's prior express written
consent.

Family Dollar seeks leave to take Moore's deposition to inquire
about the circumstances surrounding the recent loss/destruction of
his cell phone and determine what steps, if any, can be taken to
mitigate the effects of lost evidence.

In his Memorandum and Order denying Defendant's motion, District
Judge Ross ruled that there's no urgency in taking Moore's
deposition prior to the parties conferring as required by
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 26(f). While Family Dollar suggested that
Moore's immediate deposition was necessary to potentially recover
information that has been lost or destroyed, it did not explain
how such a deposition would serve to recover any such information.

A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/22yhC6from Leagle.com.

Reginald Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Roberts
-- croberts@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
& David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by James F.
Monafo, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Matthew D. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


FLORIDA GAS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier granted Defendant's "Motion to
Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim" in the case captioned THIGPEN v.
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, L.L.C. Civil Action No. 14-1415
(E.D. La.).

Plaintiff Janie Thigpen alleged that the Defendant's 30-inch
diameter section of the "Line 200" natural gas transmission
pipeline ruptured and exploded on her property wherein the
resulting fire damaged her home and nearby timberlands and
forests.

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated who have sustained any
legally cognizable loss because of the rupture and whose real
property located within a two-mile radius of the L200 natural gas
pipeline owned by Florida Gas. She brought the suit against
Florida Gas and the "XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY," a fictitious
insurance company representing Florida Gas' liability insurance
provider.

Defendant Florida Gas filed the Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages
Claim arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
punitive damages and stressing that Louisiana law applies.

District Judge Barbier ruled that Thigpen cannot state a claim for
punitive damages under Louisiana law because no statute authorizes
their imposition in the case. Judge Barbier agreed that Thigpen's
damages occurred and shall be governed by Louisiana law.

A copy of the Order dated November 19, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/546s1Kfrom Leagle.com.

Janie Thigpen, Plaintiff, represented by D. Douglas Howard, Jr. --
dhoward@howardandreed.com -- Howard & Reed, Jonathan C. Pedersen,
Howard & Reed, Shawn C. Reed -- sreed@howardandreed.com -- Howard
& Reed & William Harrell Arata, Arata & Arata.

Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C., Defendant, represented
by James K. Ordeneaux -- jordeneaux@pmpllp.com -- Plauche,
Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Godfrey Bruce Parkerson --
bparkerson@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP &
Jessica Smith Savoie -- jsavoie@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP.


FIVE BELOW: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 9 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Five Below, Inc. common stock during the period between June 5,
2014 and December 4, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 9, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/fivebelow/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Five Below and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Five Below is a specialty discount retailer targeted at teens and
pre-teens that prices all of its clothing and accessories at $5 or
below.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants
made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse
information about Five Below's business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that while actively concealing
from investors that the Company's two founders intended to step
down from their roles as Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Chairman and name as CEO their newly hired President -- who was
relatively new to Five Below and totally untested in the role of
CEO at a publicly traded company -- Five Below raised its fiscal
2014 sales and earnings guidance twice, once at the start of the
Class Period on June 5, 2014 and then again on September 10, 2014.
With the price of Five Below common stock increasing on their
misrepresentations about the Company's business metrics and
financial prospects, reaching a Class Period high of nearly $48 in
intraday trading, both of the Company's founders and its Chief
Financial Officer cashed in, selling almost $30 million worth of
their personally held shares at fraud-inflated prices.

On December 4, 2014, Five Below disclosed that its sales growth
had diminished and that it was reducing its annual sales and
profit forecasts.  That same day, the Company's two founders also
announced their resignations as CEO and Chairman of Five Below --
disclosing that the newly hired President was taking over as CEO.
On this news, the price of Five Below stock fell, closing down 21%
from its Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Five Below common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


FORD MOTOR: Removes "Ellis" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Ellis v. Ford Motor Credit
Company, LLC, Case No. BC565558, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-00196-ODW-JPR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com
                  robert@starrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Austin Benjamin Kenney, Esq.
          Erik Wayne Kemp, Esq.
          Mark Joseph Kenney, Esq.
          SEVERSON AND WERSON APC
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: abk@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com
                  mjk@severson.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Entered Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 15,
2015, that Gentiva entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in In Re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation to reach an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation.

On October 9, 2014, Kindred Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Kindred"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, as it may be amended from time to time, among Gentiva
Health Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Gentiva"), Kindred
and Kindred Healthcare Development 2, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("merger sub") (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, merger
sub will merge with and into Gentiva, with Gentiva surviving the
merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred (the "merger").

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus, dated
December 18, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement"), on October 20, 2014,
Siew K. Stevens filed a purported stockholder class action
complaint against Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva board of
directors, Kindred, and merger sub in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Stevens v. Gentiva
Health Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10261-VCG.

On October 24, 2014, Milton Pfeiffer filed a purported stockholder
class action complaint against Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva
board of directors, Kindred and merger sub in the Court, captioned
Pfeiffer v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10281-
VCG.

On November 7, 2014, Denise Kline filed a purported stockholder
class action complaint against Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva
board of directors, Kindred, and merger sub in the Court,
captioned Kline v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10333-VCG. Plaintiff in each action alleged that the members of
the Gentiva board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
(a) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and (b)
agreeing to lock up the merger with various deal protection
provisions.

Plaintiff in each action further alleged that Gentiva, Kindred,
and merger sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. Plaintiff in each action sought (among other
things) to enjoin Gentiva and the Gentiva board of directors from
consummating the merger, and requested attorneys' fees, costs and
damages in an unspecified amount. Plaintiff in the Pfeiffer action
also sought to rescind the merger to the extent already
implemented and sought rescissory damages as an alternative to
rescission.

Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva board of directors, Kindred
and merger sub each believe that all allegations contained in the
complaint filed in each of the Stevens, Pfeiffer and Kline actions
are without merit.

On November 18, 2014, the Stevens, Pfeiffer and Kline lawsuits
were consolidated for all purposes by the Court in an action
captioned In re Gentiva Health Services Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10261-VCG ("In Re Gentiva Health
Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation"). On December 2, 2014,
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended
complaint against Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva board of
directors, Kindred and merger sub in the Court alleging that the
members of the Gentiva board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by (a) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration,
(b) agreeing to lock up the merger with various deal protection
provisions and (c) misrepresenting and failing to disclose in the
Proxy Statement allegedly material information necessary for the
Gentiva stockholders to cast an informed vote on the merger. The
consolidated complaint further alleged that Gentiva aided and
abetted the Gentiva board of directors alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek, among
other things, to enjoin Gentiva and the Gentiva board of directors
and request attorneys' fees, costs and damages in an unspecified
amount.

Each of Gentiva, the members of the Gentiva board of directors,
Kindred and merger sub have denied and continue to deny the
allegations in In Re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, and expressly maintain (a) that they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary, disclosure and other
legal duties and (b) that they did not fail to include all
material information relating to the merger in the Proxy
Statement.

However, on January 15, 2015, solely to eliminate the burden,
expense and risk of further litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Gentiva entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in In Re Gentiva Health
Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") to reach an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation. In consideration for the full settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of In Re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation and pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding,
Gentiva has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the
Proxy Statement. The proposed settlement is subject to, among
other things, final approval of the Court.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following final Court
approval, the In Re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. If the parties agree
upon all other terms attendant to the stipulation of settlement,
the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of
the attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs'
counsel in In Re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, subject to approval by the Court. Any failure by the
Court to approve the amount of such fees shall not affect the
validity of the terms of the stipulation of settlement. None of
the stipulation of settlement or the Memorandum of Understanding
or the implementation or effectuation thereof are conditioned on
any award of attorneys' fees or expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.
There can be no assurances, however, that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court approval of the settlement will be obtained. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding will be null and void and of no force and effect.


GEORGIA: Motion to Dismiss Same Sex Marriage Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Wolfe, writing for WXIA, reports that a motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit on same sex marriage in Georgia was denied.
It means the case, filed by several Georgia couples, will move
forward.

U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey Jr. disagreed with almost
every argument put forth by the plaintiffs, but said he could not
dismiss the case.

The team of lawyers representing the gay couples considers the
ruling a small victory.  Tara Borelli, attorney with the Lambda
Defense and Education Fund, points to the last several pages of
the ruling addressing the state's argument that Georgia's
prohibition on same-sex marriage is "rationally related to the
State's interest in encouraging procreation and child welfare."
The judge ruled those assertions "are not supported by facts."

"It's a clear message to state officials they're going to have a
very difficult time supporting their reasons for the same sex
marriage ban," Ms. Borelli said.

But much of Judge Duffy's ruling focused on the weakness of the
Georgia case, including:

When considering if same sex marriage is a fundamental right:
"Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, claim that the right to marry a
person of the same sex is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history
and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

On the argument that Georgia's ban on same-sex marriage deprives
gay couples of equal protection under the law: "Georgia's marriage
laws prevent a person from marrying someone of the same sex.  They
do not discriminate against men or women as a class."

A spokesman for State Attorney General Sam Olens sent 11Alive's
Julie Wolfe a reaction to the ruling: "We look forward to further
clarification regarding the ability of states to decide these
questions", and "As the issue remains pending, the office will
continue to pursue its constitutional obligation to defend the
laws as passed by the legislature and the citizens of the state of
Georgia."

Both sides are in a holding pattern to see what cases the Supreme
Court will hear on same-sex marriage.  On Jan. 9, the court was
set decide which, if any, of the cases they'll hear.  Cases from
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee are under consideration.
Borelli expects the nation's highest court will consider at least
one of the cases.

Mr. Olens' office has similar expectations: "The United States
Supreme Court has an opportunity to review this issue and will
likely announce its intent in the coming weeks. There are other
cases pending in front of the 11th Circuit that will provide a
similar opportunity."

So, what happens next with the Georgia class action lawsuit?

Since the state filed a mission to dismiss, instead of a specific
response to the plaintiff's complaints, that response is likely
the next step for them.

On the other side, Ms. Borelil says they're considering what legal
steps are next for them to move the case forward.

