CAR_Public/150317.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 54


                             Headlines

19 ST. ENTERPRISE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in N.Y.
ABBOTT LABS: Appeals Court Overturns Class Certification Ruling
ABC CARPET: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismisal of Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: Settles Tobacco Lawsuits in Florida

ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Missouri
ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Connecticut
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Facing 2 Class Suits on Hepa B Drug Research
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Court Wants Briefing on Limited Issues
ATLAS ENERGY: Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn & Feldbaum Cases Combined

ATLAS ENERGY: Faces "Inspired Investors" Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: March 20 Initial Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit
CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Aronson" Suit Says
CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Class Action Under Appeal

CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Clarifies Order in Whitby Class Action
CHINA GREEN: Insurers Funded $2.5MM Class Action Settlement
CHINESE ANTI-CULT: Sued Over Intimidation, Violence, Other Abuses
CMR MORTGAGE: Ct. Denies Corporate Management's Fee Application
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Dropped as Defendant in 2 GM Recall Actions

DFRF ENTERPRISES: Removes "Silva" Class Suit to D. Massachusetts
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ELI LILLY: Court Tosses Remand Bids in Product Liability Case
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ENERGY XXI: Court of Chancery Dismissed EPL Stockholders Action

ENSIGN GROUP: Says Medicare Coverage Settlement Deal Favorable
ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh-Related Personal Injuries
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Action
FIRST NATIONAL: Fails to Avert Class Action Over ATM Fee Signs
FRANKLIN ELECTRIC: Removes "Malone" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama

FRANKSTON HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
GREAT LAKES HIGHER: "Groshek" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action Consolidated With Another Case
HAIN CELESTIAL: Working With Insurer to Recover Recall Costs
HENDRIX BRANDS: Plaintiffs Amend "Hobbs" Collective Complaint

HMSHOST CORP: Class Is Entitled to Unpaid Wages, N.J. Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Navigant Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HURLEY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial and Gender Discrimination
IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Spira" Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Phase 1 of VLT Certification Proceedings Done

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Entered Into MOU in Shareholder Class Actions
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Oregon Lottery Action Seeks $134MM in Damages
INTL FCSTONE: Securities Case Plaintiff May Amend Complaint
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued in Indiana Over Xarelto-Related Injuries
JOYFUL BAKERY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Newett" and "Farias" Class Actions
LIFE PHARMACY: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Suit Over Use of Telephone Equipment
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Balero" Suit to N.D. California
MERRILL LYNCH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Advisor Trainees Claim

MI WINDOWS: Obtains Initial OK of Product Liability Case Deal
MOODY JONES: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NAVISTAR INT'L: Storey Suit Transferred From Alabama to Illinois
NEW BALANCE: Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under Disabilities Act
OBK CENTER: Removes "Velazques" Suit to Florida District Court

OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: "Schmidt" Case Has Ended Against Company
PARAMOUNT GOLD: Faces Class Action Over Coeur Mining Merger
RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial This Year on Remaining Class Action Issues
REALTY INCOME: Faces "Mielo" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
RED BULL: Deadline to File Cash Settlement Claims Passes

REEBOK INT'L: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,885 Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing Set in Remaining Filter Claim
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 7 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2014
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 697 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Federal Ct.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Engle Progeny Cases Final Through Dec. 31
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $299MM Judgments for Engle Progeny Plaintiffs
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 31, 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Non-Engle Progeny Smoking Cases Tried in Q4
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 96 Individual Smoking Cases Pending at Dec. 31

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,558 Broin II lawsuits Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in Sateriale Case to Begin Nov. 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Cases Pending in Illinois, Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in Philip Morris's Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Cases Dismissed

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal Order Entered in "Villarreal" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Vassallo" Case to Begin in Q1 2016
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing on Supreme Court Petition Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU in Delaware Shareholder Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU in North Carolina Case
RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Webber" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL
SANDISK CORPORATION: Trial in Ritz Camera Action to Begin June 22
SANDISK CORPORATION: 2nd Amend Complaint Filed in Antitrust Case
SANDISK CORPORATION: Bid to Nix Securities Case Under Submission

SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Entered Into MOU in "Bushansky" Class Action
SMARTHEAT INC: Court Denied Class Certification in Leshinsky Case
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Minn. Court Dropped 2 of 3 Counts in Class Suit
ST. PETERS, MO: "Thompson" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT: Removes "Faust" Class Suit to S.D. California

TECH COLLECTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Filed Certiorari Petition in Reglan Case
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Four Pliva Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismissed Direct Purchaser Cases
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cert. Bid in Barr Suit Under Advisement

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Oral Argument in Lamictal Case Held in Nov.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: To Settle With Plaintiffs on Nexium Claims
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Proceedings in Philadelphia Actions Stayed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion to Dismiss Niacin Case Denied
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Solodyn Suit

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Argument Held on Bid to Nix Aggrenox Case
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Motions to Dismiss ACTOS Suits Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Defending Against Actiq Case
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Faces Provigil & Gabitril Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Litigation Filed

TL CANNON: 2nd Cir. Weighs in on Class Certification Issues
UBER TECH: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Background Check Suit
VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
WEST ASSET: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, New York Suit Says
WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes "Williams" Class Suit to C.D. California

* Settlements Put Class Action Funding on Spotlight in Australia


                            *********


19 ST. ENTERPRISE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. 19 St. Enterprise, Inc., a New York
corporation, d/b/a Barn Joo, and Warman Enterprises, LLC, a New
York limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-01575-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human
Rights Law Against Discrimination.

Mr. Parenteau is a tetraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

19 St. Enterprise, Inc., an New York corporation, d/b/a Barn Joo,
and Warman Enterprises, LLC, a New York limited liability company,
are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


ABBOTT LABS: Appeals Court Overturns Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Kay, Esq. -- kkay@stikeman.com -- and Samaneh Hosseini,
Esq. -- shosseini@stikeman.com -- of Stikeman Elliott, in article
for Mondaq, report that in a decision released January 22, 2015,
the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously overturned an order
certifying a class proceeding against the manufacturers of the
weight-loss drug sibutramine.  The Court held that the
certification judge erred in certifying the class action in the
absence of evidence that the question of general causation (i.e.
whether sibutramine increases certain risks for all class members)
was capable of resolution on a class-wide basis.  In doing so, the
Court followed guidance from the Supreme Court's 2013 competition
class action trilogy on the evidentiary requirements for
certification and the gatekeeping role of the certification judge.

Background

In late 2000, Health Canada approved the marketing of Meridia(R),
a prescription drug containing sibutramine, for use as part of
weight-loss regimes.  Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. (Abbott)
distributed and sold Meridia(R) in Canada.  In late 2009, Abbott's
exclusive right to distribute Meridia(R) ended and Health Canada
approved an application by Apotex Inc. (Apotex) to distribute the
generic equivalent to Meridia(R) under the name Apo-Sibutramine.

A clinical trial conducted between January 2003 and March 2009
(the Sibutramine Cardiovascular Outcome Trial, or SCOUT Study)
suggested an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events
associated with sibutramine use by patients with pre-existing
heart problems for which the drug was contraindicated.  The drug
was voluntarily withdrawn from the Canadian market by Abbott and
Apotex in October 2010.

The plaintiffs commenced the British Columbia action in 2011 on
behalf of all persons in Canada who used or purchased sibutramine
and their family members.  The plaintiffs alleged that ingestion
of sibutramine causes or contributes to an increased risk of
adverse cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes,
increased blood pressure and heart rate, and irregular heartbeat
and that the SCOUT study determined that sibutramine increases the
risk of cardiovascular events. The plaintiffs asserted causes of
action for negligence and failure to warn and for deceptive
advertising pursuant to the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, and the Competition Act.

A similar proposed class proceeding was commenced in Quebec.  In
2012, the Quebec Superior Court refused to authorize that
proceeding as a class action.

The Appeal Decision

The focus of the appeal judgment was whether the plaintiffs had
met the requirements of commonality and preferability under
section 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

With respect to the common issues requirement, the Court of Appeal
applied the "some basis in fact" requirement for certification as
affirmed in the 2013 Supreme Court trilogy.  The Court held that
where a plaintiff seeks to address questions of causation on a
class-wide basis, the plaintiff must provide evidence of a
methodology for proving causation on a class-wide basis.  The
Court held that while this rule is most clearly evident in
indirect purchaser claims made in competition cases, such as the
claims considered in the 2013 Supreme Court trilogy, there was no
basis in principle to distinguish such claims insofar as this
evidentiary requirement is concerned.  The Court also relied on a
recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal, Andriuk v.
Merrill Lunch Canada Inc., in which this evidentiary requirement
was applied outside the indirect purchaser context.

