CAR_Public/150304.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 45


                             Headlines

ALBA LAW: Removes "Pruitt" Class Suit to Maryland District Court
ALI BABA: Faces US SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Actions
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Class Suits Moved to W.D. Mo. Western Division
AU OPTRONICS: Judge Says 7 Cases Should Be Remanded
AUDAX GROUP: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging Violations of TCPA

BARRY FREUNDEL: Authorities Seek Possible Victims
BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Xarelto-Linked Deaths
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to Replace Cracked Wheels
BREG INC: Cold Therapy Suit Removed to Federal Court Under CAFA
CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CAMP MINDEN: May Face Class Action Over 2012 Explosion
CATAMARAN CORP: Sued for Low-Balling Pharmacy Reimbursements
CLANTON, AL: Justice Department Weighs on Detention Misuse
CHOCOLATE BY DESIGN: Recalls Milk Chocolate Pops Due to Eggs
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Settles MBS Class Action for $235 Million

CMS BANCORP: Party to Class Action Settlement Agreement
COLORADO: Court Dismisses "Loggins" Pro Se Suit
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xfinity Wifi Hot-Spots
CON YEAGER: Recalls Various Cumin Products Due to Peanuts
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action

DEL MONTE: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $7.5 Million
EL POPOCATEPETL: Recalls Flavored Wraps Products Due to Milk
FAIRWAY LIKE: Recalls Raw Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella
FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismissed Prisoner's Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Defect Power Steering Class Action

GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Gingko Biloba
GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces "Levy" Class Action Lawsuit
HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks
HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Colistimethate for Injections

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Seeks Dismissal of Autonomy Class Action
HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: Investors Mull Class Actions
HOME LOAN: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
HORIZON LINES: Settles Class Actions Over Planned Sale
HUMMINGBIRD WHOLESALE: Recalls Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter

IDEAL MEDICAL: Removes "Riley" Suit to Florida District Court
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Membership Refunds
KBR: Class Action Over "Burn Pits" Heads Back to Maryland
KIRSCH MUSHROOM: Recalls Chilean Mushrooms Due to Sulfites
LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed

LAROSA'S CREAMY: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs
LIFELINE INC: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Care
LIONS GATE: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Trial Ct. Ruling in Holmes Case Party Upheld
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Williams Case Court Ruling Partly Reversed

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Holmes Case Remanded to Trial Court
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Case Pending in ND California
MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Trial Date Set for February 2017
MAJOR LEAGUE: Plaintiffs Must Justify Calif. Venue in Wage Suit
MARTIN O'BOYLE: Town of Gulf Stream Files Class Action

MARY JO AVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
MATTHEWS HOMES: Insurer Hit With $4.5-Mil. Bad Faith Verdict
MEDTRONIC INC: Court OKs Distribution Plan in Firefighters' Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nears Concussion Settlement With Retired Players
MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Class Action Bench Trial Begins

NEW YORK TRANSIT: Sued Over Worker's Unlawful Forced Retirement
NEWS CORPORATION: To Be Indemnified by 21st Century Fox
NEWS CORPORATION: Oral Argument Heard in Certification Motion
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
OCALA, FL: Judge Dismisses Fire User Fee Class Action

OLD HOME KITCHENS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans
PANDORA MEDIA: Plaintiff Appeals Privacy Class Action Dismissal
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Trade Manipulation
PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks to Disqualify Justice From Hearing Appeal
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORT: May Expedite Section 216(B) Notice

PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula Due to High Copper
RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Certified in Actions v. Morgan Keegan
RAYMOND JAMES: Trial Date in Retail Purchasers' Suit Postponed
RAYONIER INC: Saxena White and Berstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Calif.

ROSS EARLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Sullivan" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL
SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Atracurium Besylate Injections
SPICECO OF AVENEL: Recalls Sweet Hungarian Paprika Due to Peanuts
SUNBURY COMMUNITY: Data Breach Class Actions Combined

SYNGENTA CORP: "Hayden" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Ahmadi" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Back" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Horton" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Meiser" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL

TAKATA CORP: "Rosenstock" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From M.D. Florida Included in Airbag MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Zamora" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: 10 Suits From C.D. California Included in Airbag MDL
TAKATA CORP: Four Suits From S.D. New York Included in Airbag MDL

TAKATA CORP: "Gerhart" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From New Jersey Consolidated in Airbag MDL
TAKATA CORP: Honda Rules Out Financial Support Amid Airbag Woes
TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Abdelgadir" Suit Included in Securities MDL
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Fortegra Settles Stein and Hickey Actions

TIPTREE FINANCIAL: No Hearings, Trials Set in "Mullins" Case
U.S. BANK: N.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Trahan" Suit
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Recalls Breyers(R) Salted Caramel Swirl
VEMMA NUTRITION: "Horanzy" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Arizona
WELLS FARGO: "Vasquez" Suit Goes to C.D. California

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs
WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee
XEROX CORP: Class Action Over Customer Service Ongoing


                            *********


ALBA LAW: Removes "Pruitt" Class Suit to Maryland District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pruitt v. The Alba Law Group,
P.A., et al., Case No. CAL 14-30978, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00458-DKC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims relating to the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.

Defendant The Alba Law Group, P.A., is represented by:

          Alvin I. Frederick, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Marini, Esq.
          ECCLESTON AND WOLF PC
          Baltimore Washington Law Center
          7240 Parkway Dr., Fourth Floor
          Hanover, MD 21076
          Telephone: (410) 752-7474
          Facsimile: (410) 752-0611
          E-mail: frederick@ewmd.com
                  marini@ewmd.com

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and US Bank National Association
are represented by:

          Russell J. Pope, Esq.
          Sarah E. Meyer, Esq.
          TREANOR POPE AND HUGHES PA
          500 York Road
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 494-7777
          Facsimile: (410) 494-1658
          E-mail: rjpope@tph-law.com
                  semeyer@tph-law.com


ALI BABA: Faces US SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sijia Jiang and Toh Han Shih, writing for South China Morning
Post, report that e-commerce giant Alibaba's trouble with mainland
regulators over the alleged sale of fake goods has now got the
attention of regulators in the United States.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had asked Alibaba
to provide information regarding the company's recent run-in with
the mainland's State Administration for Industry and Commerce
(SAIC), Alibaba said in an announcement on Feb. 13.

Alibaba, which did not give details of what the US commission is
asking, said it was voluntarily disclosing the receipt of the SEC
correspondence "because we value being open with our investors and
feel that disclosure could help avoid false rumours or
speculation".  It said the US regulator's letter stated it "should
in no way be construed as Alibaba Group having done anything wrong
or there having been any violation of securities law".

"We are cooperating with the SEC's request," Alibaba said.

The possibility of an SEC investigation adds further uncertainty
to the outlook for Alibaba's share price on the New York Stock
Exchange.  The shares have already fallen 13.5 per cent since
January 27, the day before the SAIC released a white paper over
the large number of counterfeit and substandard goods on its
Taobao retail platform.

At least six US law firms have since filed class-action
shareholder lawsuits against Alibaba.

"The complaint alleges the company failed to disclose to investors
that it was meeting with [SAIC] in July 2014, just two months
before Alibaba's US$25 billion IPO," one of the firms, Hagens
Berman, said in a statement.

Alibaba had said the talks with SAIC officials came in the normal
course of business in China and did not require disclosure in its
IPO prospectus. It also said it did not learn of the allegations
of counterfeiting until the white paper was published online.

A partner with a mainland law firm said that if the SEC
investigated Alibaba, the US lawsuits would become a more serious
matter.

Jack Ma Yun, Alibaba's billionaire chairman, said in his annual
letter to his 20,000 employees, posted on the company's official
microblog on Feb. 13, that now was the "most critical moment" in
the company's 15-year history.  However, he urged employees to be
relaxed about the lawsuits.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Class Suits Moved to W.D. Mo. Western Division
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. 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 Federal Trade Commission'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," the Company
said.


AU OPTRONICS: Judge Says 7 Cases Should Be Remanded
---------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. M 07-1827
SI, (N.D. Cal.), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial
proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged
conspiracy to fix the prices for thin film transistor-liquid
crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer
monitors, flat panel television sets, and other electronic
devices. Among the cases transferred to the Court pursuant to the
JPML's April 20, 2007 transfer order and the Court's July 3, 2007
related case pretrial order #1 are:

The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A.
Welt, Liquidating Trustee v. AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11-
cv-5781 SI

CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-6241 SI

Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-3763 SI

MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-829 SI

Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-
cv-2225 SI

Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-5765 SI

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No.
3:10-cv-3205 SI.

District Judge Susan Illston concluded in an order dated February
24, 2015, that the purposes behind consolidating these related
actions in District Court have now been served. The Court has
addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and
other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common
to the various cases in this MDL proceeding. No further pretrial
motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and
remand to the transferor courts appears to be in the interest of
judicial efficiency, she said.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(I) of the Rules of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the District Court
suggests that the Panel remand these cases to their transferor
courts.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/W7tDSSfrom
Leagle.com.


AUDAX GROUP: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Luster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Audax Group, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership;
United Recovery Systems, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership; and Aid
Associates, Inc. d/b/a Plaza Associates, a New York Corporation,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00489-MHC (N.D. Ga., February 18, 2015) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com


BARRY FREUNDEL: Authorities Seek Possible Victims
-------------------------------------------------
Derek Valcourt, writing for WJZ, reports that an appeal to the
more than 150 women who may have been recorded by a disgraced
rabbi.  Prosecutors are trying to identify dozens of women who may
not know they have been recorded.  So far, only a few dozen women
have come forward and been identified, but that's only about a
fifth of the total number of women who police say were secretly
recorded.

Prosecutors now say they have video to prove orthodox rabbi
Barry Freundel used cameras hidden in ordinary items like a clock
radio to secretly record nude videos of as many as 152 women.  The
videos were taken at the Kesher Israel Synagogue in Washington,
D.C. inside a private bath known as a mikvah and used for sacred
rituals.

Those who work at the synagogue are sickened.

"It's very upsetting and distressing that I might have in some
unintentional way helped him in his -- really all you can call it
is an evil scheme," said Lisette Garcia.

Mr. Freundel not only led the Kesher Israel congregation, he also
taught religious studies at Towson University.  He took some of
his Towson students on field trips to the synagogue and sources
tell WJZ he even offered some students, including non-Jewish
students, extra credit if they agreed to use the mikvah.

"The Towson group was preyed upon tremendously," said attorney
Steve Silverman.

Mr. Silverman represents about two dozen women in a class action
civil lawsuit.

Meanwhile, authorities are asking other possible victims to send
in a photograph of themselves so they can identify the 88 women
who qualify as victims in Mr. Freundel's criminal case.  For each
victim, he could face one year in prison.

"Many of these victims are likely to be apprehensive in coming to
court and being publicly identified as a victim.  And that could
work in his favor. But it only takes 20 victims to come forward,
and you're looking at 20 years," said Mr. Silverman.

Attorneys say there is a strong indication that this case will
reach some sort of a plea deal.  Mr. Freundel's next court hearing
in the case is set for Feb. 19.

Women who visited the mikvah at Kesher Israel Synagogue are urged
to contact authorities.

Possible victims are urged to send photographs of themselves
clothed to USADC.BERNARDFREUNDELCASE@USDOJ.GOV , or you may also
call  202-252-7585.


BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Xarelto-Linked Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Martin, writing for Calgary Sun, reports that Bayer Inc. is
facing a class-action lawsuit in Calgary over an anticoagulant
drug which has been allegedly linked to dozens of deaths.

Toronto lawyer Bryan McPhadden said on Feb. 13 a similar action
will soon be launched in Ontario, where an elderly woman bled to
death while on the drug Xarelto.  Mr. McPhadden said a decision
will be made at a later date in which jurisdiction he'll seek to
have the case certified as a class-action case.

"If it's successful, it would be in the millions of dollars,"
Mr. McPhadden said, of the likely damages awarded.

The representative plaintiff in the Calgary-filed action, Betty
Samson, almost suffered cardiac arrest in September 2012 after
developing internal bleeding while on Xarelto, according to a
statement of claim.

"The health care professionals who were treating Betty for this
hemorrhaging had considerable difficulty in stopping her
bleeding," the claim states.

"They advised her that Xarelto was the cause of her hemorrhaging
and that, unlike other anticoagulants such as Warfarin, there was
no way to reverse the anticoagulant effects of Xarelto."

The statement of claim cited a German report which suggested the
drug was blamed for 130 deaths in 2012 and 2013.  It also states
there have been 1,100 reports of adverse effects registered with
Health Canada.

"A dozen of those adverse events registered with Health Canada
indicated that death had resulted from Xarelto," the lawsuit says.

Mr. McPhadden said he could not estimate how many Canadians may
have been adversely impacted by the drug, but said his firm has
been approached by four claimants, two in Alberta and two in
Ontario.

Their first client was the daughter of a woman who died in
November 2013, he said.

"She bled to death in the shower," Mr. McPhadden said, of the 83-
year-old woman.

The lawsuit stated that unlike other anticoagulants, there is no
antidote to stop bleeding in patients taking the blood-thinning
drug.

"Because she was on Xarelto . . . there was little, or nothing,
that could've been done for her," the lawyer said of the woman who
died.

The claim alleges Bayer and other companies involved in the
manufacturing and distribution of the drug were negligent in its
marketing.

Statements of defense disputing the unproven allegations in the
statement of claim have not been filed.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to Replace Cracked Wheels
------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Lance Duroni and Megan Stride, writing for Law360,
report that BMW of North America LLC will reimburse drivers of
certain Z4 sports cars or pay to replace the car's crack-prone
alloy wheels, and will shell out $635,000 to cover attorneys'
fees, to end a putative class action in California federal court,
according to a deal submitted for approval on Feb. 13.

The carmaker reached a deal with the proposed class, which
includes current and former owners and lessees of 2009-2012 model
BMW Z4 vehicles with alloy BMW style 296 wheels, according to the
filing.

According to the terms outlined in the agreement submitted, BMW
will reimburse car owners who, with some exceptions, have already
paid out-of-pocket to replace their alloy wheels, and will cover
the expense of those whose wheels need replacing.

"On the record presented, this class settlement should withstand
rigorous review," the plaintiffs wrote in the memo supporting
their motion for preliminary approval of the deal.  "Here, the
parties engaged in investigation and discovery to be able to
carefully consider the range of outcomes."

Lead plaintiff Barry Jekowsky will get $5,000 in the deal,
according to the filing.

Mr. Jekowsky filed suit in May 2013, alleging that BMW Z4s from
model years 2007-12 have alloy wheels that easily crack under
regular use, creating a safety hazard.  The defect often forces
owners to replace the wheels, and sometimes the tires, in as
little as 20,000 miles, but BMW refused to honor its 50,000-mile
warranty for the problem, according to the suit.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jekowsky leased a new 2011 BMW Z4
in February 2011, but in September 2012, after the car had been
driven fewer than 19,300 miles, he discovered one of its rear
wheels was cracked in several places.

A BMW dealer told him the wheel and tire would need to be
replaced, and the plaintiff went through a similar ordeal in
December 2012, the complaint said.  He alleges he was told both
times that the wheel and tire damage was not covered under
warranty and that he was obligated to pay for the repairs, which
cost him roughly $2,000.

BMW contended in a motion to dismiss that, because the plaintiff
did not discover the alleged defect until a year after he leased
his Z4, he had no claim for breach of implied warranty under the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

BMW also challenged Mr. Jekowsky's claim for breach of express
warranty, arguing the complaint only addresses design defects,
while the warranty is limited to manufacturing defects.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in December 2013 rejected
BMW's bid to throw out the suit, finding that the plaintiff could
potentially prove the defect existed within a one-year period of
buying the car, according to that ruling.

The judge also found that Mr. Jekowsky had alleged sufficient
facts to support it was a manufacturing defect, according to the
decision.

Judge White dismissed unfair competition and other consumer
claims, but left open the possibility of amending them, court
records show.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark A. Chavez --
mark@chavezgertler.com -- of Chavez & Gertler LLP and Bryan
Kemnitzer of Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP.

BMW is represented by Eric Y. Kizirian --
Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Michael K. Grimaldi --
Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The case is Jekowsky v. BMW of North America LLC, case number
3:13-cv-02158, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


BREG INC: Cold Therapy Suit Removed to Federal Court Under CAFA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a San Diego, Calif., County woman
recently amended her lawsuit to include nationwide class action
claims against a medical products manufacturer and four
individuals.

Stacy Lucas filed charges against BREG Inc. of fraud, omission or
concealment of safety information, unfair competition practices
including false advertising in June, but recently filed an amended
class action complaint that the defendants have removed to federal
court.

Ms. Lucas alleges she and others acquired the BREG "Polar Care
500" cold therapy device by prescription from 1992 to the present.
According to court papers, BREG allegedly received over 18
accident reports dating back to 1998 regarding tissue damage from
this product categorized as "cold injury" similar to frostbite.

According to the original complaint, BREG did not properly report
these incidents to the FDA.  The suit cites issues with the
language contained in the instructions that condones "continuous
use" for certain periods of time and alleges continued marketing
despite consumer concerns.

Defendants are: Orthofix International, NV of the Netherlands
Antilles; Brad Mason, President and CEO of BREG; Greg Nelson, vice
president and director; Gary Losse, officer and director of Oasis
Sports Medical Group, Inc., who prescribed the product to the
plaintiff; and Mark Howard, a former Oasis employee and a current
BREG program director. All four individuals are San Diego County
residents.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and reimbursement for the
product cost and punitive damages, along with attorneys fees.  She
is represented by Marc Stern of the Law Office of Marc O. Stern,
La Jolla, Calif.

The defendants removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 6 under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Usually removal occurs within a month of the original lawsuit
being filed, but the defendants claim it is still proper in this
case.

"While this lawsuit has been pending for over three-and-a-half
years, the plaintiffs still have not moved for certification and
have only added their proposed nationwide class relatively
recently," the removal notice says.

"They added a new named plaintiff less than two months ago, and
represented to the state court that they hope to add more."

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:15-cv-00258


CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. CAC Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00851
(E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAMP MINDEN: May Face Class Action Over 2012 Explosion
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Ferrell, writing for KSLA, reports that the scars remain,
long after the dust settled from that giant explosion 2 years ago
in Camp Minden. Now, some of those affected most are keeping a
close eye on the unfolding situation on what to do with all that
M6 propellant discovered in the aftermath of the blast.

KSLA News 12 has followed this story from the very beginning, in
the fall of 2012, when a blast shook the ArkLaTex.  It was only
after that explosion that authorities would stumble upon the
million of pounds of M6 artillery propellant improperly stored at
Camp Minden.

On Feb. 12, the first Minden Dialogue Committee meeting took
place, to look for alternatives to dispose of that material,
rather than burn it out in the open.  It was the idea of an open
burn that prompted a public outcry. Now some of the same victims
of that huge blast 28 months ago are watching the committee
process unfold.

They're still worried that all the propellant could explode before
a final solution can get underway.

"See right there," said Gordon Barron, as he pointed to the
hairline fractures running the length of his ceiling in his living
room.  It is a lasting reminder of the huge explosion at Camp
Minden that shook the ArkLaTex late on the night of Monday,
October 15, 2012.

Gordon and his wife Faye still live less than a mile from where
the bunker blast happened near the eastern portion of Camp Minden.
"I don't know how to explain it but how it shook the house so
bad," recalled Faye Barron.

In fact, that explosion shoved the house several inches off its
foundation.  Gordon Barron described just knowing something
serious was wrong with his home.  "You could feel it.  When you
walked across the floor you could feel it."

Within days of the bunker blast, repair crews arrived at the
Barron's manufactured home, just north of Highway 80 on McIntyre
Road in Minden.  They put the home back onto its foundation
properly.  But there was still the damage inside.  They decided
that they didn't want their insurance company to foot that bill.
Now two years later, they're still hoping to join a class action
lawsuit."

In their kitchen, Faye got on the phone during our visit.  "I was
calling about that class action lawsuit," started Faye.  Webster
Parish Sheriff Gary Sexton had given the Barron's a phone number
for that class action lawsuit. It was the number for attorney Kyle
Robinson in Bossier City.

During Faye's call, they could not confirm whether or not their
names are on the list of people involved in that class action
lawsuit.  She was told a form would be mailed to her, to fill out
and return.  As for the status of that case, she was told it's
stopped right now after the bankruptcy of Explo Systems, Inc., the
company behind the massive explosion.