If the Supreme Court decides to consider one of the same-sex
marriage cases, that decision would come by June of 2016.  If it
finds the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Georgia's
case would move forward with extra ammunition.  If, on the other
hand, the court upholds those bans, the case against Georgia would
be weakened.  If the Supreme Court decides not to hear any of the
cases, Georgia's lawsuit will continue its glacial pace through
the judicial process.


GUCCI AMERICA: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Manner v. Gucci America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 37-2014-00041395-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00045-BAS-WVG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class "consisting of all persons
from whom Defendants requested and recorded personal
identification information in conjunction with a credit card
transaction in California during the period of approximately
December 8, 2013 through the date of trial (the "Class")."

The Plaintiff contends that Gucci violated the California Civil
Code by implementing an "Information Capture Policy," whereby it
requests customers' personal information at the point-of-sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          Paula M. Roach, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephanie Sheridan, Esq.
          Meegan B. Brooks, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 781-7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
          E-mail: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com
                  meegan.brooks@sedgwicklaw.com


HORVAT DESIGN: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Flores, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Horvat Design Group, Ltd,
Daniel Horvat, and Rhonda Horvat, Case No. 1:15-cv-00365 (N.D.
Ill., January 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Horvat Design Group, Ltd. provides landscaping and maintenance
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maritza Torres Josephina Jurado Berty Reyes Luz Ortiz, and all
others similarly situated v. Island Hospitality Management III,
Inc. and Bruce Doe, Case No. 2:15-cv-00182 (E.D.N.Y., January 14,
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 a third-party hotel management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond Nardo, Esq.
      129 Third Street
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 248-2121
      Facsimile: (516) 742-7675
      E-mail: raymondnardo@gmail.com


JRK RESIDENTIAL: Court Certifies Background Check Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings and Bryan M. Haynes, writing for Consumer
Financial Services Law Monitor, report that on October 31, a
United States District Court certified a Fair Credit Reporting Act
class action involving claims that an employer procured a
background check through an improper disclosure form and took
adverse action without following the proper adverse action
protocol.  Although the Court's decision did not address the
merits of the case, the Court did address a number of arguments
that frequently arise in FCRA class certification battles.

In Milbourne v. JRK Residential America, LLC, the named plaintiff
alleged that the defendant violated the FCRA by using a background
check disclosure form that included a liability release and
waiver.  He argued that including this language prevented the form
from consisting solely of the disclosure that a background check
would be obtained.  The named plaintiff also alleged that he was
terminated from employment the day before he received a copy of
his background check and a summary of his rights under the FCRA.
According to the plaintiff, the timing of these notices violated
the FCRA's adverse action protocol.

The Court concluded that both the background check disclosure
class and the adverse action class satisfied the requirements for
Rule 23 certification.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court
addressed several arguments frequently raised by defendants when
opposing class certification.

Although the named plaintiff had a lengthy criminal record, the
Court concluded that the age and circumstances surrounding the
convictions did not undermine his adequacy as a class
representative.

The Court also concluded that if the named plaintiff had attempted
to certify a class spanning the previous five years, the statute
of limitations analysis would involve individualized inquiries
that destroy the predominance requirement of Rule 23.  The
plaintiff, however, only sought certification of a two-year class.
This mitigated the statute of limitations concerns for the Court.
As to the remainder of the predominance inquiry, the Court
concluded that the language of the disclosure form, the
defendant's adverse action practices, and issues of willfulness
were sufficiently common.

With respect to the superiority requirement, the Court concluded
that a class action was superior, despite the defendant's
arguments that the statutory remedies were wholly disproportionate
to any harm suffered by the class.

Although defendants certainly possess a number of arguments
against class certification in any FCRA class action, the
Milbourne decision serves as an example of the hurdles defendants
can face in opposition to class certification.


KINROSS GOLD: Clarifies Leave Test in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis and Miranda Lam, writing for Canadian Appeals Monitor,
report that at the end of 2005, Ontario legislation came into
effect which enabled aggrieved shareholders to bring a statutory
action for secondary market misrepresentation against issuers and
their directors and officers (and others) without the requirement
to establish individual reliance.  In order to commence such an
action, however, a shareholder must first obtain leave from the
Superior Court.  Much of the jurisprudence in secondary market
securities class actions has been devoted to examining the
standard for leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently clarified the leave test
in Bayens v. Kinross Gold Corporation.  There are two primary
points to take away from this decision; the Court:

confirmed the merits-based test for leave to proceed; and
affirmed that Motion Judges should not certify common law
misrepresentation claims if leave to proceed with the parallel
statutory claim is denied.
Background

The plaintiff shareholders brought a common law claim against
Kinross Gold Corp., a Toronto-based international mining company,
and four of its officers, for alleged misrepresentations in
connection with two of its gold mines in Africa.  They asserted
that Kinross overstated the value of the mines by failing to
record a goodwill impairment charge on a timely basis.

On the shareholders' motion for leave to proceed with the
statutory claim, the Court refused to grant leave because there
was no reasonable possibility that it could succeed.  The Motions
Judge came to this conclusion due to deficiencies in the expert
accounting evidence on which the plaintiffs relied to argue
Kinross should have recorded the impairment charge sooner.  The
Court also refused to certify the plaintiffs' statutory and common
law claims under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, because it had
refused leave to proceed with the statutory claims.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal
from the refusals to grant leave and to certify their action.  In
doing so, Justice Cronk addressed the leave requirement, and the
relationship between the leave to proceed analysis and the
certification criteria.

1.     The Leave Requirement: Just how low is the merits
threshold?

To grant leave to pursue a secondary market misrepresentation
claim under Ontario's Securities Act, a court must be satisfied
that:

(a)   the action is being brought in good faith; and

(b)   there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be
resolved at trial in favor of the plaintiff.

The second part -- the merits test -- was in issue in Kinross.

Previous authority established that the leave test is a
"relatively low threshold" and a "preliminary low-level merits
based leave test".  However, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Green
had recently compared the merits test with the very low standard
for striking out a claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of
action, which is the same test applied under s. 5(1)(a) of the
CPA.  In Kinross, the same Court reiterated that although the
court applies the same test for leave under the OSA and under s.
5(1)(a) of the CPA, the evidentiary record to which the test is
applied is very different. Under s. 5(1)(a), the court assumes the
facts in the Plaintiff's pleadings are true, but on the leave
test, the court weighs the evidence filed by the investor and, if
any, by the named Defendants and any cross-examination
transcripts; from that evidence, it may draw reasonable inferences
and make findings of fact.   In short, Kinross clarified that
while the standard for leave is not high, it is a true merits
analysis, which critically assesses the evidentiary basis for the
plaintiff's allegations.

2.     Leave and Certification: Are they Related?

In Kinross, the Court of Appeal also addressed the relationship
between the leave test and the certification analysis under the
CPA.  Justice Cronk confirmed that when a court refuses leave to
proceed with a statutory misrepresentation claim, that statutory
claim also cannot meet the CPA certification criteria.

However, the same is not true for its companion common law
misrepresentation claim.  Justice Cronk held that because the
merits are generally irrelevant to certification, the refusal to
grant leave because the statutory claim lacks merit will not
automatically preclude certification of common law
misrepresentation claims.

Nonetheless, the refusal to grant leave to pursue a proposed OSA
claim is relevant to the preferable procedure criterion of the
certification analysis for the common law claims.  The preferable
procedure inquiry asks whether (1) a class action would be a fair,
efficient and manageable way to prosecute the claims, and (2) a
class action is preferable to other reasonably available means of
pursuing the claims.  Justice Cronk in Kinross explained that if a
court certified common law misrepresentation claims after having
refused leave to pursue statutory claims, the proceedings would
effectively continue "against the backdrop of an existing judicial
determination that the appellants' core claims of
misrepresentation . . . hold no reasonable prospect for success at
trial," which would be contrary to the first preferability
inquiry.  This reasoning applies to common law misrepresentation
claims in any case in which the court refuses leave for the OSA
claims, and virtually forecloses any possibility that a common law
claim will be certified if statutory leave is refused.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal for Ontario's analysis in Kinross is
significant for issuers and their executives for two reasons.
First, the Court confirmed that although the leave requirement to
proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim sets a
relatively low standard, it is appropriate to weigh the evidence
and make findings in relation to the plaintiffs' expert evidence.
In doing so, the Court clarified the comparison in Green between
the OSA leave test and the test under s. 5(1)(a) of the CPA. The
Court's reasoning Kinross, confirming that Motion Judges must
conduct a merits test, is a welcome development for issuers after
the same Court's comments in Green.

Second, the Court held that a claim for common law
misrepresentation could be certified under the CPA even if a court
refuses the plaintiffs' leave to proceed with a companion
statutory misrepresentation claim.  However, the refusal to grant
leave is relevant to the preferability criterion under the CPA and
weighs powerfully against a class action's being the preferable
means of resolving the claim.  Indeed, in light of Justice Cronk
comments, it appears very unlikely that a common law claim will be
certified when leave to pursue a statutory claim has been refused.


LIFETOUCH CHURCH: Sued in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hedgcock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lifetouch Church Directories and Portraits, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00156 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide photographic services nationwide, including
the photographing of church members, school children and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Cavanaugh, Esq.
      DUGAN, BRINKMANN, MAGINNIS AND PACE
      1880 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      E-mail: mccavanaugh@dbmplaw.com


LINCARE INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Jan. 9 disclosed that on
October 21, 2014, the San Francisco employment attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against Lincare, Inc. and Alpha Respiratory Inc. for allegedly
failing to pay their California hourly employees the correct
overtime wages and also allegedly failing to provide the proper
meal and rest periods.  The Lincare, Inc. class action, Case No.
34-2014-00170400 is currently pending in the Sacramento County
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the class action lawsuit, the respiratory and chronic
therapy services company allegedly failed to pay their California
employees paid on an hourly basis the correct overtime wages.  The
California Labor Code requires employers to pay employees overtime
at 1.5 times the employees' regular rate of pay when an employee
works more than eight hours in a workday and/or in excess of forty
hours in a workweek.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that the employees were not
provided with thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to
their fifth hour of work as a result of the company allegedly
failing to have a proper meal break policy.