In applying this test to the plaintiffs' claim, the Court of
Appeal noted that the certification judge certified the case on
two footings, both of which required an assessment of the general
causation question: as a class action brought by those who have
suffered injury to recover damages, and as a class action brought
by patients prescribed a drug that ought not to have been
marketed.  The Court held that the claims of those who have
suffered cardiac events are grounded in negligence, which requires
proof of damages and causation. Such claims would be advanced by a
finding of general causation.  The Court noted that the claim
advanced on behalf of users who have not suffered harm appears to
be grounded upon the argument that relative ineffectiveness
coupled with some risk ought to have kept sibutramine off the
market as a weight-loss drug.  The Court held that these claims
must also be founded upon some proof of a risk to the population
of patients for whom sibutramine was prescribed.  The Court
concluded that the successful prosecution of the class action in
relation to the marketing of a drug with a poor risk-to-benefit
ratio hinges upon the evidence that those who ought to have been
prescribed the drug were put at risk by its use.

All of the proposed common issues, therefore, were based on the
plaintiffs proving that sibutramine caused or contributed to
cardiovascular events.  The Court found that the evidence before
the certification judge was that the question whether sibutramine
causes or contributes to heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmia is
incapable of resolution on a class-wide basis.  The SCOUT Study
only concluded that sibutramine increased the risk of
cardiovascular events for those patients with a history of
cardiovascular disease for whom sibutramine was contraindicated
and who should not have been prescribed the drug.  The plaintiffs'
own expert admitted that there was no study on whether sibutramine
increased the risk of cardiovascular events for those without a
history of cardiovascular disease or those who are undiagnosed
with the disease.  There was thus no evidence of a methodology for
establishing that the class as a whole, as opposed to those who
were wrongly prescribed sibutramine despite a history of
cardiovascular disease, was affected or put at risk by using
sibutramine.

The Court distinguished the evidence in this case from other cases
such as Stanway v. Wyeth Canada Inc., where there was evidence
(such as a large clinical study) that the increased risk of a
certain result to the class as a whole could be quantified. The
Court noted that the case at hand was not one where the experts
disagree on the extent of the risk, but rather a case where the
experts are uncertain whether there is a risk to the class as a
whole and have not described a methodology for addressing that
question.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the certification judge
erred by failing to consider whether the class had adduced some
evidence of a method of proving general causation and set aside
the certification order.

[1] The authors are counsel to Apotex Inc. in this proceeding.


ABC CARPET: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. A.B.C. Carpet & Home, Inc., a New York
corporation, d/b/a ABC Carpet & Home, and Hudruf Realty, L.L.C., a
New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-01576-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the
Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full
and equal access to goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and accommodations at their property by failing to
remove architectural barriers pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Parenteau is a tetraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

A.B.C. Carpet & Home, Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a ABC
Carpet & Home, and Hudruf Realty, L.L.C., a New York limited
liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismisal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ABIOMED, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit,
affirmed on February 6, 2015, the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District Court, of
a previously disclosed complaint brought by alleged purchasers of
the Company's common stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or
entities that purchased or acquired common stock of the Company
between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaint related
to two previously reported complaints that were filed on November
16 and 19, 2012 and alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the
Impella 2.5 product and sought damages in an unspecified amount.
The District Court consolidated these complaints, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May
20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action. On April 10, 2014, the
District Court entered an order granting the defendants' motion
and dismissed the consolidated and amended complaint. The
plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit on July 16, 2014, and
oral arguments were heard by the First Circuit on January 8, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Settles Tobacco Lawsuits in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
Tripp Mickle, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the three largest U.S. tobacco companies agreed to pay a total of
$100 million to settle hundreds of federal lawsuits in Florida,
resolving some -- but not all -- of the legal uncertainty that has
hung over the industry since a class-action suit was brought by
state residents in 1994.

Altria Group Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. will each pay $42.5
million and Lorillard Inc. will pay $15 million to resolve about
400 cases involving smokers. The agreement excludes a handful of
federal cases that have gone to trial.

The settlement is far less than the more than $500 million the
industry has had to pay plaintiffs in federal and state cases in
Florida over the past decade, but it leaves unresolved more than
3,000 lawsuits pending in state courts, cases that are potentially
more damaging.  They are more difficult for the tobacco industry
to settle because they are spread across Florida's court system.

Also, the industry has fared worse in the state's courts, winning
roughly 40% of more than 100 trials and on average paying damages
of about $4.5 million a case, according to Matthew Grainger, an
analyst with Morgan Stanley Research.

The companies said in separate statements on Feb. 25 that they
were "pleased" to have the federal lawsuits behind them and plan
to "vigorously" defend themselves in the remaining state court
lawsuits.

The Florida cases, which collectively became known as the Engle
lawsuits, sprang from an initial class-action lawsuit filed in
Dade County Circuit Court in 1994 on behalf of a smoker,
Howard Engle.  The suit charged several big tobacco companies with
misleading consumers.  The defendants included Philip Morris USA,
a subsidiary of Altria Group; R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit
of Reynolds American; Lorillard; and Liggett Group, a division of
Vector Group Ltd.

In 2000, a Florida jury ordered that the companies pay a record-
breaking $145 billion in damages.  The decision was reversed in a
2006 ruling that decertified the class but allowed former class
members to file individual suits.  That paved the way for more
than 9,000 suits to be filed in federal and state court.

Thousands of those cases have been dismissed.  Plaintiffs have won
a majority of the remaining state and federal cases brought to
trial and been awarded more than $500 million in damages,
according to Morgan Stanley.

In 2013, Liggett struck a $110 million settlement to resolve more
than 3,000 state and federal suits in Florida.

The $100 million settlement announced on Feb. 25 won't become
final unless all the individual plaintiffs in the cases agree to
participate in the settlement, according to both parties in the
case.

Plaintiffs attorney Joe Rice of Motley Rice LLC said he expects
that to be resolved in the next 60 to 90 days.

Altria and Lorillard said they will record the charges from their
portions of the settlement in their first-quarter results.


ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Haake, writing for KSHB Kansas City, reports that
insurance firm Anthem and its Missouri-based affiliates now face a
class action suit, the latest fallout from a massive hack and data
breach that the company reported earlier in February.

Three law firms, including Fagan Emert & Davis (the firm of former
Kansas gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis), LLC, Forbes Law Group,
LLC, and Skepnek Law Firm, P.A. jointly filed the lawsuit in St.
Louis County circuit court.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of Jill Noble, a
Missouri woman who will be the face of the class, which the law
firms are still assembling.  The suit alleges Anthem and its
affiliated insurance companies did not do enough to safeguard
customers' data, making Anthem culpable for the theft of names,
social security numbers and income information taken by hackers in
the breach.

"This is the most serious data breach ever to impact the health
care industry," Mike Fleming, attorney at Forbes Law Group, LLC
said in a statement.  "Although this breach involves Anthem
insureds across the United States, our firms are focused on
informing Missourians of their rights and helping these
Missourians obtain the representation they need to move forward."

A spokesperson for Anthem in Missouri said the company would have
no comment on the lawsuit.

Anthem already faces class action lawsuits in five other states
including California, Florida, and Indiana where the company is
based.

On Feb. 23, the Missouri Department of Insurance said two million
people -- nearly one in three Missourians -- were affected by the
breach.

One security expert interviewed by 41 Action News on Feb. 23 said
Anthem's data security systems were weaker than they should have
been, and that the company ought to be held accountable for the
hack.

"If there's that much data sitting there, there should be many
more eyes watching," Steve Nelson, a cyber-security forensic
specialist for Net-RX, said.  "It's expensive for a company to do
that, but if they're going to house all that data it's their
responsibility to put the money towards protecting it."

On Feb. 25, 41 Action News employees were informed that those with
Anthem-affiliated plans may have had their personal data
compromised. No 41 Action News employees are known to be
affiliated with the lawsuit at this time.

Anthem has said it is currently in the process of contacting every
customer it believes to be affected by the breach.  The company
has also launched a Web site -- https://www.anthemfacts.com/ -- to
provide additional information.

The attorneys filing the class action lawsuit have also created a
website, http://www.anthembreachmo.com/


ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sturdevant, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that an
East Hampton woman filed a lawsuit against Anthem, seeking damages
in the wake of a data breach.

An East Hampton woman is seeking class-action status in a federal
lawsuit against Anthem Inc. and its Connecticut subsidiary in the
wake of a data breach that compromised the Social Security numbers
and other personal information of about 80 million people.

Attorneys for Wilma J. Peterman are seeking payment from Anthem
for damages and restitution, but there's no particular dollar
amount specified in the lawsuit filed Feb. 20 in U.S. District
Court-District of Connecticut.