For now, Faye and Gordon Barron will watch the Minden Dialogue
Committee's actions carefully, to make sure all that M6 propellant
is disposed of properly.  They also want to make sure there's no
repeat performance that would ever damage their home again.


CATAMARAN CORP: Sued for Low-Balling Pharmacy Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
company that oversees prescription drug reimbursements for
thousands of independent pharmacies has been accused of using
undisclosed accounting formulas to justify low rebates paid to the
members in its benefits network, according to a class action
lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.

The suit, filed by 55 independent pharmacies, includes a large
amount of business owners from Pennsylvania, all seeking
restitution against Catamaran Corporation based on four counts of
breach of contract.

The plaintiffs demand payment from the difference between
Catamaran's reimbursements for generic drugs and the commercially
reasonable rates, plus a more transparent system to inform
pharmacy managers of the company's rates and changes.

In court documents, the pharmacies claim Catamaran inflates the
patient's cost for prescription drugs through overcharging
insurance plans while underpaying the pharmacies that dispense the
drugs.

Catamaran determines the amount of reimbursement pharmacies
receive for providing generic medications and other pharmaceutical
products.  But the pharmacies claim in their filing that Catamaran
sets unreasonably low rates, makes pricing data inaccessible,
infrequently updates the data, and lacks transparency on how drug
rebates are or are not applied, all to the detriment of patients
and pharmacies.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are selected by health insurance
companies and government health programs to administer
pharmaceutical drug plans.  The plaintiffs allege that patient
choice is becoming increasingly limited by these health plans'
specific selection of Catamaran, which could drive independent
pharmacies out of business through manipulation of reimbursement
prices as well as other practices.

The relationship between Catamaran and the independent pharmacies
is contractual in nature, but Catamaran does not directly
negotiate these contracts, the suit says.  Instead, the contracts
are usually negotiated in bulk through pharmacy services
administration organizations (PSAO), the suit says.

According to the claim, Catamaran exploits independent pharmacies'
required reliance on PSAOs in order to keep critical aspects of
the contracts hidden through confidentiality agreements with the
PSAOs.

Catamaran's practice of not disclosing new pricing until a claim
adjudicates constitutes bad faith and unfair dealing, the claim
says, because it denies pharmacies the opportunity to plan for
changes in reimbursement and will inevitably cause financial harm
to those pharmacies.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Williams Cuker
Berezofsky, LLC in Philadelphia.


CLANTON, AL: Justice Department Weighs on Detention Misuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy M. Phelphs, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
the Justice Department weighed in Feb. 13 on the alleged misuse of
detention in local jails, an issue that has become a focus for
criminal justice reformers.

The department filed a legal document known as a statement of
interest in a suit against the city of Clanton, Ala.  The case,
filed on behalf of several local residents by Equal Justice Under
Law, a nonprofit, alleges that courts in the town, which is in the
central part of the state, hold low-income people in jail even on
relatively small charges if they can't afford to post bail.

"The criminal justice system should not work differently for the
indigent and the wealthy" acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Vanita Gupta
of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

"Bail practices that create a two-tiered system of justice by
treating the indigent and the wealthy differently undermine
fundamental fairness in our nation's criminal justice system," the
statement said.

The suit, filed as a class action in January, cites the case of
Christy Varden, a 41-year-old mother of two who was arrested
outside a Wal-Mart in Clanton for shoplifting, resisting arrest,
failure to obey a police officer and possession of drug
paraphernalia.  The suit says Ms. Varden's only income is $200 a
month in food stamps.  When she was unable to pay $2,000 in bail
-- $500 per charge -- she was told she would be held in jail at
least until the next court session a week later, the suit says.

The suit charges that Clanton requires bail of $500 for every
misdemeanor except driving under the influence, for which the
minimum is $1,000.  A similar case has been filed against
Montgomery, the state capital.

According to the Justice Department filing, any system of bail
that does not account for the ability of a defendant to pay
violates the Constitution by denying poor people the "equal
protection of the laws" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The city denies that its practices are unconstitutional.

The issue of bail has drawn increased attention from groups that
defend the rights of the poor.  The Vera Institute of Justice, a
nonprofit justice-policy group, issued a report saying that the
number of people held in local jails, as well as the length of
time they are held, has increased in many jurisdictions.
Inability to pay court-imposed bail or fines was a major reason,
the report said.


CHOCOLATE BY DESIGN: Recalls Milk Chocolate Pops Due to Eggs
------------------------------------------------------------
Chocolate By Design Inc. of Ronkonkoma, NY, is recalling its Milk
Chocolate "Assorted Character Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops"
and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" because they contain undeclared
eggs. The Icing Pops may also contain trace amounts of FD&C colors
Yellow 5 or 6, Red 3 or 40, and/or Blue 1. People who have
allergies to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Milk Chocolate "Assorted Character Pops", "Christmas Icing
Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" were sold to several customers
in New York, New Jersey and Virginia from September 2014 through
February 1, 2015 for retail sales.

The milk chocolate Icing Pops are made to order and sold in
unmarked bulk boxes containing 24 assorted Icing Pops per box.
Each Icing Pop is individually wrapped for retail sale in 2 oz.
clear cellophane with a curl ribbon closure. The Icing Pops are
not coded.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered during the
current FDA inspection that the Milk Chocolate Icing Pops were
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of egg
and the certified food colors. Production of the "Assorted
Character Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart
Icing Pops" has been suspended until the labeling has been
corrected.

Consumers who have purchased any of the 2 oz. "Assorted Character
Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops"
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-631-
737-0082, Mon - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434935.htm.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Settles MBS Class Action for $235 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, Michael Lipkin, Evan Weinberger and Pete Brush,
writing for Law360, report that Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Goldman Sachs & Co. and UBS Securities LLC agreed on Feb. 13 to
pay $235 million to end a class action brought by a pension fund
that bought mortgage-backed securities from the former Residential
Capital LLC alleging the underwriters issued false prospectuses.
According to a motion for preliminary settlement approval filed by
New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund in New York federal court on
Feb. 13, the underwriters settlement will bring to an end a
yearslong suit over the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the
fund and other investors in a number of offerings from 2006 to
2007 that were issued and sold by Residential Accredit Loans Inc.,
Ally Securities LLC and other affiliates. Plaintiffs alleged the
prospectuses issued in connection with the securities contained
material misstatements and omissions.

In their motion for preliminary settlement approval, the
plaintiffs note that including a $100 million settlement reached
with the issuer defendants in 2013, the $335 million global cash
settlement represents "one of the highest" recoveries among all
MBS class actions and was reached only after years of litigation
of complex issues in federal district and appellate court.

"It is this unique litigation history that strongly supports
preliminary approval of the proposed underwriter settlement and
the plan of allocation for the $335 million in settlement funds as
well as the notices regarding the same, since the terms of all of
these agreements were only accomplished after years of hard-fought
litigation," the motion says.

Under the settlement, the fund will be distributed to three tiers
of putative class members, each based on the strength of their
claims at the time of settlement.

The investors filed suit in September 2008, alleging that the RALI
certificates' seller, Residential Capital, and the underwriter
defendants were liable for failing to disclose weaknesses in the
underlying loans in some 59 offerings.

In the lead-up to the financial crisis, Residential Capital had
become one of the largest issuers of MBS in the world and it used
its heft to find rating agencies who would give its pools of often
subprime mortgages better ratings, according to the plaintiffs.

The certificates all collapsed in value and received junk ratings
when many of the underlying loans went into default or were
foreclosed on, the plaintiffs alleged.  They contended the
offering statements Residential Capital put out lied about how
stringent the mortgage originators' lending guidelines were.

In 2010, however, a district court partially granted the
defendants motion to dismiss and tossed 55 offerings from the
suit, leaving four at issue.

After an appeal to the Second Circuit and a subsequent motion for
reconsideration, a district court judge in April 2013 added back
13 offerings to the case, according to the Feb. 13 motion.

The ruling followed the Second Circuit's 2012 decision in NECA-
IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., which held that
funds stemming from the "same set of concerns" could be folded
into lawsuits.

Of the offerings thus included in the suit, Citi underwrote
certificates in four of those Offerings, Goldman Sachs underwrote
certificates in 10, and UBS underwrote certificates in three,
according to the Feb. 13 motion.

In July 2013, the issuer defendants agreed to pay $100 million in
cash to settle the claims against them.  Plaintiffs attorney Joel
Laitman -- jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC hailed the partial settlement at the time as an
"excellent result," especially since RALI and affiliated
defendants Residential Capital, Residential Funding LLC and
Residential Financial LLC filed voluntary petitions seeking
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2012.

The case against the underwriters proceeded, and in December 2013,
the district court ruled that, almost a year after allowing
intervening plaintiffs to proceed in the suit, the Second
Circuit's decision in Police & Fire Retirement System of City of
Detroit v. IndyMac MBS Inc. meant that the intervening plaintiffs
could not join the suit after all, and dismissed Deutsche
Securities Inc. from the suit.

On Feb. 13, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve the $235
million settlement, noting that it was reached in November 2014
after multiple days of negotiations held before retired Judge
Daniel Weinstein, "one of the most experienced and respected
mediators in the county," over a period of four months.

The plaintiffs pension funds and settlement class are represented
by Joel P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti, Michael Eisenkraft,
Richard Speirs, Daniel B. Rehns, Kenneth M. Rehns, Steven J. Toll,
Joshua S. Devore and S. Douglas Bunch -- dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
-- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, except for the Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, which is
separately represented by Robin F. Zwerling -- rzwerling@zsz.com
-- and Jeffrey C. Zwerling -- jzwerling@zsz.com -- of Zwerling
Schachter & Zwerling LLP.

The underwriter defendants are represented by William G.
McGuinness -- william.mcguinness@friedfrank.com -- Israel David
and Alfred L. Fatale III -- alfred.fatale@friedfrank.com  -- of
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and Brad S. Karp,
Daniel J. Kramer and Richard A. Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com --
of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

The case is New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund et al. v.
Residential Capital LLC et al., case number 1:08-cv-08781, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


CMS BANCORP: Party to Class Action Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
CMS Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that as announced on
February 2, 2015 in definitive additional proxy materials filed
with the SEC, CMS Bancorp was a party to a settlement agreement in
the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 30, 2015,
which resolved a purported class action lawsuit that was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on January 14,
2015.


COLORADO: Court Dismisses "Loggins" Pro Se Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the District of Colorado
ruled on the applicant's motion in the case VINCENT E. LOGGINS,
Applicant, v. FISHER, RALPH CARR, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-02652-GPG
(D. Colo.)

The applicant Vincent E. Loggins is housed at the Colorado Mental
Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado. He initiated an action by
filing a pro se pleading, in which Magistrate Judge Boland found
deficiencies and directed Mr. Loggins to cure it.

In response to Magistrate Judge Boland's order to cure
deficiencies, Mr. Loggins submitted 17 filings and paid $400 to
the Court. Two of the filings are requests to proceed in forma
pauperis; and three of the seventeen filings are a Title VII
Complaint, a Prisoner Complaint, and an Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.

On November 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered
an order that found Mr. Loggins has failed to comply with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8.  Magistrate Judge Gallagher also told Mr. Loggins that
he may not file a 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 application and a
prisoner complaint in the same action and that he must file one or
the other but not both within thirty days of the November 11
Order.

Subsequently, Mr. Loggins filed a Prisoner Complaint, two
Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2254, two Motions and Affidavits for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action, and
a copy of a Letter that he sent to a judge on March 2, 2012. Mr.
Loggins then submitted an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 and a Prisoner's Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915
in a Habeas Corpus Action on November 20, 2014.

Judge Babcock denied Mr. Loggins leave to proceed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 because he has sufficient funds in his
Colorado Department of Human Services Account to pay the $5 filing
fee. The application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied for
lack of jurisdiction, and the action is dismissed. No certificate
of appealability shall be issued because applicant has not made a
substantial showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the procedural ruling is correct and whether the
underlying claim has constitutional merit. All other pending
motions are denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Babcock's order dated January 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/BZbiAOfrom Leagle.com.

Vincent E. Loggins, Plaintiff, Pro Se


COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xfinity Wifi Hot-Spots
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Lavin, writing for ClickOrlando.com, reports that Comcast
faces a class action for allegedly converting home cable modems
into public wifi hot spot.

Christal Hayes has been living in her east Orlando home for about
a year and had no idea her home Internet could be accessed by
anyone nearby.  That's right.  A complete stranger without cable
can pay Comcast by the week, day or hour to log in to her home
modem.  And existing Comcast customers can user her internet for
free.

"I never got anything, at least from my knowledge, in the mail
about anything that was going on," she said.  "So the fact that
they're allowing this to happen and they don't even give their
customers notice is unbelievable to me."

Comcast said it did send customers notices that in addition to
their password-protected hot spot, a second public hotspot called
"Xfinity Wi-Fi" was activated on their modems.  But many
customers, like Hayes, don't remember getting it, and some, may
not have thought it was important and just threw it away.

Local 6 showed Hayes how easy it was to log on to her home modem.

"You did that in like two seconds, and you accessed my internet
and everything," she said.

According to a lawsuit filed by a customer in California, people
like Hayes are stuck paying an additional $20 to $30 dollars in
electricity costs annually -- even if no one uses the hotspot.
And if a stranger does hop on, the electricity costs climb another
30 to 40 percent, according to the suit.

"Our power bill's enough as it is," Ms. Hayes said.  "We live in
Florida.  It's hot.  If anyone is using my power it should be me."

Comcast disagrees with the allegation in the lawsuit.  But while
its modem is built "to support robust usage," the company admits
sharing one modem can have "some impact" on WiFi speed as more
devices share the network.  Comcast stands by its decision to
create a bigger hot spot network and says "it provides real
benefits to our customers."

The lawsuit raises security concerns.

"Since Comcast uses the Xfinity Wi-Fi Hotspot to allow strangers
to connect to the Internet through the same wireless router used
by Comcast customers in their homes, the data and information on a
Comcast customer's network is at greater risk," according to the
lawsuit.

But Comcast says it committed to making customers' Wi-Fi
experience as safe as possible, and has strong security measures
in place.  Even though both hot spots come from the same home
modem, guests on the public hotspot, like a babysitter, can't
access the private user's home network, according to the company.

As for Hayes, she wasn't comfortable keeping her modem's public
WiFi hotspot online.

"I'd definitely be interested in turning it off -- right now!"
Hayes said.

So Local 6 walked her through the steps Comcast published for its
customers who want to turn it off. And with a few strokes of a
keyboard, she shut off strangers from accessing her internet.

According to Comcast, less than one percent of its customers have
chosen to shut the public feature off so far.

Bright House Networks, which has a larger local customer base than
Comcast, does not have a similar feature, according to a Bright
House spokesperson.


CON YEAGER: Recalls Various Cumin Products Due to Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Con Yeager Spice Company has previously issued a voluntary recall
for multiple sized packages under multiple brand names of ground
cumin and multiple seasoning blends (containing ground cumin) due
to undeclared Peanut allergens in the ground cumin. The company is
revising its list of affected products to correct several brand
names and provide additional gift box information.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. To date, there have been no consumer
complaints or reports of allergic reactions at this time. Con
Yeager Spice Company is asking customers at risk for peanut
allergies to discontinue using the product immediately.

Consumers with any questions may contact Con Yeager Spice
Company's customer service at 1-800-222- 2460 {Monday- Friday,
8:00AM - 4:30 PM EST).

The affected products with revised brand names and additional gift
box information include:


  BRAND                ITEM DESCRIPTION     ITEM KEY     ITEM LOT
  ----                 -----------------    --------     --------
ANTHONY JR.'S          WING & FRY DUST      31165        .215271
PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30254        .215132
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   GROUND CUMIN SEED    30851        .215118
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30967        .211195
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30967        .215123
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30967        .215123
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30967        .215128
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      30967        .21S132
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      31165        .211205
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      31165        .215096
JOHNSONBURG
BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY &   WING & FRY DUST      31165        .215128
JOHNSONBURG
BLISS SHURFINE  FOOD   DARK CHILI POWDER    31009        .212653
MARKET
BLISS SHURFINE FOOD    DARK CHILI POWDER    31009        .216805
MARKE
Con Yeager Spice       BBQ PITI BEEF        38767        .212023
Company                SEASONING
Con Yeager Spice       BRINGHURST CATERIN   37827        .208995
Company                BBQ
Con Yeager Spice       GODSHALL'S S0111     36959        .212497
Company
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .214915
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .214915
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .215419
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     3388         .215410
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .215665
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .215665
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .217616
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .217607
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .218709
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .218700
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .219064
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .219055
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     30383        .219197
Company                (Mojo Seasoning)
Con Yeager Spice       GOURMET GIFT BOX     33886        .219188
Company                (Mojito Lime Rub
                       & Marinade)
Con Yeager Spice       HAMMANN'S BBQ        32799        .21141
Company                SEASONING
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .214926
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .215406
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .216031
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .217564
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .217603
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .217717
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       KITCHEN GIFT BOX     30499        .218696
Company                (Chili Powder Dark)
Con Yeager Spice       MOJITO LIME RUB &    37040        .214294
Company                MARINADE
Con Yeager Spice       MOJO SEASONING       30651        .219084
Company
Con Yeager Spice       PAPA WOOD BBQ ALL    38755        .219098
Company                PURPOSE RUB
Con Yeager Spice       WING & FRY DUST      30556        .219085
Company
CORNERSBURG ITALIAN    DARK CHILI POWDER    30085        .215803
SPECIALTIES
COSTA'S FOOD CENTER    BEEF RUB             30788        .217262
VENISON BARBEQUE
COSTA'S MARKET         WING & FRY DUST      30556        .216621
JAMES FERRARI& SONS    WING & FRY DUST      31165        .218967
FEZELL'S COUNTY MARKET DARK CHILI POWDER    31009        .217497
G & E SUPERMARKET      MOJITO LIME RUB &    37045        .208914
IHOCKER SUPER CENTER   MARINADE
G & E SUPERMARKET      MOJITO LIME RUB      37045        .211551
IHOCKER SUPER CENTER   & MARINADE
HOMEMADE MEMORIES      DARK CHILI POWDER    30811        .215650
BAKERY
IDEAL SUPER MARKETS    WING & FRY DUST      31165        .216080
IDEAL SUPER MARKETS    WING & FRY DUST      31165        .219332
JACK BELL'S MEATS      BEEF RUB             30788        .214779
VENISON BARBEQUE
JACK BELL'S MEATS      BEEF RUB             30788         .219313
VENISON BARBEQUE
JACK BELL'S MEATS      BEEF RUB             30890        .214783
BARBECUE
JACK BELL'S MEATS       CUMIN GROUND SEED     31049       .219323
JACK BELL'S MEATS       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .210164
JACK BELL'S MEATS       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .210896
JACK BELL'S MEATS       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .214776
JACK BELL'S MEATS       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .219309
JACOB AND SONS          WING & FRY DUST       31165       .211237
JACOB AND SONS          WING & FRY DUST       31165       .215141
LAUDERMILCH MEATS       WING & FRY DUST       30556       .216020
BAKERY & DELI
MERCIK'S IDEAL MARKET   DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .215535
MIKE'S SUPERMARKET      WING & FRY DUST       30556       .215047
1#542
MILLER MEATS & FOOD     WING & FRY DUST       30556       .217852
SHOP N SAVE MOUNT       GROUND CUMIN SEED     30491       .216086
PLEASANT
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       30556       .211114
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       30556       .214988
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       30556       .215752
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       30556       .219586
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .209850
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .215752
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .217903
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .219586
NASER PACKING CO.       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .219874
NEW CASTLE SHOP-N-SAVE  GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .216002
ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY   WING & FRY DUST       30556       .209954
ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY   WING & FRY DUST       30556       .219099
ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY   WING & FRY DUST       31165       .209954
ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY   WING & FRY DUST       31165       .218052
SHOP N SAVE             GROUND CUMIN SEED     30491       .215254
SHOP N SAVE             WING & FRY DUST       31165       .215195
SHOP N SAVE             WING & FRY DUST       31165       .215694
SHOP N SAVE             EXPRESS DARK CHILI    31009       .215830
                        POWDER
SHOP N SAVE             EXPRESS WING & FRY    31165       .211295
                        DUST
SHOP N SAVE             WING & FRY DUST       30556       .215636
(WEST MIFFLIN)
SHOP N SAVE, MOUNT      PLEASANT DARK CHILI   30483       .216248
                        POWDER
SHOP N SAVE, MOUNT      PLEASANT GROUND       30491       .216246
                        CUMIN SEED
SHOP-N-SAVE             DARK CHILI POWDER     30483       .217469
SHOP-N-SAVE             WING & FRY DUST       30556       .217454
THOMA MEAT MARKET       WING & FRY DUST       31165       .217777
THORNE'S BARBECUE       BEEF RUB              30890       .213446
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .212475
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .213441
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .216717
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .218195
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .218341
THORNE'S                DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .218605
THORNE'S                GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .214614
THORNE'S                GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .216712
THORNE'S                GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .217839
THORNE'S                GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .218596
THORNE'S                TACO SUPREME          37350       .216675
                        SEASONING
THORNE'S                TACO SUPREME          37350       .217818
                        SEASONING
THORNE'S                TACO SUPREME          37350       .218576
                        SEASONING
TOM'S RIVERSIDE         GROUND CUMIN SEED     30491       .217974
TOM'S RIVERSIDE         WING & FRY DUST       30556       .217969
TRADER HORN #10 VENISON BEEF RUB              30788       .215491
BARBEQUE
TRADER HORN #10         BEEF RUB              30890       .215475
BARBECUE
TRADER HORN #10         DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .215488
TRADER HORN #10         WING & FRY DUST       31165       .215476
TRADER HORN #2VENISON   BEEF RUB              30788       .213770
BARBEQUE
TRADER HORN #2VENISON   BEEF RUB              30788       .219209
BARBEQUE
TRADER HORN #2          BEEF RUB              30890       .213757
BARBEQUE
TRADER HORN #2          BEEF RUB              30890       .218332
BARBEQUE

TRADER HORN #2          DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .213768
TRADER HORN #2          WING & FRY DUST       31165       .211085
TRADER HORN #2          WING & FRY DUST       31165       .218333
TRADER HORN #6 VENISON  BEEF RUB              30788       .213938
BARBEQUE
Valeski's BILo          GROUND CUMIN SEED     30491       .217102
Valeski's BILo          DARK CHILI POWDER     31009       .212909
Valeski's BILo          WING & FRY DUST       31165       .217110
WARRINGTON FARM MEATS   WING & FRY DUST       30016       .216158
WARRINGTON FARM MEATS   WING & FRY DUST       30016       .219714
WARRINGTON FARM MEATS   DARK CHILI POWDER     30085       .216155
WARRINGTON FARM MEATS   GROUND CUMIN SEED     31049       .216156
WARRINGTON FARM MEATS   WING & FRY DUST       31165       .219714


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dawson Geophysical Company on October 8, 2014, entered into a
merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with TGC Industries,
Inc., a Texas corporation ("TGC"), and Riptide Acquisition Corp.,
a Texas corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company, with the Company continuing after the merger as the
surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC (the
"Merger").