In addition, the Complaint also asserts a claim for alleged unpaid
reporting time wages stemming from Defendant's on-call system.  In
California, if an employee is required to report to work for a
second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2)
hours of work on the second reporting, the employee must be paid
for two (2) hours at the employee's regular rate of pay.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Lincare Inc. and Alpha Respiratory Inc. call (866) 771-7099 to
speak to an experienced San Francisco labor law lawyer today.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment law
firm that represents employees in California who have been
wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied payment
of earned commission wages, and also employees who have been
improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


LINCOLN PARK MOTEL: Judgment in "Zhao" Minimum Wage Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Michael Mink affirmed the trial court's judgment in the
case captioned GARY ZHAO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINCOLN
PARK MOTEL, L.P., Defendant and Appellant. L.P. No. B252601 (Cal.
App.).

Plaintiff Gary Zhao is the resident manager of Defendant Lincoln
Park Hotel L.P. who is responsible, among others, for the staffing
the front desk for an eight-hour shift each day and for contacting
repair and maintenance people, arranging for maids to clean the
rooms, and generally being on call to respond to emergencies.
Despite such, Zhao was paid only for the time when he was actually
working.

Zhao and four other plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
Motel, claiming (1) wage and hour violations under the Labor Code
(2) failure to pay minimum wage (3) failure to pay overtime pay
(4) failure to pay wages in a timely manner (5) failure to provide
accurate pay statements and (6) unfair competition under Business
& Professions Code section 17200.

Motel answered and maintained that it was not required to pay Zhou
for the time that he sat at the front desk for eight-hour shifts
but was not actually answering phones, responding to guest
inquiries, or otherwise actively providing services to the Motel.

After a bench trial, the court concluded that Zhou was entitled to
wages for all of the time that he was required to sit at the front
desk and entered judgment in favor of Zhao in the sum of $33,584.
Hence, Motel appealed the trial court's judgment.

In affirming the trial court's judgment, Justice Mink concurred
with the trial court's conclusion that Zhou's compensation claim
is factually distinguishable from the employee's claim in Brewer
v. Patel (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1017.  Justice Mink held that Zhou
was only seeking compensation not for the time that he was on call
but for the time he was performing his assigned duties of staffing
the front desk over a specified eight-hour time period. Hence,
Zhou is entitled to be paid for performing those assigned duties.
In addition, substantial evidence supports the trial court's
findings while the Motel offers no contradictory evidence on the
subject, and in any event, the credibility of the witnesses is
completely within the province of the trier of fact.

A copy of the Order dated November 20, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/lkToWtfrom Leagle.com.

Henry J. Josefsberg henryjjesq@gmail.com for Defendant

Michael A. DesJardins -- md@desjardinslaw.com -- at DesJardins &
Panitz for Plaintiff.


MAG & SOK: "Ferreiro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Ferreiro and other similarly situated individuals v. Mag &
Sok, LLC., a Florida profit corporation, Maxence Magnou, David
Sokoloff, and Ravy Truchot, Case No. 1:15-cv-20121 (S.D. Fla.,
January 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a household goods and furniture
storage company.

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


MASSACHUSETTS: Eases Rules for Homeless Families in Danvers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Forman, writing for The Salem News, reports that until now,
the dozens of homeless families living in Danvers motels under the
state's Emergency Assistance Program were required to follow
strict, statewide rules.

No visitors were allowed in their rooms, not even from another
family down the hall.  Babysitters were forbidden, and families
were subject to unannounced room checks.

A recent legal settlement between the state and a nonprofit
poverty law center has changed that, though advocates for these
families say new rules will also make it easier for the state to
kick them out of the hotels and the shelter system.

Last month, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute in Boston
announced it had reached a settlement with the state Department of
Housing and Community Development in a lawsuit that challenged
"unequal and unfair rules applied to homeless families with
children placed in motels through the state's Emergency Assistance
system."

The class action lawsuit, filed in the Western Massachusetts
Housing Court, argued that the 1,600 families living in hotels
faced stricter rules than those living in state-run shelters.

Danvers has 174 families with 343 children spread among three
motels as of Jan. 6, according to figures provided by the town.
The town estimates that's about 10 percent of displaced families
living in motels statewide.

The new rules mean families will no longer be subject to
unannounced inspections of their rooms; inspectors must knock and
announce themselves first.  Baby sitters will be allowed, and
families living in motels can visit one another room-to-room.  It
also calls for a better system for approval of curfew adjustments
and nights away from the shelter system, for work or family
visitation.

Outsiders visiting families in motels are still forbidden, said
Ruth Bourquin, staff attorney for the Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute.

"Grandma can't spend an afternoon in the room taking care of the
kids," Ms. Bourquin said.  But now, hotel families can babysit
each other's kids, with authorization.  And the state must provide
space for families to visit more privately with outside visitors.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Lawson" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Lawson v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-000093-15, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of the Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar
Tapered Fusion Device.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV granted, in part, the
request of defendants Bradley Abelow, Jon Corzine, David Dunne,
Randy MacDonald, Vinay Mahajan, Edith O'Brien, David P. Bolger,
Eileen S. Fusco, David Gelber, Martin J.G. Glynn, Edward L.
Goldberg, David I. Schamis, Robert S. Sloan, and Henry Steenkamp
to compel the Litigation Trustee of the MF Global Litigation Trust
to search all of the as-yet-unproduced documents of MF Global Inc.
and MF Global Holdings Ltd. and produce those responsive to the
Individual Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents.

JOSEPH DeANGELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON S. CORZINE, et al.,
Defendants. IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD. INVESTMENT LITIGATION,
NOS. 11 CIV. 7866 (VM) (JCF), 12 MD 2338 (S.D.N.Y.), is a
consolidated action concerning the events surrounding the collapse
of MF Global. The Litigation Trustee is the assignee of the rights
and interests of the former Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global, and
has control over all of the company's documents that were in
existence at the time of its bankruptcy on October 31, 2011. The
Litigation Trustee has produced or agreed to produce millions of
pages of documents to the Individual Defendants, including
documents from 33 MF Global custodians who were identified by
certain government agencies in connection with their
investigations and by the plaintiffs in the putative securities
class action that is part of the consolidated case.

The Individual Defendants contend that this is insufficient and
seek an order compelling the Litigation Trustee to search "all
relevant document file systems" of MF Global, including "all
shared drives, private shared files, custodial files and hard copy
document sources" that might contain material responsive to the
requests for production.

Judge Francis directed the parties to meet and confer to agree on
a reasonable list of additional custodians -- no more than six --
whose files will be produced. In addition, they are to confer to
identify a reasonable subset of file systems likely to contain
relevant documents, which the Litigation Trustee must produce.

A copy of Judge Francis' Memorandum and Order dated January 15,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Cf28wKfrom Leagle.com.


MIA MAX: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valente Juarez, Daniel Reyes, Paredes Juarez de Jesus, Francisco
Neri Silva, and Jose Luis Mendoza, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Mia Max Jake Corp. d/b/a Tiny Thai,
Thainy Restaurant LLC d/b/a M Thai, John Doe Corp. d/b/a Thainy,
Michael Bronstein, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-00271 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 14, 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 a chain of Thai restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONTREAL MAINE: Settles Lac-Megantic Rail Disaster Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Giovannetti, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
the families of those who died in the Lac-Megantic rail disaster
will have access to a $200-million (U.S.) fund, according to
details released on Jan. 9 from the bankruptcy case of the
railroad responsible for the 2013 tragedy in eastern Quebec.

The fund still needs to be approved by Canadian and American
courts before the first checks are mailed to the families of the
47 people killed in the crash.  A firefighter who died by suicide
three months after the disaster was added to the list of victims.
Money could flow as soon as this spring.

"The families of the victims need to live with this disaster every
day.  Those in town have gone into debt to try to get back on our
feet and rebuild.  If this could let us start over our lives on
the right foot, that would be great, but we haven't seen any money
yet," Yannick Gagne, the owner of the Musi-Cafe bar where the
majority of the victims died, told The Globe on Jan. 9.

Mr. Gagne has rebuilt the Musi-Cafe, but he's still awaiting the
help he says he was promised in the weeks after the disaster.

Just after 1:00 a.m. on July 6, 2013, a train carrying 72 cars of
crude oil from North Dakota to a refinery in New Brunswick
careened while unmanned into the centre of town and derailed.  A
series of powerful explosions then levelled much of the city's
once picturesque downtown.

The settlement money announced on Jan. 9 was drawn not only from
the liquidation of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, the
firm at the centre of the derailment, but also from a number of
companies that extracted the oil, built the rail cars and leased
them to shippers.

According to Peter Flowers, a Chicago-based lawyer involved in a
wrongful death lawsuit, talks are continuing about how much of the
$200-million will go to the families of victims.

"The money goes to the wrongful death victims -- a class-action
filed in Canada -- those who suffered economic and emotional
damages, and to the provincial and federal governments'
environmental claims," Mr. Flowers said.

Crews are still demolishing buildings in downtown Lac-Megantic and
locals remain jittery about how much compensation they'll receive.
Property owners downtown have received $37-million from the
government.  But victims of the disaster have so far received
nothing from the companies.

While bankruptcy trustee Robert Keach said he is seeking $500-
million for the victims' fund before the Jan. 12 filing deadline,
Mr. Flowers said the decision not to pay by three of the largest
corporations linked to the disaster was responsible for the
shortfall.

"The main three bad actors, World Fuels, Canadian Pacific Railway
and Irving Oil, aren't contributing a penny to this settlement.
We're going to keep going after them very hard in American court,"
said Mr. Flowers.

The three companies have so far denied any responsibility for the
2013 disaster.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeal in Brain-Injury Class Suit Is Premature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson at Courthouse News Service reports that the 3rd
Circuit explained on Christmas Eve why it would not entertain an
objection to the approval of an uncapped brain-injury settlement
for former professional football players.

More than five months have passed since U.S. District Judge Anita
Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted provisional
class status to thousands of players who allegedly suffer from or
are at risk for concussion-borne degenerative diseases because of
their NFL careers.

Seven retired players objected to the proposed uncapped settlement
and class certification, but the 3rd Circuit refused on Sept. 11
to let these defectors file an interim appeal.

On Dec. 24, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals
court finally explained why, saying that jurisdiction is simply
not available under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

At issue is the fact that Judge Brody preliminarily approved the
settlement class under 23(e) of the rather than 23(c), thereby not
allowing review by an appellate court under Rule 23(f), according
to the 49-page ruling.

