CAR_Public/150302.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 43


                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORPORATION: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action
ADT LLC: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALI BABA: Faces "Solano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: No Gains Related to Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Bazley" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mellon" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Petty" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Salero" Suit in C.D. Cal. Alleged Data Breach
AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Xpert Models Due to Safety Risk
BEAM SUNTORY: Falsely Marketed Bourbon Products, "Welk" Suit Says

CAAVERI ENTERPRISE: Recalls Pickle Products Due to Mustard
CAREFUSION CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in BD Merger Case
CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee, Viper & Liberty Models
COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Endo GIA Autosuture Universal Products
DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Engstrom Ventilator Casters and Bases

ECOMAX NUTRITION: Recalls Sunflower Seeds Due to Salmonella
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Rice" Suit in Pa. Over Microwave Defects
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: January 2016 Trial Date Set in "Loritz" Case
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: 6 Lawsuits Filed v. Current & Former Officers
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: "Hernandez" Case Remains Stayed

EXPEDIA INC: City of Los Angeles Litigation Remains Stayed
EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Amend Judgment in San Antonio Suit Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Motion for Reargument in Nassau Suit Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Leon County Suit Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Breckenridge Suit Pending

EXPEDIA INC: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bedford Litigation
EXPEDIA INC: Settlement in Principle in Columbia Litigation
EXPEDIA INC: Miami-Dade Litigation Remains Stayed Pending
EXPEDIA INC: City of Chicago Filed Motion for Summary Judgment
EXPEDIA INC: Ruling in San Diego Case Up for Review

EXPEDIA INC: City of Atlanta's Appeal Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: NC Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
EXPEDIA INC: San Francisco Litigation Remains Stayed
EXPEDIA INC: Leon County v. Expedia Remains Stayed
EXPEDIA INC: Montana Supreme Court Set Oral Argument for April 10

EXPEDIA INC: Oral Argument Took Place in D.C. Litigation
EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Fargo Litigation to Begin September 1
EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Litigation Denied
EXPEDIA INC: Trial in New Hampshire Litigation to Begin Feb. 2016
EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Puerto Rico Case to Begin September 21

EXPEDIA INC: Miller and Frank Plaintiffs to Seek Appeal
EXPEDIA INC: Friedman Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal Order
EXPEDIA INC: Plaintiffs in OFT Case Did Not Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Recalls MKS 2011 Models Due to Safety Hazards
FREEDOM RAIN: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GINLEY LAWN: Faces "Maria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HNY INC: "Duran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LANGER TRANSPORT: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LEX FOOD: "Ferreira" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINCOLN: Recalls MKT 2013 Models Due to Failure to Meet Standrads

LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Caisse and Newport Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
MACK: Recalls CXU 2014 Models Due to Safety Risk
MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions for Summary Judgment
MICROPORT ORTHOPEDICS: Recalls Evolution Tibial Base Products
NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire and Essex Class A Motorhome Models

OAK HEALTH: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ONE STOP: Faces "McMillan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Safety Risk
PARRILLADA LAS VACAS: Fails to Pay OT, "Ferriol" Suit Says
PASTA & POTATOES: "Dios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PERK UP: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Allura XPER FD10 Products
POST HOLDINGS: March and April 2015 Hearings on Certification Bid
SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Choking Hazard
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer

SMITHS MEDICAL: Recalls Cassette Reservoir Due to Leakage
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sanctions Dispute Referred to Special Master
STREAMLINE AUTOMATION: Faces "Palm" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUNBEAM CORPORATION: Recalls Oil Heaters Due to Burn Hazards
SYSMEX AMERICA: Recalls E-Check Assay Sheets Due to Errors

TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Brightbill" Suit Over Faulty Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Wieczorek" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TCB NAPLES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TIM'S SNOWPLOWING: Faces "Saez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TIME WARNER: Faces "Beecher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Avalon 2011 Model Due to Fire Hazard
UGI CORPORATION: Cases Transferred to Missouri Western Division
UROPLASTY INC: Faces "Frustaci" Class Action
WILSON-COOK MEDICAL: Recalls OMNI Tome Preloaded Sphincterotome

* CFIA Recalls Hi-Protein Oatmeal


                            *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class
action is pending against the Company, AISS (which was sold to
another company in fiscal 2012), and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc.,
a Colorado corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Acxiom (now
known as Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC), in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  This action
seeks to certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a
consumer file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were
the subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that
contained information not obtained directly from a governmental
entity and who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who
were the subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom
adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer;
who, from 2010 forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did
not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007
forward, were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no
permissible purpose existed. The complaint alleges various
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The parties have
reached a tentative settlement agreement and the Company has
accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable loss
associated with this matter.  The Company believes the chances of
additional loss are remote.

In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


ADT LLC: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADT LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:15-cv-00383 (E.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, as well as additional damages and relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

ADT LLC and its affiliates provide electronic security,
interactive home and business automation and alarm monitoring
services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Alan Harris, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      4771 Cromwell Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90027
      Telephone: (323) 931-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 931-3366
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com


ALI BABA: Faces "Solano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Antonio Solano, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Ali Baba Mediterranean Grill Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00555 (N.D. Tex., February 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Ali Baba Mediterranean Grill Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
in Dallas County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: No Gains Related to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
recognized no gains during the three months ended December 31,
2014, related to class action lawsuits.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer,
by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to
delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The
Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these
pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class actions have
gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company
receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  The Company
recognized no gains during the three months ended December 31,
2014 and recognized gains of $21.0 million during the three months
ended December 31, 2013 related to the class action lawsuits.
These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments
due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods
sold in the Company's consolidated statements of operations.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Bazley" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Bazley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00226 (W.D. Pa., February 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing patient's personally
identifiable information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Caroselli, Esq.
      CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
      20 Stanwix Street, Seventh Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 391-9860
      E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com

         - and -

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      Richard S. De Francisco, Esq.
      1845 Walnut Street, Fifteenth Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 609-1350
      E-mail: dsenoff@cbmclaw.com
              rdefrancisco@cbmclaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mellon" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Mellon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00323 (D.
Colo., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              ashlea@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Little, Esq.
      SAEED and LITTLE LLP
      1433 N. Meridian Street
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Telephone: (317) 721-9214
      E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Petty" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine F. Petty, on behalf of herself and all others similarl
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01177 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. Greenfield, Esq.
      Marguerite R. Goodman, Esq
      Dene F. Brookler, Esq.
      GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC
      250 Hudson Street-8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (917)495-4446
      E-mail: vvhitehatrdg@earthlink.net
              twowhitehats@earthlink.net

         - and -

      Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      Two Perm Center
      1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 320
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215)814-6750
      E-mail: abolognese@bolognese-law.com
              jgraba@bolognese-law.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Salero" Suit in C.D. Cal. Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Salerno, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01144 (C.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
patient's personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq.
      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway New York, New York 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5641
      E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Xpert Models Due to Safety Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
MfrSystem: Structure
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015042TC
ID number: 2015042
Manufacturer recall number: M-1408

Certain Xpert chassis vehicles may experience a bounce condition
while traveling 40km\h or faster, related to chassis flexibility
and body configuration. The bounce condition may be surprising or
unnerving to the operator. This could result in a loss of driver
control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: The vehicle will be
re-calibrated with an updated calibration program. This updated
calibration will correct the issue. Note: This is an expansion of
recall 2014394.

   Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----      ----------------------
   AUTOCAR    XPERT      2012


BEAM SUNTORY: Falsely Marketed Bourbon Products, "Welk" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Welk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beam Suntory Import Co. and Jim Beam Brands Co. d/b/a
Jim Beam, Case No. 3:15-cv-00328 (S.D. Cal., February 17, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' false and misleading promotion of
their white label bourbon products as Handcrafted. When in fact,
the Defendants actually employ mechanized and automated processes
to manufacture and bottle their bourbon.

Beam Suntory Import Co. is a manufacturer of spirits headquartered
in Deerfield, Illinois. It is a subsidiary of Suntory Holdings of
Osaka, Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


CAAVERI ENTERPRISE: Recalls Pickle Products Due to Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard
Classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Caaveri Enterprise Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9607

  Brand   Common    Size     Code(s) on product   UPC
  name    name      ----     ------------------   ---
  ----    ----
  MD      Sinhalese   375 g  All codes where     4 792098 118113
          Pickle             mustard is not
                             declared on the
                             label.


CAREFUSION CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in BD Merger Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CareFusion Corporation on October 5, 2014, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Becton,
Dickinson and Company, a New Jersey corporation ("BD"), and
Griffin Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of BD ("Merger Corp").

CareFusion said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that as a result of the proposed
Merger with BD, the Company is subject to putative class action
lawsuits in Delaware and California challenging the proposed
merger transaction.

"On December 31, 2014, we entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the Delaware
actions. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, it will release all claims in all
actions, including the Delaware actions and California actions,
that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger or the merger agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (excluding any demand for appraisal under
Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware). The impact of the settlements is not expected to be
material to our consolidated financial statements," CareFusion
said.


CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee, Viper & Liberty Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 49870
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015040TC
ID number: 2015040
Manufacturer recall number: R06

On certain vehicles, a defect in the supplemental restraint system
(SRS) could result in an inadvertent deployment of the front
airbag, side curtain airbag and/or seatbelt pretensioner.
Unintended seatbelt pretensioner and/or airbag deployment, in a
non-warranted (non-impact) situation, could startle the driver,
which could result in a vehicle crash causing property damage
and/or personal injury. In some instances, inadvertent deployment
could cause minor injuries to vehicle occupants. Correction:
Dealers will replace the SRS control unit and may install an in-
line jumper wiring harness to correct the issue. Note: This recall
supersedes recalls 2012378 and 2013046. Vehicles that were
repaired under the previous campaign will also need to be repaired
under this campaign.

Affected products

   Make     Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----           ----------------------
   JEEP     GRAND CHEROKEE  2002
   DODGE    VIPE            2003
   JEEP     LIBERTY         2002


COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Endo GIA Autosuture Universal Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43733

A) Endo GIA Autosuture Universal

The lots number beginning with the prefix "H", contain
modifications to the device that did not receive required country-
specific regulatory authorization for distribution. The
modifications to these devices do not pose any risk to patients or
clinicians.

B) Endo GIA Autosuture Universal

   Lot or serial number
   --------------------
   H3F
   H3J
   H3K
   H3L
   H3M
   H4A
   H4B
   H4C
   H4D
   H4E
   H4F

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   030455
   030456
   030458
   030459

Manufacturer:  Covidien LLC
               15 Hampshire Street
               Mansfield 02048, Massachusetts
               UNITED STATES


DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Engstrom Ventilator Casters and Bases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Posting date: February 6, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43635

Specific combinations of Engstrom ventilator casters and bases
have been identified that pose an increased likelihood of failures
of the caster mounting hardware. A failure of the caster mounting
hardware may result in the ventilator falling/tipping
(overbalancing). A fall/tip of the Engstrom ventilator can result
in serious injury to patients or staff.

A. Engstrom Carestation

   Lot or serial number
   -------------------
   CBCP01415
   CBCP01452
   CBCP01475

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   1505-9000-000

   Manufacturer:  Datex-Ohmeda
                  3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550,
                  Madison 53707-7550, Wisconsin
                  UNITED STATES


ECOMAX NUTRITION: Recalls Sunflower Seeds Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Updated Food Recall
Warning Sub category: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard
Classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling Firm: Ecomax Nutrition
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA
Reference number: 9610

The food recall warning issued on January 15, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information.

Ecomax Nutrition is recalling Go Raw brand 100% Organic Sprouted
Sunflower Seeds from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

Sign up for recall notifications by email or follow us on Twitter.
View our detailed explanation of the food safety investigation and
recall process

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products

  Brand name Common name  Size    Code(s)        UPC
  ---------- -----------  ----   on product      ---
                                 ----------
Go Raw      100% Organic  454 g   ENJOY BEFORE   8 59888 00009 7
            Sprouted              AUG/22/2015
            Sunflower             R5 HH:MM *
            Seeds                 (* HH:MM
                                  indicates
                                  the time)

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/vocDWU


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Rice" Suit in Pa. Over Microwave Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00371
(M.D. Pa., February 18, 2015), arises out of the defect in the
handle of the Over- The-Range Microwave Ovens, that was designed,
manufactured, warranted, advertised, distributed, and sold by
Defendant throughout the United States. The handle of the
Microwave can reach temperatures of over 168 degrees Fahrenheit
when the cooking, presenting a risk of serious injury to anyone
who touches the handle with a bare hand.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and distributes powered appliances for kitchen,
cleaning and outdoor use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Price, Esq.
      Sean P. McDonough, Esq.
      Paul T. Oven, Esq.
      DOUGHERTY LEVENTHAL & PRICE, LLP
      75 Glenmaura National Blvd.
      Moosic, PA 18507
      Telephone: 570-347-1011
      E-mail: JPrice@dlplaw.com
              SMcDonough@dlplaw.com
              Ptoven@dlplaw.com

         - and -

      Simon B. Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-8282
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Sara J. Payne, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
              spayne@gustafsongluek.com


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: January 2016 Trial Date Set in "Loritz" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a trial date of
January 19, 2016 has been set in the securities class action by
David M. Loritz.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named
defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James
Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action
in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013,
against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E.
Martinez.

On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases
under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket
number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James
Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide
stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their
consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013.

On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a
future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to
pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the
pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their
claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous
deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A.
Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly,
Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson,
John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi.

Lead Plaintiffs did not name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended
Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period June 1,
2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to
state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's senior secured notes
during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead
Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the
Company and its officers during these periods were materially
false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not
specify an amount of damages sought.

Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to
vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all
claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without
prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30,
2014.