Dawson 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, Andrew Speese,
through his attorney, filed a purported shareholder class action
and derivative action on behalf of himself and the Company's other
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against the Company,
its current directors, TGC and Riptide Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of TGC ("Merger Sub").

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed strategic business
combination with TGC, and that TGC's registration statement dated
November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and prospectus filed on
December 31, 2014 contain material omissions and materially
misleading statements. The complaint seeks to enjoin us, TGC and
Merger Sub from taking any actions that would allow the
consummation of the proposed strategic business combination
contemplated by the Merger Agreement or, in the event that the
proposed strategic business combination is consummated, seeks a
judgment for damages."


DEL MONTE: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $7.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Nidever, writing for The Sentinel, reports that Del Monte has
agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle claims that workers were
underpaid at the Del Monte packing plant south of Hanford,
according to court documents.

Lawyers for Del Monte Foods Inc. couldn't be immediately reached
for comment.

In the class-action case, named plaintiffs Robert Montgomery,
Araceli Negrete and Carol Philips claimed that, at various times
during their employment at the Kings County location, workers
weren't being allowed to clock out for required 30-minute meal
breaks.

The suit further alleged that Del Monte automatically deducted 30
minutes a day from employees' time sheets whether the breaks were
actually taken or not.  Plaintiffs asserted that, because of the
automatic deduction, workers were cheated out of overtime pay they
would otherwise have been entitled to.

The alleged violations take on added significance because about 75
percent of the Hanford Del Monte plant's workers are seasonal,
only working from July to October.  During that four-month packing
season, the number of employees at the facility swells to about
1,200.

The suit also claimed that Del Monte required workers to work off
the clock when putting on/taking off required equipment and
clothing, that Del Monte provided inaccurate wage statements and
that the company illegally delayed final paychecks to workers who
quit, were fired or were laid off.

In the court records, attorneys representing Del Monte denied all
the allegations.

The suit sought restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees
for the plaintiffs.  The $7.5 million settlement, agreed to in
principle last year, is to be spread out among as many as 6,000
employees.  The plaintiffs' attorneys are to receive $2.5 million,
leaving $5 million available for the 6,000 aggrieved employees.

That works out to roughly $833 for each worker, depending on how
many weeks they worked at Del Monte.

The lawsuit was filed in 2013, but covers a period going back to
2010.  According to court documents, the named plaintiffs no
longer work for Del Monte.

The settlement hasn't been finalized.  A hearing is scheduled for
May 18 in Kings County Superior Court.

The lawsuit is similar to a separate legal action filed in January
against Leprino Foods that alleges the same types of workplace
violations occurred at that company's facilities in Lemoore.  That
litigation is ongoing.


EL POPOCATEPETL: Recalls Flavored Wraps Products Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
El Popocatepetl Ind., Inc. of Chicago, Illinois is voluntarily
recalling El Popocatepet's 8 in. Chipotle, Spinach Pesto, and Sun
Dried Tomato Wraps because they may contain undeclared milk and
Yellow #5. People who have allergies to milk and/or Yellow #5 run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

El Popocatepetl's 8in. Flavored Wraps were distributed in the
state of Illinois, primarily in the Chicago area.

The information on how the recalled products can be identified is
listed below:

Product Name: 8in. Sundried Tomato
Brand Name: El Popocatepetl
Description: 8in. Tomato Flavored Wrap
UPC: 0 20784 99505 7
Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before.

Product Name: 8in. Spinach Pest
Brand Name: El Popocatepetl
Description: 8in. Spinach Flavored Wrap
UPC: 0 20784 58314 8
Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before.
Product Name: 8in. Chipotle
Brand Name: El Popocatepetl
Description: 8in. Chipotle Flavored Wrap
UPC: 0 20784 78248 0
Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before.

The recall was initiated during a review of the product
ingredients and the labeled ingredients revealed milk and Yellow
#5 was present in an ingredient used to make the flavored wraps
but not listed as ingredients on the labels. No Illnesses have
been reported to date.

All recalled products are being removed from the store shelves. No
other El Popocatepetl products are involved in this recall.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product can return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the Company Consumer Department at 773-843-0888.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435191.htm


FAIRWAY LIKE: Recalls Raw Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------
Fairway "Like No Other Market" of New York, NY, is recalling
Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts), because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts) were distributed to
Fairway stores in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and also
through home delivery programs provided by Google and Instacart.

The product is packaged in clear, plastic cello bags of varying
weights, each weighing less than one pound. The product bears Item
Code 228119 XXXXXX. All "SELL BY" Date codes of May 15, 2015 and
earlier are being recalled.

There have been no reported illnesses to date.

The recall is the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA
which revealed that the finished product contained the bacteria.
The company has ceased distribution of the Fairway brand Raw
Hazelnut (Filberts) and removed the product from Fairway store
shelves as the FDA and the company continues their investigation
as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who purchased the Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts)
should return the product to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (855)
856-9566, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435551.htm


FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismissed Prisoner's Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case GLENN
SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, HARDEE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, in its official and individual capacities, SECRETARY,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in its official and individual
capacities, et al. Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-12243 (11th Cir.)

The applicant Glen Smith, a Florida prisoner, filed a complaint
against the warden of the Hardee Correctional Institution, the
supervisor of library services, and Kathy Connor, an employee of
the Department of Corrections.  Smith alleged that the three
individuals interfered with his right to access to the courts in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and state law;
the Warden and Eugenia Wellhausen, an employee of the Department,
conducted unreasonable searches of his cell in violation of the
Fourth Amendment; and the Warden, Connor, and Wellhausen supplied
inadequate clothing and bedding to protect inmates against the
weather in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith sought an
order to compel the Warden of Hardee, the supervisor of library
services for Hardee, and Kathy Connor, an employee of the
Department, to provide word processing and copy services for him.

Together with his complaint, Smith also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction, motion for class certification and
appointment of counsel for the class action and motion to recover
the costs related to service process.  The district court
dismissed Smith's complaint for non-compliance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 20(a), and denied all motions filed by Smith.

Smith filed an amended complaint, in which the trial court made a
partial dismissal and a partial summary judgment against Smith's
amended complaint.

Smith took an appeal, pro se, of the dismissal without prejudice
of his original complaint, and the partial dismissal and partial
summary judgment against his amended complaint.  Smith also
challenges the denial of his motions for preliminary injunction,
for class certification and appointment of counsel for the class
action, and for sanctions; the partial denial of his motion to
recover the costs related to service of process; and the award of
costs to the officials.

The Eleventh Circuit court affirmed the district court's judgment
in a per curiam decision dated January 7, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/2iN82qfrom Leagle.com.

The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges William H.
Pryor, Beverly B. Martin and R. Lanier Anderson III.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Defect Power Steering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Feb. 12 tossed without prejudice an "unwieldy"
proposed class action accusing Ford Motor Co. of concealing
defective power steering systems that are prone to sudden and
premature failure on its Focus and Fusion models.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh did not delve deeply into her
reasoning for granting Ford's motion to dismiss in the two-page
order beyond noting that the complaint's deficiencies had been
identified on the record.  She gave the plaintiffs 30 days to
amend and more narrowly focus their complaint.

"Plaintiffs' 108-page first amended complaint listing 51 causes of
action, including 49 claims specific to the laws of six states and
two nationwide claims based on the laws of 44 additional states,
is unwieldy in scope and unduly burdensome," she said.

Judge Koh ordered the parties to meet prior to a case management
conference and encouraged them to explore all options to try and
narrow the case, including entering into a stipulation of
dismissal without prejudice subject to a tolling agreement or to
agree to a stay of certain claims.

The plaintiffs are barred from adding new causes of action or
parties without her permission, according to the order.

The June 2014 complaint claims that Ford has known since at least
2010 about the defective steering system but has repeatedly denied
that the system is defective, despite receiving hundreds of
complaints from consumers.  As a result, the complaint asks that
the automaker be barred from asserting a statute of limitations
defense.

The suit claims that Ford has marketed the electronic power
assisted steering system sensors as allowing drivers to achieve
steering "that feels just right" and that it "helps keep you
planted and in control," statements that contrast sharply with the
problems customers have experienced.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the power steering system is
defectively designed and that Ford misrepresented the system's
safety and efficiency.  The automaker told consumers that the
system detects road conditions, such as crowned road surfaces or
crosswinds, and adjusts the steering system to help drivers
compensate for pulling and drifting, according to the suit.

The amended complaint, filed in September, sought to represent a
nationwide class of consumers who had purchased the affected
vehicles, as well as statewide classes in California, Ohio,
Michigan, Georgia, Illinois, and Arizona.

Claims brought in the suit for the proposed nationwide class
alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
fraudulent concealment, while claims for the state classes
incorporated a wide range of the various states' consumer
protection and breach of warranty laws.

In its motion to dismiss, Ford had argued that the complaint
contained no specific facts about the plaintiffs' own claims, and
instead relied on "quoting other consumers' complaints, accusing
Ford of fraud 'on information and belief,' and trying to depict
the possibility of having to steer a relatively small car manually
as an unreasonably dangerous hazard."

Models that include the defective steering system include the
2010-2014 Ford Fusion; 2010-2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid; 2013-2014
Ford Fusion Energi; 2012-2014 Ford Focus; and 2012-2014 Ford Focus
Electric, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and
Isaac Miller of Baron & Budd PC; Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren,
Justin S. Brooks, and Mary S. Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- of
Grant & Eisenhofer PA; and Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com
-- and Nathan B. Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com
-- of Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC.

Ford Motor Co. is represented by Frank P. Kelly III, M. Kevin
Underhill, Andrew L. Chang, and Amir M. Nassihi of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

The case is Philips et al v. Ford Motor Company, case number 5:14-
cv-02989 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Gingko Biloba
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that health product retailer GNC was sued
on Feb. 5 over claims one of its products was mislabeled.

Stacey Wright's lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court against GNC
alleges its ginkgo biloba product doesn't actually contain ginkgo
biloba.  The suit comes after New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman conducted DNA tests on the product, and on Feb. 3
said the tests found no ginkgo biloba in the product.  The
attorney general issued a cease-and-desist letter to GNC,
directing the company to stop selling the product in the State of
New York.

In addition to seeking class status for anyone who purchased the
ginkgo biloba product since Feb. 6, 2009, the lawsuit also seeks a
sub-class for all Pennsylvania citizens who purchased the product.
The lawsuit alleges GNC has only pulled the product from New York
shelves, but not from other stores around the country.  GNC also
hasn't offered to refund purchases of the product to anyone,
including in New York, it says.

The plaintiff seeks class status, more than $5 million in damages
and court costs in the lawsuit.

The plaintiff is represented by Stephen DeNittis of DeNittis
Osefchen, P.C., in Philadelphia.

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
number 2:15-cv-00566


GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Weiss and Zissey Holczler, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection
Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00854 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces "Levy" Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Hampden Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a purported
stockholder of Hampden Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") filed on or
about February 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of Massachusetts for Hampden County against the
Company, the Company's board of directors, and Berkshire Hills
Bancorp, Inc. ("Berkshire"), captioned Brian Levy v. Hampden
Bancorp, Inc. et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, and that Berkshire aided and abetted those breaches,
by engaging in an allegedly unfair process leading to the
Company's sale to Berkshire and by allegedly failing to maximize
value for the Company's stockholders.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the Company's proxy statement contained material omissions.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable relief enjoining
the sale agreement.

The Company believes this complaint is baseless and without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this action.


HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanbit Enterprises, Inc., dba Jack and the Beanstalk, is recalling
Soybean Sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10 lb, and Natto plastic bags
distributed up to and including February 12, 2015 with Best if
Used by dates up to February 19, 2015, because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer long-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The soybean sprouts were distributed to Bay Area stores and
restaurants.

  --- 1LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12366-9
  --- 1.5LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12365-2
  --- 10LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12351-5
  --- NATTO SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12367-6

No illnesses that have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA
which revealed that the finished products contained the Listeria
bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution
of the product as FDA and the company continues their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. soybean
sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10lb, and Natto plastic bags are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 831-422-8028
during office hours: Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434408.htm


HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Colistimethate for Injections
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. announced the voluntary nationwide
recall of ten (10) lots of Colistimethate for Injection, USP, 150
mg Single-Dose vial (NDC 23155-193-31) and three (3) lots of
Rifampin for Injection, USP, 600 mg Single-Dose vial (NDC 23155-
340-31) manufactured by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and
distributed by Heritage. Both products are sold in single vial
mono-cartons in case packs of ten (10). Heritage has initiated
this voluntary recall of Colistimethate for Injection, USP, 150 mg
Single-Dose vial and Rifampin for Injection USP, 600 mg Single-
Dose vial to the user level due to FDA observations pertaining to
aseptic and GMP practices at the manufacturer's site potentially
impacting product sterility.

Intravenous administration of non-sterile injection products to a
normally sterile site may result in a site-specific or systemic
infection, which in turn may cause hospitalization, significant
morbidity (permanent organ damage), or fatal outcome. To date,
Heritage is not aware of any adverse patient events resulting from
the use of the subject product lots.

The lot numbers with expiry date being recalled are:

Colistimethate for Injection

  Lot No.
  -------
  VCOA002
  VCOA003
  VCOA004
  VCOA005
  VCOA006
  VCOA007
  VCOA008
  VCOA009
  VCOA010
  VCOA011
  Exp. Date
  9/30/2014
  10/31/2014
  10/31/2014
  1/31/2015
  3/31/2015
  9/30/2015
  12/31/2015
  2/29/2016
  10/31/2016
  10/31/2016

Rifampin for Injection

  Lot No.
  -------
  VRIA002
  VRIA003
  VRIA004
  Exp. Date
  8/31/2016
  9/30/2016
  9/30/2016

The products were distributed to hospitals, wholesalers and
distributors nationwide from December 2012 through January 2015
(Colistimethate) and from October 2014 through January 2015
(Rifampin). Colistimethate is indicated for the treatment of acute
or chronic infections due to sensitive strains of certain gram-
negative bacteria. Rifampin is indicated for the treatment of all
forms of tuberculosis.

Customers are being notified by fax, email, UPS, and/or certified
mail that includes arrangements for return of all recalled
product. Customers have been instructed to examine their inventory
immediately and to quarantine, discontinue distribution of, and
return the recalled lots of product. Customers who may have
further distributed these products have been requested to identify
their customers and notify them at once of this product recall.

Any questions about returning unused product should be directed to
the customer call center at (866) 901-1230 M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Healthcare workers who have medical questions about Colistimethate
for Injection, USP, 150 mg base/vial and Rifampin for Injection
USP, 600 mg/vial may contact Heritage Medical Affairs (732-429-
1000, Ext. 101) M-F 9am-5pm EST.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this product. Adverse reactions or quality problems
experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Report Program either online, by
regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report
Online:www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm
Regular mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

About Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on the development, licensing, sales and marketing
of prescription pharmaceutical products.

CUSTOMER SUPPORT:
Customer Service:
Toll free: 1-800-505-9291

HERITAGE SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS:
Dr. Pablo Davila
(732) 429-1000, Ext. 101


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Seeks Dismissal of Autonomy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report
that Hewlett-Packard Co.'s retirement plan review committee urged
a California federal judge Feb. 13 to toss a proposed class action
claiming the company's disastrous $11 billion purchase of Autonomy
Corp. harmed the plan's beneficiaries, arguing it had no duty to
stop selling plan shares while investigating fraud allegations at
Autonomy.

The HP committee argued in its motion to dismiss that the
plaintiffs' remaining claim, that the committee breached its
fiduciary duty, must be dismissed because of U.S. District Judge
Charles Breyer's ruling in a securities class action over the same
merger.  In that case, Judge Breyer ruled that the defendants were
right to take the time to investigate allegations of accounting
fraud at Autonomy before notifying shareholders; that decision
"constitutes law of the case and is controlling," the motion said.

In a San Francisco courtroom Friday, Judge Breyer asked whether,
if HP had told ERISA plan members at the time not to purchase more
shares in the plan, it would also be required to disclose the
reason behind that advice.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Samuel Bonderoff of Zamansky LLC, argued
that the committee could have told beneficiaries to stop buying
shares in the ERISA plan and say that it's due to an investigation
without explaining what the investigation was about.

"That's a public notice, for all intents and purposes," Judge
Breyer said, noting that the instructions would have gone out to
thousands of HP employees.  "It's going to be in the paper the
next day."

Mr. Bonderoff agreed but argued that the Ninth Circuit ruled in
Steve Harris et al. v. Amgen et al that the defendants in that
case were required to disclose information to ERISA plan
participants.

HP's attorney, Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell
Lipton Rosen & Katz, disagreed with Mr. Bonderoff, saying if the
company notifies participants about a stock freeze, it also has to
explain why.

"The notice not to buy shares would have inevitably become
public," Mr. Wolinsky said.  That, in turn, could have also harmed
HP's market value, he said.  He also asked how an obligation to
disclose such an investigation could be created, given that the
information that led to the investigation might turn out to be
wrong.

"The stock would arguably take a smaller hit than it would" if a
nondisclosure early on led to a bigger disclosure later on, Judge
Breyer said.

"In this case, he didn't know how bad it was," Mr. Wolinsky said.

"It was pretty bad," Judge Breyer said.

Judge Breyer took the arguments under submission and didn't
indicate how he would rule.

In the suit, filed in 2012, the plaintiffs accuse HP's 401(k) plan
committee and investment review committee of failing to look out
for the plan participants' best interests by continuing to offer
HP shares unrestricted despite knowing that the company was
flailing financially -- in part due to the $8.8 billion it lost
through Autonomy -- in violation of ERISA.