Anthem Inc. of Indianapolis said late Feb. 4 it had been the
victim of a sophisticated cyber attack, affecting 80 million
current and past customers, which includes 1.7 million in
Connecticut.  Stolen information included data about current and
former customers: names, birthdays, medical IDs, Social Security
numbers, street addresses, email addresses, employment information
and some income data, Anthem has said.

"There is little doubt victims of the Anthem data breach will
suffer significant and persistent financial harm as a result,"
attorneys for Ms. Peterman wrote in the lawsuit.  "This time the
hackers got Social Security numbers.  For cyber-thieves, the
Social Security number if the holy grail, providing access to
confidential customer information."

The attorneys allege that the Anthem data breach could have been
prevented and should have been detected earlier.

The lawsuit alleges that Anthem was negligent, breached an implied
contract, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Sarah Yeager, a spokeswoman for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
in Connecticut, the state subsidiary, said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.

Ms. Peterman is being represented by Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg &
Knuff LLC of Milford.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Facing 2 Class Suits on Hepa B Drug Research
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Research Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Operating
Officer have been named as defendants in two securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California regarding certain public statements in
connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  Both
actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative action have
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the
Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts
underlying the Securities Claims.  Each of these five suits seek
damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of
injunctive relief.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Court Wants Briefing on Limited Issues
--------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., the court requested further briefing on
limited issues related to plaintiffs' third amended complaint.
All briefing were to be completed by February 27, 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011.

On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing
the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint," the Company said.

On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in
the first amended complaint.

"On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied
the motion to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially
similar claims on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares
between February 1, 2011, and August 9, 2011," the Company said.
"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014, which was fully briefed and heard by the court
on December 18, 2014."

"We deny the allegations in the third amended complaint and will
contest the claims vigorously," the Company said.


ATLAS ENERGY: Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn & Feldbaum Cases Combined
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2015, that since the announcement on October 13, 2014 of the Atlas
Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas Energy, APL and the other parties
to the mergers have been named as defendants in putative
stockholder class action complaints challenging the transactions.
Although New Atlas has not been named as a defendant in these
complaints, certain of the Company's expected officers have been
named as defendants, and the litigation could delay or impede the
consummation of the separation and distribution.

The Company said, "As of February 9, 2015, we are aware that Atlas
Energy, Atlas Energy's general partner, Targa Resources, Trident
GP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created in
connection with the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas
Energy board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New
Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman,
have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class
action complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases
are captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No.
GD-14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers
v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct.
Comm. Pls. Nov. 3, 2014) (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits
were consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder
Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas
for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS
Lawsuit"), although the Kane litigation has since been voluntarily
dismissed. We are also aware that APL, APL's general partner,
Atlas Energy, Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, Targa
Resource Partners' general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (a
subsidiary of Targa Resources Partners created in connection with
the APL Merger), and the members of the APL board, including
Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as
defendants in five putative stockholder class action complaints
challenging the APL Merger, four filed in the Court of Common
Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and one filed in the
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These cases are
captioned: Michael Envin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al.,
Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013),
Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31,
2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 10, 2014), Irving
Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-
22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and William B. Federman
Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014) (the
"APL Lawsuits" and, together with the ATLS Lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"). The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum APL
Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit") and the Federman Lawsuit has subsequently been
voluntarily dismissed."

The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by,
among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the
Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the
Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, agreeing to certain terms
in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the
defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, favoring
their self-interests over the interests of ATLS and APL
unitholders, and omitting material information from the Proxy
Statements. The lawsuits further allege that those breaches were
aided and abetted by some combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa
Resources, Targa Resources Partners, or various affiliates of
those entities. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs.


ATLAS ENERGY: Faces "Inspired Investors" Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2015, that a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit, captioned Inspired Investors v. Perkins et. al., Case No.
2015-04961, was filed on January 28, 2015, purportedly on behalf
of Targa Resources Corp. shareholders in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas. The lawsuit names Atlas Energy and the
individual members of the board of directors of Targa Resources
Corp. as defendants and Targa Resources Corp. as a nominal
defendant. The lawsuit generally alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
omitting purportedly material information from the registration
statement on Form S-4 that Targa Resources Corp. initially filed
with the SEC on November 20, 2014 and most recently amended on
January 22, 2015. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief and unspecified recissory damages, attorney's
fees, interest, and costs.


BANK OF AMERICA: March 20 Initial Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Ilston signed on February 27, 2015, a third
stipulation and order to continue the filing deadline and hearing
date on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
a settlement in the class action captioned SHERI GARIBALDI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02223-SI, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties stipulated and agreed that the hearing on Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement is
continued to March 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

The Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement was continued to March 6,
2015.

No further extensions will be granted.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/aK70s9from Leagle.com.

McGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com --
Michael D. Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- John A. Van Hook
-- jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- Christopher Killens --
ckillens@mcguirewoods.com -- Los Angeles, California, Attorneys
for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C., Chris Baker -- cbaker@bakerlp.com -- San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff SHERI GARIBALDI.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger of Benesch -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- in article
for JDSupra, reports that on March 25, 2014, Brian Jackson
received a text message on his cellular phone, allegedly making an
offer for cruise ticks on behalf of Caribbean Cruise Line ("CCL").
Jackson filed suit against AdSource Marketing Ltd. ("AdSource"),
the company that allegedly sent the text message on behalf of CCL,
and CCL.  Jackson alleged that the text message was unsolicited,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227 ("TCPA"), which prohibits making unsolicited calls
(including sending unsolicited text messages), to cellular phones.
Jackson sought to represent a similarly situated class of consumer

On February 17, 2015, the Eastern District of New York granted
CCL's motion to dismiss Jackson's second amended complaint.
Jackson v. Caribbean Cruise Line, No. 14-cv-2485, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 18783 (Feb. 17, 2015).  47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
imposes liability on the entity that "makes" a call in violation
of the statute.  The District Court noted that the TCPA only
imposes direct liability on the entity that made the call, which
was AdSource.  Even if AdSource had sent the message on behalf of
CCL, CCL could only be held vicariously liable for the calls.

Jackson's second amended complaint alleged that CCL was
"responsible" for making the calls because it had contracted with
AdSource.   The District Court rejected Jackson's claim that this
was sufficient to support a showing of vicarious liability,
holding that "the existence of a contract between CCL and
AdSource -- even one that imposes certain constrains on
AdSource -- does not necessarily means that CCL had the power to
given 'interim instructions' to AdSource, the hallmark of an
agency relationship."

The District Court concluded that Jackson had failed to adequately
plead vicarious liability against CCL, and granted CC's motion to
dismiss.  However, the court dismissed the claims without
prejudice, and granted Jackson to amend the complaint "one last
time" in order to try and state a plausible claim.


CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Aronson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noel S. Aronson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01088 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Class Action Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiary has been named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v.
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A
summary judgment was recently granted in favor of the plaintiffs.

"We have appealed this judgment and have requested removal of the
proceeding to federal court. We believe that we will be successful
on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment
will be upheld. We estimate the possible range of costs associated
with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $5 million. We
currently do not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but
will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine
if a contingency is necessary in the future," the Company said.


CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Clarifies Order in Whitby Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the putative class action captioned LANDON WHITBY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV1633-LAB (BLM), (S.D. Cal.) sought
leave to file an amended complaint. Among other things, the
proposed amended complaint would have added two plaintiffs from
the Windwood Village Apartments, Daud and Shokria Nawaey. The
Court gave leave to amend to add these two new plaintiffs, but
denied leave to add plaintiffs who live in other apartment
complexes.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for clarification informing the
Court for the very first time that they have a related case
pending in which the minor children of some of the Plaintiffs in
this case are themselves plaintiffs. The motion does not identify
the other case by name or case number, but it appears to be
15cv355-H (WVG), Ethan Whitby v. Chelsea Investment Corporation.

"Failing to apprise the Court of this during the pendency of their
motion to dismiss was improper, as was their failure, and the
failure of the plaintiffs in the other case, to file a notice of
related case," District Judge Larry Alan Burns held in an order
entered March 5, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/pymBEJfrom Leagle.com.  "One of Plaintiffs'
attorneys in this case is also counsel for plaintiffs in 15cv355,
so obviously they knew about the cases' relationship. The Court
also notes that in case 15cv355, the plaintiffs are all minors,
and no guardians ad litem are identified."

According to Judge Burns, nothing prevents Plaintiffs from taking
appropriate corrective action, such as by seeking leave to dismiss
or add particular parties or claims in the two cases. If they do
so, they should seek a comprehensive solution, rather than
attempting to make corrections piecemeal. They should also confer
with opposing counsel and, if possible, proceed by joint motion
rather than ex parte.

The Court believes this clarifies its order, and the Clerk was
directed to terminate the motion.