On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every
material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount
of damages sought.   On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint.   On
August 11, 2014, Judge Wilson entered an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim against R. Paul Hirt, Jr., former
Executive Vice President and President of Exide Americas, but
denying the remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Discovery in this litigation will now proceed and it is expected
to continue through 2015.  A trial date of January 19, 2016 has
been set in this matter. Defendants deny all allegations against
them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: 6 Lawsuits Filed v. Current & Former Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that between December
22-24, 2014, six lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division by or
on behalf of more than 400 plaintiffs against current and former
Exide officers and employees, including James Bolch, Phillip
Damaska, Paul Hirt and Does 1-100 by multiple law firms seeking
general, special, punitive and other damages for alleged personal
injury, property damage, wrongful death and other claims related
to alleged exposure to certain contaminants emitted or released
from the Vernon recycling center. The Company is not a named
defendant in any of the suits. Five of the six complaints contain
virtually identical allegations including claims of negligence,
negligence per se, private /public permanent/continuing nuisance
causing special injury, private and public trespass, violation of
California's unfair trade practices act, misrepresentation and
fraudulent concealment, and absolute liability for ultra-hazardous
activity. One lawsuit also includes claims for alleged wrongful
death, survival actions, and loss of consortium.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: "Hernandez" Case Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit filed by Zach Hernandez is stayed.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and
medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los
Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of
the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the
Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10,
2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization
pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District
of Delaware, and the case is stayed.


EXPEDIA INC: City of Los Angeles Litigation Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the city of Los Angeles
Litigation remains stayed pending review and decision by the
California Supreme Court in the City of San Diego, California
Litigation.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of online
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire. City
of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693
(Superior Court, Los Angeles County). The complaint alleges that
the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a statewide
class of all California cities and counties that have enacted
uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after
December 30, 1990. The complaint alleges violation of those
ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The complaint
also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject
to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers
and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by the
defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement,
restitution, interest and penalties.

On April 18, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel
companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the
city of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles filed a notice of
appeal. The California Court of Appeals has stayed this case
pending review and decision by the California Supreme Court in the
City of San Diego, California Litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Amend Judgment in San Antonio Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the cities' motion to
amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties in the City
of San Antonio, Texas Litigation remains pending.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of online travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. See City of
San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381
(United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants have
failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation
of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory
judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
restitution and disgorgement.

On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that
defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding
approximately $15 million for historical damages against the
Expedia companies. The jury also found that defendants were not
liable for conversion or punitive damages.

On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the
online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to
counties and cities in the statewide class. The online travel
companies filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in
the alternative, for a new trial, and the cities filed a motion to
amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties. On February
20, 2014, the court denied the online travel companies' motion.
The cities' motion remains pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion for Reargument in Nassau Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in the
Nassau County, New York Litigation filed a motion for reargument
or for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's reversal of the
trial court's certification order. These motions remain pending.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia. Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York).
The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain New
York cities, counties and local governments in New York. The
complaint asserts claims for violations of those ordinances, as
well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition
of a constructive trust, and seeks unspecified damages. The county
subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 on the basis that
the court lacked jurisdiction and re-filed in state court. County
of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau). The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the refilled state court case.

On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel companies'
motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification.

On April 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The online travel company defendants have appealed
both the court's certification order and its prior order denying
their motion to dismiss. Defendants sought a stay of proceedings
in the trial court pending resolution of their appeals to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Second Judicial Department. The Appellate Division denied that
request on June 3, 2013.

On September 10, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate
Division reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

In a separate opinion, the Appellate Division also affirmed in
part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of the online
travel companies' motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2014, the
online travel companies filed a motion for leave to appeal the
Appellate Division's denial of their motion to dismiss.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reargument or
for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial
court's certification order. These motions remain pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Leon County Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in the Leon
County, Florida et al. Litigation remains pending before the
Florida Supreme Court.

On November 3, 2009, Leon County and a number of other counties in
Florida filed an action against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com and Hotwire. Leon
County, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. Case No: 2009CA4319
(Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County,
Florida). The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to
collect and/or pay taxes under the county's tourist development
tax ordinances. Flagler, Alachua, Nassau, Okaloosa, Seminole,
Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Lee, Charlotte, Escambia, Manatee,
Saint Johns, Polk, Walton and Wakulla counties were added as
plaintiffs.

On April 19, 2012, the court granted the defendant online travel
companies' motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs'
motion and held that online travel companies have no obligation to
remit hotel occupancy taxes.

On February 23, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial
court decision in the Leon County, Florida litigation that online
travel companies are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes.
Thereafter, on April 16, 2013, the court of appeals denied the
counties' request for rehearing en banc, but granted its petition
for certification to the Florida Supreme Court. On September 10,
2013, the Florida Supreme Court informed the parties that it would
review the decision of the court of appeals. The appeal remains
pending before the Florida Supreme Court.  Oral argument before
the Florida Supreme Court took place on April 30, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids in Breckenridge Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the Town
of Breckenridge, Colorado Litigation have filed cross-motions for
summary judgment, which motions remain pending.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit
on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a
number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia
and Hotwire. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County,
Colorado). The complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment,
violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy
and unjust enrichment. The online travel companies have filed a
motion to dismiss.

On June 8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the
online travel companies' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff moved
for class certification, which was denied by the court on March
26, 2014. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, which motions remain pending.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in Bedford Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied,
without prejudice, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the City of Bedford Park Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of
Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace,
Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford and
Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in Illinois
federal court against a number of online travel companies,
including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. City of Warrenville, et
al. v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586
(USDC, N. D. Ill., Eastern Division). The complaint seeks
certification of a class of all Illinois municipalities (broken
into four alleged subclasses) that have enacted and collect a tax
on the percentage of the retail rate that each consumer occupant
pays for lodging, including service costs, denominated in any
manner, including but not limited to occupancy tax, a hotel or
motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege tax, a hotel or motel tax,
a licensing tax, an accommodations tax, a rental receipts tax, a
hotel operator's tax, a hotel operator's occupation tax, or a room
rental, lease or letting tax. The complaint alleges claims for
relief for declaratory judgment, violations of municipal
ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment,
imposition of a constructive trust, damages and punitive damages.

On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily
dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in Illinois state court. City of Bedford
Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The online travel companies
removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims, which the court granted on
March 13, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court denied, without prejudice, on
January 6, 2015.


EXPEDIA INC: Settlement in Principle in Columbia Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties have reached
a settlement in principle in the City of Columbia, South Carolina,
et al. Litigation.

On July 26, 2013, the City of Columbia, South Carolina on behalf
of itself and other local governments in the state of South
Carolina filed a lawsuit in state court against a number of online
travel companies, including the Expedia companies. City of South
Carolina, et al. v. Hotelguides, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CP-
10-4368 (In the Court of Common Pleas Ninth Judicial Circuit). The
complaint alleges claims for conversion, voluntary undertaking to
collect tax pursuant to hotel tax ordinances, contractual
undertaking to collect taxes pursuant to hotel tax ordinances,
existence or imposition of trust and/or constructive trust, unjust
enrichment, demand for legal accounting, and civil conspiracy. The
parties have reached a settlement in principle.


EXPEDIA INC: Miami-Dade Litigation Remains Stayed Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Miami-Dade County,
Florida Litigation remains stayed pending a final appellate
determination in the Leon County, Florida et al. Litigation.