The committees should have been aware that the company's value
would plummet after "a series of strategic management blunders"
that cost nearly $20 billion and eventually caused its stock price
to fall 76 percent, the suit contends.  By ignoring these
warnings, the plaintiffs said, the plan committee breached its
duties of prudence and loyalty to participants with respect to its
continued offering of HP common stock held under the plan.

The plan does not prohibit the committee from placing restrictions
or other limitations on the offering of company stock if doing so
is no longer financially prudent, the suit claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by Samuel E. Bonderoff, Jacob H.
Zamansky and Edward H. Glenn Jr. of Zamansky LLC and Betsy C.
Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP.

HP is represented by Marc Wolinsky, George T. Conway and Vincent
G. Levy of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz and Neil A. Goteiner and
Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com -- of Farella Braun & Martell
LLP.

The case is In re: HP ERISA Litigation, case number 3:12-cv-06199,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: Investors Mull Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Hanna Barry, writing for The Citizen, reports that fed-up
investors are preparing up to nine class actions totaling billions
of rands against Pickvest-promoted property syndication companies
Highveld Syndications (HS) and individuals, representing an
average of R250 000 per complainant, lawyers say.

Seven thousand investors have now joined a class action group --
the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG), administered by
attorneys Theron & Partners -- on behalf of about 18 000
investors, mainly pensioners.  The total invested was about R4.6
billion.

Two High Court applications seek to have class actions certified
for syndicated companies HS 15 to 18 and HS 19 to 22.  An
application for HS 19 to 22 was issued in October 2014.

Theron & Partners expects an application to be issued in respect
of HS 15 to 18 in the first half of this year.

Some of the individual class actions certified will depend on the
High Court's directive, says Marina Verdoes, of Theron & Partners.
Among the respondents is Nic Georgiou, MD of Orthotouch, which
bought properties in the HS companies but failed to pay interest
in terms of a scheme of arrangement settled in 2011.

A new scheme of arrangement was sanctioned in the South Gauteng
High Court late last year, giving investors three alternatives to
restructure the repayments.

But Theron & Partners says it is probing the validity of the court
order and will issue an application to have the order revised or
rescinded.

Helgard Hancke, an investor and coordinator of the HSAG, says
investors are receiving less than 2% interest a month.  "They [the
22 respondents] must . . . explain . . . what they've done with
our money," he says.

Mr. Hancke says an 84-year old widow invested R7 million, left by
her late husband, but has had to sell her house and move in with
her children.  Others have committed suicide, he claims.

Investors must pay upfront or in installments of R1 000 per claim
(or HS syndication in which they are invested) to participate in
the class action -- which is "only a fraction of the total costs
of the ensuing High Court matters", Ms. Verdoes says.

"This [R1 000] cost per claim has been instituted in order to be
reasonable to all investors and also to cover the costs of more
than one court case. For example, an investor in HS 15, 17 and 19
will be a claimant in three High Court Cases," Ms. Verdoes
explains.

"All surplus funds will be returned to investors at the end of the
matter," he says.


HOME LOAN: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Feb. 13 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period from February 28, 2012 through January 22, 2015.

HLSS acquires mortgage servicing assets.  The Company invests
primarily in sub-prime and Alt-A mortgage servicing rights and
associated servicing advances, and hires residential loan
servicers to service the pools of mortgage loans underlying the
mortgage servicing rights.

HLSS launched its operations in March 2012 with the proceeds from
an initial public offering and a concurrent private placement to
acquire a $15.2 billion mortgage servicing assets portfolio from
Ocwen Financial Corporation.  The private placement was
facilitated by the Company's founder and former Chairman Defendant
William C. Erbey, who until recently was also the Chairman of the
Board of Directors for Ocwen.

The existence of HLSS is dependent on its relationship with Ocwen.
Ocwen is a financial services company engaged in the servicing and
origination of mortgage loans, including standard residential and
commercial servicing, special servicing, and asset management
services.  Ocwen owns a large loan portfolio consisting of
conventional, government insured, and non-agency loans, including
a large number of subprime loans.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (i) that due to HLSS's dependency on
Ocwen, any wrongful conduct on the part of Ocwen would directly
affect HLSS; (ii) material information regarding illegal practices
and various compliance failures in Ocwen's servicing business;
(iii) material information regarding improper conflicted
transactions with Ocwen; (iv) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; (v) that Ocwen was under
investigation for violating applicable federal and state
regulations and laws, including among other things, the New York
Department of Financial Services' and the state of California's
investigation of Ocwen; (vi) the Company was in breach of
provisions of its notes held by BlueMountain Capital Management,
LLC; (vii) the Company faced material risks if it defaults on its
notes, and (viii) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased HLSS stock between February 28, 2012 and
January 22, 2015, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased HLSS common stock during the Class Period of
February 28, 2012 through January 22, 2015, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than March 30, 2015.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.


HORIZON LINES: Settles Class Actions Over Planned Sale
------------------------------------------------------
Star-Adviser reports that three lawsuits challenging the planned
sale of ocean cargo transportation firm Horizon Lines to
competitors Matson Inc. and The Pasha Group have led to a
settlement agreement that won't affect the deal's $598 million
purchase price.

North Carolina-based Horizon announced the tentative settlement on
Feb. 13, and said it is subject to court approval.

One significant change to the planned sale under the settlement
agreement is how much Matson would receive under certain
circumstances if the deal falls apart.  This so-called termination
fee will be cut to $9.5 million from $17.2 million.

Shareholders of Horizon stock are slated to vote on the sale
Feb. 25.

The deal, announced in November, involves Pasha acquiring
Horizon's Hawaii business $141.5 million while Matson acquires
Horizon's operations in Alaska for $456.1 million.  Matson is the
largest ocean cargo carrier serving Hawaii.

Three class-action lawsuits filed in Delaware sought to block the
sale, alleging that the purchase price was insufficient, that
there was misleading or missing information about the deal, and
other things.

Horizon said its board regarded the lawsuits, which were
consolidated into one case, as having no merit.  A settlement, the
company said, eliminates risks, costs and other burdens of
litigation.


HUMMINGBIRD WHOLESALE: Recalls Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hummingbird Wholesale in Eugene Oregon is recalling 110 jars of
Hummingbird Brand Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter that may
contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk products run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled product sold to retail outlets in California, Oregon,
and Washington and directly to consumers in Oregon in 1 pound (454
gram) glass jars that show lot number of 15023 on a white sticker
on the jar between the dates of 1/27/15 and 2/19/15.

  HW Item #      Lot #      UPC Code
  ---------      -----      --------
  N270           15023      6-96859-11035-1

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a supplier
had changed the ingredients without notice to include milk in the
65% dark chocolate used to make the Organic Chocolate Hazelnut
Butter. The label does not show milk as an ingredient. Only lot #
15023 was made with the affected chocolate.

Consumers who purchased this product are welcome to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund, or to contact Hummingbird
at 541-686-0921 ext. 105 from 8am to 4pm PST Monday through
Friday.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Hummingbird Wholesale has taken immediate action to recall the
affected Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter in order to ensure the
safety of its consumers.

Hummingbird Wholesale is dedicated to providing the highest
quality organic and raw products, and the safety of our customers
is our number one priority.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435155.htm


IDEAL MEDICAL: Removes "Riley" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Riley v. Ideal Medical Center
Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-30694-CA-01, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-20654-JLK to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Ginette Jean Riley seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages
pursuant to federal and state statutory causes of action as well
as state common law.  Specifically, the Plaintiff's Complaint
alleges six causes of action, including violations of the Florida
Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Jay Thornton, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-8111
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8112
          E-mail: jay.thornton@gray-robinson.com

               - and -

          Sarah Pleasant Lohn Reiner, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 244-5650
          Facsimile: (407) 244-5690
          E-mail: sarah.reiner@gray-robinson.com


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Membership Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacia Naquin, writing for 12 News, reports that complaints about
matchmaking service It's Just Lunch have taken on a new life, with
a huge class-action lawsuit.

"It's Just Lunch" (IJL) claims to be old-style matchmaking for
busy professionals.  But it'll cost you, depending on what kind of
membership you sign up for.

A 12-month membership can cost $2,500 and includes 10 dates.

"I thought 'Boy does this come with a bar of gold or something?'"
said Brigit, a Goodyear resident who signed up with It's Just
Lunch in 2014 and asked that her last name not be used for this
story.  "But really what I thought was paying that kind of money,
you're probably getting what you're paying for here."

Nine months later, she changed her tune. After only two dates
during that time, Brigit said she didn't feel like the company was
helping her.  In fact, she says It's Just Lunch misrepresented her
with the dates she did have.

"They're told I look different," she said.  "Different height.
Different marriage and child status.  I don't have any children.
One of them was told that I had children.  Both were told I was a
physician.  I'm an ethicist actually.  So none of the basic
information was even correct."

Since she wasn't getting what she paid for, Brigit asked for a
refund.  The company repeatedly said no, she says.

Call 12 has fielded a series of complaints over the years about
It's Just Lunch, with customers making similar statements about
their experiences.  Call 12 volunteers have always been able to
help customers get refunds.

But now the complaints have taken on a new life, with a huge
class-action lawsuit.

"There are tens of thousands of IJL customers from all over the
United States who are in the class," said Philip Menchaca, legal
analyst for Balestriere Fariello, the company leading the case.
"Our goal for the suit is to achieve some justice for those that
did not receive the service they signed up for."

It's Just Lunch maintains that it has a high rate of success in
matching couples.  A spokesperson says that success could be
defined differently by each of its clients, but denied
misrepresenting anyone.

"We would never misrepresent our clients," said Julie Lopez, It's
Just Lunch spokesperson.  "It wouldn't benefit them or our
business in any way."

When asked about the lawsuit, the company had no comment.  But
Ms. Lopez did have this to say about Brigit.

"The process doesn't seem to be working for this particular
client," said Ms. Lopez.  "So, we've issued her a pro-rated refund
for her membership."

Brigit says the company told her it would be an $1,800 refund, but
when the check arrived, it was only for $1,550.

In the meantime, she's still looking for love and plans to spend
Valentine's Day with her family. But she still wants to warn other
potential clients of the company.

"For $2,500 that you will never see and dates that will probably
make you cringe or never work out, it's just best not to use this
company," she said.

If you have a problem with a business, contact Call 12 for Action.


KBR: Class Action Over "Burn Pits" Heads Back to Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, writing for Fox News, reports that U.S.
troops who risked their lives battling insurgents in Afghanistan
for years faced another unseen enemy at bases across the country:
toxic fumes from open-air "burn pits" that were used long after
orders to phase them out.

A scathing new watchdog report details the extent of the
"indefensible" practice.  The report says the U.S. military even
spent millions on incinerators as a trash-burning alternative, yet
several of them did not work or were never turned on, wasting $20
million and leaving troops to breathe pollution from the burn pits
instead.

"Given the fact that [the Department of Defense] has been aware
for many years of the significant health risks associated with
open-air burn pits, it is indefensible that U.S. military
personnel, who are already at risk of serious injury and death
when fighting the enemy, were put at further risk from the
potentially harmful emissions from the use of open-air burn pits,"
John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan
reconstruction (SIGAR), said in his findings.

The report coincides with a separate class-action lawsuit -- by
hundreds of veterans who say they were sickened by exposure to
burn pits over the course of the 13-year war -- that is moving
closer to a trial.

That suit, lodged against private contractors KBR and its former
parent company Halliburton Co., is headed back to U.S. District
Court in Maryland after the U.S. Supreme Court declined in January
to take up the defendants' appeal for a dismissal.

KBR, which had a government contract to provide waste management
on overseas bases, says it was not operating in Afghanistan during
the period covered in the SIGAR investigation, and the company is
not mentioned in the report.  But the report's strong words about
the health hazards could bolster the arguments made by
servicemembers who say their proximity to the burn pits resulted
in protracted medical issues -- including asthma, acute
respiratory illness, immunity disorders and even cancer.

"[The] IG report confirms what we have alleged in the lawsuit,"
said Susan Burke, the lead attorney representing the veterans.

Neither the government nor KBR has acknowledged a link between the
burn-pit emissions and long-term illness.  DOD and Veterans
Affairs (VA) officials contend that studies are ongoing.  The VA
recently opened an Airborne Hazards and Open Pit Registry for
veterans to share their symptoms and experiences in hopes of
learning more.  However, on its website the VA states, "at this
time, research does not show evidence of long-term health
problems."

According to Mr. Sopko, the pits burned a peak of 410 tons of
solid waste a day throughout the war -- everything from vehicle
parts, plastics and medical waste to prohibited hazardous
materials like batteries and tires.  The toxic brew created a
black plume of smoke that lingered in the air over barracks and
other common areas, soldiers have long reported.  After returning
veterans came to members of Congress complaining of health issues,
new guidelines were passed in 2009 to phase out the burn pits on
installations with more than 100 people starting in 2011.
Incinerators were supposed to be moved in as a clean alternative.

It didn't work out that way. According to the report, "[U.S.
Central Command] officials told us that no U.S. installation in
Afghanistan has ever been in compliance," and SIGAR investigators
personally witnessed the continued use of pits in the field
through 2013.

The investigation was conducted from October 2012 to June 2014, at
four out of the nine U.S. bases where incinerators were reportedly
installed after 2010.  SIGAR found that out of the $81.9 million
taxpayers spent on 23 incinerators, $20.1 million was wasted
because at least eight of them on those four sites were never
used.

The report blames contractors hired by the military for faulty or
incomplete installation of the incinerators.  It also points a
finger at DOD for paying contractors despite the fact incinerators
were never turned on, or were left with deficiencies that
prevented them from fully operating.

SIGAR found that at places like Camp Leatherneck, which housed an
average of 20,000 people at any one time, "open-air burn pit
operations continued on the base until October 2013, an additional
16 months" after four incinerators had been installed there.

Meanwhile, hundreds of veterans have joined the class-action
lawsuit against KBR and Halliburton.  Since 2001, KBR has held a
stake in the multi-billion dollar contract with the Pentagon in
both Afghanistan and Iraq to provide, in part, waste management
and other services on U.S. bases.

The Texas-based company argues the suit should be dismissed
because since the company was working on behalf of the U.S.
military, which cannot be sued in U.S. district courts for command
decisions in wartime, KBR is also exempt from such litigation.


KIRSCH MUSHROOM: Recalls Chilean Mushrooms Due to Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsch Mushroom Co. Inc. of 751 Drake Street Bronx NY, is
recalling its Chilean Mushrooms that were purchased from Nov
1st2014 to Dec 20th 2014 because they contained undeclared
sulfites. Consumers who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

These Chilean mushrooms were sold to Sloan super market in Buffalo
NY. Sloan has made label corrections of that may contain sulfites.
Walk in customers have also purchased this batch of mushrooms from
Nov 1st 2014 to Dec 20th 2014.

No illness or allergic reactions involving this product have been
reported to date.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and markets food inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in these Chilean mushrooms. There was no
label on these mushrooms stating that they contained sulfites. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of these "Chilean Mushrooms" revealed a sulfite level in
excess of 10 milligrams per serving.

Consumers who have purchased these Chilean Mushrooms between Nov
1st 2014 and Dec 20th 2014 are urged to return them to Kirsch
Mushroom Co. Inc. for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact Kirsch Mushroom Co. Inc. at 718-991-4977.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435011.htm


LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, 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 David Schaefer, as
an alleged class representative, filed on August 27, 2014, a class
action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and
certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities
laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its
securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through
July 16, 2014.  The complaint alleges that the statements were
false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the
time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of
Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin.  Mr.
Schaefer's complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014.


LAROSA'S CREAMY: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The T. Marzetti Co of Columbus, OH is voluntarily recalling 627
cases of LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in 1.5 oz packets because
the product contains milk and egg allergens that are not declared
on the packet label. The dressing was manufactured correctly and
has always contained milk and egg; however there was an error in
labeling. People who have an allergy to milk and eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in packets was distributed
primarily in the greater Cincinnati, OH area with limited
distribution Columbus, OH, Northern KY, and Southeast Indiana.
Product was distributed exclusively through LaRosa's Pizzeria
Restaurants.

The product is labeled LaRosa's Pizzeria Creamy Garlic Dressing in
a single serve 1.5oz packet with the UPC code 70200 80109.

   Restaurant   Item          UPC Number on Packet   Use By Date
   ---------    Description   -------------------    -----------
                -----------
LaRosa's       Creamy Garlic   70200 80109           UB051615C
               1.5 oz packet
LaRosa's       Creamy Garlic   70200 80109           UB052915C
               1.5 oz packet

This recall was initiated after incorrect packaging was discovered
at a LaRosa's Restaurant.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The product in question has been removed from the restaurants.

Consumers with questions may contact the T. Marzetti Co at:
1-800-999-1835.

Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5pm. EST

Saturday/Sunday 11:00am - 11:00pm EST

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434475.htm


LIFELINE INC: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Care
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug Donovan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
guardian for a disabled foster child who was injured at a troubled
group home last year has sued the state contractor that ran the
facility and the Maryland government agencies responsible for
supervising its care.

The suit alleges that LifeLine Inc. and several state agencies
were negligent in allowing 19-year-old David Davis to develop a
deep bedsore in May.  Davis, who is quadriplegic, contracted an
infection that spread to his bones, the suit said.

LifeLine officials did not respond to requests for comment.  A
spokesman for the state health department, which is named as a
defendant along with the Department of Human Resources, said the
agency "has no obligation to respond" because the suit was filed
in Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of others who were
under LifeLine's care -- including 10-year-old Damaud Martin, who
died at the same Laurel-area home on July 2, and three disabled
adults who died at a separate facility that state regulators
closed in 2011.

Mr. Davis' injury and three-week hospitalization was caused by
LifeLine's inadequate staffing, which allowed the bedsore to
develop and led to "the rotting of the flesh," states the lawsuit
filed by attorney Michael Pisanchyn of Scranton, Pa. Davis was not
able to "call out for help or contact anyone" about his injury
because of his disabilities, the suit says.

The lawsuit was not unexpected.  In August, Mr. Pisanchyn notified
the Maryland treasurer's office that he would seek monetary
damages on behalf of Damaud and Davis, a necessary step before
filing suit.

Maribeth Donohue, who has served as Davis' guardian for health and
education matters and is named as a plaintiff with the teen, said,
"David still has a drain for his wound and he can't be in a
wheelchair for more than four hours."  That has limited how long
he can attend school, she said.

A Baltimore Sun investigation found that the state had awarded at
least $18 million in contracts since 2010 to LifeLine despite
years of problems: deficiencies in medical care, a founder
imprisoned for arson, unpaid taxes, a bankruptcy filing, and
police reports of abuse and neglect unknown to regulators.

Regulators threatened to close LifeLine after investigating the
complaint about Davis in May, but the company's chief executive
responded by saying LifeLine was shutting down its children's
program because of inadequate state funding. Damaud died before
the last of the children could be moved from LifeLine on July 3.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to cover medical expenses
and punitive damages for Mr. Davis' pain and suffering.  It also
asks the state to change its oversight of group homes.


LIONS GATE: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
With word that $7.5 million is of "economic insignificance" and
some pride of having bested corporate raider Carl Icahn, Lionsgate
on Feb. 12 moved to dismiss a shareholder class-action lawsuit for
failing to disclose a Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation.

In 2010, Mr. Icahn made a takeover bid for Lionsgate, which caused
the studio behind movies like The Hunger Games and television
shows like Mad Men to issue new shares with the effect of diluting
Icahn's stake.  Lionsgate was then successful at beating back
Icahn's lawsuit over the matter in British Columbia, and the
widely-publicized battle ended.

But in March 2014, Lionsgate came to a $7.5 million settlement
with the SEC over some of the public disclosures related to the
transactions made in the Icahn takeover fight.  As part of the
deal, Lionsgate admitted wrongdoing.  Four months later, some
investors brought a securities claim alleging Lionsgate
intentionally failed to tell its shareholders about the SEC
investigation.  This time, Lionsgate says it has no such
obligation to speak up.

Lionsgate has now filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"No court has ever held that any statute or regulation imposes an
affirmative duty to disclose a government investigation before the
agency has even decided to institute proceedings," says

Lionsgate's memorandum. "To the contrary: this Court has held that
the SEC rules do not require disclosure of government
investigations.  This rule recognizes the obvious fact that agency
staff conducting an investigation lack the authority to bring any
charges. Staff investigations, by their very nature, are
preliminary; they often result in no charges being brought at all.