CHINA GREEN: Insurers Funded $2.5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company's insurers funded the full amount of the class action
settlement of $2.5 million.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the
"Nevada Federal Court") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 12, 2009 and September 1, 2010. The
last version of the complaint alleges that the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by
making material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
financial statements, securities offering documents, and related
disclosures during the class period.

On October 7, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and to strike portions of it.

On November 2, 2012, the Court issued an order dismissing the
claims for violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants and dismissing two
individual defendants from the complaint but allowing the claims
for violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with respect to the Company and
the remaining of the individual defendants. The Nevada Federal
Court also denied the defendants' motion to strike. The parties to
the securities class action held mediation on March 7, 2013, which
led to an agreement in principle to settle the case for a payment
of $2.5 million by the Company's insurers in exchange for a
release of all claims against all defendants.

On August 12, 2014, the Nevada Federal Court entered an order and
final judgment granting final approval to the settlement and
dismissing all claims in accordance with the settlement agreement.
The Company's insurers funded the full amount of the settlement of
$2.5 million.


CHINESE ANTI-CULT: Sued Over Intimidation, Violence, Other Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Jingrong, Zhou Yanhua, Zhang Peng, Zhang Cuiping, Wei Min,
Lo Kitsuen, Li Xiurong, Cao Lijun, Hu Yang, Gao Jinying, Cui Lina,
Xu Ting, and Bian Hexiang v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance
(CACWA), Michael Chu, Li Huahong, Wan Hongjuan Zhu Zirou, & Does
1-5 Inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-01046-SLT-VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 3,
2015) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, who experienced bias-related intimidation and violence
and other abuses.

Beginning at various times and as early as May 2008 and continuing
to the present time, the Defendants wrongfully and unlawfully
engaged in threats, aggression, and intimidation against the
Plaintiffs, rising to the level of physical attacks on a number of
occasions, and called for that violence by others, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Plaintiffs practice the Falun Gong religion when in the
Flushing, New York area at the Falun Gong Spiritual Center located
at 40-46 Main Street.  Falun Gong is a peaceful spiritual practice
based on the tenets of Zhen, Shan, Ren (truthfulness, compassion,
and tolerance) that has much in common with other spiritual
practices such as Taoism and Buddhism, according to the complaint.

The CACWA, established in 2008, has defined its mission in its New
York Certificate of Incorporation as exposing Falun Gong as an
evil and dangerous threat to humanity and to society.  Defendants
Chu and Li coordinated, managed and participated in an ongoing
campaign of violence and intimidation as CACWA leaders, agents,
and collaborators, the Plaintiffs allege.  CACWA operates a booth
located in Flushing at 41-40 Main Street, where CACWA supporters
distribute anti-Falun Gong flyers and pamphlets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terri E. Marsh, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
          1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 697-3858
          Facsimile: (202) 355-6701
          E-mail: terri.marsh@hrlf.net


CMR MORTGAGE: Ct. Denies Corporate Management's Fee Application
---------------------------------------------------------------
In In re CMR MORTGAGE FUND, LLC, CMR MORTGAGE FUND II, LLC, CMR
MORTGAGE FUND III, LLC, Chapter 11 Debtors, CASE NOS. 08-32220
TEC, 09-30788 TEC, 09-30802 TEC, (N.D. Cal.), the court held a
hearing on January 30, 2015, regarding the Fifth Interim and Final
Application of Corporate Management, Inc., as Accountants and
Financial Advisor to Chapter 11 Trustee. David M. Bertenthal
appeared for Corporate Management, Inc. Julie M. Glosson appeared
for the United States Trustee (UST).  UST opposes the allowance of
certain fees sought in the current application, and seeks the
disgorgement of fees previously allowed on an interim basis,
contending that Corporate Management improperly seeks to be paid
for "trustee's duties that are generally performed by a trustee
without the assistance of an attorney or accountant."

The combined amount of fees for case administration approved on an
interim basis was $108,840.

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson, in his February 27, 2015
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/49IVygfrom
Leagle.com, said, "I determine that the services billed by
Corporate Management for "case administration" are not
compensable, and that it is appropriate to review fees previously
allowed on an interim basis for the limited purpose of determining
whether Corporate Management should be allowed to collect any
additional fees on its current application. I determine that no
new fees should be awarded, and that no fees previously approved
should be disgorged."


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Dropped as Defendant in 2 GM Recall Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Automotive Plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the first quarter of
2014, General Motors Company, Delphi's largest customer, initiated
a product recall related to ignition switches. Delphi has received
requests for information from, and is cooperating with, various
government agencies related to this ignition switch recall. In
addition, Delphi has been named as a co-defendant along with GM
(and in certain cases other parties) in product liability and
class action lawsuits related to this matter. During the second
quarter of 2014, all of the class action cases were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "District Court") for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Two consolidated amended class action complaints were filed in the
District Court on October 14, 2014. Delphi was not named as a
defendant in either complaint. Delphi believes the allegations
contained in the product liability cases are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against them. Although no assurances
can be made as to the ultimate outcome of these or any other
future claims, Delphi does not believe a loss is probable and,
accordingly, no reserve has been made as of December 31, 2014.


DFRF ENTERPRISES: Removes "Silva" Class Suit to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Silva, et al. v. DFRF Enterprises,
LLC, et al., Case No. MICV2015-00194, was removed from the
Middlesex County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-10670-JGD to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by DFRF
Enterprises and others.  The alleged Ponzi scheme involved "the
sale of securities in the form of 'memberships' in DFRF" and
"promised substantial profits and a 15% annual return."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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
          Facsimile: (508) 875-1449
          E-mail: ejcatty1@verizon.net

Defendants Citizens Bank, N.A., and RBS Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts, N.A., are represented by:

          Jason C. Weida, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          100 High Street, 22nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 960-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 449-6999
          E-mail: jweida@jonesday.com

Defendant Citizens Bank, N.A. is also represented by:

          Lee A. Armstrong, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 E. 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-3939
          E-mail: laarmstrong@jonesday.com

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by:

          James T. Lux, Esq.
          John J. Butts, Esq.
          Robert K. Smith, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6138
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          E-mail: james.lux@wilmerhale.com
                  john.butts@wilmerhale.com
                  robert.smith@wilmerhale.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Jordan, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01121 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELI LILLY: Court Tosses Remand Bids in Product Liability Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2015, District Judge Danny C. Reeves issued a
memorandum opinion and order denying plaintiffs' motions to remand
in In IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON, AND PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION Bowen, et al., v. McKesson Corp., et al., Mitchell, et
al., v. McKesson Corp., et al., Baltazar, et al., v. McKesson
Corp., et al., Dadoush, et al., v. McKesson Corp., et al., Gomez,
et al., v. McKesson Corp., et al., Saunders, et al., v. McKesson
Corp., et al., Jasmin, et al., v. McKesson Corp., et al., MASTER
FILE NO. 2:11-MD-2226-DCR, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-058-DCR., 2:13-
060-DCR, 2:13-061-DCR, 2:13-073-DCR, 2:13-074-DCR, 2:13-075-DCR,
2:13-076-DCR, (E.D. Ky).

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/0Cdmx0from
Leagle.com.

"By asking for coordination of the cases "for all purposes" and
relying on specific reasoning suggesting a joint trial, the
Plaintiffs proposed a joint trial which created federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act's mass action
provision," Judge Reeves concluded.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Goldman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 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


ENERGY XXI: Court of Chancery Dismissed EPL Stockholders Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy XXI Ltd said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order dismissing the
class action lawsuit by EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. stockholders.

In March and April, 2014, three alleged EPL Oil & Gas, Inc.
stockholders (the "plaintiffs") filed three separate class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of EPL stockholders against EPL, its directors, Energy XXI,
Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Energy XXI ("OpCo"), and Clyde
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of OpCo ("Merger Sub" and collectively, the
"defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated
lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "lawsuit").

Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provided for the
acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs alleged that (a)
EPL's directors allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and (b) Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs sought to have the merger agreement rescinded
and also sought damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal. On January 20, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its
entirety without prejudice.


ENSIGN GROUP: Says Medicare Coverage Settlement Deal Favorable
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that implementation of the
provisions of the Medicare Coverage Settlement Agreement could
favorably impact Medicare coverage reimbursement for the Company's
services.