On December 18, 2009, Expedia, Inc., Hotwire and Hotels.com
brought suit against Miami-Dade for refund of hotel occupancy
taxes assessed against the companies. Expedia, Inc. v. Miami-Dade
County, Florida and Florida Department of Revenue, Cause No.
09CA4978 (In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in
and for Leon County); Hotwire, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Cause
No. 09CA4977 (In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit
in and for Leon County); Hotels.com, L.P. v. Miami-Dade County,
Florida and Florida Department of Revenue, Cause No. 09CA4979 (In
the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon
County). The companies moved to dismiss Miami-Dade's
counterclaims. These cases have been consolidated with the cases
brought by other online travel companies for refund of hotel
occupancy taxes. Miami-Dade County's claims were settled as a part
of the Monroe class action settlement. The claims relating to
tourist development tax have been dismissed. The claims relating
to convention development tax remain. On September 25, 2012, the
court issued an order staying all further proceedings in the case
pending a final appellate determination in the Leon County,
Florida et al. Litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: City of Chicago Filed Motion for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the city of Chicago
filed a motion for summary judgment on damages and penalties in
the City of Chicago Litigation.

On November 1, 2005, the city of Chicago, Illinois filed an action
in state court against a number of online travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. City of Chicago,
Illinois v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 2005 L051003 (Circuit
Court of Cook County). The complaint alleges that the defendants
have failed to pay to the city the hotel accommodations taxes as
required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for
violation of that ordinance, conversion, imposition of a
constructive trust and demand for a legal accounting and seeks
damages, restitution, disgorgement, fines, penalties and other
relief in an unspecified amount.

On June 21, 2013 and subsequently on June 28, 2013, the court
entered an order and a supplemental order resolving the parties
pending cross motions for summary judgment. The court denied the
defendant online travel companies' motion for summary judgment and
granted in part and denied in part the city of Chicago's motion
for summary judgment holding the online travel companies liable
for hotel occupancy taxes. On February 28, 2014, the city of
Chicago filed a motion for summary judgment on damages and
penalties.


EXPEDIA INC: Ruling in San Diego Case Up for Review
---------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the California Supreme
Court accepted for review a ruling in the City of San Diego,
California Litigation.

On February 9, 2006, the city of San Diego, California filed an
action in state court against a number of online travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. City of San Diego v.
Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding
No. 4472 (Superior Court for the County of San Diego). The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of that
ordinance, for violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, conversion, imposition of a
constructive trust and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks
damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.

On September 6, 2011, the court granted the online travel
companies' motion for judgment granting writ of mandate, denied
the city's motion for judgment, and held that the online travel
companies are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes. The city
appealed.

On March 5, 2014, the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the online travel companies. The city filed a petition for
review by the California Supreme Court and, on July 30, 2014, the
California Supreme Court accepted review.


EXPEDIA INC: City of Atlanta's Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the City of Atlanta,
Georgia Litigation, the city's appeal remains pending.

On March 29, 2006, the city of Atlanta, Georgia filed suit against
a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire
and Expedia. City of Atlanta, Georgia v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
2006-CV-114732 (Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia). The
complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the
city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the
ordinance, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, declaratory judgment and an equitable
accounting. The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an
unspecified amount. Plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed
on October 23, 2009.

On July 22, 2010, the court ruled on the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment and held that online travel companies are not
innkeepers required to collect and remit taxes under the Atlanta
ordinance. In addition, the court issued an injunction requiring
the payment of taxes going forward on the grounds that the online
travel companies are third-party tax collectors. Both parties
appealed.

On May 16, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court decision. On September 30, 2013, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of the online travel companies on the city's
remaining common law claims for recovery of taxes, and maintained
its ruling that online travel companies are not liable for past
occupancy taxes. On November 25, 2013, the city filed a notice of
appeal. The city's appeal remains pending.


EXPEDIA INC: NC Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
--------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the North Carolina
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for discretionary review
in the Wake County, Buncombe County, Dare County, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina Litigation.

On November 3, 2006, Wake County, North Carolina filed a lawsuit
in state court against a number of online travel companies,
including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. Wake County v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 06 CV 016256 (General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Wake County).

On February 1, 2007, Buncombe County, North Carolina filed a
lawsuit in state court against a number of online travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. Buncombe
County v. Hotels.com, et al., 7 CV 00585 (General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division, Buncombe County, North
Carolina). On January 26, 2007, Dare County, North Carolina filed
a lawsuit in state court against a number of online travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. Dare County
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 07 CVS 56 (General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Dare County, North Carolina).

On January 10, 2008, the county of Mecklenburg, North Carolina
filed an individual lawsuit in state court against a number of
online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and
Hotwire. County of Mecklenburg v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.,
(General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina).

The complaints allege that the defendants have failed to remit
hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance to
the counties, and include claims for violation of the local
ordinance, as well as claims for declaratory judgment, injunction,
conversion, constructive trust, accounting, unfair and deceptive
trade practices and agency.

On April 4, 2007, the court consolidated the Wake County, Dare
County, Buncombe County, and Mecklenburg County lawsuits. On May
9, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuits. On November
19, 2007, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On November 1, 2010, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. On December 19, 2012, the court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. The court concluded that defendants could not
properly be classified as operators of "taxable establishments" or
"business[es] subject to a room occupancy tax" under any of
plaintiffs' occupancy tax ordinances or resolutions and are thus
not subject to plaintiffs' occupancy taxes. Plaintiffs appealed.

On August 19, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's conclusion that the defendant online travel
companies are not liable for occupancy taxes. On September 23,
2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary review with
the North Carolina Supreme Court. On December 18, 2014, the North
Carolina Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition.


EXPEDIA INC: San Francisco Litigation Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the California Court of
Appeals has stayed the City and County of San Francisco,
California Litigation pending the California Supreme Court's
decision in the City of San Diego, California Litigation.

On May 13, 2008, San Francisco instituted an audit of a number of
online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and
Hotwire, for hotel occupancy taxes claimed to be due from 2000
through the third quarter of 2007. The city completed its audit
and issued assessments against the online travel companies. The
online travel companies challenged those assessments through an
administrative process. The hearings examiner upheld that
assessments.

On May 9, 2009, the online travel companies, including the Expedia
companies, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California
Superior Court seeking to vacate the decision of the hearing
examiner and asking for declaratory relief that the online travel
companies are not subject to San Francisco's hotel occupancy tax.
Expedia, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.;
Hotels.com, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.;
Hotwire, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco). On June 19, 2009, the court granted the city's
demurrer on the "pay first" issue relating to pay-to-play
provisions. Expedia and Hotwire's appeal of the "pay first"
decision was denied, as was Hotels.com's appeal. The total
assessed amount paid by the Expedia companies was approximately
$48 million.

On February 6, 2013, the court held that the online travel
companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to San
Francisco. On October 10, 2013, the court entered judgment in
favor of the online travel companies. On December 9, 2013, San
Francisco filed a notice of appeal. San Francisco also has issued
additional tax assessments against the Expedia companies in the
amount of $24 million for the time period from the fourth quarter
of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2011.

On May 14, 2014, the court heard oral argument on the Expedia
companies' contest of the prepayment requirement for the
additional assessments and held that the Expedia companies were
required to prepay in order to litigate the legality of the
assessments. On May 26, 2014, the Expedia companies paid $25.5
million under protest in order to contest the additional
assessments. The California Court of Appeals has stayed this case
pending the California Supreme Court's decision in the City of San
Diego, California Litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: Leon County v. Expedia Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Florida Supreme
Court stayed the case Leon County v. Expedia, Inc., Florida
Department of Revenue Litigation, et al. Litigation, pending
review and decision in the Leon County, Florida et al. Litigation.