A rule that required premature disclosure of a staff investigation
would essentially require a company to declare itself guilty . .
."

Lionsgate also shrugs its shoulders at the $7.5 million, doubting
the amount is a material amount under settled law and SEC
regulations and saying it "represented a fraction of a percent of
Lions Gate's total assets at the time -- again, 0.27 percent, to
be precise."

There might have been a time when Lionsgate knew of the
investigation and didn't know exactly how much it would be paying.
That's not discussed in the bid to dismiss the shareholder suit.

But Lionsgate does say that investors already knew about the
payment before the settlement was even announced because when the
company reported $18.7 million in general and administrative
expensive for the prior quarter before the announcement, it did so
by noting it "included an accrual related to an anticipated
settlement of a legal matter that goes back several years."

Did investors connect the dots that this related to Mr. Icahn? Who
knows, but Lionsgate also thinks that there's good reason why
investors should move on given history.

About the Icahn takeover bid, Lionsgate's memo states, "The market
ultimately proved the board right.  For example, in February 2010,
Icahn launched a tender offer at $6.00 per share; in March 2014,
the company's shares were trading above $30.00."

The stock went up to $31.73 on the day it announced an increase in
general and administrative expenses, it says.

"Nor was there a significant impact on the stock price when the
SEC settlement was disclosed," it adds.  "On March 12, 2014, the
day before Lions Gate announced the SEC settlement, Lions Gate's
stock price closed at $33.26 per share.  On March 13, 2014,
Lions Gate's stock closed at $32.20 per share, id. -- a drop of
only three percent, well within the normal ups and downs of the
stock."
Lionsgate admits that the stock dropped down to $30.33 a few days
later -- implying that the plaintiffs are seizing on this number
for no good reason but to try to collect as much damages that they
can.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Trial Ct. Ruling in Holmes Case Party Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In DEBORAH HOLMES, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-598, the Plaintiff seeks review of a trial
court's judgment granting defendant's exceptions of prescription
and lis pendens, and dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and
amending petition for damages.

Ms. Holmes asserts that she was the owner of immovable property
located at 1849 Cinclair Loop in St. John the Baptist Parish, when
Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005. Ms. Holmes contends
that she suffered damage to this property as a result of the
hurricane and that her damages were covered under her homeowner's
insurance policy issued by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corporation ("Citizens"). On September 19, 2011, Ms.
Holmes filed a petition for damages against Citizens for claims
arising out of Citizens' handling of her property damage claims.

On October 28, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription,
asserting that Ms. Holmes' claims were not timely filed and
seeking dismissal of her lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20,
2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription.
Ms. Holmes appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal, the
Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to allow
Ms. Holmes the opportunity to amend or supplement her petition.

On remand, Ms. Holmes filed a first supplemental and amending
petition for damages, alleging that she is a putative member of
these class actions:

1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October
2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans;

2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance
Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th
Judicial District Court;

3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No.
2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans;

4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.,
No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans;

5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans;

6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court;

7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on
August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation.

In her supplemental and amended petition, Ms. Holmes alleges that
she has not opted out of these class action suits and that
prescription is suspended as to her claims that are covered under
these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A).

In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res
judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis
pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013.

On January 15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting
Citizens' exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in
Ms. Holmes' petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre,
Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court also
granted Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes'
claims that are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and
Christenberry class actions. The trial court found that because
Ms. Holmes is a putative class member of these remaining class
actions and has not opted of out the classes, lis pendens applies,
as judgments in these class actions would have res judicata effect
on Ms. Holmes' individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed.
Ms. Holmes appealed.

Accordingly, Judge Hans J. Liljeberg of the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, reversed the trial court's ruling
granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes'
Road Home and Buxton claims, but affirmed the trial court's ruling
granting the exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Chalona
claims. The Appeals Court further affirmed the trial court
judgment granting Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms.
Holmes' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry claims.

"This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion," Judge Liljeberg wrote on his
February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jXYSoIfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

     Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
     Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor
     New Orleans, LA 70113,

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:

     Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq.
     Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq.
     Ryan G. Davis, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     2250 7th Street
     Mandeville, LA 70471

          - and -

     John W. Waters, Jr., Esq.
     Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     1010 Common Street, Suite 2200
     New Orleans, LA 70112


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Williams Case Court Ruling Partly Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Hans J. Liljeberg of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fifth Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court
ruling in LIONEL WILLIAMS, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-597.

The Plaintiff sought review of the trial court's judgment granting
defendant's exceptions of prescription and lis pendens, and
dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and amending petition
for damages.

Mr. Williams was the owner of immovable property located at 194
West 19th St. in Reserve, Louisiana, when Hurricane Katrina struck
in August of 2005. Mr. Williams contended that he suffered damage
to this property as a result of the hurricane and that his damages
were covered under his homeowner's insurance policy issued by
defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. On
September 20, 2011, Mr. Williams filed a petition for damages
against Citizens for claims arising out of Citizens' handling of
his property damage claims.

On October 24, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription,
asserting that Mr. Williams' claims were not timely filed and
seeking dismissal of his lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20,
2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription.
Mr. Williams appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal,
the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to
allow Mr. Williams the opportunity to amend or supplement his
petition.

On remand, Mr. Williams filed a first supplemental and amending
petition for damages, alleging that he is a putative member of
these class actions:

1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October
2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans;

2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance
Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th
Judicial District Court;

3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No.
2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans;

4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.,
No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans;

5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans;

6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court;

7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on
August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation.

In his supplemental and amending petition, Mr. Williams alleged
that he has not opted out of these class action suits and that
prescription is suspended as to his claims that are covered under
these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A).

In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res
judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis
pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013.3 On January
15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Citizens'
exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in Mr.
Williams' petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre,
Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court also
granted Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Mr. Williams'
claims that are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and
Christenberry class actions. The trial court found that because
Mr. Williams is a putative class member of these remaining class
actions and has not opted out of the classes, lis pendens applies,
as judgments in these class actions would have res judicata effect
on Mr. Williams' individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed.
Mr. Williams appealed.

In its February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/n1Ccpkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Liljeberg reverses the
trial court's ruling granting Citizens' exception of prescription
as to Mr. Williams' Road Home and Buxton claims, but affirmed the
trial court's ruling granting the exception of prescription as to
Mr. Williams' Chalona claims. We further affirm the trial court
judgment granting Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Mr.
Williams' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry claims. The case
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

     Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
     Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor
     New Orleans, LA 70113,

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:

     Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq.
     Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq.
     Ryan G. Davis, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     2250 7th Street
     Mandeville, LA 70471

          - and -

     John W. Waters, Jr., Esq.
     Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     1010 Common Street, Suite 2200
     New Orleans, LA 70112


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Holmes Case Remanded to Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit remanded the case
captioned DEBORAH HOLMES, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-599 to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Plaintiff sought a review of the trial court's judgment
granting defendant's exceptions of prescription and lis pendens,
and dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and amending
petition for damages.

Ms. Holmes asserts that she was the owner of immovable property
located at 1730 Creole Street in St. John the Baptist Parish, when
Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005. Ms. Holmes contends
that she suffered damage to this property as a result of the
hurricane and that her damages were covered under her homeowner's
insurance policy issued by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corporation ("Citizens"). On September 19, 2011, Ms.
Holmes filed a petition for damages against Citizens for claims
arising out of Citizens' handling of her property damage claims.

On October 28, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription,
asserting that Ms. Holmes' claims were not timely filed and
seeking dismissal of her lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20,
2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription.
Ms. Holmes appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal, the
Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to allow
Ms. Holmes the opportunity to amend or supplement her petition.

On remand, Ms. Holmes filed a first supplemental and amending
petition for damages, alleging that she is a putative member of
these class actions:

1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October
2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans;

2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance
Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th
Judicial District Court;

3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No.
2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans;

4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.,
No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans;

5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans;

6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125,
filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court;

7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on
August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation.

In her supplemental and amending petition, Ms. Holmes alleged that
she has not opted out of these class action suits and that
prescription is suspended as to her claims that are covered under
these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A).

In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res
judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis
pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013.3 On January
15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Citizens'
exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in Ms. Holmes'
petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and
Christenberry class actions. The trial court also granted
Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' claims that
are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class
actions. The trial court found that because Ms. Holmes is a
putative class member of these remaining class actions and has not
opted out of the classes, lis pendens applies, as judgments in
these class actions would have res judicata effect on Ms. Holmes'
individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed. Ms. Holmes
appealed.

Judge Hans J. Liljeberg, in a February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/ZT4qEdfrom Leagle.com,
reversed the trial court's ruling granting Citizens' exception of
prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Road Home and Buxton claims, but
affirmed the trial court's ruling granting the exception of
prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Chalona claims. The Court further
affirmed the trial court judgment granting Citizens' exception of
lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and
Christenberry claims. The case was remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Court opinion.

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

     Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
     Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor
     New Orleans, LA 70113,

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:

     Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq.
     Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq.
     Ryan G. Davis, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     2250 7th Street
     Mandeville, LA 70471

          - and -

     John W. Waters, Jr., Esq.
     Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     1010 Common Street, Suite 2200
     New Orleans, LA 70112

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A.
Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Case Pending in ND California
---------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al.,
No. 3:14-CV-1160, is pending in the Northern District of
California.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's current and now-former
officers on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired the
Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and March 11, 2014.
On September 30, 2014, an amended complaint was filed against the
Company, certain current and now-former officers of the Company,
certain members of the Company's Board of Directors, and a
shareholder of the Company, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-CV-1160, is pending in the
Northern District of California. The Court has granted the
plaintiffs thirty days from the date the 2013 Form 10-K is filed
with the SEC to file and serve a further amended complaint. At
this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably
possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with
respect to the matters.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Trial Date Set for February 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Jordan, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that a
federal court in San Francisco was scheduled to hold a hearing on
Feb. 13 on whether to grant a request by Major League Baseball to
move a class-action lawsuit from California to Florida.

The lawsuit, filed a year ago on behalf of former minor-league
players, claims that MLB routinely pays minor leaguers less than
minimum wage and ignores overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Among the plaintiffs is former Sea Dogs infielder Ryan Khoury, who
played last summer for the independent Wichita Wingnuts, a team in
the American Association not affiliated with any major league
franchise.

Portland's executive vice president/general manager, Geoff
Iacuessa, said the team has no official position on the lawsuit.
"We, like everybody in baseball, are curiously watching," he said.
"Depending on which way it goes, it certainly will have an impact
on Minor League Baseball and the franchises."

At baseball's recent winter meetings in San Diego in early
December, Stan Brand, Minor League Baseball's vice president who
represents the industry on Capitol Hill, delivered an impassioned
speech warning that the lawsuit threatens the existence of the
minors, and that MiLB plans to help lobby Congress to change a
provision of the FLSA.

In a phone interview from his office in Washington, D.C.,
Mr. Brand said minor league ballplayers should be viewed as
"trainees or seasonal employees, or some variety of what is
already exempted in the law."

Current law lists 35 occupations -- including babysitters and
newspaper delivery drivers -- not required to receive minimum wage
or overtime pay.

"This isn't a career for all these guys, it's a tryout, it's an
opportunity," Mr. Brand said.  "It's not like going on the shop
floor and working in a factory for 30 years.  The vast majority of
players will not go on a (major league) 40-man roster."

Garrett Broshuis, a former pitcher in the San Francisco Giants
system who spent four of his six professional seasons in the
Eastern League and reached as high as Triple A, is the lawyer
spearheading the suit.  He said Mr. Brand's comments are off base
and that players must train year-round in order to move up the
ladder of pro baseball.

Surely, he said, in an industry that generates $9 billion per
year, there is enough money for minor leaguers to eat properly,
afford a reasonable rent and not be forced into debt in order to
follow their dream.

"The major league teams . . . pay the salaries of the minor league
players and the minor league coaches," Mr. Broshuis said from his
office in St. Louis.  "Minor league teams, their main
responsibility is operating the stadium.  It's really kind of an
absurd position for Minor League Baseball to take."

The milb.com website says players in their first pro season make a
maximum salary of $1,100 per month. That salary, Mr. Broshuis
said, does not include spring training and only runs from Opening
Day until the end of the season, making it worth $5,500 annually.
The federal poverty level for a single person is $11,670, or twice
as much.

The New York Mets recently made news when it emerged that minor
leaguers were being charged -- by a personal trainer affiliated
with the team -- to work out at the team's facility in Port St.
Lucie, Florida, in advance of spring training.

Mr. Broshuis called such an arrangement "the complete opposite of
what should be happening. When training is part of your job, your
employer should be paying you for it."

With a trial date set for February 2017, any resolution is a long
way off.  Major League Baseball filed a 78-page response denying
all charges.  Mr. Broshuis said he is awaiting documents requested
as part of the discovery phase.

Since 1976, the lawsuit contends, salaries for major leaguers have
jumped 2,500 percent and inflation is up more than 400 percent.
Over the same period, minor league pay is up only 75 percent.
Meanwhile, franchise values continue to rise.  Last summer, a
Single-A franchise in Dayton, Ohio, sold for a reported $40
million and a Double-A franchise in Frisco, Texas, for $32
million.

"Both of those sales are really top-end franchises," said
Mr. Iacuessa, citing Dayton's sellout streak of more than 1,000
consecutive games.

"A team like the Portland Sea Dogs," Mr. Broshuis said, "which is
close to your MLB affiliate (the Boston Red Sox) and draws well,
it's worth a lot more today than it was 15 years ago."

Mr. Broshuis said his ultimate goal is to establish a union for
minor league baseball players -- which minor league hockey players
have accomplished. Minimum salary in the American Hockey League,
which includes the Portland Pirates, is $42,375.

"It will certainly be a tough effort," Mr. Broshuis said.  "I've
had guys reach out to me, and hopefully success in this lawsuit
will embolden guys and help them realize there is a benefit to
acting collectively."


MAJOR LEAGUE: Plaintiffs Must Justify Calif. Venue in Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, Kat Greene and Tess Hofmann, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on Feb. 13 stopped short of
tossing minor league baseball players' proposed minimum-wage class
action against Major League Baseball but ordered them to show the
case's ties to California, club by club and plaintiff by
plaintiff, given that most minor league clubs are in Florida.

A number of the defendant teams moved to dismiss the case in
November, arguing that they do not engage in "continuous and
systematic" business activities in California and only travel to
the state when their Major League teams play against California
teams.  Although U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on Feb. 13
said he had serious doubts about California's jurisdiction over
the case, he gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file statements
elaborating on the issue.

"I'll give the plaintiffs a brief period to propose new class
members," Judge Spero said.  "You'll have to go club by club and
named plaintiff by named plaintiff . . . and put in how the claims
of a named plaintiff arise out of or relate to actions in
California."

Elise Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP,
representing several of the defendant teams, argued that to
establish a California venue, they need a named plaintiff for each
of the teams.  At the moment they only have one such plaintiff,
Kris Watts, who said he signed a contract in California to work as
a minor league player for the Pittsburgh Pirates, Bloom said.

Ms. Bloom's clients, which include the Boston Red Sox and the New
York Yankees, also filed a motion to transfer the suit.  On
Feb. 13, she argued that Florida might have been the better venue.

"It's not just the presence of the minor league office in
Florida," Mr. Bloom argued.  "Major League Baseball contracts with
the minor leagues, and that agreement gives life to the minor
leagues."

Judge Spero pointed out that there's no allegation in the
complaint regarding breach of that agreement.  "What's it got to
do with the agreement? The MLB gives life to the minor leagues .
By that logic, California has jurisdiction," he said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Bruce Simon of Pearson Simon & Warshaw
LLP, argued that the players' contracts are with the MLB clubs,
not with the minor league clubs, and that the Florida clubs "have
nothing to do with what this case is about.  MLB is the entity
that gives rise to everything."

Mr. Simon added that the majority of the training and recruiting
of minor league players takes place in California.  Garrett
Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- of Korein Tillery LLC,
a former baseball player, also representing the plaintiffs, argued
that there are more putative class members in California,
including more than 70 who live in the state during the off-
season.

However, Judge Spero pointed out that unless a class is certified,
"it's an individual action.  How can I judge the jurisdictional
question based on conduct with respect to nonparties?"

Aaron Senne, Oliver Odle and Michael Liberto filed their putative
class action a year ago, claiming that minor league players in the
lowest ranks of the organization are paid less than minimum wage,
uncompensated for overtime and sometimes paid nothing at all for
required work.

They claim that players are paid as little as $1,100 per month at
the lowest ranks and $2,150 a month at the highest ranks of the
minor leagues.  For this pay, players work 50 hours or more each
week, meaning they receive less than minimum wage, the suit said.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of players who they say
have been cheated out of years of pay and opportunity.

On Feb. 12, the players struck back against the league's bid to
have the case tied with another class action by minor leaguers
accusing the league of antitrust violations, saying the cases
assert entirely different claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Bruce L.
Simon, Thomas K. Boardman and Bobby Pouya of Pearson Simon &
Warshaw LLP and Stephen M. Tillery, Garrett R. Broshuis, Giuseppe
S. Giardina and George A. Zelcs of Korein Tillery LLC.

The defendants are represented by Laura Reathaford, Elise M.
Bloom, Howard L. Ganz, Neil H. Abramson and Adam M. Lupion --
alupion@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP and by Rifkin,
Weiner, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC.

The case is Senne et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
case number 3:14-cv-00608, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


MARTIN O'BOYLE: Town of Gulf Stream Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Aaronson, writing for Florida Center for Investigative
Reporting, reports that the Town of Gulf Stream, in Palm Beach
County, filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court on
February 12 on behalf of state municipalities, municipal agencies
and their contractors.

The lawsuit alleges that South Florida millionaire Martin O'Boyle
and organizations affiliated with him -- including the O'Boyle Law
Firm, Citizens Awareness Foundation and Our Public Records LLC --
victimized local governments and contractors throughout the state
as part of a "RICO enterprise."

"Through their RICO Enterprise, the Defendants have associated-in-
fact with the sole purpose of unlawfully and illegally extracting
settlement payments from the Class Members by first using the
mails and the wires to deliver and advance frivolous public
records request that are often intentionally inconspicuous," the
lawsuit alleges.  "Then, the Defendants, through their RICO
Enterprise, immediately use the mails and the wires to extort
their victims by demanding that these municipal entities and
agencies immediately settle with them and pay their allegedly
incurred attorneys' fees and costs as provided for in the public
records statute, or, face protracted litigation and a flurry of
additional frivolous public records request and lawsuits."

The 49-page lawsuit alleges that O'Boyle and his organizations
filed nearly 2,000 public records with the Town of Gulf Stream.
Mr. O'Boyle has said that the firm broke no laws and that the
lawsuits it filed were completely legal and followed state
statutes regarding penalties for not complying with the public
records laws.

The Gulf Stream lawsuit follows a Florida Center for Investigative
Reporting story on Citizens Awareness Foundation and the O'Boyle
Law Firm and their practice of filing numerous public records
requests against public and private agencies and then suing for
non-compliance with those requests.  FCIR found more than 140
lawsuits filed in 27 counties by the Citizens Awareness Foundation
and sister organization Our Public Records LLC.

Citizens Awareness Foundation has since suspended operations as
the Florida Bar investigates members of the law firm.  In January,
state Sen. Wilton Simpson and Rep. Halsey Beshears sponsored
legislation that would amend the public records laws to protect
private companies doing business with state agencies, though open
records advocates say the bills as written would impede access to
public records.


MARY JO AVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn L. Knappenberger v. Mary Jo Avery PC, a domestic
Professional Corporation, and Mary Jo Avery, an individual, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00287-JE (D. Or., February 18, 2015) is an action for
alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Avery PC is a professional corporation, licensed to do business in
the state of Oregon, providing real estate services to the public.
Mary Jo Avery is an individual manager and owner of Avery PC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig A. Crispin, Esq.
          Shelley D. Russell, Esq.
          Christopher A. Morehead, Esq.
          CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 200
          Portland, Oregon 97221
          Telephone: (503) 293-5770
          Facsimile: (503) 293-5766
          E-mail: crispin@employmentlaw-nw.com
                  shelley@employmentlaw-nw.com
                  christopher@employmentlaw-nw.com


MATTHEWS HOMES: Insurer Hit With $4.5-Mil. Bad Faith Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. was
hit with a $4.5 million verdict after a Nevada state court jury on
Feb. 12 said the insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to cover a
construction company's defense costs in a class action stemming
from a levee collapse that caused the flooding of hundreds of
homes.