A proposed federal class action settlement was filed in federal
district court on October 16, 2012 that would end the Medicare
coverage standard for skilled nursing, home health and outpatient
therapy services that a beneficiary's condition must be expected
to improve. The settlement was approved on January 24, 2013, which
tasked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with
revising its Medicare Benefit Manual and numerous other policies,
guidelines and instructions to ensure that Medicare coverage is
available for skilled maintenance services in the home health,
skilled nursing and outpatient settings. CMS must also develop and
implement a nationwide education campaign for all who make
Medicare determinations to ensure that beneficiaries with chronic
conditions are not denied coverage for critical services because
their underlying conditions will not improve. At the conclusion of
the CMS education campaign, the members of the class will have the
opportunity for re-review of their claims, and a two- or three-
year monitoring period will commence.

"Implementation of the provisions of this settlement agreement
could favorably impact Medicare coverage reimbursement for our
services," the Company said.


ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh-Related Personal Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unika Ellis v. Ethicon, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.,
March 3, 2015) is an action for negligence, strict liability, and
breach of warranty.

The action arises out of the alleged serious personal injuries of
the Plaintiff as a result of using Ethicon Physiomesh(R) Flexible
Composite Mesh tested, designed, manufactured, and marketed by
Ethicon.  The Ethicon Physiomesh(R) Flexible Composite Mesh is an
implantable tissue-separating mesh designed to be physiologically
compatible with the abdominal wall.

Ethicon, Inc., is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business
in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Stroup, Esq.
          DAN STROUP, PC
          3400 W. Marshall Ave., Suite 403
          Longview, TX 75604
          Telephone: (903) 295-2200
          Facsimile: (903) 295-2171
          E-mail: dstroup@danstroup.com

               - and -

          Blake C. Erskine, Esq.
          ERSKINE & McMAHON, LLP
          P. O. Box 3485
          Longview, TX 75606
          Telephone: (903) 757-9435
          Facsimile: (903) 757-9429
          E-mail: blakee@erskine-mcmahon.com

               - and -

          Carlos Galliani, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CARLOS G. GALLIANI, PC
          500 Main Street, Suite 310
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 698-9100
          Facsimile: (817) 345-3522
          E-mail: cg@cgallianilaw.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the "Smith"
class action.

"On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FMD, Daniel Meyers, FMD's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the FMD Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper, FMD's
former Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director. The action
is entitled Smith v. The First Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A.
No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.). The plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information in various filings
with the SEC, press releases and other public statements
concerning our corporate income tax filings. The complaint alleged
various claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified
damages, fees and such other relief as the court may deem just and
proper. On April 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint filed in the action. On October 28, 2014, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss," the Company said.


FIRST NATIONAL: Fails to Avert Class Action Over ATM Fee Signs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that First National Bank
Southwest, part of the nation's largest privately owned bank, must
face a class action for not posting fee signs on its ATMs, even
though Congress ended the sign requirement two years ago, a
federal appeals court has ruled.

In a decision on Feb. 20, a three-judge panel ruled that when
Congress repealed the sign requirement in 2012, it did not
explicitly make the change retroactive.


FRANKLIN ELECTRIC: Removes "Malone" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Malone v. Franklin Electric
Cooperative, Case No. CV2015-900016, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Franklin County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Northwestern).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00387-HGD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
          ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY & PONDER LLC
          2421 2nd Avenue North, Unit 1
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 201-0303
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
          E-mail: brad@ampattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq.
          BEDFORD ROGERS & BOWLING PC
          303 North Jackson Avenue
          P O Box 669
          Russellville, AL 35653
          Telephone: (256) 332-2880
          Facsimile: (256) 332-7821
          E-mail: jeffbrbpc@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Lucas C. Montgomery, Esq.
          STRINGER MONTGOMERY & MONTGOMERY
          P O Box 74
          Talladega, AL 35161
          Telephone: (256) 362-3154
          Facsimile: (256) 362-3178
          E-mail: lcmontgomery@gmail.com

               - and -

          Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
          Oscar Monfort Price, IV, Esq.
          PRICE-ARMSTRONG LLC
          2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 208-9504
          Facsimile: (205) 527-6511
          E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
                  oscar@pricearmstrong.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cecil B. Caine, Jr., Esq.
          Robert V. Goldsmith, III, Esq.
          CAINE GOLDSMITH
          652 Walnut Street
          PO Box 667
          Moulton, AL 35650
          Telephone: (256) 974-1111
          Facsimile: (256) 974-1195
          E-mail: ccaine@legal-cg.com
                  tgoldsmith@legal-cg.com


FRANKSTON HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylon Harvest v. Frankston Healthcare Center, L.P., Case No.
2:15-cv-00337-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., March 5, 2015) seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, overtime and liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Frankston Healthcare Center, L.P., does business in the state of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road
          Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593-5588
          Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


GREAT LAKES HIGHER: "Groshek" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Groshek and all others, similarly situated v. Great Lakes
Higher Education Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00143 (W.D. Wis.,
March 5, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heath P. Straka, Esq.
          Robert John Gingras, Esq.
          GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C.
          8150 Excelsior Dr.
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          Facsimile: (608) 833-2874
          E-mail: straka@gcllawyers.com
                  gingras@gcllawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1767
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action Consolidated With Another Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the class
action filed by Rosminah Brown has been consolidated with a
subsequently-filed putative class action containing substantially
identical allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal
care products.

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit
organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint
alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and
JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's
implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated
certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed
putative class action containing substantially identical
allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care
products. The consolidated actions seek an award for damages,
injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorney's fees, and are
currently at the discovery phase. The Company will continue to
defend this action vigorously and continues to believe that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Working With Insurer to Recover Recall Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
is working with its insurance carrier to recover a portion of
product recall costs and is also continuing to work with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to finalize the matter.

On August 19, 2014, the Company announced a voluntary recall on
certain nut butters. In connection with the voluntary recall, the
Company recorded pre-tax costs totaling $7,267,000 and $30,111,000
for the three and six months ended December 31, 2014 and
previously recorded charges of $6,000,000 in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2014. For the six months ended December 31, 2014 the
charges recorded primarily relate to returns of product from
customers ($15,773,000) and inventory on-hand and other cost of
goods sold charges ($9,429,000), and to a lesser extent consumer
refunds and other administrative costs ($4,909,000).

The Company is working with its insurance carrier to recover a
portion of these costs and is also continuing to work with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration to finalize the matter.

Additionally, while the Company anticipates certain ongoing period
costs, primarily transportation and storage costs, to be incurred
during the remainder of fiscal 2015, such costs are not
anticipated to be material.


HENDRIX BRANDS: Plaintiffs Amend "Hobbs" Collective Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in the class action lawsuit styled Hobbs, et
al. v. Hendrix Brands Inc., et al., was filed on March 3, 2015, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Little Rock).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-
cv-00124-BSM to the proceeding.  The lawsuit is assigned to Judge
Brian S. Miller.

The collective action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for wages owed.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Ford, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  maryna@johnholleman.net
                  matthew@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

Defendants Hendrix Brands Inc. and Timothy Chappell are
represented by:

          Amber Davis-Tanner, Esq.
          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Joseph R. Falasco, Esq.
          Amber Davis-Tanner, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1784
          E-mail: adtanner@qgtb.com
                  cchiles@qgtb.com
                  jfalasco@qgtb.com
                  adtanner@qgtb.com

Defendants Three Buddies Incorporated and Ben Bisenthal are
represented by:

          Ashley R. Hudson, Esq.
          Genoveva Gilbert, Esq.
          James Matthew Gary, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975-3116
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com
                  genoveva.gilbert@kutakrock.com
                  james.gary@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
          Telephone: (479) 973-4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: scott.jackson@kutakrock.com


HMSHOST CORP: Class Is Entitled to Unpaid Wages, N.J. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Babar Malik and Rita St. George v. HMSHost Corporation, Host
International, Inc., and Host Services of New York, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01607-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 3, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for
all hours worked by them, as well as for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

HMSHost Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by
Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an
Italian corporation.  Host International, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Bethesda.  Host Services of New York,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation also headquartered in Bethesda.

The Defendants, directly and through their subsidiaries, are one
of the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise and
food and beverage concessions.  The Defendants have operations in
a number of the largest airports in North America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com
                  Jklafter@klafterolsen.com
                  frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
          BERGER & ASSOCIATES
          321 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-1900


HOME DEPOT: Navigant Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Navigant Credit Union v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00065, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00656-TWT to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Pellegrino, Esq.
          PARTRIDGE, SNOW & HAHN LLP
          40 Westminster Street, Suite 1100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 861-8200
          Facsimile: (401) 861-8210
          E-mail: djp@psh.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Snow, Esq.
          PARTRIDGE SNOW & HAHN LLP
          180 South Main Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 861-8200
          E-mail: ses@psh.com


HURLEY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial and Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lola Lucio, Individually v. Hurley Medical Center, A Non-Profit
Hospital; Beth Friedt, An Individual; Becky Lawrence, An
Individual; Mitra Tewari, An Indivdiual; and Robert Pavelich, An
Individual, Case No. 2:15-cv-10799-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 4,
2015) alleges that the Defendants targeted the Plaintiff for
discriminatory and arbitrary treatment on account of her race and
gender.