On December 14, 2009, Leon County filed an action against a number
of online travel companies and the State of Florida Department of
Revenue for recovery of state taxes for hotel occupancy. Leon
County v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 2009CA4882 (Circuit
Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida). Leon
County has sued the online travel companies and the Florida State
Department of Revenue for failure to collect state hotel occupancy
taxes. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 21, 2011, the Florida Department of Revenue filed a
motion for summary judgment. The online travel companies also
moved for summary judgment. On September 19, 2012, the court
granted the online travel companies and the Florida Department of
Revenue's motions for summary judgment dismissing all claims in
the case on the basis that Leon County does not have the right to
seek recovery of state sales taxes.

On August 16, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of all claims on the basis that Leon County does
not have the right to seek recovery of state taxes for hotel
occupancy. On October 9, 2013, plaintiff's motion for rehearing en
banc, for certified question of great public importance and for
written opinion was denied. On October 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed
a petition to invoke discretionary review of the Florida Supreme
Court. On December 31, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court stayed this
case pending review and decision in the Leon County, Florida et
al. Litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: Montana Supreme Court Set Oral Argument for April 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Montana Supreme
Court has scheduled oral argument for April 10, 2015 in the State
of Montana Litigation.

On November 8, 2010, the state of Montana filed suit against a
number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia
and Hotwire. State of Montana Department of Revenue v.
Priceline.com, Inc., et al. Case No. CD-2010-1056 (Montana First
Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County). The complaint includes
claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, violation of the
Lodging Facility Use Tax Statute, violation of the Lodging
Facility Sales and Use Tax Statute, violation of the Rental
Vehicle Sales and Use Tax, conversion, unjust enrichment,
imposition of a constructive trust, and damages. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

On December 1, 2011, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
both lodging and car rental taxes.

On March 6, 2014, the court granted the online travel companies'
motion for summary judgment and denied the State of Montana's
motion for summary judgment, holding that the online travel
companies are not liable for tax on their services. The State of
Montana appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which has scheduled
oral argument for April 10, 2015.


EXPEDIA INC: Oral Argument Took Place in D.C. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument before the
D.C. Court of Appeals took place on September 30, 2014, in the
District of Columbia Litigation.

On March 22, 2011, the District of Columbia brought suit against a
number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia
and Hotwire. District of Columbia v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2011 CA 002117B (Superior Court of the District of Columbia).
The complaint includes claims for failure to pay taxes, tax
penalties, failure to file monthly returns, failure to file annual
returns, and failure to state tax separately.

On September 24, 2012, the court granted in part the District of
Columbia's motion for summary judgment and denied the online
travel companies' motion for summary judgment. On December 11,
2012, the court denied the online travel companies' motion to
amend the court's order to permit immediate appeal and for a stay
pending appeal.

On May 14, 2013, the District of Columbia filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on damages. On May 31, 2013, the
defendant online travel companies filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment on damages. On December 9, 2013, the court granted the
online travel companies' motion and denied the motion filed by the
District of Columbia. The online travel companies and the District
of Columbia appealed. Oral argument before the D.C. Court of
Appeals took place on September 30, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Fargo Litigation to Begin September 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the City of Fargo, North
Dakota Litigation is currently scheduled for trial to begin on
September 1, 2015.

On February 25, 2013, the city of Fargo, North Dakota brought a
lawsuit against a number of online travel companies, including
Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire, for hotel occupancy taxes. City
of Fargo v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (District Court, County of Cass,
North Dakota). The complaint alleges claims for failure to pay
taxes in violation of municipal ordinance, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and injunctive relief. On July 1, 2013, the online
travel company defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On November
8, 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The
parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which
motions remain pending. The case is currently scheduled for trial
to begin on September 1, 2015.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Litigation Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the State of Kentucky Litigation.

On July 15, 2013, the Department of Revenue, Finance and
Administration Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed a lawsuit
in Kentucky state court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. Department
of Revenue, Finance and Administration Cabinet, Commonwealth of
Kentucky, v. Expedia, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-CI-912 (Franklin
Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky). The complaint alleges
claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violations of
state sales tax laws, breach of fiduciary duty requiring an
accounting, conversion, assumpsit for money had and received,
imposition of a constructive trust, damages and punitive damages.
On September 23, 2013, the defendant online travel companies filed
a motion to dismiss. On January 15, 2014, the court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in New Hampshire Litigation to Begin Feb. 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the State of New
Hampshire Litigation is currently scheduled for trial to begin on
February 22, 2016.

On October 16, 2013, the State of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit
against a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Expedia, Hotwire and Egencia. State of New Hampshire v.
Priceline.com, et al., Case No. 217-2013-CV-00613 (Merrimack
Superior Court, New Hampshire). The complaint alleges claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violation of state meals
and rooms tax law, violation of Consumer Protection Act, breach of
fiduciary duty, accounting, conversion, unjust enrichment,
assumpsit for money had and received, civil conspiracy, and
constructive trust. The defendant online travel companies filed a
motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in
part on June 30, 2014. The case is currently scheduled for trial
to begin on February 22, 2016.


EXPEDIA INC: Trial in Puerto Rico Case to Begin September 21
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Puerto Rico
Litigation is currently scheduled for trial to begin on September
21, 2015.

On April 17, 2014, the Puerto Rico Tourism Company filed a lawsuit
in federal district court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. Puerto Rico
Tourism Company v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
14-cv-01318 (D. Puerto Rico). The complaint alleges claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violations of the Room
Tax laws, statutory negligence and fault, unjust enrichment,
conversion, assumpsit for money had and received, and imposition
of a constructive trust. On June 20, 2014, the defendant online
travel companies filed a partial motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
common law claims for the recovery of taxes. On October 14, 2014,
the court denied the online travel companies' motion to dismiss.
The case is currently scheduled for trial to begin on September
21, 2015.


EXPEDIA INC: Miller and Frank Plaintiffs to Seek Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the
Miller and Frank putative class action cases filed a request for
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling granting the
motions to dismiss.

On September 12, 2012, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in Connecticut against a number of credit
card companies and e-commerce companies, including Hotwire.
Miller, et al. v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-
CV-00396-VLB (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut). The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
adequately apprise consumers that they were providing their credit
card information to Trilegiant Corporation, which offered
membership in discount or other services programs through
promotions appearing on the e-commerce defendants' websites. The
complaint asserts claims against Hotwire for violation of RICO,
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, state consumer
protection statutes and for unjust enrichment. On December 7,
2012, Hotwire filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court
held a hearing on that motion on September 25, 2013 and took the
matter under advisement.

On December 5, 2012, a similar putative class action suit was
filed in federal district court in Connecticut against a number of
credit card companies and e-commerce companies, including Hotwire.
Frank, et al. v. Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:12-CV-01721-SRU (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut).
On March 28, 2014, the court consolidated the Miller and Frank
putative class action cases and granted Hotwire's motion to
dismiss as to both cases. Plaintiffs have filed a request for
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling granting the
motions to dismiss filed in the Miller and Frank putative class
actions.


EXPEDIA INC: Friedman Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal Order
--------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in
Friedman v. Expedia, Inc. et al. has appealed the order granting
dismissal of the lawsuit.