"There can be no application of hydraulic pressure where that has
been no application of force at all," Judge Brooks Smith wrote for
the majority.  "Here, NFL defendants elected to negotiate a
settlement agreement.  The District Court's 'preliminary
determination' regarding class certification did not so pressure
NFL defendants that they were forced to settle the pending
lawsuits."

Thomas Ambro wrote in dissent that 23(f) would indeed allow for
appellate review in this case, although he would still reject it
because granting the petition would "result in inefficient
(indeed, chaotic) piecemeal legislation."  (Parentheses in
original.)

Judge Brody held a hearing in November to consider objections to
the settlement, which focused on its exclusion of players
suffering from illnesses not covered in the agreement and what
they claim is a Byzantine process to make a claim.

Petitioners Sean Morey; Alan Faneca; Ben Hamilton; Robert Royal;
Roderick Cartwright; Jeff Rohrer; and Sean Considine are
represented by:

          Michele D. Hangley, Esq.
          William T. Hangley, Esq.
          HANGLEY, ARONCHICK, SEAGL, PUDLIN & SCHILLER
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-7061
          Facsimile: (215) 568-0300
          E-mail: mhangley@hangley.com
                  whangley@hangley.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Molo, Esq.
          Thomas J. Wiegand, Esq.
          Martin Totaro, Esq.
          MOLO LAMKEN LLP
          540 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 607-8170
          Facsimile: (646) 710-4950
          E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com
                  twiegand@mololamken.com
                  mtotaro@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Eric R. Nitz, Esq.
          MOLO LAMKEN LLP
          The Watergate
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 556-2021
          E-mail: enitz@mololamken.com
                  mtotaro@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Linda S. Mullenix, Esq.
          2305 Barton Creek Boulevard, Unit 2
          Austin, TX 78735
          E-mail: lmullenix@law.utexas.edu

The Amicus Counsel for the Petitioners are:

          Alan B. Morrison, Esq.
          GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
          2000 H Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20052
          Telephone: (202) 994-7120
          Facsimile: (202) 994-5157
          E-mail: abmorrison@law.gwu.edu

               - and -

          Scott L. Nelson, Esq.
          Allison M. Zieve, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000

The Respondents are represented by:

          Bruce A. Birenboim, Esq.
          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3165
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0165
          E-mail: bbirenboim@paulweiss.com
                  bkarp@paulweiss.com
                  twells@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
          2001 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7340
          Facsimile: (202) 204-7395
          E-mail: bwilkinson@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS
          30 South 17th Street, United Plaza
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1143
          Facsimile: (215) 405-2632
          E-mail: dklinges@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
                  dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
                  cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
          NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
          40 Washington Square South, Room 411J
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 998-6580
          Facsimile: (212) 995-4590
          E-mail: samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu

               - and -

          David D. Langfitt, Esq.
          Gene Locks, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM
          601 Walnut Street
          The Curtis Center, Suite 720 East
          Philadelphia, PA 19106

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (877) 882-1011
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: ALevin@LFSBLaw.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Marks, Esq.
          MITRANI, RYNOR, ADAMSKY & TOLAND
          1200 Weston Road, Penthouse
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (225) 250-1980
          Facsimile: (225) 334-0750

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300

               - and -

          Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK
          25 West Flager Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          E-mail: srosenthal@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
          ANAPOL SCHWARTZ
          1710 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-2098
          Facsimile: (215) 875-7701
          E-mail: sweiss@anapolschwartz.com

The appellate case is In re: National Football League Players
Concussion Injury Litigation, Case No. 14-8103, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The District Court
case is In re: National Football League Players Concussion Injury
Litigation, Case No. 2-14-cv-00029, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


NAVISTAR INC: Faces Suit in Minnesota Alleging Product Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
HD Transportation Inc. and Dennis Phelus, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case
No. 0:15-cv-00055-DWF-HB (D. Minn., January 9, 2015) asserts
product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY HAGEN & GULLIKSON, LLC
          1976 Wooddale Drive, Suite 3A
          St. Paul, MN 55125
          Telephone: (651) 379-0900
          Facsimile: (651) 379-0999
          E-mail: bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          ANDERSON HELGEN DAVIS & NISSEN, PA
          150 S 5th Street, Suite 3100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 435-6363
          Facsimile: (612) 435-6379
          E-mail: RAP@AndersonHelgen.com

               - and -

          Scott Moriarity, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 596-4068
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: samoriarity@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rya W. Zobel granted, in part, and denied, in part,
the request of Advanced Pain & Anesthesia Consultants, P.C. d/b/a
APAC Centers for Pain Management ("APAC") and Randolph Y. Chang,
M.D., for dismissal of all claims against them in the
multidistrict litigation that stemmed from an outbreak of fungal
meningitis caused by contaminated methylprednisolone acetate
manufactured and sold by the New England Compounding Pharmacy,
Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center.

APAC and Chang sought dismissal of all claims against them in the
so-called direct-filed actions for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and in the direct-filed and Illinois-filed actions, for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6).

Judge Zobel, in a January 13, 2015 Memorandum of Decision
available at http://is.gd/i7bCuafrom Leagle.com, ruled that:

     -- the direct-filed actions be consolidated into their
corresponding Illinois-filed actions;

     -- Plaintiffs' claims for agency (Count X), civil conspiracy
(Count XI), and battery (Count VII) are dismissed without
prejudice per stipulation of the parties;

     -- Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed as to plaintiffs'
claim for strict product liability (Count IX) and denied as to all
other claims.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Foreclosure Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Stone, on her own behalf and for all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00302 (C.D. Cal., January 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendants
illegal, unfair, unlawful, and deceptive debt collection and
foreclosure practices, specifically by collecting late charges
that are not due from homeowners under mortgages, deeds of trust
or loan notes.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a publicly held Florida financial
services company that is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
      STRANGE & CARPENTER
      12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 207-5055
      Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
      E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Klein, Esq.
      Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
      Kevin Costello, Esq.
      KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
      85 Merrimac Street
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (617) 357-5500
      E-mail: klein@kkcllp.com
              costello@kkcllp.com
              kavanagh@kkcllp.com


ON DEMAND SEDAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Clayton and Emil Botezatu v. On Demand Sedan Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00050-RCJ-VCF (D. Nev., January 9, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
                  leah@thiermanlaw.com
                  laborlawyer@pacbell.net


ONE PLUS: "Portillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rutilio Portillo, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. One Plus One Two, Inc., d/b/a Sunny &
Annie's Gourmet Deli and Nam Chulyum, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00277 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages, and liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Sunny and Annie's Gourmet Deli
restaurant located at 94Avenue B, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ONE STOP: "Redouane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Fouissi Redouane, and other similarly situated individuals v. One
Stop Food Plus, LLC, Hammad Corporation d/b/a City Meat Market and
Mohammad Bashir, Case No. 1:15-cv-20122 (S.D. Fla., January 13,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbital Sciences Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16,
2015, that on January 16, 2015, Orbital Sciences Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Orbital" or the "Company"), entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other
named defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in response to the announcement of the execution of a
Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement"), dated as of
April 28, 2014, among Orbital, Alliant Techsystems Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("ATK"), Vista Outdoor Inc. (formerly Vista
SpinCo Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("Vista Outdoor") and Vista
Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ATK ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other
things, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Orbital, with
Orbital continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ATK (the "Merger").

As described in greater detail in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/ Prospectus")
dated December 17, 2014 and forming a part of the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by ATK and declared effective by the SEC on
December 17, 2014, purported stockholders of Orbital filed
complaints styled as class action lawsuits in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery").  The
lawsuits were consolidated by the Court of Chancery in Delaware
under the caption In Re Orbital Sciences Corporation Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 9635-VCN (the "Consolidated
Lawsuit").

Under the terms of the MOU, Orbital, ATK, the other named
defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the
Consolidated Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims
relating to the Merger, subject to court approval.  If the court
approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Consolidated
Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms
of the MOU, Orbital and ATK have agreed to make available
additional information to Orbital's stockholders.  The additional
information is contained below and should be read in conjunction
with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in
its entirety.  In addition, the defendants in the Consolidated
Lawsuit have agreed to negotiate in good faith with plaintiffs'
counsel regarding an appropriate amount of fees, costs and
expenses to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel by Orbital or its
successor.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to Orbital's stockholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meeting of Orbital's stockholders, scheduled
for January 27, 2014 in Dulles, Virginia, to, among other things,
consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the Transaction
Agreement.

Orbital, ATK and the other defendants deny all of the allegations
in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, Orbital, ATK and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Consolidated Lawsuit in order to avoid the distraction
and expense of litigation.


PACIFIC BELL: Meal Break Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq., and Aurelio J. Perez, Esq., of Littler
report that an employer-friendly decision rings in the New Year in
California.  In Koval v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., plaintiffs
alleged "systematic company guidelines" restricted employee
activities during meal and rest breaks and "prevented employees
from fully realizing the [meal and rest] breaks to which they were
entitled."

Following Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th
1004 (2012), the trial court held the mere existence of a uniform
policy does not mandate class certification, concluding that
variations in the employer's application of policy created
"serious doubt as to whether the rules were consistently applied
so as to allow adjudication of the liability issues on a class-
wide basis."  The California Court of Appeal affirmed, in a
published decision.

The plaintiffs in the case sought to certify a class of
approximately 6,700 current and former field technicians employed
at company locations throughout California.  Plaintiffs alleged
the company failed to relinquish control over their activities
during meal and rest breaks and thus violated California law.
They argued that, collectively, an array of more than a dozen
employer manuals contained "systematic company guidelines"
prohibiting employees from doing any of the following during
breaks:  meeting up with their colleagues; going home; leaving
their work vehicles; riding in other vehicles; sleeping in their
work vehicles, or driving their work vehicles outside normal work
routes to get a meal.  Further, a company representative had
testified that employees were "expected to adhere to the
expectations" contained in a number of the manuals and that
failure to do so could result in disciplinary action.

Opposing certification, the company submitted evidence that the
manner in which supervisors enforced and/or orally conveyed the
information in the written policies was highly variable, and
therefore "determining whether the policies were so restrictive as
to have transformed break time into work time would necessitate
individualized inquires."