Ms. Lucio is a female of Hispanic descent and is an individual
with a disability within the meaning of Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Hurley Medical Center is located in Flint, Michigan.  Hurley is a
public entity established and organized under the laws of
Michigan.  Hurley is charged with the operation of the public
teaching hospital, and promulgates the policies, practices,
customs, and usages in furtherance thereof.  The Individual
Defendants are officers, employees or agents of Hurley.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pete M. Monismith, Esq.
          PETE M. MONISMITH, PC
          3945 Forbes Ave., #175
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          Telephone: (724) 610-1881
          Facsimile: (412) 258-1309
          E-mail: Pete@monismithlaw.com


IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Spira" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Malky Spira, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. IC System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01095 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2015) seeks relief pursuant to 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


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Phase 1 of VLT Certification Proceedings Done
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended January 3, 2015 (presented as
December 31, 2014), that on April 26, 2012, representatives of a
purported class of persons allegedly harmed by video lottery
terminal (VLT) gaming filed an action in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has
impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game
Technology and other third party defendants seeking
indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic
Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court
has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases.
Under Phase 1, the Court was to determine whether the plaintiffs
have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on
June 6 and 7, 2013. In Phase 1 of the class action certification
application, the Court ruled that the claim discloses arguable
causes of action. Phase 2 of the certification application will
determine whether there are sufficient common issues raised in the
claim and whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Entered Into MOU in Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended January 3, 2015 (presented as
December 31, 2014), that IGT and other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with respect to settlement with the
remaining parties in the shareholder class actions relating to the
transaction with GTECH S.p.A.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Company's entry into a
merger agreement with GTECH S.p.A., various putative shareholder
class action complaints have been filed by purported shareholders
of the Company. As of November 12, 2014, the Company had received
the following complaints, each filed in the Eighth Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County:  Klein v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704058-B,
filed July 18, 2014; Steinberg v. International Game Technology,
et al., Case No. A-14-704098-C, filed July 21, 2014; Kanter v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704101-C,
filed July 21, 2014; Tong v. International Game Technology, et
al., Case No. A-14-704140-B, filed July 21, 2014; MacDougall v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704147-C,
filed July 22, 2014; Longo v. International Game Technology, et
al., Case No. A-14-704277-B, filed July 23, 2014; Kitchen v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704286-C,
filed July 23, 2014; Gonzalez, et al. v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704288-C, filed July 23, 2014;
Krol v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704330-C, filed July 24, 2014; Irving Firemen's Relief &
Retirement Fund v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No.
A-14-704334-B, filed July 24, 2014; Neumann v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704393-B, filed July 25, 2014;
Taber v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704403-B, filed July 25, 2014; Aberman v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704454-B, filed July 27, 2014;
Epstein, et al. v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No.
A-14-704509-B, filed July 28, 2014; Lowinger v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704759-B, filed July 30, 2014;
Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704849-B, filed August 1, 2014; Braunstein v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704210-B, filed July 22, 2014;
and Weston v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-
14-704856-C, filed August 1, 2014.

In addition, the following related complaints were filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark
County, but have been voluntarily dismissed: Zak v. International
Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704095-C, filed July 21,
2014 and dismissed September 16, 2014; Lerman v. International
Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704287-C, filed July 23,
2014 and dismissed July 31, 2014; and Iron Workers District
Council of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Welfare, Pension & Annuity
Plans v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704409-C, filed July 25, 2014 and dismissed August 22, 2014.

The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated shareholders of the Company and generally allege that the
members of the IGT board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to IGT shareholders by approving the proposed merger
transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger
agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices and
failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to IGT
shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against IGT and
GTECH, and, in some cases, certain of GTECH's subsidiaries, for
aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against
the completion of the transaction, or, alternatively, damages in
favor of the plaintiffs and the class in the event that the
transaction is completed. Certain of the complaints also seek, in
the event that the transaction is completed, rescission of the
transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the class. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in these lawsuits.

On October 2, 2014, the District Court held a hearing and granted
motions to consolidate the cases and appointed interim lead
plaintiffs and lead and liaison plaintiffs' counsel. This
consolidated action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada for Clark County is captioned In re International
Game Technology Shareholders' Litigation, Case No. A-14-704058-B.

On February 2, 2015, IGT and the other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with respect to settlement with the
remaining parties in this action, together with all related
consolidated cases. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding,
the parties expect to execute a stipulation of settlement, subject
to court approval. The settlement terms will provide that the
litigation will be dismissed with prejudice against all
defendants. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, IGT, GTECH and HoldCo have made certain
supplemental disclosures in the IGT Proxy Statement/Prospectus
dated January 2, 2015.  In addition, subject to the terms and
conditions of the memorandum of understanding, GTECH waived any
right to any portion of certain termination fees under the Merger
Agreement in excess of $98.0 million.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Oregon Lottery Action Seeks $134MM in Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended January 3, 2015 (presented as
December 31, 2014), that on December 31, 2014 a representative of
a purported class of persons alleged to have been financially
harmed by relying on the auto hold feature of various
manufacturers' video poker machines played in Oregon, filed suit
against the Oregon State Lottery and various manufacturers,
including IGT.  The matter was filed in the Circuit Court for the
State of Oregon, County of Multnomah and is captioned Justin
Curzi, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. Oregon State Lottery, IGT (Inc.), GTECH USA, LLC,
and WMS Gaming Inc.(case number 14CV20598).  The suit alleges the
auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by players as
providing the best possible playing strategy that will maximize
the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold feature does
not maximize the players' odds of winning.  The suit seeks in
excess of $134.0 million in monetary damages.  IGT has signed a
Joint Representation Agreement with another manufacturer, GTECH.
IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in
the lawsuit.


INTL FCSTONE: Securities Case Plaintiff May Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in a
securities litigation was given until March 6, 2015 to amend its
complaint.

In January 2014, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and
claims that the Company has issued false and misleading
information concerning the Company's business and prospects. The
action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and
December 16, 2013. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was
filed in June 2014. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint
was filed in July 2014.

At the court hearing on February 4, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted and the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed. The
plaintiff has until March 6, 2015 to amend its complaint.

The Company has determined that losses related to this matter are
not probable. Because the matter is in the early stages of
litigation and no discovery has been commenced, together with the
inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation
generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to
determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with
respect to these matters. The Company believes the case is without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company's
Directors' and Officers' insurance policy is expected to cover any
liability and litigation costs in excess of the $0.5 million
policy retention amount.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued in Indiana Over Xarelto-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherman Ray Kolter v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a
Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC;
Janssen Ortho LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer Corporation; Bayer
Healthcare, LLC; Bayer Healthcare AG; and Bayer AG, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00025-TWP-WGH (S.D. Ind., March 4, 2015) arises from alleged
injuries resulting from use of Xarelto.

The Plaintiff was prescribed and used Xarelto, also known as
rivaroxaban to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism
associated with non-valvular atrial fibrulation.

The Defendants negligently and fraudulently represented to the
medical and healthcare community, the Food and Drug
Administration, to the Plaintiff and the public in general, that
Xarelto had been tested and was found to be safe and effective for
its indicated use, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested,
advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Xarelto.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM - DOTHAN, P.C.
          111 East Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 673-1555
          Facsimile: (334) 699-7229
          E-mail: JLane@Cochranfirm.com
                  JoeLane@Cochranfirm.com

               - and -

          Dana R. Kolter, Esq.
          P.O. box 2199
          Louisville, KY 40201
          Telephone: (502) 584-3000
          Facsimile: (502) 584-2491
          E-mail: dana@danakolter.com
                  drkwabash@aol.com


JOYFUL BAKERY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Xing Lin, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Feng Xian He, Yonggang Mei, Individually and Joyful
Bakery & Cafe Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-RJD-CLP (E.D.N.Y.,
March 4, 2015) seeks the recovery of alleged unpaid wages and
related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Joyful is a New York Corporation.  Joyful is a bakery/cafe located
in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners and
operators of Joyful.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 960,
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
          E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Newett" and "Farias" Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that two purported
securities class actions (the "Class Actions") were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its officers, John
Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur. The Class Actions, which were filed
on January 23 and February 2, 2015, respectively, are captioned:
Newett v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00347 and Farias v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-
00478. The complaints filed in the Class Actions, which are
substantially identical, allege that all defendants violated
Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or
misleading statements to purchasers of the Company's stock
regarding the Company's financial projections and performance
between May 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015. The complaints also
allege that Messrs. Barbour and Arthur violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaints seek class certification, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The foregoing is a
summary of the allegations in the complaints and is subject to the
text of the complaints, which are on file with the Court. Based on
a review of the complaints, the Company and the individual
defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The
Company believes that the amount of liability related to these
matters, if any, is not currently probable or estimable.