Courtroom View Network reported that jurors deliberated for only a
few hours before deciding that Everest had no basis for refusing
to cover defense costs referred to them by Matthews Homes, which
held a $2 million commercial general liability policy from the
insurer, after Matthews was sued by a class of homeowners claiming
poorly designed drains exacerbated the effects of a flood in 2008.

The next phase of the trial will consider punitive damages and was
scheduled to begin Feb 20.

The litigation began with the collapse of a levee in Fernley,
Nev. in 2008.  The plaintiff class claimed the levee failed
because of over pumping ordered by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District, but Everest said the levee's walls gave due to heavy
rain, Courtroom View Network reported.

Everest initially denied coverage on the basis Matthews'
contractor's general liability policy had expired at the time of
the flood, but plaintiffs' attorneys argued the insurer knew
Matthews had tail coverage that would apply to the flood even
though the CGL policy ended in 2007.

After acknowledging the error, Everest subsequently denied
coverage because of an earth movement exclusion in the CGL policy.
That decision was made in bad faith, because they failed to
adequately investigate the cause of the levee failure, plaintiffs
said.

Everest argued the company reasonably concluded the exclusion
applied since the movement of earth and soil caused the levee
breach, and that the plaintiffs' complaint states mud entered
their homes.  The insurer claimed the exclusion applied even if
earth movement is only one of several factors that cause property
damage.

Matthews settled the underlying suit for $5 million in 2012, and
as part of the deal the class plaintiffs were assigned any breach
of contract and bad faith claims Matthews held against Everest.

The case is Elizabeth Reimers, et al. v. Everest Indemnity
Insurance Co. and is being heard in the Second Judicial District
Court of Nevada in Washoe County.


MEDTRONIC INC: Court OKs Distribution Plan in Firefighters' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued an order approving a
distribution plan in the case captioned MINNEAPOLIS FIREFIGHTERS'
RELIEF ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., et
al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 08-6324 (PAM/AJB), (D. Minn.).

Lead Plaintiffs, on notice to Defendants' Counsel, asked the Court
for an order approving a distribution plan for the Net Settlement
Fund in this class action.

"Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan is
granted and the plan for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
to Authorized Claimants is approved," ruled Judge Magnuson.
"Rust's fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in
connection with the Initial Distribution as set forth in Exhibit D
to the Rabe Declaration are approved, and Lead Counsel are
authorized to direct payment of $1,663,635.41 out of the
Settlement Fund to Rust for the unpaid balance of such fees and
expenses."

The February 24, 2015 Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/oqAXMEfrom Leagle.com, incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
July 20, 2012, the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and the Rabe
Declaration. All terms used in the order have the same meanings as
set forth in the Stipulation, the Notice, or the Rabe Declaration.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nears Concussion Settlement With Retired Players
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mihoces, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the
lingering legal battle between the NFL and its retired players
over concussions and their long-term effects moved a step closer
to final settlement on Feb. 13.

At the urging of a federal judge, both sides agreed to make
adjustments in a previously reached, tentative settlement of suits
by more than 5,000 ex-players against the league.

This is the second time the NFL and attorneys for ex-players have
altered their agreement in response to U.S. District Court Judge
Anita Brody in Philadelphia.

Judge Brody is considering whether to give final approval.  The
proposed 65-year, class action settlement would cost the NFL
hundreds of millions of dollars and apply to players (not just
those who sued) who retired prior to July 7, 2014 -- the date
Brody gave preliminary approval.

Judge Brody issued a Feb. 2 order recommending changes to "enhance
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the agreement.  She
set a deadline for Feb. 13 for the parties to address her
concerns.  They responded in an electronic court filing hours
before the deadline.

"We are confident these enhancements address the issues raised by
the court and further strengthen the settlement's benefits,"
Christopher Seeger, co-lead attorney for the retired players, said
in a statement. " . . . We look forward to finalizing this
agreement so that retired players can begin taking advantage of
its benefits."

Over the past three and a half years, more 240 suits have been
filed. They were consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia.
Retirees  alleged that for decades the NFL knowingly failed to
protect them from concussions and long-term such as depression,
dementia and other disorders.

Under the tentative settlement, ex-players or their estates would
be eligible for monetary awards. Individual awards would vary
depending on the nature of the brain impairment, age at diagnosis
and number of NFL seasons played.

Among potential awards: Up to $5 million for a diagnosis of ALS
(amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), up to $4 million for diagnosis
after death with the brain disease chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE) and up to $3.5 million for Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's.

The Feb. 13 revisions addressed all five points raised by Judge
Brody.

Previously, only NFL playing seasons counted toward eligibility
for awards.  The judge urged "some" credit for play in the NFL's
European league (known as the World League of American Football,
the NFL Europe League and the NFL Europa League).  The two sides
agreed to a half-season of credit toward award eligibility for
each season in Europe.

Previous terms included $75 million to provide retired players
with neurological testing, monitoring, counseling and treatment.
The judge wanted assurance that would be available "regardless of
any funding limitations."  The new language says that if $75
million is insufficient the NFL agrees to pay what's "necessary."

Eligibility for the death with CTE benefit had previously been
available only in cases that were diagnosed prior to the July 7,
2014 date the judge granted preliminary approval.  The judge
suggested an extension to the date of final settlement.

The two sides agreed and said there will be a 270-day grace period
for CTE diagnosis for any players whose deaths occurs between the
July 7 preliminary approval and the date of final approval.
Objectors to the settlement said the CTE award should be available
through the 65-year life of the agreement.

Judge Brody suggested a "hardship provision" to help ex-players
with attorneys' fees if they appeal awards.  The revised agreement
said retirees can request a "hardship" waiver of the $1,000 fee to
make an appeal.

Judge Brody said there should be "reasonable accommodation" if
retired players are unable to provide required medical records due
to events beyond their control (such as a flood or fire).  The
revised agreement provides a "limited exemption . . . in the event
of unavailability" of records.

In August of 2013, the two sides reached a tentative, $765 million
settlement.  It included a $675 million award fund for retirees
diagnosed with brain impairments.

In January of 2014, Judge Brody denied preliminary approval,
questioning whether the agreement was sufficiently funded.  A
revised settlement reached in June of 2014 removed the $675
million cap and made the award fund open ended. The judge granted
preliminary approval.

According to court documents, the settlement will apply to about
25,000 former players, provided they were retired by last July 7.
Retirees had the choice to "opt out" of the settlement and retain
their rights to sue. According to court documents, only about 200
opted out before the deadline last Oct. 14.

"With over 99 percent participation, it is clear that the retired
player community overwhelmingly supports this settlement," said
Seeger.

In the settlement, the NFL makes no admission of guilt and ex-
players do not have to prove their conditions are related to NFL
football.


MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Class Action Bench Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Nelson, writing for MPR News, reports that a lawyer
representing people locked up in the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program pressed the state's human services chief on Feb. 13 to
explain why Minnesota's done little to change the system.

Dan Gustafson grilled state Human Services Commissioner
Lucinda Jesson over why the state is dragging its feet on a long
list of recommended changes to the program, including an
independent panel to evaluate clients, creation of a special court
to handle commitment cases and a firmer timeline for decisions
about confinement.

The recommendations came from a state task force, but Ms. Jesson
conceded the state had not acted on them.  She said even she
thought the system for evaluating and possibly releasing clients
was flawed when she arrived in 2011.

"It took too long," she testified.

Most of the recommendations were included in bills before the
Legislature last session, but they failed to get to the governor's
desk. Lawmakers have been divided over whether to improve the
expensive and controversial sex offender program or simply extend
prison sentences for sex offenders.  The program takes former
prisoners after they've served prison or juvenile sentences for
sex crimes.

The 700-plus residents of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, contending their
indefinite detention at facilities in St. Peter and Moose Lake
isn't constitutional and doesn't provide adequate treatment.

A bench trial in the case started on Feb. 9 before U.S. District
Court Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, and psychological experts
have been testifying about the program for several days. Judge
Frank has been highly critical of the program in the past, calling
it "clearly broken" in a ruling last year.

Ms. Jesson on Feb. 13 laid out a half dozen improvements her
department had pursued administratively.

They included remodeling at the facilities, a request to the
legislature for money to provide more facilities, bonding for a
facility for a final stage of treatment, a bigger budget request
and a request to provide more support from the state courts.

"We have been as responsive as we can be within the power and
funding that we've had," Ms. Jesson testified.

She also said an administrative attempt to offer an alternative
treatment program at a former state hospital in Cambridge, Minn.,
had faced stiff opposition, despite the low risk of clients her
department planned to move there, including some in an assisted
living program.

"We were taken aback by the community reaction," Ms. Jesson said
in court.

That said, Ms. Jesson testified that her department's options were
limited by state law, and that the Legislature would ultimately
have to make the most important changes to the program if it was
struck down in federal court.


NEW YORK TRANSIT: Sued Over Worker's Unlawful Forced Retirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prakash J. Paingankar v. New York City Transit Authority, William
Desantis, Robert Eskenazi, Cliff Slater, and John and Jane Doe
(said names being fictitious, the persons intended being those who
aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of the named defendants),
Case No. 1:15-cv-01143-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015) is an
action for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and money
damages to remedy the alleged unlawful forced retirement of the
Plaintiff, which was based on considerations of age and
disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

New York City Transit Authority is a public-benefit authority,
organized under the laws of the state of New York.  NYCTA is an
agency created to, among other things, oversee the mass
transportation systems in the City of New York and surrounding
areas.  The Individual Defendants are officers or employees of
NYCTA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq.
          MADUEGBUNA COPPER LLP
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 232-0155
          Facsimile: (212) 232-0156
          E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com


NEWS CORPORATION: To Be Indemnified by 21st Century Fox
-------------------------------------------------------
News 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 will be
indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made by the
Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters,
including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July
11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The plaintiff brought claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of
the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory
damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Avon filed an amended consolidated
complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as
defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known
as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited), and Les Hinton, and expanded
the class period to comprise February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were
granted by the court on March 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint,
which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to
comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and plaintiffs
opposed those motions.

On November 21, 2014, defendants filed their replies to
plaintiffs' opposition, and the motions were fully submitted to
the court.

The Company's management believes these claims are entirely
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action.  The
Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain
payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the
U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with
the Wilder Litigation.


NEWS CORPORATION: Oral Argument Heard in Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
News 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 district court
heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion seeking
certification of a class of all persons residing in the United
States who purchased in-store marketing services.

On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J.
Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms,
Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum
Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and
state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America
Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM
FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM
In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and
NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended
complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint
asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and
on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs'
purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert
coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended
complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation,
H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry
Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District
Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its
claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions.

On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of all persons residing in the United
States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April
5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to
contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not,
however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing
insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs'
motion on October 10, 2014, and the District Court heard oral
argument on the motion on December 12, 2014.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree
of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group
believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00865 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCALA, FL: Judge Dismisses Fire User Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Susan Latham Carr, writing for Ocala.com, reports that Fifth
Judicial Circuit Judge Edward L. Scott on Feb. 13 dismissed with
prejudice Discount Sleep of Ocala, LLC's class action suit against
the city of Ocala seeking a decision declaring that the fire user
fee the city has been collecting is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Plaintiff's attorney, Derek Schroth, of Bowen Radson Schroth,
said in an email on Feb. 13 that he filed a Notice of Appeal.

The court ruled that the suit, which was filed on Feb. 20, 2014,
was filed more than four years after the ordinance was enacted and
thus was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

In an email on Feb. 13, Assistant City Attorney George Franjola
wrote: "Judge Scott wrote a thorough, well-reasoned order.  I feel
confident that it will be upheld on appeal."


OLD HOME KITCHENS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Home Kitchens is voluntarily recalling "Sock It To Me Creme
Cake" under "the Bakery baked with pride" label with a production
code of 150301100 thru 150310700 ink jet coded on plastic dome,
because they contain undeclared pecans. People who have allergy or
sensitivity to pecans run the risk of serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled product was distributed through Wal-Mart Stores in
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The recall was initiated after Old Home Kitchens discovered that
product containing pecans was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of pecans. No illnesses have been reported
to date.

Old Home Kitchens has alerted Wal-Mart, which has removed this
product from its stores. The recall is being made with the
knowledge of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased "Sock It To Me Creme Cake", under
"the Bakery baked with pride" label with the codes noted are urged
to return it to Wal-Mart Stores for product replacement or refund.
No other product is included in this recall.


PANDORA MEDIA: Plaintiff Appeals Privacy Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for OnlineMediaDaily, reports that a recent
pro-Pandora decision in a privacy lawsuit "guts the protections"
that lawmakers intended for consumers, an attorney for Michigan
resident Peter Deacon told an appellate court.

"This case involves a privacy statute that was written to prevent
the disclosure of consumers' deeply personal choices in the books
they read, in the movies they watch, and, as relevant today, in
the music they listen to," lawyer Ryan Andrews told a three-judge
panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at a 30-minute hearing
on Feb. 11 in San Francisco.  "The Michigan legislature clearly
would have considered the disclosures by Pandora to be covered by
this statute."

Mr. Deacon is appealing a ruling issued by U.S. District Court
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland, Calif, who dismissed the
potential class-action lawsuit before trial.

The battle dates to 2011, when Deacon alleged in court papers that
Pandora's integration with Facebook violated Michigan's Video
Rental Privacy Act.  That law prohibits companies that rent, lend
or sell music (as well as books and videos) from disclosing
customers' identities without their consent.

Facebook's earliest iteration of its "instant personalization"
program, the company automatically shared logged-in Facebook
users' names and photos with outside companies.  That program was
launched on an opt-out basis.

Judge Armstrong dismissed Deacon's lawsuit in 2012 on the grounds
that Michigan's privacy law -- which is more than 20 years old --
doesn't apply when companies stream tracks.  She said the law only
applies to companies that lend, rent or sell material.

Mr. Deacon is appealing that decision.

"What Pandora's doing can be construed as lending," his attorney
argued to the panel. He added that the crux of the ruling -- based
on the judge's opinion that "streaming" isn't "lending" -- is "a
very dangerous precedent that basically guts the protections that
were intended by this law."

Pandora's attorney, Jacob Sommer, countered that Pandora functions
more like a DJ at a party, or a traditional radio station, than a
"lending" service.  He added that Pandora's doesn't enable users
to "borrow" music, as much as "listen" to music that someone else
is playing for them.

Judge Paul Huck questioned that logic, saying that a radio station
doesn't have profiles of users the way Pandora does.  "That's the
whole issue," Judge Huck said.  "They know something about you."

Some of the judges' questions suggested that the panel might send
the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court, so that state judges
could decide how to interpret the law.  "It's the Michigan Supreme
Court that's the expositor of Michigan law," Judge Barry Silverman
said.  "Why shouldn't they get the first shot at this?"


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Trade Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed in
Pennsylvania alleges stock options for a large pharmaceutical
company were manipulated illegally.

Stephen Rabin filed the lawsuit against "John Doe market makers"
on Feb. 5, alleging the market makers illegally pre-arranged
options trades for Pfizer stock on the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange.  The lawsuit doesn't name any specific market maker, but
alleges they "inflated the size of the options open interest pool
for Pfizer stock by flooding the market with over a million
additional option contracts one day before the ex-dividend date of
(Pfizer) common stock."

The result, the lawsuit alleges, is that the bulk of dividend
payments would go to market makers rather than to the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges the actions of market makers have damaged
other investors by "hundreds of millions of dollars."

The plaintiff seeks class status beginning on Feb. 6, 2010, to the
present, an unspecified amount in damages and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Lawrence Deutsch --
ldeutsch@bm.net -- Robin Switzenbaum -- rswitzenbaum@bm.net -- and
Phyllis Parker of Berger & Montague, P.C., in Philadelphia, and
Jeffrey Squire -- squire@bespc.com -- and Lawrence Eagel --
eagel@bespc.com -- of Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., in New York
City.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania case number 2:15-cv-00551.


PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks to Disqualify Justice From Hearing Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Parloff, writing for Fortune, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers seek ouster of judge, though they donated even more trying
to defeat him.

On Feb. 9, plaintiffs lawyers who won a famous $10.1 billion
class-action verdict against Philip Morris in 2003, filed papers
seeking to disqualify an Illinois supreme court justice from
hearing an appeal of the case, on the grounds that the tobacco
company's parent spent $731,000 to support the justice's
reelection in November -- more than 60%, they say, of all funds
spent on his behalf.

On the other hand, it's important to bear in mind that the
plaintiffs law firms on the same case-over the allegedly deceptive
marketing of "light" cigarettes-reportedly donated more than twice
that amount trying to defeat the judge.

The motion, powerful at first glance, notes that Altria  spent
$500,000 in the final month before Justice Lloyd Karmeier's
retention election, at which, under Illinois law, he needed 60% of
the votes to retain his seat. He squeaked by with 60.8%.

Under these circumstances, argue plaintiffs lawyers led by
Stephen Tillery of Tillery Korein, Justice Karmeier must now
recuse himself from the case, known as Price v. Philip Morris,
under standards established by a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
precedent.

In that case, known as Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Court
held that the "probability of actual bias on the part of a judge"
becomes constitutionally "intolerable" when a party before him is
"a person with a significant and disproportionate influence in
placing the judge on the case, by raising funds or directing the
judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

The obvious countervailing factor is that the election in question
was awash with expenditures from people on both sides of the cases
before Justice Karmeier, with more than $2 million reportedly
having been spent by four plaintiffs lawyers and three plaintiffs
law firms on negative TV ads and robo-call campaigns against
Justice Karmeier.  The plaintiffs law firms specifically involved
in the Price case, or individual members of those firms,
reportedly contributed at least $1.7 million of that sum.

As in many class-action cases, the plaintiffs lawyers in the Price
case have far more at stake than any individual class member -- a
fact that Justice Karmeier himself alluded to in a post-election
interview with the Southern Illinoisan.  The day after the
election, that paper reported -- in a passage the plaintiffs now
cite in their motion as still more evidence of bias and an
independent grounds for disqualification -- as follows:

"The judge said the lawyers could stand to gain financially if he
were ousted from the bench.  One less judge to vote against a
judgment in either case could net plaintiffs' a substantial sum --
$1.77 billion in legal fees for a $10 billion settlement.

"'It's the size of these fees that is distorting the system,'
Justice Karmeier said.  'The money is so substantial.'"

The plaintiffs say these candid remarks "reasonably suggest that
he has already decided the case on its merits . Not only did
Justice Karmeier suggest that removing him from the bench would
increase the chance that the current appeal would be resolved in
Appellee's favor, but he specifically stated that the attorneys'
fees at issue were 'distorting the system.'"

Altria spokesperson Brian May says, in an interview, that the
disqualification motion is "meritless" and that Philip Morris will
be "responding with the court in due course."

Plaintiffs attorney Stephen Tillery declines comment on his
motion.

The Price case, filed in Madison County in 2000, is a state-wide
consumer fraud class action alleging that Philip Morris's Marlboro
Lights were deceptively advertised as safer than regular
cigarettes, when in fact they were, if anything, more dangerous.
The plaintiffs won a $10.1 billion verdict that same year.
(Madison County, in Southern Illinois, near St. Louis, Missouri,
has a reputation as a pro-plaintiff venue for class actions.)

In 2004 Justice Karmeier won election to the state supreme court
in what was, at the time, the most expensive judicial election
campaign ever waged.  In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court
overturned the Price verdict, by a 4-2 margin, with the seventh
justice not participating.

The majority found the complaint to be barred by a provision in
the state consumer protection law requiring deference to certain
U.S. Federal Trade Commission determinations. Justice Karmeier, in
a separate concurrence, wrote that the plaintiffs had also, in his
view, failed to show any actual damages. (In consumer class
actions, class members need not show any health injury; the injury
is simply the fact that they didn't receive what they thought they
were buying. Both named plaintiffs in Price continued smoking
after learning that "lights" were no safer than regular
cigarettes.  Accordingly, Justice Karmeier concluded, they weren't
harmed by the alleged misrepresentations.)

Despite the 4-2 margin by which the court overturned the Price
verdict, Justice Karmeier's vote was decisive because, under state
law, four votes are necessary for victory at the supreme court
level. Without his vote, the lower appellate court judgment --
affirming the verdict -- would have stood.