On December 13, 2013, a putative derivative class action was filed
by a purported shareholder in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware. Friedman v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 9161-CS.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties on
behalf of Expedia, and against certain current and former members
of the board of directors for allegedly exceeding their authority
under the Company's shareholder-approved 2005 Stock and Annual
Incentive Plan. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and equitable relief
and damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on July 15, 2014, and the court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed.


EXPEDIA INC: Plaintiffs in OFT Case Did Not Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
More than 30 putative class action lawsuits, which refer to the
United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT")'s Statement of
Objections, were initiated in the United States by consumer
plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel companies,
including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged
resale price maintenance for online hotel room reservations,
including but not limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state
antitrust laws, state consumer protection statutes and common law
tort claims, such as unjust enrichment. The cases were
consolidated and transferred to Judge Boyle in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On May 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint. On July 1, 2013, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss that complaint. A hearing on the defendants' motions to
dismiss took place on December 17, 2013.

On February 18, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to move for
leave to amend their complaint. On March 20, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for leave to amend. On October 28, 2014, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs did not appeal,
thereby ending the case, Expedia said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On July 31, 2012, the OFT issued a Statement of Objections
alleging that Expedia, Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental
Hotels Group PLC ("IHG") have infringed European Union and United
Kingdom competition law in relation to the online supply of hotel
room accommodations.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls MKS 2011 Models Due to Safety Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 9956
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015035TC
ID number: 2015035
Manufacturer recall number:15S02

On certain vehicles, the return spring within the interior door
handle assembly could become unseated, resulting in an interior
handle that does not return to the fully stowed position after
actuation. This could allow a door to unlatch during a side impact
crash, which could increase the risk of injury to a seat occupant.
Correction: Dealers will inspect, and repair or replace the
interior handles as necessary.

Affected products

   Make     Model    Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----    ----------------------
   LINCOLN  MKS      2011


FREEDOM RAIN: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briana Walker, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Freedom Rain, Inc. d/b/a The Lovelady
Center, Case No. 2:15-cv-00274 (N.D. Ala., February 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Freedom Rain, Inc. owns and operates a program center and various
commercial businesses with its principal place of business located
at 7916 2nd Ave. South, Birmingham, AL 35206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Camp, Esq.
      Russell W. Adams, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: rcamp@wigginschilds.com
              Radams@wigginschilds.com


GINLEY LAWN: Faces "Maria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Matillas Barillas Maria and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Ginley Lawn Service & Landscaping, Inc.
and Ginley L. Sardinas, Case No. 1:15-cv-20635 (S.D. Fla.,
February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company doing
business in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HNY INC: "Duran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jordy Duran, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated
employees v. HNY, Inc., d/b/a Havana Ny, Abbas Taghavitalab, and
Raul Febles, Case No. 1:15-cv-01131 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 27 West
38th Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


LANGER TRANSPORT: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Langer Transport Corporation, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01256 (D.N.J., February 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Langer Transport Corporation is a New Jersey corporation that owns
and operates a distribution company that facilitates
transportation of chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      Dale James Morgado, Esq.
      MORGADO, P.A.
      228 Park Avenue South #84164
      New York, NY 100031502
      Telephone: (855) 8999121
      Facsimile: (855) 4999191
      E-mail: rer@morgado.us
              djm@morgado.us
              www.morgado.us


LEX FOOD: "Ferreira" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ferreira, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Lex Food Inc. d/b/a Green Gourmet, Green Gourmet Inc. d/b/a
Green Gourmet, and Yong Tae Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-01130 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 790
Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


LINCOLN: Recalls MKT 2013 Models Due to Failure to Meet Standrads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 121
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015034TC
ID number: 2015034
Manufacturer recall number: 15C01

Certain vehicles built without 3rd row seats fail to comply with
the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210.1 -
User-ready Tether Anchorages for Restraint Systems. The tether
anchors are located at the base of the second row seat frames, and
are covered by a cargo management load floor system. The cargo
management load floor system is not marked with pictograms
identifying the location of the tether anchors, which is contrary
to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers will
replace the cargo management load floor with one that has the
required identification symbol.

Affected products

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
   LINCOLN   MKT        2013


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Caisse and Newport Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec and the Newport
News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs in a class
action against the Company.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012 and May 7, 2014.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014 which alleges substantially similar
claims but does not name the chief accounting officer as a
defendant.   The Company believes the allegations are without
merit and intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Company cannot estimate a range of a potential liability, if any,
at this time.


MACK: Recalls CXU 2014 Models Due to Safety Risk
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015044TC
ID number: 2015044
Manufacturer recall number: SC0389

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. These
vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity,
which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate
the brakes during repetitive brake applications. This may result
in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle
crash. Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to
increase air reservoir capacity.

   Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
   ---      -----
   MACK     CXU       2014


MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Court denied motions for summary judgment in purported class
action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints,
which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain
of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by
defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain
territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television
and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive
relief against the defendants' continued violation of the
antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the complaints in their entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court
denied the motions for summary judgment. The defendants, including
the Company, are vigorously defending the claims.


MICROPORT ORTHOPEDICS: Recalls Evolution Tibial Base Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device
Recall Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43809

Evolution Tibial Base

Device in question has varying wall thickness and keel offset
greater than the maximum allowable tolerance due to a casting
issue

Affected products

A. Evolution Tibial Base

  Lot or serial number
  --------------------
  1560140

  Model or catalog number
  -----------------------
  ETPKN8SR

Manufacturer:  Microport Orthopedics Ltd.
                5677 Airline Road
                Arlington 38002, Texas


NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire and Essex Class A Motorhome Models
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motor home
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 7
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015041TC
ID number: 2015041

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will affect repairs.

   Make     Model                     Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----                     ----------------------
   NEWMAR   KING AIRE MOTORHOME       2014
   NEWMAR   ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME   2014


OAK HEALTH: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Steele, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Oak Health Care Investors of Mt. Vernon, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00317 (N.D. Ohio, February 18, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Oak Health Care Investors of Mt. Vernon is a Michigan corporation
assisted living facilities with its principal place of business
located at 8181 Worthington Road, Westerville, Ohio 43082.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Wido, Esq.
      SPITZ LAW FIRM
      Ste. 290, 4620 Richmond Road
      Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


ONE STOP: Faces "McMillan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre McMillan 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-20642 (S.D. Fla., February
18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food joint 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


PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Safety Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 11
Source of recall: Transport
Canada Identification number: 2015037TC
ID number: 2015037
Manufacturer recall number: 115B / 15KWA

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  KENWORTH    T800       2014
  PETERBILT   320        2014
  KENWORTH    T660       2014
  KENWORTH    K370       2014
  PETERBILT   210        2014
  PETERBILT   220        2014
  KENWORTH    K270       2014
  KENWORTH    T880       2014


PARRILLADA LAS VACAS: Fails to Pay OT, "Ferriol" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Angi Sonia Boschiazzo Ferriol, Vanesa Elizabeth Le Rose,
Yuliana Yenith Alvarez Benitez, Edyta Magdalena Malek, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Parrillada Las
Vacas Gordas Inc., d/b/a Las Vacas Gordas/The Fat Cows,
Luis Gajer, Rosimery Gajer, Case No. 1:15-cv-20636 (S.D. Fla.,
February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PASTA & POTATOES: "Dios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Dios and Vicente Romano Pichon, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pasta & Potatoes, Inc., d/ b/a
Village Lantern, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01132 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pasta & Potatoes, Inc. owns and operates Village Lantern
restaurant at located at 167 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