LIFE PHARMACY: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Rico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Life Pharmacy, Inc., Life Infusions Corp. d/b/a Life
Infusions Pharmacy, and Elan Guttman, Case No. 1:15-cv-01630-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015) is brought to remedy alleged overtime
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and various
violations of the New York Labor Law, including overtime, straight
time, and wage notice violations.

Life Pharmacy, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation with a
principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York.  The Brooklyn
location operates as a traditional pharmacy that is open to the
public for walk-in pharmaceutical services.

Life Infusions Corp. is a New York domestic corporation with a
principal place of business in the Bronx, New York.  Life
Infusions Pharmacy operates as a specialty pharmacy, specializing
in complex oral and infusion therapies.  Elan Guttman owns and
operates the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
          1 School Street
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Suit Over Use of Telephone Equipment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Peter Ward, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LoanDepot.com, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00336-
GKS-KRS (M.D. Fla., March 3, 2015) arises from restrictions on use
of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
          2254 Riverside Avenue
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 374-0111
          Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
          E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Balero" Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Balero, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. RG14751116, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-01005-DMR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and similarly situated
persons in California, who have purchased the Defendant's laminate
wood flooring products that were manufactured in China, labeled as
California Air Resources Board compliant, and sold to consumers in
California at any time from January 1, 2011, through the date of
judgment.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's products
exceeded the CARB limits for formaldehyde emissions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda Mary Dardarian, Esq.
          Andrew Paul Lee, Esq.
          Megan E. Ryan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: ldar@gbdhlegal.com
                  alee@gbdhlegal.com
                  mryan@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq.
          Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Esq.
          LOZEAU DRURY LLP
          410 12th Street, Suite 250
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 836-4200
          Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
          E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
                  richard@lozeaudrury.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Lewis Stern, Esq.
          William Francis Tarantino, Esq.
          Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6458
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
                  wtarantino@mofo.com
                  lwroblewski@mofo.com
                  lwongchenko@mofo.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Advisor Trainees Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blum and Zaq Harrison, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01636-JGK (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015)
is brought on behalf of similarly situated current and former
salaried Financial Advisor Trainees and persons in similar
positions regardless of their precise titles, who performed work
for the Defendants while in the Development Stage of the
Defendants' Practice Management Development Program.

The Plaintiffs are former Financial Advisor Trainees employed by
the Defendants in the "Development Stage" of their PMD Program.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully denied
Development Stage Trainees pay for overtime hours they worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law.

Defendants Merrill Lynch& Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of America
Corporation, provide financial and investment services to
customers across the United States, and manage over $2 trillion in
client assets.  Bank of America Corporation is one of the largest
banks in the United States and one of the largest brokerage firms
in the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  rmb@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Katrina L. Eiland, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          1 Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (347) 390-2187
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  keiland@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561)447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


MI WINDOWS: Obtains Initial OK of Product Liability Case Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton granted preliminarily approval of a
settlement in IN RE MI WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC., PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, NOS. MDL NO. 2333, 2:12-MN-00001, (D. S.C.).

The Court preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only,
the nationwide Settlement Class defined as: All Persons in the
United States or its Territories who own, owned, or have a legal
obligation to maintain or repair a MIWD Product. The Settlement
Class contains a "Homeowner Settlement Class" and a
"Contractor/Construction Settlement Class."

The Homeowner Settlement Class

All Persons that purchased or came into ownership of (through
assignment, transfer, or otherwise) Affected Property containing
MIWD's Product as well as all Persons who have a legal obligation
to maintain or repair the MIWD Product. The Homeowner Settlement
Class does not include members of the Contractor/Construction
Settlement Class. Nor does the Homeowner Settlement Class include
any Persons who have previously settled and released their claims
against MIWD involving or related to all their MIWD Product, or
had their claims dismissed with prejudice in court, or accepted a
final remedy from MIWD involving or related to all their MIWD
Product as evidenced by a written document (such Persons shall be
barred from any further recovery).

The Contractor/Construction Settlement Class

All Persons who, while engaged in the business of residential
construction, were involved in any respect in causing MIWD's
Product to be acquired for or installed into Affected Property,
and also includes all Persons who continue to own such Affected
Property at the time of Notice (including developers, builders,
contractors, subcontractors, and all other persons or entities
involved in the purchase, installation, or supervision of the
installation of MIWD's Product). The Contractor/Construction
Settlement Class does not include members of the Homeowner
Settlement Class. Nor does the Contractor/Construction Settlement
Class include any Persons who have previously settled and
released their claims against MIWD involving or related to all
their MIWD Product, or had their claims dismissed with prejudice
in court, or accepted a final remedy from MIWD involving or
related to all their MIWD Product as evidenced by a written
document (such Persons shall be barred from any further
recovery).

Included within the Settlement Class are the legal
representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees, and
assignees of all such foregoing holders and/or owners of Affected
Property.

The Court preliminarily found that

* Named Plaintiffs Nadine Johnson, David R. Van Such, Craig
Hildebrand, Joseph DeBlaker, Mike and Janeen Meifert, Jackie
Vargas Borkouski, Kerry Dewitt, Arthur and Susan Ferguson, Gregory
and Kristy Kathman, Alex Krueger, Gail Loder, James Lovingood,
Thomas Boettinger, John Oriolt, Jamie Reed, Patricia Lane, Larry
Taylor, Jacquiline Ward, Manzoor and Sosi Wani, David Deem, John
W. McCubbrey and Elizabeth D. McCubbrey, Daniel Kennedy, Charles
Bradley, Jennifer and Scott McGaffin, Jessica Zepeda, and
Stevenson T. Womack, have claims typical of the members of the
Homeowner Settlement Class and are adequate class representatives
for the Homeowner Settlement Class.

* Named Plaintiff Lakes of Summerville has claims typical of the
Contractor/Construction Settlement Class and is an adequate class
representative for the Contractor/Construction Settlement Class.

* Homeowner Settlement Class Counsel is adequate to serve as
Homeowner Settlement Class Counsel and preliminarily appoints this
professional as counsel for the class:

   Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
   WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
   900 W. Morgan St.
   Raleigh, NC 27603

        - and -

   Justin O. Lucey, Esq.
   JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY
   PA 415 Mill St.
   Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

* Contractor/Construction Class Counsel is adequate to serve as
Contractor/Construction Class Counsel and preliminarily appoints
this professional as counsel for the Contractor/Construction
Settlement Class:

   H. Blair Hahn, Esq.
   RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK, & BRICKMAN, LLC
   1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
   Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

        - and -

   Walter H. Bundy, Jr., Esq.
   SMITH, BUNDY, BYBEE & BARNETT, P.C.
   Post Office Box 1542
   Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465-1542

Any member of the Settlement Class who desires to request
exclusion ("opt-out") from the Settlement Class must submit to the
Claims Administrator an appropriate, timely request for exclusion
to the address stated in the Notice on or before May 28, 2015.

A hearing on the Final Approval of the Settlement will be held
before the Court on June 30, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

Judge Norton further held that pending Motions to Amend are
granted; Class Counsel for Homeowners and Contractors must file
Amended Complaints within 10 days of the entry of the February 27,
2015 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/LCoFSp
from Leagle.com.

Contractor Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Catherine H McElveen -- kmcelveen@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman.

Homeowner Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Justin O'Toole Lucey -- jlucey@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole
Lucey Law Firm.

Homeowner Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel K Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Daniel Kent Bryson, Whitfield Bryson and Mason & Justin O'Toole
Lucey, Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm.

Contractor Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by H
Blair Hahn -- bhahn@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
Brickman.

MI Windows and Doors Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew S
Chamberlin -- andrew.chamberlin@elliswinters.com -- Ellis and
Winters LLP, Carol C Lumpkin -- carol.lumpkin@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates, Curtis J Shipley -- curtis.shipley@elliswinters.com --
Ellis and Winters LLP, Kyle V Miller -- kyle.miller@butlersnow.com
-- Butler Snow, Lauren E Tucker  McCubbin --
ltucker@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Lem E Montgomery --
lem.montgomery@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow, Steven Wayne Ouzts -
- SOUZTS@TURNERPADGET.COM -- Turner Padget Graham and Laney,
Thomas H Pinkley, Butler Snow & Richard Ashby Farrier, Jr --
Richard.FarrierJr@klgates.com --  K&L Gates.