In 2008, the plaintiffs revived the suit, claiming that an
intervening U.S. Supreme Court ruling cast doubt on the state
supreme court's ruling.

In April 2014 an intermediate appeals court accepted the
plaintiffs' argument, and restored the $10.1 billion verdict.  The
state supreme court then agreed to rehear the case, though it has
not yet scheduled oral arguments.

By that time, due to changes in the composition of the state
supreme court, Justice Karmeier was one of only two justices still
on the court who voted to dismiss the Price case in 2005.

Also by that time, Justice Karmeier's 10-year term was expiring,
so he was facing an election.  As it approached, the Price
plaintiffs moved to disqualify him for the first time, citing the
money Philip Morris spent in the 2004 election.  Both Justice
Karmeier and the court rejected the motion, citing, in part, the
fact that the moneys spent by Altria then were independent
expenditures, not direct contributions to Justice Karmeier's
campaign.  But they also stressed the distinctive circumstances of
the motion: With one justice having recused himself throughout the
case and expected to do so again, and two others having voted to
uphold the verdict in 2005 and likely to do that again, too, the
plaintiffs would be virtually assured of victory if they could
knock Justice Karmeier off the case. That's because only three
justices would remain, and that would be insufficient to render a
ruling under the state's quorum rules, requiring a majority of at
least four.

After the election, with Justice Karmeier's thin victory allegedly
aided by a last-minute flood of cash from Philip Morris parent
Altria, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to disqualify -- the
one occasioning this article.

But there's one last, weird twist to this story. Altria claims it
actually never donated money to support Justice Karmeier -- or at
least never intended to.  The plaintiffs lawyers argue, in turn,
that Altria's failure to own up to what it did just makes matters
worse for both it and Justice Karmeier.

The $731,000 that are the focus of the new motion were given by
Altria to the Republican State Leadership Committee in Washington,
D.C., with $500,000 of it being donated last October 6 and
October 8, less than a month before the November 4 election.  On
October 23, the national RSLC, in turn, gave $950,000 to the RSLC-
IE, which is a group devoted to making "independent expenditures
in the state of Illinois," according to its tax filings. That same
day, the RSLC-IE transferred $950,000 to Revolutionary Media Group
for "advertising - television," according to campaign finance
filings. The motion asserts that those TV ads supported Justice
Karmeier.

In an interview with Fortune, Altria spokesperson May states: "We
informed the [national] RSLC -- both orally and in writing -- that
the company's funds could not be used in any way for judicial
elections."  He declines to comment on whether the RSLC
disregarded Altria's conditions, noting that Philip Morris would
respond more fully to the disqualification motion in court.

At the very least, the entire spectacle is a vivid demonstration
of the corrosive impact that big-time financial contributions in
judicial election campaigns have on the credibility of court
rulings.


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORT: May Expedite Section 216(B) Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
In PEGGY JO SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION,
INC., and RONALD D. ROMAIN, individually and as president and
secretary of PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants, NO.
3:13-CV-00221-RLY-WGH, (S.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff moved the court
for an order authorizing her to send first stage notice of the
pending collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) to all current and former employees of Defendants,
Professional Transportation, Inc. and Ronald D. Romain, who worked
at any time as a Branch Administrator from December 9, 2011, to
the present. Plaintiff's motion has largely been resolved by the
Parties' Joint Stipulation for Conditional Collective Action
Certification and Notice Under the FLSA. Defendants objected to
Sections IV and VIII of Plaintiff's proposed notice.

The Plaintiff's proposed notice states that, "If you choose to
join this action, you will be represented by counsel for Ms.
Smith." Defendants argued that the notice forms should inform the
putative class action members that they can retain their own
counsel or proceed pro se. Each party cited non-binding case law
to support its position.

According to Chief District Judge Richard L. Young's opinion
entered on February 25, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/JUgXRGfrom Leagle.com, the court is of the view that
"if a putative class member intends to join this existing lawsuit
and signs the consent, then he or she agrees to become part of the
class and be represented by class counsel . . . Language to the
contrary may confuse the recipients and unnecessarily complicate
the opt-in process and the subsequent proceedings."

In addition, the proposed notice specifically informs putative
collection action members of their right not to join the lawsuit
and of their right to retain their own counsel and file their own
FLSA lawsuits, ruled Judge Young.  Defendants' objection is
overruled.

Moreover, Plaintiff's proposed notice provides that, if a putative
class member decides to join the action, he or she has 90 days to
complete the consent form and mail it to class counsel. Defendants
argued that this "opt-in" period should be 45 days, not 90.
Plaintiff's counsel moved for the longer period due to the
difficulty they have experienced in locating putative opt-in
plaintiffs in other collective action cases involving Defendants,
including Miller v. PTI, No. 3:09-cv-111-RLY-WGH and Matthews v.
PTI, No. 3:11-cv-97-RLY-WGH. Plaintiff's counsel explained that
employee turnover at PTI tends to be high, and the employees are
often transitory and fail to leave forwarding addresses.
Defendants responded that, in those prior cases, the class was far
larger than the class at issue. The court found the better option
is to extend the opt-in period to 90 days. Therefore, Defendants'
objection is overruled.

For all these reasons, Plaintiff's Third Motion to Facilitate and
Expedite Section 216(B) Notice is granted, the court said.
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Facilitate and Expedite Section
216(B) Notice is denied as moot, concluded Judge Young.

PEGGY JO SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Cassell --
jhcassell@eronlaw.net -- ERON LAW OFFICE, PA & Terry D. Smith --
tsmith@smithminerlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D. SMITH.

PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant, represented by Brian
D. Burbrink -- brian.burbrink@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Christopher C. Murray --
christopher.murray@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, Debra Ann Mastrian -- dmastrian@kdlegal.com --
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP, Libby Yin Goodknight -- lgoodknight@kdlegal.com
-- KRIEG DEVAULT LLP & Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART, PC.

RONALD D. ROMAIN, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Burbrink,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Christopher C. Murray,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Debra Ann Mastrian,
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP, Libby Yin Goodknight, KRIEG DEVAULT LLP &
Patrick F. Hulla, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
(Kansas City).


PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula Due to High Copper
----------------------------------------------------------------
Purina Animal Nutrition LLC has initiated a limited voluntary
recall of DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula in Florida due to the potential
for a higher-than-acceptable level of copper, which can cause
health issues and potential mortality. There has been one report
of sheep mortality associated with the single lot that is being
recalled.

Symptoms of copper toxicity in sheep include: lethargy and anemia,
grinding of teeth, thirst, off feed/poor appetite, pale to yellow
mucous membranes, red/dark purple colored urine and recumbancy.
Death usually occurs one to two days after onset of clinical
symptoms.

Customers should discontinue feeding the product immediately. The
product was distributed to seven Tractor Supply Company stores in
Florida. The recall is limited to DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula produced
at the Lake City, Florida plant on Nov. 28, 2014.

The single lot number is:

  Formula No.    Item No.      Description             Lot No.
  -----------    --------      -----------             -------
  55EA             0047317    DuMOR(R)Sheep Formula4N  OV28LKC1

Customers can find the lot number on the sewing strip of each bag.
The product was only distributed in Florida.
Retailers have been contacted and told to immediately quarantine
any remaining recalled product and notify customers who purchased
the product. Customers who purchased this product should return
remaining bags to their retailer.

For more information on the product recall, contact Customer
Service at 888-719-8066. The number will be staffed 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435386.htm


RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Certified in Actions v. Morgan Keegan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, 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 no class
has been certified in class action lawsuits against certain of the
Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions Bank.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions Bank,
have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors
who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were
formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity
which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan
affiliates, but an entity which was not part of our Morgan Keegan
acquisition. The complaints contain various allegations, including
claims that the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of
the funds.

In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action
and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62
million and $6 million, respectively. No class has been certified.
Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action
lawsuits.


RAYMOND JAMES: Trial Date in Retail Purchasers' Suit Postponed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, 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 a class
action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of certain
municipal bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2014, the District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted class
certification. The trial date which was originally set for
September 2014 has been postponed. Other individual investors and
investor groups have also filed arbitration claims or separate
civil claims, which are pending in various stages.


RAYONIER INC: Saxena White and Berstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty
----------------------------------------------------------------
In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1395-
J-32JBT, (M.D. Fla.) came before the Court on the motion of the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers's ("Operating
Engineers") and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
("Lake Worth") for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
their selection of lead counsel, their supplemental brief, and the
parties' agreed motion for briefing schedule.

The motion for appointment and supplemental brief ask the Court to
jointly appoint Operating Engineers and Lake Worth as lead
plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and to
approve their selection of lead counsel to represent the class. No
other motion for appointment as lead plaintiff or opposition to
this motion for appointment has been filed.

Accordingly, in an order entered February 25, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/b7DTd8from Leagle.com,
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ruled that:

* The Motion of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and
the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund for Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel is
granted.

* The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake
Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund are appointed as Lead
Plaintiff.

* Lead Plaintiff's selection of Saxena White P.A. and Berstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel is approved.

* No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceeding
will be initiated or filed by any plaintiff without the approval
of Lead Counsel, so as to prevent duplicative pleadings or
discovery. No settlement negotiations should be conducted without
the approval of Lead Counsel.

* The Agreed Motion for Briefing Schedule is granted in part and
denied in part. The court sets this preliminary case schedule:

a. On or before April 7, 2015, Lead Plaintiff shall file a
   Consolidated Complaint.

b. On or before May 15, 2015, defendants shall file any answer or
   motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

c. On or before June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiff shall file any
   opposition to the motion to dismiss.

d. On or before July 15, 2015, defendants shall file any reply
   brief in support of the motion to dismiss, not to exceed
   fifteen pages in length.

e. The motion to dismiss is set for hearing on August 25, 2015, at
   10:00 a.m., in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, 300
   North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Court intends to
   discuss scheduling for the remainder of the case at the
   June 17, 2015 hearing.

f. The requirements of Local Rule 4.04(b) are suspended until
   further order of the Court.

The Court directed the Clerk of court to terminate any attorney
who has not yet sought leave to appear pro hac vice and/or
registered for electronic filing with the Middle District of
Florida.

Mary Sating, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis P. McConville --
fmcconville@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross, LLP, Jayne Arnold Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP, Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP &
Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Samuel Keasler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Stephen Polaszek
-- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi
Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, LLP, Brandon Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, David Ronald Stickney
-- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossmann, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner --
jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Lester R. Hooker, Saxena White, PA & Robert D. Klausner --
bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson.

Michael Christie, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Casey E. Sadler --
csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Howard G.
Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, Joseph E. White, III --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, PA & Lester R. Hooker,
Saxena White, PA.

Will Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm.

Rayonier Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr.,
Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf,
Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight
& Jones & Michael J. McConnell, Jones Day.

Paul G Boynton, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ryan Maloney
-- cmaloney@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP & Jeffrey R. Wang --
jwang@fklaw.com -- Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman, LLP.

Hans E Vanden Noort, Defendant, represented by Andrew Schilling --
aschilling@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, Gennifer Lynn
Bridges, Burr & Forman, LLP, John Robert Chiles --
jchiles@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP & John Martin Hendele, IV
-- jhendele@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP.

David L Nunes, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr.,
Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf,
Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight
& Jones & Michael J. McConnell, Jones Day.

H Edwin Kiker, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr.,
Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf --
jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley,
Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones & Michael J. McConnell --
mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers, Movant, represented by
Lester R. Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, PA.


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 13
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on February 5,
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, on behalf of the shareholders
of Riverbed Technology, Inc. against Riverbed and its Board of
Directors for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

Riverbed Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The complaint arises out of a December 15, 2014, press release
announcing that Riverbed had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Thoma Bravo, LLC and Teachers' Private Capital
pursuant to which Riverbed shareholders would receive $21 per
share in cash.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of
the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders
of Riverbed.  The named plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo
LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the
Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to Riverbed shareholders' ability to make
an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Riverbed stock prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction on December 15, 2014, and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than sixty days from February 13, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation,
represents individual and institutional investors in securities
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


ROSS EARLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Bishop, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., a Florida professional
association, and Jacob E. Ensor, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-
14051-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Keley Jacobson, Esq.
          1363 Bayshore Drive
          Fort Pierce, FL 34949
          Telephone: (772) 332-5474
          E-mail: skeleyjacobson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Sullivan" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sullivan, et al. v. Rust-Oleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00023, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01497 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2602.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out
of allegations that the deck and concrete resurfacing paint
products manufactured and sold by Rust-Oleum Corporation under the
Restore brand name are defective because they allegedly bubble,
flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to
the representations in defendant's marketing, labeling, and
product warranty.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Atracurium Besylate Injections
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced the voluntary nationwide
recall of two lots of Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL
single-dose vials (NDC 25021-659-05) and four lots of Atracurium
Besylate Injection, USP, 100mg/10mL multi-dose vials (NDC 25021-
672-10) manufactured by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and
distributed by Sagent. Sagent has initiated this voluntary recall
of Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL and 100mg/10mL to
the user level due to FDA observations pertaining to aseptic and
GMP practices at the manufacturer's site potentially impacting
product sterility. Non-sterility of a drug administered via the
intravenous route has the potential to result in infections, which
could be fatal, especially in patients who are immunocompromised.
Sagent has transferred the manufacture of this product to its own
facility and this product manufactured at the Sagent facility will
not be impacted by the recall.

Sagent is not aware of any adverse patient events resulting from
the use of the subject product lots.

The lot numbers being recalled are VATA012, VATA015 (50mg/5mL) and
VATB012, VATB013, VATB014, VATB017 (100mg/10mL) which were
distributed to hospitals, wholesalers and distributors nationwide
from February 2014 through February 2015. Atracurium Besylate
Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL and 100mg/10mL is indicated, as an
adjunct to general anesthesia, to facilitate endotracheal
intubation and to provide skeletal muscle relaxation during
surgery or mechanical ventilation, and is supplied in single-dose
and multi-dose vials.

Customers are being notified by fax, email, FedEx, and/or
certified mail that includes arrangements for return of all
recalled product. Customers have been instructed to examine their
inventory immediately and to quarantine, discontinue distribution
of and return the recalled lots of product. Customers who may have
further distributed this product have been requested to identify
their customers and notify them at once of this product recall.
The necessary form by which to document this information as well
as other information regarding this recall is available at
www.Sagentpharma.com

Any questions about returning unused product should be directed to
the customer call center at (866) 625-1618 M-F 8am-7pm CST.
Healthcare workers who have medical questions about Atracurium
Besylate Injection, USP may contact Sagent Medical Affairs (866-
625-1618, Option 3) M-F 8am-5pm CST.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this product.

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product
should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program either online, by
regular mail or by fax.

Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA3500
available at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc., founded in 2006, is a specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing,
sourcing and marketing pharmaceutical products, with a specific
emphasis on injectables. Sagent has created a unique global
network of resources, comprising rapid development capabilities,
sophisticated manufacturing and innovative drug delivery
technologies, resulting in an extensive and rapidly expanding
pharmaceutical product portfolio that fulfills the evolving needs
of patients.


SPICECO OF AVENEL: Recalls Sweet Hungarian Paprika Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spiceco of Avenel, NJ is recalling PRIDE OF SZEGED SWEET HUNGARIAN
PAPRIKA because it may contain undeclared Peanut Allergen. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to Peanut Allergen run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

This product was sold between September 18, 2014 and October 13,
2014 to distributors located in IL, NJ, CT, MI, FL, NY, OH, CA and
MD .The State Of Virginia was incorrectly listed in the previously
issued press releases.

Pride of Szeged Hungarian Paprika is packaged in a metal tin
container with the lot numbers 091617PAHU05PS and 091717PAHU05PS
printed on the lower edge of the lid and UPC Number 0 78006
00010 2.

No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date.

The problem was brought to Spiceco's attention on January 27, 2015
after the Tennessee Department of Agriculture conducted a routine
retail food product sampling in the Cleveland area on a 5 oz.
container of Pride of Szeged Hungarian Paprika which revealed the
presence of peanut allergen. Lot number 091617PAHU05PS showed
positive for the presence of a peanut allergen not disclosed on
the product label. Further investigation and testing revealed the
presence of peanut allergen in LOT # 091617PAHU05PS and LOT#
091717PAHU05PS

Customers who have purchased the above described product are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Customers
with questions may contact the company at: 1-732-499-9070 Monday
through Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST.


SUNBURY COMMUNITY: Data Breach Class Actions Combined
-----------------------------------------------------
Justin Strawser, writing for The Daily Item, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the parent company of Sunbury Community Hospital over a
massive data breach has been combined with four other class action
lawsuits across the nation.

Sarah S. Vance, the chair of the Panel of Multidistrict
Litigation, issued the order on Feb. 4 that sends the lawsuit
filed Aug. 29 by former patient Susan Roman, of Lackawanna County,
to the Northern District of Alabama to be combined with lawsuits
filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of New
Mexico and the Southern District of West Virginia.  Sunbury
Community Hospital falls under the jurisdiction of the Middle
District.

The Tennessee-based Community Health Systems notified the U.S.
Securities and Exchanged Commission on Aug. 18 that the breach led
to the theft of information of 4.5 million patients across the
United States.  The organization has 206 hospitals in 28 states.
Both moving plaintiffs and all responding parties support the
selection of the Northern District of Alabama due to the
"convenience of the parties and witnesses" and promotion of "just
and efficient conduct of this litigation," Ms. Vance wrote in her
opinion.

"Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pre-trial rulings on class certification and another
issues, and converse the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary," she wrote.

U.S. Judge Karon O. Bowdre, who was assigned the litigation, is
"an experienced jurist, and we are confident that she will steer
the proceedings on a prudent course," Ms. Vance wrote.

The panel of six consists of Vance, Marjorie O. Rendell, Ellen
Segal Huvelle, Catherine D. Perry, Charles R. Breyer and R. David
Proctor.

In the court documents, Ms. Roman accused the health care
organization of violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law, a breach of express contract, a
breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.  She demands a
jury trial to award injunctive and other equitable relief, damages
and restitution in excess of $5 million and attorney fees.

Community Health officials believe Chinese hackers in April and
June were the ones to collect names, addresses, birth dates,
telephone numbers and Social Security numbers of 4.5 million
individuals who were referred for or received services affiliated
with the company in the past five years.  According to a report by
Reuters, the hackers broke into the company's computer system by
exploiting the "Heartbleed" Internet bug in equipment made by
Juniper Networks Inc, making it the first known large-scale cyber
attack to use the flaw.


SYNGENTA CORP: "Hayden" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hayden v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00020, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02604-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC.
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
          E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Mindy M. Pava, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  mpava@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com


TAKATA CORP: "Ahmadi" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ahmadi d/b/a Southeast
Enterprises, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01001, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Florida District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20671-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Back" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Back v. TK Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 6:14-cv-01388, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Florida District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20679-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Horton" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Horton, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04433, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20662-
FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Meiser" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Meiser, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00298, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20676-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Rosenstock" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rosenstock v. Takata Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07004, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20660-FAM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From M.D. Florida Included in Airbag MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The lawsuits
are:

   (1) Rickert, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 3:14-cv-01420.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20673-FAM to the proceeding; and

   (2) Day v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 3:14-cv-01427.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20674-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Zamora" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zamora, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02618, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20643-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          2000 L. Street, NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


TAKATA CORP: 10 Suits From C.D. California Included in Airbag MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ten class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The lawsuits
are:

   -- Luke Hooper, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co Inc., et
      al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08565.  The Florida District Court
      Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20645-FAM to the
      proceeding;

   -- Lauryn Sanchez, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-08727.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20648-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Julie Mi Ok Nam, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-09127.   The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20652-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Donna Bader v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 8:15-cv-00026.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20647-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Melissa Teisl, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-09357.  The District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 1:15-cv-20657-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Michael McLeod, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-09037.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20650-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Richard Klinger, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-08677.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20646-FAM to the proceeding.

   -- Kathryn Commiciotto, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No.  2:14-cv-09065.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20651-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Jina Bae, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 5:14-cv-02346.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20659-FAM to the proceeding; and

   -- Howard Singer, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-09562.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20658-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: Four Suits From S.D. New York Included in Airbag MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The lawsuits
are:

   -- Lawrence, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 1:14-cv-08963.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20667-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Alexander, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 1:14-cv-09396.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20668-FAM to the proceeding;

   -- Cioffi v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 7:14-cv-08920.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20669-FAM to the proceeding; and

   -- Dunleavy v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 7:14-cv-09459.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20670-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Gerhart" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gerhart, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01562, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20661-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From New Jersey Consolidated in Airbag MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The lawsuits are:

   -- Fishman v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-07244.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20677-FAM to the proceeding; and

   -- Bourne v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 3:14-cv-07227.  The Florida District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20678-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: Honda Rules Out Financial Support Amid Airbag Woes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoko Kubota, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Honda Motor Co. isn't interested in offering financial support to
Takata Corp., the Japanese auto maker's chief executive officer
said, dismissing speculation that his company would take the lead
in assisting the embattled air bag maker.