The trial court denied certification, reasoning: "What is
important, and ultimately fatal to Plaintiffs' bid for class
certification, is the manner in which the six rules reflected in
the written materials were applied, and that in turn begins with
the question of how the rules were communicated."

On appeal, the court first recognized that, under Brinker, an
employer is only obligated to make uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks available to its employees, "but is not obligated to
ensure they are taken."  The court then emphasized Brinker's
recognition that claims may be suitable for class treatment where
(i) a uniform policy (ii) is consistently applied to a group of
employees.

On this basis, the appellate court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that, under Brinker, plaintiffs did not need to "introduce facts
showing both uniform policies and consistent application of those
policies."  The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the
trial court had committed legal error by assessing "how the
allegedly unlawful policies were implemented."  The failure of
plaintiffs to demonstrate that the allegedly unlawful policies
were consistently applied, the appellate court reasoned,
"create[d] a shifting kaleidoscope of liability determinations
that render this case unsuitable for class action treatment."

Koval joins post-Brinker state court decisions such as Dailey v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. 214 Cal. App. 4th 974, 1002 (2013)("the
absence of a formal written policy explaining [employees'] rights
to meal and rest periods does not necessarily imply the existence
of a uniform policy or widespread practice of either depriving
these employees of meal and rest periods or requiring them to work
during those periods") and In re Walgreen Co. Overtime Cases 231
Cal. App. 4th 437, 443(2014) ("under the [Brinker] make available
standard you additionally must ask why the worker missed the break
before you can determine whether the employer is liable") in
requiring more than a uniform policy to support class
certification.  These cases strengthen employers' hand in opposing
class certification where the plaintiff cannot establish both (i)
the existence of a uniform unlawful policy and (ii) the consistent
application of that policy to a putative class.


PILOT FLYING J: Judge Seeks More Details on Business Arrangements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schreiner, writing for Charlotte Observer, reports that
federal judge said on Jan. 9 he wants more information about
business arrangements between the truck-stop company owned by
Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam
and several trucking companies that claim they were cheated by the
retail giant.

U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar asked attorneys to provide more
details about what Pilot Flying J had promised the trucking
companies.  The request came as attorneys wrangled over Pilot's
motion asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuits -- the latest
round in the retailer's legal woes.

The trucking companies claim they were cheated out of fuel rebates
and discounts promised by Pilot Flying J, the nation's largest
diesel retailer with annual revenues of about $30 billion.

The Haslams were not mentioned during the two-hour hearing, which
drew a dozen attorneys to the Kentucky courtroom.

Leonard Leicht, an attorney for National Retail Transportation and
Keystone Freight, said afterward that the additional information
requested by the judge would shed more light on the scope of the
scheme.

"We look forward to Pilot actually coming clean and giving us the
exact information, which will enable us to calculate damages based
on the actual cost of the fuel," Mr. Leicht said.

Pilot attorney Glenn Kurtz declined to comment afterward.

During the hearing, he disputed plaintiffs' claims that Pilot had
committed fraud.  Arguments by the trucking companies that they
didn't receive what they were entitled to under their contracts
with Pilot are "not enough" to justify the fraud claims, Kurtz
said.

The trucking companies' allegations against Pilot include breach
of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, Erik Clark, said Pilot never
intended to keep the promises it made in the contracts, which
would constitute fraud.

Jimmy Haslam, Pilot's CEO, has said he had no knowledge of the
scheme.  Bill Haslam holds an undisclosed ownership share in the
company but has said he is not involved in Pilot's day-to-day
operations.

Ten former employees have pleaded guilty to a scheme to defraud
customers since federal agents raided Pilot's headquarters in
Knoxville, Tennessee, in April 2013.  Jimmy Haslam has not been
charged with any crime.

Pilot agreed to pay $92 million in fines and accept responsibility
for the criminal conduct of its employees while the government
agreed not to prosecute the company.  The agreement required Pilot
to comply with several conditions, including cooperation in the
investigation of people who may have been involved in the fraud.
It did not protect any individual at Pilot from prosecution.

Most of the lawsuits against Pilot were resolved by a class-action
settlement, in which Pilot agreed to pay out nearly $85 million to
5,500 customers.  But the trucking companies involved in Friday's
court hearing opted out of the settlement to pursue their own
suits.

"The class-action settlement grossly undersold the amount of the
damages," Mr. Leicht said after the Jan. 9 hearing.

The remaining lawsuits were consolidated in U.S. District Court
for Kentucky's eastern district.

The judge did not indicate how soon he would rule on the dismissal
motion.

An FBI special agent said in an affidavit filed in federal court
that sales team members reduced the amount of money that was due
to trucking company customers they considered too unsophisticated
to notice.

Court records said the scheme lasted from at least 2007 until the
FBI raid in April 2013.


PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu,
Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song, Case No. 1:15-cv-00267 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 14, 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.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is an ocean fishing business that
owns or operates vessels in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone and
the Arafura Sea of Indonesia.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Pingtan
Marine Enterprise Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy William Brown, Esq.
      THE BROWN LAW FIRM
      127A Cove Road
      Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771
      Telephone: (516) 922-5427
      E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net


RECORDS IMAGING: Insurer's Suit Stayed Pending Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and/or Strike in the case captioned WESTFIELD INSURANCE
CO., Plaintiff, v. RECORDS IMAGING & STORAGE , INC. and CAMDEN-
CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORP., and JAMES F. SMITH and JOHN E.
SMITH as co-executors and on behalf of the estate of Donald E.
Smith, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:14-18854 (S.D. W.Va.).

The estate of Donald E. Smith and other similarly situated
individuals filed a state-court class action against Defendants
RIS and Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital asserting that CCMH and RIS
charged unreasonable fees to produce copies of patient's medical
records.

RIS presented a request to Westfield Insurance Co. for a defense
to the suit and indemnification while CCMH demanded a defense and
indemnification from RIS on the basis of their agreement.

Westfield commenced an action seeking a declaration that it is not
required to defend or indemnify RIS or CCMH, and maintains that
CCMH is not a name insured under their policy with RIS, and does
not qualify as an additional insured.

RIS moved to dismiss or stay the declaratory judgment action
asserting its intention to file a third-party complaint for
declaratory relief against Westfield and Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company.  Also, RIS argued that the court has the
discretion to dismiss or stay the case if a parallel state court
action would provide, among other things, a more convenient forum
for resolving the pending coverage dispute.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss
and/or stay, Judge Copenhaver, Jr. ruled that the declaratory
judgment action is stayed pending the resolution of the parallel
suit in the Circuit Court of Wood County.  The judge said that
where two parallel suits are pending in state and federal court,
the first suit should have priority, absent the showing of balance
of convenience in favor of the second action.  In addition, Judge
Copenhaver, Jr. said the state court can more completely,
comprehensively, conveniently resolve and appropriately decide the
issues raised in the case.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 13,
2014, is available at bit.ly/1vovnpU from Leagle.com.

Westfield Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Brent K. Kesner, KESNER & KESNER & Tanya M. Kesner,
KESNER & KESNER.

Records Imaging & Storage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
A. Holmstrand -- jholmstrand@fsblaw.com -- FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO.

Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY & Thomas J. Hurney, Jr.,
JACKSON KELLY.

James F. Smith, and, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Regan, BORDAS & BORDAS.

John E. Smith, as Co-Executors and on Behalf of the Estate of,
Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Regan, BORDAS & BORDAS.
Donald E. Smith, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Regan,
BORDAS & BORDAS.


RED ONE: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Red
One Foods, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Andres
H. Amorosi, and Maria Amorosi, Case No. 1:15-cv-20132 (S.D. Fla.,
January 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a cannery and co-packer company
that specializes in salsas and hot sauces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre
      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


REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Logan C. Bazzell-Ferree, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Revere Plastics Systems, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00008 (S.D. Ind., January 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Revere Plastics Systems, LLC engages in the design, development,
manufacture, and supply of custom plastic injection molded parts
primarily to appliance and automotive components industries in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Summary Judgment Bids in "Luftig" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox Hill Hospital electronically sent on May 29, 2013, a file to
Richard Sokoloff containing details of a debt allegedly owed to
Lenox Hill by Maurice Luftig's daughter.  On May 30, 2013, Mr.
Sokoloff sent a debt collection letter to Mr. Luftig advising him
that he was liable to Lenox Hill for his daughter's debt. The
letter was sent on attorney letterhead and signed by "Richard
Sokoloff, Esq."

Mr. Luftig brings a putative class action against Mr. Sokoloff,
alleging that Sokoloff violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) when he sent the debt collection letter. Both parties
moved for summary judgment.

Senior District Judge Frederic Block, in a memorandum and order
entered January 12, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/PTOfFVfrom Leagle.com, denied both motions saying
factual questions remain as to (1) how much time Sokoloff spent
reviewing the file and what exactly that review entailed; (2)
whether Sokoloff exercised any legal judgment before sending the
letter; and (3) the nature of Sokoloff's relationship with Lenox
Hill Hospital, and whether that relationship obviated the need to
conduct a more detailed review of the file provided by Lenox Hill.

The case is MAURICE LUFTIG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SOKOLOFF,
Defendant, NO. 13-CV-4313 (FB) (VVP), (E.D. N.Y.).

MICHAEL KORSINSKY -- mk@kklawfirm.com -- Korsinsky & Klein LLP,
Brooklyn, NY, for the Plaintiff.

ROBERT L. ARLEO, New York, NY, for the Defendant.


SAFEWAY INC: Class Claims Nixed in "Richards" All Natural Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato dismissed without prejudice the
putative class claims in the case captioned RYAN RICHARDS,
Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-04317-JD,
(N.D. Cal.) on January 12, 2015.

Ryan Richards filed this putative class action alleging that
defendant Safeway deceptively advertised certain products as "100%
Natural" when they allegedly contained a synthetic ingredient
known as sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP). On December 12, 2014,
the parties filed a stipulation seeking dismissal of the case with
prejudice. The Court ordered the parties to submit a statement
regarding the fairness of the settlement to the absent putative
class members.

Although the parties did not provide the Court with the proposed
settlement agreement, the parties have represented to the Court
that under the settlement, Mr. Richards would voluntarily dismiss
all his claims against Safeway with prejudice, while the putative
class claims would be dismissed without prejudice.