PERK UP: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yuk Kwan (Peter) Chan and Wai Hung (Ronald) Chan, and others
similarly situated v. Perk Up, Inc. d/b/a Kari-Out Co., Paul
Epstein, Howard Epstein, and David Chan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01150
(S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay them overtime wages pursuant to the Federal
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant supply company that
sells products such as take-out cartons, disposal utensils, and
condiment packets to wholesalers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Li, Esq.
      THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
      370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1012
      New York, NY 10017
      Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
      Telephone: (212) 867-3675
      E-mail: wli@theboydlawgroup.com


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Allura XPER FD10 Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43731

A) Allura XPER FD10

Philips has received a customer feedback where the monitor ceiling
suspension system fell to its lowest position. In this specific
occasion it collided with the table top. The investigation
initiated concluded that the cause of the failure was an assembly
error of the actuator of the MCS.

B) Allura XPER FD10

   Lot or serial number
   --------------------
   All lots.

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   ALLURA XPER FD10

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V.
              Veenpluis 4-6
              Best 5684 PC
              NETHERLANDS


POST HOLDINGS: March and April 2015 Hearings on Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that hearings on class
certification are scheduled for March 2015 for direct purchaser
plaintiffs and April 2015 for indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of
companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in
the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants.
These "tag-along" cases, brought primarily by various grocery
chains and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations
as in the main action. All but one of the tag-along cases were
either filed in or transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, where they are being treated as related to the main
action.

Fact discovery concluded on April 30, 2014. The class-
certification phase of the case is currently in process. Hearings
on class certification are scheduled for March 2015 for direct
purchaser plaintiffs and April 2015 for indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.


SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Posting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product
Recall Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43495

This recall involves polystyrene-filled vinyl bean bag chairs that
have a single zipper on the exterior cover.  The round vinyl bean
bag chairs measure 88" in diameter and were sold in purple, black,
pink, royal blue, and red. A tag sewn into the bean bag chair's
cover seam reads "Made By Comfort Research" and "100%
Polystyrene."

Bean Bags Recalled:

  Description       Sears UPC        Sears Item Number
  -----------       ---------        -----------------
  Classic Purple    650231603077     99755
  Classic Black     650231062997     99775
  Classic Pink      650231063017     99779
  Classic Royal     650231063093     99784
  Classic Red       650231063031     99786

The zippers on the bean bag chairs can be opened by children who
can then crawl inside, become entrapped, suffocate or choke on the
bean bag chair's foam beads.

Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada Inc. has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bean
bag chairs.

Approximately 346 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada, online through Sears.ca.

The recalled products were sold from March 2010 to March 2012.

Manufactured in United States and China.

Manufacturer:    Comfort Research, LLC
                 Grand Rapids
                 Michigan
                 UNITED STATES

Retailer:    Sears Canada Inc.
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled bean bag chairs
away from children and check if the zippers can be opened.

Consumers can contact Comfort Research for instructions to
permanently disable the zipper. Contact Comfort Research toll-free
at 1-844-578-8933 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through
Friday or at Comfort Research's website and click on the Product
Recall link for more information.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/07hOKT


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43717

A) CLINITEK Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (With Rack
Handler)

B) CLINITEK Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (Without Rack
Handler)

A potential reporting error with the CLINITEK Novus Analyzer when
using the Novus PRO 12 urinalysis cassette. When albumin,
creatinine, or protein displays an "ERR" message when a CLINITEK
Novus PRO12 urinalysis cassette is used, the CLINITEK Novus
Analyzer may still report a P:C or A:C ratio value.

A) CLINITEK Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (With Rack
Handler)

   Lot or serial number
   -------------------
   All lots.

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   10494134
   10844545

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Manufacturing Ltd.,
              Northern Road,
              Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom
              CO10 2XQ

B) CLINITEK Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (Without Rack
Handler)

   Lot or serial number
   --------------------
   All lots.
   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   10697937
   10844557

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Manufacturing Ltd.,
              Northern Road,
              Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom
              CO10 2XQ


SMITHS MEDICAL: Recalls Cassette Reservoir Due to Leakage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Posting date:  February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43735

A) CADD Medication Cassette Reservoir,50ml

Smiths Medical has received a small number of complaints of
leakage in some CADD medication cassette reservoirs, 50ml. A small
amount of leaking has been found to occur at the welding of the
tube to the internal reservoir bag on some cassettes. If noticed
during cassette filling, it could result in a delay of therapy
while an alternative cassette is obtained. If noticed during fluid
delivery with the patient, it could result in an interruption in
therapy while the cassette is replaced. Smiths Medical has
received no reports of serious injury or death related to this
issue.

Affected products

A) CADD Medication Cassette Reservoir,50ml

   Lot or serial number
   --------------------

   14X-297
   14X-323
   14X-324

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   21-7001-24
   21-7301-24

   Manufacturer
   ------------
   Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.
   1265 Grey Fox Road
   St. Paul, 55112, Minnesota


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sanctions Dispute Referred to Special Master
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court referred the
sanctions dispute to a special master, the special master has
issued a series of reports and recommendations, and plaintiffs and
Delta have submitted objections to the special master's report and
recommendations.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble
damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and
to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive
relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The
parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and AirTran
filed a motion to exclude the class certification reports of
plaintiffs' expert. The Court has not yet ruled on the class
certification motion or the related motion to exclude plaintiffs'
expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, which was
extended due to discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta,
but discovery has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta have
delayed further briefing on summary judgment.

On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions
against Delta, and the Court has suspended further briefing on (i)
the motion for summary judgment, (ii) the motion for class
certification, and (iii) the motion to strike plaintiffs' expert
on class certification, until the sanctions motion is resolved.

On May 14, 2014, the Court referred the sanctions dispute to a
special master, the special master has issued a series of reports
and recommendations, and plaintiffs and Delta have submitted
objections to the special master's report and recommendations.
AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.


STREAMLINE AUTOMATION: Faces "Palm" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Palm, and all other employees or former employees of the
defendants v. Streamline Automation LLC and Alton J. Reich, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00292 (N.D. Ala., February 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.

Streamline Automation LLC is a developer of advanced technologies
for the aerospace, chemical, defense, energy, environmental,
industrial automation, and medical markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Teresa Ryder Mastando, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: teri@mastandoartrip.com


SUNBEAM CORPORATION: Recalls Oil Heaters Due to Burn Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2015
Posting date: January 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43391

Bionaire and Sunbeam brand oil filled heaters with the following
date codes on the plug prongs: G170, G179 or G229

This recall involves Bionaire and Sunbeam branded oil filled
heaters.  The heaters are black (Bionaire) and grey (Sunbeam) and
measure about 65 centimetres (25.5 inches) tall, 30.5 centimetres
(12 inches) wide and 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) long.