"We have no interest" in financially supporting Takata, Takanobu
Ito told reporters on Feb. 13 on the sidelines of a test-driving
event in Asahikawa, northern Japan.

"Takata itself needs to figure out how to fulfill its duties, but
if it makes any request to auto makers, then we would think about
that."

The CEO added that many auto makers would be in serious trouble if
Takata stops supplying replacement air bag inflaters for recalled
vehicles that are at risk of exploding and shooting out shrapnel,
a problem linked to at least five deaths, all in Honda cars.

Takata faces growing costs to replace parts in recalled cars.  In
the future, it could also be hit with fines or settlement fees and
it risks losing future business if auto makers shift component
orders to rival suppliers.

In the case of Toyota Motor Corp., which went through a safety
crisis starting in 2009 involving complaints of unintended
acceleration in some of its vehicles, the auto maker recalled more
than 10 million vehicles in the U.S. It also faced a class-action
suit and a criminal investigation that the company paid $1.2
billion to settle.

Since late 2008, more than 10 auto makers have recalled around 25
million vehicles over Takata-made air bags. Recalls by Honda
account for more than half of those vehicles.

As of end-September, Takata had 86.5 billion ($728 million) in
cash or cash equivalents, not much changed from a year earlier and
analysts aren't concerned about short term financial troubles.

Honda has already stopped relying solely on Takata for parts to
replace inflaters in recalled vehicles, and has begun working with
Takata rivals Autoliv and Daicel Corp.

Mr. Ito said Honda is focused on three areas in dealing with the
air bag problem: probing factors that may be causing inflater
explosions, actively implementing recalls where needed and
improving inflater replacement rates for vehicles it has recalled
already.


TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Abdelgadir" Suit Included in Securities MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Abdelgadir, et al. v.
Telexelectric, L.L.L.P., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09857, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Worcester).  The Massachusetts District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-40028-TSH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02566-
TSH, currently pending in Massachusetts.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the allegation that the TelexFree companies operated a Ponzi
pyramid scheme involving the recruitment of investors in marketing
TelexFree's telephone service plan and that the Defendants
directly participated in or aided and abetted the alleged scheme.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William R. Baldiga, Esq.
          Kiersten A. Taylor, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (617) 856-8200
          Facsimile: (617) 856-8201
          E-mail: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
                  ktaylor@brownrudnick.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE, LLC
          193 Plummer Hill Road
          Belmont, NH 03220
          Telephone: (781) 856-7650
          E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us

               - and -

          Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq.
          Alexander D. Wall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANK N. DARDENO
          424 Broadway
          Somerville, MA 02145
          Telephone: (617) 666-2600
          E-mail: rdardeno@dardeno.com

               - and -

          Evans J. Carter, Esq.
          EVANS J. CARTER, P.C.
          860 Worcester Road, 2nd Floor
          P.O. Box 812
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 875-1669
          E-mail: ejcatty1@verizon.net

               - and -

          D. Michael Noonan, Esq.
          SHAHEEN AND GORDON
          140 Washington Street
          P.O. Box 977
          Dover, NH 03821
          Telephone: (603) 871-4144
          E-mail: mnoonan@shaheengordon.com

               - and -

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: rick@saveri.com

               - and -

          Ronald P. Passatempo, Esq.
          RONALD P. PASSATEMPO LAW OFFICES
          200 Broadway
          Lynnfield, MA 01940
          Telephone: (781) 596-3100
          E-mail: passatempolaw@comcast.net

               - and -

          Randall Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 381-9261
          E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

               - and -

          Adriana Contartese, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ADRIANA CONTARTESE
          OCN Document Prepetition, Suite 926
          19W Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (617) 268-3557
          E-mail: adriana911@juno.com

               - and -

          Ihuoma Igboanugo, Esq.
          THE CRESCENT LAW PRACTICE
          183 Wind Chime Court, Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 341-9707
          E-mail: ihuoma2007@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Tate, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 9060
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 234-3030
          E-mail: marktate@tatelawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Smith, Esq.
          BRAIN INJURY LAW CENTER
          2100 Kecoughtan Road
          Hampton, VA 23661
          Telephone: (877) 840-3431
          E-mail: ssmith@braininjurylawcenter.com


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Fortegra Settles Stein and Hickey Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
Fortegra Financial Corporation and attorneys for both Stein and
Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a
settlement of the Stein and Hickey class actions.

On August 18, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Stein v.
Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-
005825-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company, the members of its
Board of Directors, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub in the Circuit
Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County,
State of Florida (the "Florida Court"). On September 18, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed against the same parties. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all the Company's
stockholders (excluding the defendants and their affiliates). The
amended complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is
inadequate, that the members of the Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders by
approving the Merger Agreement and related agreements, engaging in
an unfair sales process and failing to make adequate disclosures
to the Company's stockholders, and that the other named defendants
aided and abetted the breach of those duties. The amended
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent or delay the completion of
the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On September 15, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Hickey
v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA-
006485-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company in the Florida Court
containing substantially the same allegations as the Stein case.
On October 24, 2014, the Florida Court consolidated the Stein and
Hickey actions.

On October 13, 2014, the Company and attorneys for both Stein and
Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a
settlement. The terms of the memorandum of understanding did not
require any change to the merger agreement, but did require the
Company to provide stockholders with supplemental disclosures
about the merger, which the Company completed. Before the
settlement is finalized it must be approved by the Florida Court.


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: No Hearings, Trials Set in "Mullins" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
Fortegra Financial Corporation is currently a defendant in Mullins
v. Southern Financial Life Insurance Co., which was filed on
February 2, 2006, in the Pike Circuit Court, in the Commonwealth
of Kentucky.  A class was certified on June 25, 2010.  At issue is
the duration or term of coverage under certain policies.  The
action alleges violations of the Consumer Protection Act and
certain insurance statutes, as well as common law fraud.  The
action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and
interest.  The parties are currently involved in the merits
discovery phase and discovery disputes have arisen.  Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Sanctions on April 5, 2012 in connection with
the Company's efforts to locate and gather certificates and other
documents from the Company's agents.  While the court did not
award sanctions, it did order the Company to subpoena certain
records from its agents.  In an effort to prevent the trial court
from enforcing the order, the Company filed a Writ of Prohibition,
which the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied on August 31, 2012.  In
response, the Company filed a motion for discretionary review of
the Writ of Prohibition.  The Company also filed a direct appeal
of the same order, on the grounds that the order could be
construed as a finding of contempt on the part of the Company.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal on September 13,
2013, which prompted the Company to file a motion for
discretionary review of the direct appeal.  The Kentucky Supreme
Court denied the Writ of Prohibition on November 21, 2013, and
subsequently denied the direct appeal in April 2014.  No hearings
are currently scheduled and no trial date has been set.


U.S. BANK: N.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Trahan" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of
California granted defendant's motion to decertify the plaintiff
class in the case JERRY TRAHAN, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. C 09-03111 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

Jerry Trahan originally filed the case in Alameda County Superior
Court in 2009, as a continuation of Duran v. U.S. Bank National
Association. In the Duran case, the plaintiffs, a group of
Business Banking Officers ("BBO"), alleged that U.S. Bank
misclassified them as exempt employees under California Labor Code
section 1171. After a trial, U.S. Bank was found to have
misclassified the BBO position as an exempt position. However, the
California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Court of
Appeal's decisions to vacate the judgment against U.S. Bank and to
decertify the class.

In his case, Trahan alleges that, notwithstanding the judgment in
Duran, now vacated, U.S. Bank continues to misclassify the BBO
position as a non-exempt position. Trahan further alleges that he
and the class members were regularly scheduled as a matter of
uniform company policy to work and in fact worked as salaried bank
employees in excess of eight hours per workday and/or in excess of
forty hours per workweek without receiving straight time or
overtime compensation for such overtime hours.

Judge White granted defendant's motion to decertify the class as
he observed that Trahan has not met his burden to show that the
predominance and superiority prongs of Rule 23 are satisfied.

The Court scheduled a status conference in the case for Feb. 20.
2015.

A copy of Judge White's order dated January 6, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/M3HENZfrom Leagle.com.

Jerry Trahan, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne --
ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- John Eastman B. Pickett -- Wynne Law
Firm

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Alison
Le Tsao -- atsao@cdflaborlaw.com -- Connor Joseph Moyle --
cmoyle@cdflaborlaw.com -- Kent Joseph Sprinkle --
ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com -- tghali@cdflaborlaw.com -- Timothy M.
Freudenberger -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- at Carlton, DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Recalls Breyers(R) Salted Caramel Swirl
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unilever United States, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a limited
number of tubs of Breyers(R) No Sugar Added Salted Caramel Swirl
because they may inadvertently contain almonds, which are not
listed as an ingredient on the label. Persons who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to almond run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The affected product was distributed in 1.5-quart (1.41L)
paperboard tubs marked with a unit UPC of 7756738393, with a best
before date of NOV2915GB, located on the bottom of the tub. No
other best before dates are affected.

The product was distributed nationwide to limited retailers and
reached consumers through retail stores. No product was shipped
outside the U.S.

No Breyers(R) brand gelato, ice cream, or other frozen dairy
dessert products are affected by this limited voluntary recall. No
allergic reactions have been reported to date. The company
initiated the recall as a result of a consumer complaint.

Consumers who have purchased boxes of the above product with the
affected UPC and best before date are asked to immediately
discontinue use of the product, retain the outer box and call 877-
270-7402, which is operational 24 hours a day seven days a week,
to request a replacement coupon.

This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The company is placing a notification on the Food Allergy Research
& Education (FARE) website www.foodallergy.org.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434541.htm.


VEMMA NUTRITION: "Horanzy" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Horanzy v. Vemma Nutrition
Company, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-1296-DNH-TWD, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix
Division).  The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00298-JJT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 7th Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          1990 N California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward R. Conan, Esq.
          Lucy S. Clippinger, Esq.
          BOND SCHOENECK & KING PLLC
          1 Lincoln Ctr., Suite 1800
          Syracuse, NY 13202-1355
          Telephone: (315) 218-8000
          Facsimile: (315) 218-8100
          E-mail: econan@bsk.com
                  lsclippinger@bsk.com

               - and -

          Keith Beauchamp, Esq.
          Kent S. Brockelman, Esq.
          Shelley Tolman, Esq.
          COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
          2800 N Central Ave., Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 224-0999
          Facsimile: (602) 224-6020
          E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com
                  kbrockelman@cblawyers.com
                  stolman@cblawyers.com


WELLS FARGO: "Vasquez" Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case JOSE VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-04868-JCS (N.D. Cal.)

Jose Vasqquez was a former employee of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a
national banking association with its main office located in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid commissions
from Wells Fargo, which were allegedly withheld from Vasquez when
he was involuntarily terminated, purportedly for misconduct.
Plaintiff alleges that at the time of his termination he was owed
over $67,000 in commissions.

In bringing an individual action, Vasquez opted out of a putative
class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court brought
through Cesar Ascarrunz, on behalf of all California Home Mortgage
Consultants who were not paid commission wages by virtue of having
their employment involuntarily terminated, purportedly for alleged
misconduct by Wells Fargo. In the Complaint, Vasquez asserts
claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code and California common law.

Wells Fargo removed the action to the Northern District of
California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332.  Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
First Amended Complaint and a motion for Remand for Lack of
Diversity Jurisdiction.  Defendant, on the other hand, brought a
motion to Transfer Venue.

Magistrate Judge Spero denied plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend and remand motion; and granted defendant's transfer motion.
The action is transferred to the Central District of California.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Spero's order dated January 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/jm4pBUfrom Leagle.com.

Jose Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Rumberger --
tim@rumbergerlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented by
Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Danielle Leah
Levine -- dlevine@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Broomfield, Colo.-based. WhiteWave Foods is voluntarily recalling
7.5 oz packages of Horizon Cheddar Sandwich Crackers because they
may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

We believe fewer than 62,160 boxes of product have been shipped to
retailers and wholesalers in the states of Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The recall is taking place due to an inadvertent packaging error.
The outer package is labeled as a cheddar sandwich cracker and the
inner package contains the peanut butter sandwich crackers.

WhiteWave's sales team is working with distributors to actively
recover any impacted product remaining on store shelves, and the
Company has implemented measures to prevent this from happening in
the future.

HOW TO IDENTIFY THE RECALLED PRODUCT

Consumers should check the top of the individual box and look for
a "best before" date of 17 May 2015, and check the bottom of the
box for a Universal Product Code (UPC) of 42365 00464. This is the
only product involved in the recall.

Product safety and consumer confidence is of utmost importance to
WhiteWave. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers
with questions can contact the Company at 1-866-663-4349 during
extended business hours on February 20, until 10 p.m. central
time. On February 21-22, consumers with questions can contact the
Company from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. central time Monday-Friday. The call
center will resume normal business hours as of February 23 (8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. central time).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been notified of this
recall, and we are coordinating our communication efforts with the
organization Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435173.htm


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches"
sold at the Glastonbury, Connecticut location due to an undeclared
peanut allergen. The product was sold in the Glastonbury store
through February 11, 2015 and includes any Divine Treasures
1000000 Smooches with "Sell By" dates through May 6, 2015.

The vegan chocolate candy labeled as "Divine Treasures 100000
Smooches" contained peanuts, a known allergen, which is not
declared due to incomplete wording on the label. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

One allergic reaction has been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Glastonbury may bring their receipt to the store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store
or call 617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434482.htm.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling chocolate cake for two produced
and sold in retail stores in the Southwest Region, which includes
TX, OK, LA, AR, due to undeclared egg. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The product was sold as whole cakes packaged in clear plastic
containers, UPC code 24635700000 with best by dates of 2/3/15 to
2/18/15.

The chocolate cake for two contains egg as an ingredient, which
was not declared on the label.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

The error was discovered during routine product review. No
allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods
Market Southwest stores in TX, OK, LA, and AR may bring their
receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions
should contact their local store between the hours of 9am and 5pm
CST any day of the week.

Customers may find their nearest Whole Foods Market at
www.wholefoodsmarket.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434431.htm


WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Ann Cullotta, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
North Shore man has filed a lawsuit against the village of
Winnetka, claiming local property owners should not be forced to
pay a utility fee to support a proposed $34 million Willow Road
stormwater tunnel.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 13 by Winnetka resident Mark Green in
Cook County Chancery Court, calls the utility fee "a disguised
property tax" and says it is an "improper use of Winnetka's taxing
authority."

Although Mr. Green is the only plaintiff named in the suit, his
attorney, Todd McLawhorn, said the litigation is "on behalf of all
those in Winnetka who own property that has been assessed by the
stormwater fee" and seeks class-action status.

According to the complaint, building the stormwater tunnel "must
be funded via a property tax" because the project would be a
"capital (improvement) . . . for the community as a whole."  The
suit says the village "circumvented this process" by charging
"residents a user fee based upon the non-permeable area of their
respective properties, rather than following the procedures
necessary for a property tax increase."

"The issue here is power run amok," Mr. Green said.  "The village
has invented a new way of extracting money from me, but they
already have a way of doing that, and it's called 'taxing.'  I
don't mind the extra dollars coming from me if they do it through
the proper channels."

Officials with the village said they would "continue to thoroughly
review the complaint" but believe the fee is legal "and that the
village council properly exercised its authority," Peter Friedman,
an attorney for the village of Winnetka, said in a statement.

The stormwater utility fee was launched last year in Winnetka to
pay for the village's proposed $41 million stormwater management
project, the centerpiece of which would be the $34 million Willow
Road tunnel.

Winnetka officials have said the new fee, which includes roughly
4,300 accounts, will cost residents about $260 each the first
year, topping out at roughly $360 annually after all the bonds
needed to fund the project are issued.

The village's stormwater utility fee bills residents, commercial
properties, public and private schools, and nonprofit
organizations such as churches and social service agencies.

The village calculates its utility fee payment based on the amount
of impervious surface on a property: in other words, areas that do
not absorb rainfall, including building foundations, patios,
sidewalks and driveways, all of which contribute to stormwater
runoff that burdens the sewer system.

Officials said the decision to pay for the stormwater project by
creating a villagewide utility fee was prompted by a
recommendation from the Maryland-based Municipal and Financial
Services Group, a village consultant.

Among the consultant's recommendations was that the stormwater
fees be placed on the village water bill -- albeit as a different
line item -- which is billed every other month.

Some residents have criticized the village for creating the
stormwater utility fee, as well as for borrowing $16.5 million to
start construction of the proposed Willow Road tunnel, despite
roughly 54 percent of voters opposing the plan in a nonbinding
advisory referendum in March 2014.


XEROX CORP: Class Action Over Customer Service Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Renee Schiavone, writing for Patch, reports that the mismanaged
rollout of an all-electronic toll collection system on the Golden
Gate Bridge has prompted the Bay Area Toll Authority to withhold
$330,000 in penalties against its customer service contractor, a
Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesman said.

Xerox has provided mailing and call center services for toll
collections at all area bridges since 2003.  However, the
company's level of service dropped off sharply after all-
electronic tolling was implemented on the Golden Gate Bridge in
March 2013, according to a toll authority report.

The new tolling system requires drivers to either pay with the
FasTrak system or pay through an invoice sent to the registered
owner of the car.  Late fees are incurred if that invoice goes
unpaid for 21 days.

While Xerox had made improvements since the initial rollout, the
introduction of a new computer system when the company's new
five-year $117 million contract started in November led to another
steep rise in call wait times for customers dealing with bridge
tolls.

Other problems included 16,000 late payment invoices mailed in
late 2014 to customers who had not yet been mailed notices for the
toll itself, MTC spokesman John Goodwin said on Feb. 11.

The toll authority is working to contact those customers and will
not hold them responsible for late penalties relating to the
error, Mr. Goodwin said.

In an effort to fix the problems, the toll authority has
contracted with Oakland-based firm Ted Jacob Engineering Group to
provide metrics and technical assistance for improving the call
center.  The Jacobs contract was amended for that work until June
30 using $250,000 in penalties withheld from Xerox's $1.7 million
November invoice at the toll authority's meeting on Feb. 11.

Transportation Commissioner Steve Kinsey, vice president of the
Marin County Board of Supervisors, called the service at Xerox's
calling center "atrocious" at the Feb. 11 meeting, expressing
frustration that the toll authority was continuing to have to
manage the call center, despite hiring Xerox for the task.

Metrics from a toll authority report show prompt answering of
calls plummeted after the rollout of the electronic-only toll
system on the Golden Gate Bridge, falling until only about 10
percent of calls were answered within two minutes.

While performance then improved, it again dropped sharply last
summer, when fewer than 20 percent of calls were answered within
two minutes.  Average wait times at the call center rose to their
worst ever after Xerox's new contract began in November and new
computer systems were implemented.  Callers have waited an average
of over 8 minutes since then.

The continuing problems with Xerox's customer service prompted a
class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court last
year.  An amended complaint filed in December alleges that
numerous drivers did not receive toll notices before being mailed
penalty invoices.

In the first four months of the all-electronic tolling system,
Xerox and the toll authority issued 290,489 toll evasion
penalties, collecting nearly $3 million, the complaint alleges.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
estimates it can collect up to $22 million in revenue a year from
toll evasions, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges that Xerox does not provide a proper
procedure to contest charges, that Xerox employees improperly
identify themselves as "toll violation officers" and the company
does not have adequate means to send invoices to drivers' current
addresses.

Mr. Goodwin said the toll authority obtains addresses from the DMV
registration database, but does not have access to its driver's
license database, which may be more up-to-date.

Xerox has submitted a plan to get its operations back into
compliance with its contract by March, according to the toll
authority.

"We're not in the business of penalizing contractors, we're in the
business of processing toll payments," Mr. Goodwin said.  "All
we're trying to do is get the toll collection done as smoothly and
efficiently as possible and provide the greatest possible customer
service, and we're falling short of that goal."


                             *********

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  * * *