The Court therefore dismisses Mr. Richards' individual claims with
prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice. The
clerk was directed to enter final judgment.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/sWq1PI
from Leagle.com.

Ryan Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Ann DeSario --
mdesario@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Stephen Noel
Ilg -- silg@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Scott
Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Monty Agarwal --
Monty.Agarwal@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter & Jonathan L. Koenig,
Arnold and Porter LLP.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 10 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Western District of Oklahoma, and docketed under
14-cv-01256, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased SandRidge securities between February 28,
2013 and November 3, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased SandRidge securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

SandRidge, together with its subsidiaries, explores and produces
oil and natural gas properties primarily in the Mid-Continent
region of the United States.  As of December 31, 2013, the Company
had 4,388 gross producing wells; approximately 3,624,000 gross
total acres under lease; and 30 rigs drilling in the Mid-
Continent, as well as estimated proved reserves of 433.4 million
barrels of oil equivalent.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SandRidge was improperly
accounting for penalties owed to Occidental Petroleum Corp.
("Occidental") under a Treatment Agreement on an annual basis when
it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (2) SandRidge's
quarterly and annual financial and operating results for the
periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014 were
overstated and required restatement; (3) defendant Ward engaged in
improper related party transactions; (4) SandRidge lacked proper
internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing that its previously issued financial statements should
no longer be relied upon because the Company was improperly
accounting for penalties under the Treating Agreement with
Occidental.

On this news, shares of SandRidge declined $0.25 per share, nearly
6.5%, to close on November 4, 2014, at $3.56 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.


SANTANDER DRIVE: Plaintiffs Dismiss State Court Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-3 said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 15, 2015, that U.S. Bank, National Associations, as the
indenture trustee, has provided the following information for
inclusion in the form 10-D:

In June 2014, a civil complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, by a group of
institutional investors against U.S. Bank National Association
("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as
the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs are investment funds
formed by nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield,
DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport
to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that
issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities
between 2004 and 2008. According to the plaintiffs, cumulative
losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of
the complaint. The complaint is one of six similar complaints
filed against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank
of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo) by certain of these
plaintiffs. The complaint against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee
caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the
sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS
trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee's
purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and
warranties concerning loan quality. The complaint also asserts
that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported
events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan
servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by
appropriate standards of care following events of default. Relief
sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable relief.

In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily
dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a
substantially similar complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal civil
complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the
total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts. In December 2014,
the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state
court complaint was granted. Other cases alleging similar causes
of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and other
trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or
the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS
trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it
has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith,
that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and
that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the
plaintiffs' claims vigorously."


SANTANDER DRIVE: DBTCA Reviewing Newly Filed Pleadings
------------------------------------------------------
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-1 said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 15, 2015, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
indenture trustee, has provided the following information for
inclusion in this form 10-D:

DBTCA has been named as a defendant in civil litigation concerning
its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors
("Plaintiff Investors") filed a civil action against DBTCA and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged
failure to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts
(the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended complaint was filed on
July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the
NY Derivative Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily
dismiss the NY Derivative Action without prejudice. Also on
November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of Plaintiff
Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same allegations as
the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564 RMBS trusts
(542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative Action). The SDNY
Action is styled both as a derivative action on behalf of the
named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a putative class
action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing interests in
those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is reviewing these newly-filed pleadings.
DBTCA has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on
DBTCA's preliminary evaluation, the litigation disclosed in this
paragraph) that would materially affect its ability to perform its
duties as Trustee on behalf of the Certificate-holders.


SKECHERS USA: Faces 8 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al., is facing eight lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky:

   * Mary Coley v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00045-TBR;

   * Willie Knighten v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00048-TBR;

   * Enis Negron-Fuestes v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00042-TBR;

   * Pamela Whitaker v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00049-TBR;

   * Mildred Jones v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00051-TBR;

   * John Westwood, Sr. v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00041-TBR;

   * Teresa Hutchinson, Individually and as Administrator of the
     Estate of Grady Hutchinson v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et
     al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00044-TBR; and

   * Corinthia Mims v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00055-TBR.

The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Skechers
intentionally made numerous misrepresentations, and continues to
make those representations, regarding the efficacy and health
benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and
Tone-ups.

The cases are part of the multidistrict litigation known as In re:
Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:11-
md-02308-TBR-LLK.  Upon the completion of all pretrial proceedings
applicable to the cases, each of the case will be transferred to
the federal district court in the district where the Plaintiff
allegedly was injured by use of Skechers shoes or where the
Plaintiff resides at the time of the transfer.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.  Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes to be
worn in place of other athletic shoes during daily activities,
exercise routines, and in the workplace.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, Ohio 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


SPARKLE INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Rendon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sparkle Industries Inc. d/b/a Sparkles Laundry Center,
John Doe Corp. d/b/a Big Apple Laundries, Sam Aziz, Abdul Aziz,
And Ayesha Aziz, Case No. 1:15-cv-00273 (S.D.N.Y., January 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a dry cleaner/Laundromat located at
1625 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10029.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SRA ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Adams, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. SRA Associates of New Jersey, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00128 (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards 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


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Struett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. and BB & T
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00176 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. is a regional financial services
holding company that provides commercial and mortgage banking
services.

BB & T Corporation is one of the largest financial services
holding companies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
     733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 354-6270
     Facsimile: (212) 898-9086
     E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

        - and -

     Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
     TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 278-2600
     Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
     E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Runsick" Suit in Arkansas District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Runsick d/b/a Jason Runsick Farms, individually and on
behalf of a Class of others similarly situated v. Syngenta
Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Syngenta Seeds Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00006-BSM (E.D. Ark., January 9, 2015) alleges
property damage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com
                  scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Daniel Bacine, Esq.
          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  sbasser@barrack.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Hodgson" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Hodgson and Jason Moehlman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:15-cv-00026 (W.D. Mo., January 13, 2015), alleges that the
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:

      Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com


TELECHECK SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in "Huff" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Todd J. Campbell granted defendants' partial motion
to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations in the case
captioned JAMES HUFF, et al. v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., et al.,
NO. 3-14-1832, (M.D. Tenn.).

Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Defendants under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, alleging that, in providing consumer
disclosures, Defendants are willfully or negligently violating the
FCRA by refusing or failing to provide the information required
under the FCRA. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs also seek to certify this action as a class action.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff Torrence Bates' claims as
time-barred; dismiss all claims for declaratory or injunctive
relief; and strike all class allegations in the Complaint.

In the Court's January 9, 2015 memorandum, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/1jBsBtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Campbell
ruled that all claims of Plaintiff Bates are dismissed by
agreement. Plaintiff Huff's claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief are dismissed. Plaintiffs' class allegations under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are dismissed, and Plaintiffs' class allegations
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) are limited, by agreement, to those
individuals who received a TeleCheck File Report on or after
September 12, 2012.

Plaintiffs were directed to file an Amended Complaint in line with
the Order on or before January 23, 2015.

James Huff, Plaintiff, represented by Martin D. Holmes --
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Torrence Bates, Plaintiff, represented by Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Telecheck Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by David R.
Esquivel -- desquivel@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims & Clark
D. Milner -- cmilner@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims.

Telecheck International, Inc., Defendant, represented by David R.
Esquivel, Bass, Berry & Sims & Clark D. Milner, Bass, Berry &
Sims.

First Data Corporation, Defendant, represented by David R.
Esquivel, Bass, Berry & Sims & Clark D. Milner, Bass, Berry &
Sims.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Data Sharing
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Batchelor, writing for Law360, reports that a Toyota Motor
Sales USA Inc. customer filed a putative class action in
California federal court on Jan. 8 claiming Toyota gave his
information to Sirius XM Holdings Inc., which made a number of
unsolicited calls to his cellphone in violation to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Brian Trenz contended he and others were victims of an
information-sharing agreement between the two companies in which
Toyota gives Sirius customer data in exchange for temporary free
trials of Sirius' radio entertainment services in new and preowned
cars it sells.  Sirius, the suit claimed, used that information to
make unauthorized calls to his cellphone in violation of the TCPA.

"Sirius makes these telemarketing calls in order to convert the
recent purchasers of these Toyota vehicles into paid subscribers
of Sirius," according to the complaint.

After purchasing a Chevy truck from a Texas Toyota dealership in
September 2014, Mr. Trenz claimed Sirius used his personal
information from the transaction to make more than 30 calls to his
cellphone using an automatic dialing system, the use of which,
without express consent, is banned by the Federal Communications
Commission.

None of the sales documents from the Toyota dealership included a
warning that Mr. Trenz's information might be given to a third-
party like Sirius, and Sirius never sought or received his consent
for the call.  When Mr. Trenz asked Sirius call representatives
how they obtained his information, they were allegedly forthright
about having obtained it from Toyota, the suit said.

Similarly, Mr. Trenz claimed a Toyota dealership employee assured
him it was "common knowledge" that the information would be passed
along.

Mr. Trenz also said that he was unaware of any free trial
involving Sirius' services as part of the purchase and remained in
the dark about the availability of the service until he began
receiving the calls.  He added that Sirius radio never worked in
his car, and he never listened to it.

Even though Sirius is responsible for the calls, Toyota is
vicariously liable for the TCPA claims because the company
provided the customer information, the complaint said.  The suit
asks the court to certify a nationwide class of anyone who
received unsolicited calls from Sirius in the four years prior to
the complaint, regardless if they first bought a car from a Toyota
dealership.

In addition, the suit seeks a separate nationwide subclass of
individuals who first bought a new or pre-owned car from a Toyota
dealership with a free Sirius trial and received unsolicited calls
from the company in the last four years.

Mr. Trenz is represented by Kira M. Rubel of The Law Offices of
Kira M. Rubel.

The suit is Trenz v. Sirus XM Holdings, Inc. et al, case number
3:15-cv-00044, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Dismissal Motion in Junk Fax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned DR. ROBERT L. MEINDERS, D.C., LTD.,
Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE OF
ILLINOIS, INC., AND JOHN DOES E-12, Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-00548-
DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Defendants
United Healthcare, Inc. and United Healthcare of Illinois, Inc.,
alleging that United HealthCare sent a "junk fax" in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff further alleged
that United HealthCare sent an unsolicited fax to him advertising
United Healthcare's services.