The following models are included in this recall:

   Brand        Model Number      UPC
   -----        ------------      ---
   Bionaire     BOF2001-CN        048894035470
   Sunbeam      SOF1000-CN        048894032226

The model number is printed on the rating label adjacent to the
control panel of the heater.  The "Bionaire" logo is located above
the digital control panel and the "Sunbeam" logo is located under
the power switch. The only heaters that are affected have a date
code on the heater plug prongs of G170, G179 or G229.

The heaters may spray or expel heated oil, posing a potential
scald hazard to consumers and damage their property.

Sunbeam has received 31 reports of incidents in Canada involving
the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN heater spraying/expelling oil
leading to minor property damage. One incident involved a consumer
slipping on the oil resulting in a sprained wrist.

Health Canada has received one consumer report of the heater
leaking oil, and no injuries were reported.

Approximately 564 units of the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN and
83 units of the Sunbeam brand model SOF1000-CN were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were sold between August 2014 and November
2014.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor:  Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd. d/b/a Jarden
              Consumer Solutions ("Sunbeam")
              Brampton
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the Bionaire BOF2011-CN
and Sunbeam SOF1000-CN oil filled heater models.  Consumers are
advised to unplug their product and contact Sunbeam for
instructions on how to cut the cord/plug and send it to Sunbeam to
receive a refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Sunbeam toll-free at
1-800-515-4715 at any time or visit their recall website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/TGoIux


SYSMEX AMERICA: Recalls E-Check Assay Sheets Due to Errors
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43723

A) Sysmex E-Check

An error on the XT-1800I and XT-2000I assay sheet for the mean
values for the level 3 (L3) control.

A) Sysmex E-Check

   Lot or serial number
   --------------------
   4365
   5002

   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   201-6001-0

Manufacturer:  Sysmex America, Inc.
               577 Aptakisic Road
               Lincolnshire 60069, Illinois
               UNITED STATES


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Brightbill" Suit Over Faulty Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Brightbill and Patricia Payeur, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00741-LB (N.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, they 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:

      Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
      A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
      475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 212
      Sausalito, CA 94965
      Telephone: (415) 331-3070
      Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
      E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com
              cabral@bonnerlaw.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Wieczorek" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerzy Wieczorek, Corine Shearer, Constantine Kazos, Howard
Campbell, Angel Figuerora, Patti Rowe, Cira Montoya, Katherine E.
Shank, on behalf of themselves and the Class v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00821 (E.D.N.Y., February
17, 2015), alleges that defective vehicles contain airbags
manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle
occupants from bodily injury during accidents, they 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:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Shanshan Zheng, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com
              shanshan@leelitigation.com


TCB NAPLES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Rosas Rodriguez, for himself and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. TCB Naples LLC d/b/a The Counter Custom
Built Burgers, Case No. 2:15-cv-00106 (M.D. Fla., February 18,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TCB Naples LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Collier County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Sparks, Jr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Telecommunications Management LLC, d/b/a New
Wave Communications, Case No. 2:15-cv-00047 (S.D. Ind., February
16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work
week.

Telecommunications Management owns and operates cable services
company in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


TIM'S SNOWPLOWING: Faces "Saez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Saez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown v. Tim's Snowplowing, Inc., and Timothy
Gibbons, Case No. 1:15-cv-01492 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.

Tim's Snowplowing, Inc. is a go-to snow and ice management company
doing business in Cook County in Wheeling, Illinois, and in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 S Michigan, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: amartin@caffarelli.com
              acaffarelli@caffarelli.com


TIME WARNER: Faces "Beecher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Beecher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable Inc. and TWC
Administration LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00154 (W.D.N.Y., February 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a cable telecommunications company
doing business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Cinelli, Esq.
      MARCUS & CINELLI, LLP
      2821 Wehrle Drive, Suite 3
      Williamsville, NY 14221
      Telephone: (716) 565-3800
      Facsimile: (716) 565-3801
      E-mail: bcinelli@marcuscinelli.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Avalon 2011 Model Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 1285
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015038TC
ID number: 2015038
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R02

On certain vehicles equipped with a trunk-mounted sub-woofer,
cargo in the trunk could contact the sub-woofer's soft braided
wire, which could cause the wire to move out of its normal
position. If one of these wires were to come into contact with the
metal frame of the sub-woofer, it could result in a intermittent
short, causing the integrated circuit (IC) in the audio amplifier
to become damaged. In some cases, the damaged IC could create a
closed circuit between the power supply and sub-woofer, and
electric current could continue to flow to the sub-woofer. If this
were to occur, the sub-woofer could overheat, increasing the risk
of fire, causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: To
be determined. In the interim, dealers will disconnect the rear
sub-woofer.

Affected products

   Make     Model   Model year(s) affected
   ---      -----   ----------------------
   TOYOTA   AVALON  2011


UGI CORPORATION: Cases Transferred to Missouri Western Division
---------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the
purported class action cases to the Western Division of the
Western District of Missouri.

Following the issuance of the FTC's administrative complaint, more
than 35 class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions
against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by
certain of their direct and indirect customers.  The class action
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its
competitor colluded beginning in 2008 to reduce the fill level and
combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to
accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs
to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of
Missouri.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," UGI said.


UROPLASTY INC: Faces "Frustaci" Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Uroplasty, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that on January 7, 2015,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
by a purported shareholder of Uroplasty under the caption Joseph
J. Frustaci vs. Uroplasty, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 27-cv-15-305.

"The complaint names as defendants Uroplasty, Vision, Merger Sub
and the members of our board of directors.  The complaint asserts
various causes of action, including, among other things, that the
members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to our shareholders in connection with entering into the
merger agreement and approving the merger.  The complaint further
alleges Uroplasty, Vision and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by our board of directors.
The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to contest it vigorously," the Company said.

On December 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Vision-Sciences, Inc. ("Vision"), and Visor
Merger Sub LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vision ("Merger
Sub").


WILSON-COOK MEDICAL: Recalls OMNI Tome Preloaded Sphincterotome
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard
Classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43727

A) Fusion OMNI Tome Preloaded Sphincterotome

The wire guide in the fusion OMNI-tome preloaded Sphincterotome
being loaded incorrectly into the device resulting in the
incorrect end of the wire guide exiting the Sphincterotome. The
preloaded wire guide has a black floppy distal tip which could be
located at the proximal/user end and leaving the stiff end of the
wire guide at the distal/patient end of the Sphincterotome.
Difficulty advancing the wire guide may be experienced.

A) Fusion OMNI Tome Preloaded Sphincterotome

   Lot or serial number
   -------------------
   W3495807
   Model or catalog number
   -----------------------
   FS-OMNI-35-260

   Manufacturer:   Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.
                   4900 Bethania Station Rd.
                   Winston Salem 27105, North Carolina
                   UNITED STATES


* CFIA Recalls Hi-Protein Oatmeal
---------------------------------
Starting date:
January 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: HFS Experts in Healthcare Food
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution:
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9603

  Brand name   Common name    Size      Code(s)           UPC
  ---------    -----------    ----      on product        ---
                                        ----------
  None         Hi-Protein     3 x 2 kg  DAYCODE: 4224-1/  None
               Oatmeal                  EXPIRY DATE: 5223
                                        and DAYCODE:
                                        4336-1/ EXPIRY
                                        DATE: 5335


                             *********

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  * * *