United HealthCare asked for the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper
venue and asked the Court to dismiss plaintiff's entire complaint.
Further, United HealthCare argued that Plaintiff should arbitrate
his claims in Minnesota because United has assumed some of the
obligations of the signatory (ACN Group) to the arbitration
agreement and, therefore, can enforce it against plaintiff.

In his response, Plaintiff contended that United HealthCare was
neither a party and/or signatory nor its name appears in the
Provider Agreement. Further, plaintiff contended that he is not
seeking to enforce the Provider Agreement and his claim does not
arise in an action where he is seeking to enforce it.

Judge Herndon ruled that because the arbitration clause in this
case calls for arbitration outside the Southern District of
Illinois, Rule 12(b)(3) is the appropriate vehicle seeking
dismissal of the suit. Further, Judge Herndon held that a Rule
12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue is the proper
procedure to use when the arbitration clause requires arbitration
outside the confines of the district court's district.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated November 19, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1tsxYbB from Leagle.com.

Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., LTD, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by James M. Smith, Bock & Hatch, LLC &
Phillip A. Bock -- phil@diabbock.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC.

Unitedhealthcare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Levin,
Hogan Lovells LLP, Jason P. Stiehl -- jstiehl@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mitchell E. Zamoff --
mitch.zamoff@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Kathryn L.
Marshall, Hogan Lovells LLP.

United Healthcare of Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam Levin, Hogan Lovells LLP, Jason P. Stiehl, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Mitchell E. Zamoff, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Kathryn L. Marshall,
Hogan Lovells LLP.


UNITED SERVICES: Removes "Carlson" Suit to Georgia District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Carlson v. United Services
Automobile Association, et al., Case No. SU14CV3658-68, was
removed from the Superior Court of Muscogee County to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Columbus).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00006-CDL to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Neal Pope, Esq.
          David C. Rayfield, Esq.
          POPE, MCGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, LLP
          Post Office Box 2128
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 324-0050
          E-mail: nealpope@pmkm.com
                  efile@pmkm.com

               - and -

          Shaun O'Hara, Esq.
          Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Esq.
          POPE, MCGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, LLP
          1111 Bay Avenue
          Columbus, GA 31901
          Telephone: (706) 324-0050
          E-mail: shaunohara@pmkm.com
                  efile@pmkm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cannon C. Alsobrook, Esq.
          SAVELL & WILLIAMS, LLP
          233 Peachtree St., Suite 2700
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 614-3532
          E-mail: calsobrook@savellwilliams.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Van Duyne, Esq.
          SAVELL & WILLIAMS, LLP
          2700 Harris Twr 233 Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-1282
          Facsimile: (404) 584-0026
          E-mail: JAV@savellwilliams.com

               - and -

          John A. Little, Esq.
          Christopher C. Frost, Esq.
          Lee E. Bains, Jr., Esq.
          Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Ave N
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: jlittle@maynardcooper.com
                  cfrost@maynardcooper.com
                  lbains@maynardcooper.com
                  mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com


UNITED WELLNESS: Plaintiff's Bid for Default Judgment Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith partly granted Plaintiff's Motion
for Default Judgment in the case captioned STACY ALEOBUA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED WELLNESS COMMUNITY, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 14-cv-12932 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs Stacey Aleboua and Amber Brown filed a putative
collective action alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Bullard Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act.
All other Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint except
United Wellness Community, LLC, wherein it neither filed an
appearance nor a response to the Complaint.

Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought and obtained an entry of default
against United Wellness Community, requested the Court to enter a
default judgment, and asked the Court to defer entering a specific
monetary amount for the judgment until further discovery can be
accomplished.

In his Opinion and Order granting the motion for default judgment
in part, Judge Goldsmith favored and entered a default judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs Aleobua and Brown, individually and granted
its request to defer determining the specific monetary amount of
the default judgment until appropriate discovery may be completed.
However, Judge Goldsmith declined to enter a default judgment
against United Wellness Community on behalf of the putative
collective-class members for the reason that it is unclear whether
a collective class will exist throughout the case and the court
must first determine whether class certification is appropriate
before it may decide whether to enter a default judgment in favor
of the entire class because absent of class certification, no
default can be made.

A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/nlGb4hfrom Leagle.com.

Stacy Aleobua, Plaintiff, represented by Megan Bonanni, Pitt,
McGehee & Jennifer Lossia McManus, Dib and Fagan, P.C..

Amber Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Megan Bonanni, Pitt,
McGehee & Jennifer Lossia McManus, Dib and Fagan, P.C..

Ikechukwu Odum, Sr., Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Bourque,
Ellis, Eby.

Ikechukwu Odom, Jr., Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Bourque,
Ellis, Eby.

Nneka Odum, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Bourque, Ellis,
Eby.

Naly Odum, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Bourque, Ellis,
Eby.

MICHOLDINGS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Bourque,
Ellis, Eby.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Attorney Fees Unreasonable, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burkes, writing for The Oklahoman, reports that attorney
Jason McVicker discusses the most recent development in Oklahoma
class action law, which he says may help impose some order on the
wild world of class actions.


Q. What is the most recent development in Oklahoma class action
law?

A. Theoretically, class actions vindicate the rights of consumers.
Yet in the recent case of Hess vs. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
the consumers got just $140 per person, and the plaintiffs'
attorneys requested more than $7.2 million in legal fees and
costs.  Had the Oklahoma Supreme Court not intervened, the lawyers
would have walked away with an award roughly 51,000 times greater
than the award they won for their individual clients.

Q. What happened there?

A. In Hess, the attorneys settled a nationwide class action
alleging a defect in the front spoiler of the Volkswagen Jetta.
The purely cosmetic defect allegedly impacted 2.1 million class
members, but only 310 bothered to seek any recovery, for a grand
total of around $45,000.  As part of the settlement, Volkswagen
agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees in addition to the $45,000.
The trial court initially awarded more than $3 million to the
attorneys.  After further legal wrangling, the trial court doubled
the award, granting more than $7 million to the lawyers for a case
that only recovered $45,000.  Volkswagen appealed, and the
Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Volkswagen that the fees
weren't reasonable.

Q. What did the court decide?

A. Attorney fees must be reasonable.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled that an award must bear some reasonable relationship to the
amount in controversy.  The award of attorney fees here didn't
pass muster; the difference between $45,000 and $7 million is
staggering.  The Supreme Court noted several other errors as well.
For example, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs' attorneys
fees for a related lawsuit against Volkswagen in Florida, though
it was a completely separate action, in a completely different
state, and the lawyers there actually lost.  Similarly, the trial
court multiplied the fee award, relying on inapplicable Missouri
case law.  The court unanimously ordered the trial court to issue
a new, smaller award.  The concurring opinion would have gone
farther, saying the "award reflected a preposterous number of
attorney and paralegal hours given the minimal and paltry
recovery."  The concurring justices admitted that complicated
cases, or those requiring special expertise or courage, may
justify greater attorney fees.  But "it is hard to imagine
promoting the cause of decorative plastic spoilers on a Volkswagen
Jetta as courageous."  The concurring justices warned that
attorney fee awards like this undermine public confidence in
courts and urged a very severe reduction.


Q. What's the bottom line here?
A. When an attorney seeks legal fees, they must be "reasonable,"
but that standard is vague, and hard and fast rules are scarce.
This case provides some much-needed definition to a very ambiguous
area of law.  It may help impose some order on the wild world of
class actions.


WESBANCO INC: Has Deal to Resolve ESB Merger Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Wesbanco, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 15, 2015, that ESB
Financial Corporation ("ESB") and Wesbanco, Inc. and the Director
Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS")
with the respective plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs")
regarding the settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the
Lawrence County Lawsuit.

ESB Financial Corporation ("ESB") and Wesbanco, Inc. ("WesBanco")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October
29, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the merger of ESB
with and into WesBanco, with WesBanco as the surviving corporation
(the "Proposed Merger"). Each of ESB (SEC File No. 0-19345) and
WesBanco (SEC File No. 333-200391) filed a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus, dated as of December 11, 2014 (the "Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Merger.

As reported by each of ESB and WesBanco on Current Reports on Form
8-K, each dated December 15, 2014 and filed on December 19, 2014,
two putative class action complaints were filed by purported
shareholders of ESB with respect to the Proposed Merger. One
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Federal District Court"),
and is captioned and numbered James Elliott vs. ESB Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01689-MRH (the "Federal Lawsuit").
The other complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, and is captioned and numbered
Randall Kress v. ESB Bank, Case No. 11185/14 CA (the "Lawrence
County Lawsuit"). Both complaints alleged generally, among other
things, that each member of ESB's board of directors (the
"Director Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement, that ESB and WesBanco aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that the disclosure
regarding the Proposed Merger contained in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient.

On January 15, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and
the Director Defendants (ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director
Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS") with the respective
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the
settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit.  Pursuant to the MOS, ESB and WesBanco have agreed to
file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of
ESB and WesBanco the supplemental disclosures provided below in
this Current Report on Form 8-K and the Plaintiffs have agreed to
release ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director Defendants from
all claims related to the Merger Agreement and the Proposed
Merger, subject to approval of the Federal District Court.  If the
court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOS, both the
Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County Lawsuit will be dismissed
with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be
released and barred. Under the terms of the MOS, counsel for the
Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest
the fee and expense petition. The amount of any fees and expense
awarded will ultimately be determined and approved by the court,
and will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid
by WesBanco.  ESB or its successor or insurer will pay any fees
and expenses awarded by the court. In the MOS, the parties have
agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of
settlement to be filed with the court and other documentation as
may be required to effectuate the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOS will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the court does not approve the settlement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of shareholders of ESB scheduled for January 22, 2015 in Ellwood
City, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement.  Similarly, the settlement will not affect the timing
of the special meeting of shareholders of WesBanco scheduled for
January 22, 2015 in Wheeling, West Virginia to vote on a proposal
to approve the issuance of shares of WesBanco common stock in
connection with the  Proposed Merger. ESB and the other Defendants
deny all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the
disclosures previously included in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless,
ESB and the other Defendants have agreed to settle the putative
class action lawsuits in order to avoid the costs, disruptions and
distraction of further litigation.

ESB and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted
in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly
maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens
and entered into the MOS solely to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest.  Nothing in this Current Report
on Form 8-K, the MOS or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth.


WET SEAL: Appeal Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that the Second Appellate District in
California affirmed one trial court order and dismissed a
challenge as to a second. The court held that an employee's
purported waiver of her right to bring a representative action
under the Private Attorneys General Act rendered an arbitration
agreement unenforceable.

Elizabeth Montano filed a putative class action lawsuit against
employer The Wet Seal Retail, Inc., alleging various wage and hour
violations.

Ms. Montano propounded various discovery requests to Wet Seal,
which responded with objections but no substantive information.
Ms. Montano filed a motion to compel discovery responses.

Prior to hearing on that motion, Wet Seal moved to compel
arbitration, relying on an arbitration agreement executed by
Ms. Montano.

Ms. Montano opposed, arguing that agreement was procedurally and
substantively unconscionable, due in part to its inclusion of a
waiver of Montano's right to bring class actions and
representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions.

The trial court denied Wet Seal's motion to compel arbitration,
finding the PAGA waiver was both invalid and nonseverable, thereby
rendering the entire agreement unenforceable.  The court also
granted Ms. Montano's motion to compel discovery.

Wet Seal appealed both rulings.

The court of appeal affirmed the denial of Wet Seal's motion to
compel arbitration, holding that the trial court properly deemed
the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Under the PAGA, an aggrieved employee may bring a civil action
individually and on behalf of other current or former employees to
recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations.  A PAGA
representative action is in the nature of a qui tam proceeding in
which the employee plaintiff is authorized to file suit as the
proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies for
recovery of civil penalties.  It is thus fundamentally a law
enforcement action, intended to protect the public and not to
benefit private parties.

In (I)Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC(I) (2014) 59
Cal.4th 348, the California Supreme Court considered whether an
employee's waiver of the right to bring PAGA claims was
enforceable.  That court concluded the answer was no, finding that
a prohibition of PAGA claim's would frustrate the PAGA's
objectives.

Applying (I)Iskanian(I), the court agreed with the trial court
that Montano's purported waiver of her right to bring a
representative action under the PAGA could not be enforced.
Because the parties' agreement contained a nonseverability
provision, the trial court properly declared the entire
arbitration agreement void and unenforceable.

Turning to Wet Seal's remaining challenge to the trial court's
discovery order, the court dismissed that portion of Wet Seal's
appeal, finding that, in the absence of a statutory provision for
appeal of such order, the discovery order was not appealable.

                     Modified Opinion Entered

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four
issued on January 13, 2015, an order modifying an opinion in
ELIZABETH MONTANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE WET SEAL
RETAIL, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B244107.

The opinion filed on January 7, 2015, was modified to delete
footnote 7 found on Page 11.  There was no change in judgment, the
Appeals Court noted in its modified opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/CBHgMOfrom Leagle.com.

Wet Seal had taken an appeal from the denial of its motion to
compel arbitration of this wage and hour action brought by
employee, Elizabeth Montano. Wet Seal also challenged the grant of
Ms. Montano's motion to compel discovery responses.

The Appeals Court affirmed the order denying the motion to compel
arbitration and dismissed the challenge to the discovery order as
nonappealable.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ryan D. McCortney --
rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jason M. Guyser for Defendant
and Appellant.

Scott Cole & Associates, Matthew R. Bainer and Molly A. DeSario
for Plaintiff and Respondent.


* Consumer Group to Help Food Scandal Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lin Meng-ru and Y.F. Low at Focus Taiwan News Channel report that
the Cabinet's Consumer Protection Committee said on Jan. 10 it
will help consumers affected by a recent food scandal involving
dried tofu products file a class action lawsuit to seek
compensation from the manufacturers if necessary.

Since the scandal erupted last month, the committee has been
handling complaints from consumers and coordinating refund issues
with retailers, officials said.  If their refund requests are not
accepted, consumers are advised to call the committee's service
hotline 1950 or lodge complaints online via the committee's
website www.cpc.ey.gov.tw  they said.

In the latest case, some dried tofu products were found to contain
dimethyl yellow, a banned industrial dye that has been proven to
cause liver cancer in animals.


* Ontario Law Commission Evaluates Class Action Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Paterson, Esq. at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that one year ago on Jan. 8, the Law
Commission of Ontario (LCO) released the list of issues to be
considered by its Class Actions Advisory Group. As we noted, the
list of issues includes, among others:

Whether and how to facilitate national classes (the recent
Excalibur, Prince and Endean decisions, among others)
Improving procedural efficiency, including in the test for
certification and evidentiary requirements, appeal routes, the
order in which motions should be heard, and carriage motions
Whether Ontario should become a "no-costs" class action
jurisdiction rather than a "loser-pays" jurisdiction

The policy and jurisprudence surrounding cy pres, reversion and
forfeiture in settlements

The rate of take-up by class members, and whether and how notices
to the class can improve take-up rates

The Class Proceedings Fund, its policy and funding framework and
its sustainability

Whether and when third party funding creates a risk of conflict of
interest

Waiver of tort, what it is and whether and how it should be used
Securities class actions and how common law and statutory causes
of action interact

Filling The Information Gap

One of the big challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of class
action procedures in Ontario is the lack of accurate data about
class actions.  Over the last year, the Advisory Group has made
progress in collecting data to statistically evaluate class action
activities.  For example:

The Canadian Forum on Civil Justice provided funding for students
who compiled a database containing information about the nearly
600 cases commenced since 1993.  This database includes
information about the number and outcome of motions, trials and
appeals in each case as well as the length of time to complete
each process.

The LCO called for Research Proposals to provide empirical
evidence of take-up rates in class actions in Ontario, including
identification and analysis of key factors that influence such
rates, from 2003 to 2013.  The final research paper is due on
April 15, 2015.

What's Next?

Given the Supreme Court of Canada's clear direction that parties
should focus on resolving the substance of disputes efficiently
and effectively, the Advisory Group's report -- and the data it
contains -- can't come too soon.


* Use of Cy Pres Relief in Settlements Raises Controversy
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Trask of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that in the last five years, the use of cy pres relief in
settlements has become particularly controversial.  Various
appellate courts have expressed suspicion about the use of cy pres
in questionable settlements.  Even Justice Roberts has signaled
that, given the right vehicle, he would like the Supreme Court to
review the fairness of cy pres distributions.  Much of the
controversy stems from two issues: (1) the potential for abuse of
cy pres relief to inflate the value of bad settlements, and (2)
the underlying philosophical justifications for allowing cy pres
distributions.

Despite the growing controversy, the Rules Advisory Committee is
considering formalizing the use of cy pres in Rule 23.  In its
October 2014 report, the Rule 23 Subcommittee wrote that

The cy pres phenomenon is a matter of settlement, particularly in
cases with small individual harms.  There is no specific provision
of Rule 23 that bears on this possibility.  Some states do have
specific provisions as a matter of state law.  But the absence of
a rule provision has not prevented use of this technique on
occasion.  And at least sometimes this sort of activity attracts
criticism.  For an example, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion
regarding denial of cert. in Marek v. Lane, observing that "in an
appropriate case, this Court may need to clarify the limits on the
use of such remedies."  Maybe a rule change would be a way to do
so as well.  The ALI Aggregate Litigation provision on cy pres
treatment has received considerable support in the cases and might
provide a model.

The ALI's take on cy pres -- that it should be used only when
there is unclaimed money in an escrow fund and further
distributions to actual class members are not feasible -- is
largely considered a compromise position, albeit a fairly
principled one.  (What is the defense-oriented critique?  Well, if
the case had any merit and the settlement was negotiated based on
merit rather than the "hydraulic pressure" of litigation costs and
massive exposure, then why are there leftover funds?)

Many individual defendants can take or leave cy pres relief.  It
can occasionally serve as a useful tool to close the gap between
the cash a defendant is willing to spend for peace and the relief
required to justify plaintiffs' counsel's fees.  (Since cy pres
relief goes to third parties, it may tick different accounting
boxes for some defendants than a cash payout.)  And there is
nothing forcing a defendant to use a cy pres distribution in a
class settlement.

If that's the case, why would defendants bother opposing any
attempt to enshrine cy pres relief in Rule 23? There's no question
that some defendants (or defense counsel) may oppose cy pres
because they need a third party to save them from themselves.
Much as someone watching his weight might understand that cutting
sugar is good while still succumbing to the candy bar in front of
him, it is possible to understand that overuse of cy pres will
encourage more questionable settlements while still using it for
temporary advantage in a current settlement.  For defense counsel
in particular, watching client after client give in to this
temptation against advice might motivate some strong advocacy
against enshrining cy pres in Rule 23.  (I wouldn't know; most of
my clients don't employ it.)

But the real stake here is the underlying theory of the class
action.  There's been a long debate over whether a class action is
a "deterrent" "Private AG" action or an aggregation device to
effect compensation for those who have been wronged.  Cy pres
relief is perfectly consistent with conception of the class action
as deterrent, and -- as even its supporters admit -- not at all
consistent with any compensation theory.

And that raises some troubling questions.  Because if the class
action is actually a deterrent device, then it likely violates the
Rules Enabling Act, because it creates a new substantive law
regime.  (After all, cy pres relief is not available to individual
tort or contract claimants.)

One could argue that, since cy pres relief usually comes up at
settlement, the parties are free to put in whatever provisions
they want.  But enshrining cy pres relief in Rule 23(e) would go
beyond simply allowing parties a greater freedom of terms.  It
would actively be choosing between the deterrence and compensation
models for the class action.

So the debate over cy pres relief really comes down to a debate
over the legitimacy of the class action itself.  And it is likely
to be a heated one.  After all, cy pres relief has become an
integral part of many plaintiffs' business model.  Despite the
likely heat, the Advisory Committee would be on sounder footing
were it to explicitly limit (or even disclaim) the use of cy pres
relief.  Doing so would be consistent with the traditional
rationale for the class action, and would avoid messy
constitutional questions.


                             *********

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  * * *