J.T. Walker Industries, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Daniel F
Blanchard, III -- dblanchard@rrhlawfirm.com -- Rosen Rosen and
Hagood & Richard S Rosen -- rsrosen@rrhlawfirm.com -- Rosen Rosen
and Hagood.


MOODY JONES: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chante Dove, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Moody, Jones, Ingino & Morehead, P.A., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00251-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5722 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@attorneysforconsumers.com


NAVISTAR INT'L: Storey Suit Transferred From Alabama to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Storey Trucking Company Inc., et
al. v. Navistar International Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00244,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01707 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action for alleged unfair,
unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, breach of express and
implied warranties, and related claims, on behalf of themselves
and all current and former purchasers and lessees statewide of
2008-2013 model year Navistar vehicles equipped with Maxxforce
Advanced EGR diesel engines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Percy Badham, Esq.
          Brannon J. Buck, Esq.
          Brett A. Ialacci, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2001 Park Place N., Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          Facsimile: (205) 521-0037
          E-mail: pbadham@badhambuck.com
                  bbuck@badhambuck.com
                  bialacci@badhambuck.com

               - and -

          E. Allen Dodd, Jr.
          SCRUGGS, DODD &BRISENDINE, PA
          207 Alabama Avenue SW
          Fort Payne, AL 35968
          Telephone: (256) 845-5932
          Facsimile: (256) 845-4325
          E-mail: eadscruggs@farmerstel.com


NEW BALANCE: Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation, d/b/a New Balance, and 150 5th Avenue
Office LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01574-PKC (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) is brought for injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Parenteau is a tetraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation
doing business as New Balance in New York.  150 5th Avenue Office
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to conduct
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


OBK CENTER: Removes "Velazques" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Velazques v. OBK Center, Corp.,
et al., Case No. 15-001986 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20871-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, 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: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher John Whitelock, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES
          300 SE 13th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154
          Telephone: (954) 463-2001
          Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
          E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: "Schmidt" Case Has Ended Against Company
------------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that in June 2012,
the Company was named, along with other parties, as a defendant in
a putative class action lawsuit brought, as amended, by Alan
Schmidt, individually, and on behalf of Genaera Corporation and
the Genaera Liquidating Trust.

"We purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. On
August 12, 2013, the court dismissed each of the plaintiff's
claims against the Company," the Company said.

The litigation has ended with respect to claims against the
Company, and management believes that it is unlikely that the
litigation continuing against other parties will have a material
adverse impact on the Company's financial condition.


PARAMOUNT GOLD: Faces Class Action Over Coeur Mining Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that since the
announcement of the merger on December 17, 2014, the Company was
named as a defendant in six putative stockholder class action,
brought by a purported stockholders of Paramount, challenging the
proposed merger (the "Complaints"). The Complaints were filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware.

"The plaintiffs generally claim that the board of directors of our
Parent breached their fiduciary duties to Paramount stockholders
by authorizing the merger with Coeur Mining for what the
plaintiffs assert is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an
allegedly inadequate process.  Paramount, members of the Paramount
board and the Company deny any wrongdoing and are vigorously
defending all of the actions," the Company said.


RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial This Year on Remaining Class Action Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
has indicated that the issues remaining in a class action lawsuit
will be scheduled for trial in 2015.

The Company and subsidiaries RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc.
("RCI NY") and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. ("Peregrine") have been
defendants in a federal court collective and class action, pending
since March 30, 2009, in the Southern District of New York
relating to wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Company, RCI NY
and Peregrine deny liability in this matter, are vigorously
defending the allegations and have asserted counterclaims and
affirmative defenses for offset and unjust enrichment. Discovery
has been completed.

On September 10, 2013, the court ruled on the parties' motions for
summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Plaintiffs on liability on their causes of action for minimum
wage under the FLSA and NYLL and held that entertainers at Rick's
NY are employees.  The court further held that Peregrine was an
employer of the Plaintiffs and that under federal law, Rick's NY's
statutory duty to pay minimum wages was not satisfied by the
performance fees Plaintiffs' received.   The court denied the
Plaintiffs' attempt to hold the Company or RCI NY liable as joint
employers with Peregrine and the issue of whether the Company and
RCI NY are also employers will be determined at a trial.

On November 18, 2013, the court set the class end date as October
31, 2012 and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
Claim Five of their complaint, holding that the Club's fines fees
and tip-out requirements violated New York State law.

On November 14, 2014, following motion practice by the parties,
the court issued an order holding that: (a) under New York law,
the performance fees paid by Plaintiffs do not offset Defendants'
minimum wage obligations; (b) holding Peregrine liable on Claim
Four of the Complaint; (c) denying Defendants' motion to strike
the reports and testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness; (d)
denying Defendants' motion to decertify the Rule 23 class; (e)
granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to
damages on Claim One and Two of the Complaint (for minimum wage
under the FLSA and the NYLL) in the amount of $10,866,035 and
granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to damages on
Claim Four of the Complaint but finding that an issue of fact
exists as to whether Plaintiff's were actually required to pay
certain "tip outs" and thus denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on that issue.

The Court has indicated that the issues remaining in the action
will be scheduled for trial in 2015.

Ultimately, the Company, RCI NY and Peregrine intend to appeal the
rulings, including seeking the court's permission to appeal
certain issues immediately rather than after trial.


REALTY INCOME: Faces "Mielo" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Realty Income Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00306-CRE (W.D. Pa., March 4, 2015) alleges violations of The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


RED BULL: Deadline to File Cash Settlement Claims Passes
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC13 reports that for more than two decades, Red Bull has been
using the slogan "Red Bull gives you wings," though according to
some disappointed customers, that's just not true. And if you've
bought a Red Bull in the past 12 years, you're eligible for a cash
settlement.

March 2 was the last day to claim your cash.

According to industry publication BevNET, the energy drink company
agreed last year to pay out $13,000,000 to settle the U.S. class
action lawsuit that had accused the energy drink company of false
and misleading advertising claims.

Plaintiff Benjamin Careathers claimed he had been drinking Red
Bull since 2002 before filing the lawsuit in 2013 in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Careathers argued that Red Bull had mislead him and consumers
about the product's excellence with the slogan "Red Bull gives you
wings," and claims of increased performance, concentration and
reaction speed.

"Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that (Red Bull's)
advertising and marketing is not just 'puffery,' but is instead
deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable," the suit
argued.

The settlement may include the millions of people who had
purchased at least one Red Bull can in the past 12 years.  Red
Bull has offered class members the option of choosing either a $10
reimbursement, or $15 worth of Red Bull products.

That's right.  If you bought a Red Bull between January 1st, 2002
and October 3rd, 2014, Red Bull wants to make things right.  All
you have to do is register by the deadline and you're on your way
to either some cold hard cash or liquid sugar, take your pick. No
proof of purchase required.

There is a catch: If too many people apply, Red Bull has the right
to lower the amount each customer gets, though we won't know if
they do that until after the deadline.

In a correspondence with BevNET, Red Bull issued a statement:

"Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of
litigation.  However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and
labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any
and all wrongdoing or liability."

Despite denials of any wrongdoing, Red Bull has pulled and revised
some marketing claims that were challenged in court, according to
BevNET.


REEBOK INT'L: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Reebok International Ltd., a Massachusetts
corporation, and Crossfit, Inc., a Delaware corporation d/b/a
Reebok/Crossfit, and 22 E14 LLC, a New York limited liability
company, Case No. 1:15-cv-01577-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) is an
action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Parenteau is a tetraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Reebok International Ltd., a Massachusetts corporation, and
Crossfit, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Reebok/Crossfit, and
22 E 14 LLC, a New York limited liability company, are authorized
to conduct, and are conducting business within the state of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,885 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., has been served in 3,885 of Engle
Progeny cases on behalf of approximately 4,959 plaintiffs.

In Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Florida Supreme Court
issued a ruling in 2006 that, while determining that the case
could not proceed further as a class action, permitted members of
the Engle class to file individual claims, including claims for
punitive damages, through January 11, 2008. RJR Tobacco refers to
these cases as the Engle Progeny cases. As of December 31, 2014,
RJR Tobacco has been served in 3,885 of these cases on behalf of
approximately 4,959 plaintiffs.

The Engle Progeny cases have resulted and will continue to result
in increased litigation and trial activity and increased product
liability defense costs. Outstanding jury verdicts in favor of the
Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered against RJR Tobacco in
the amount of $136,123,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted)
and in the amount of $163,242,000 in punitive damages, for a total
of $299,365,200. All of these verdicts are in various stages in
the appellate process.

An accrual of $3.9 million has been recorded in RAI's consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2014 for the following Engle
Progeny cases -- Hiott, Starr-Blundell, Clayton, Webb and Ward.
This amount includes $2.1 million for compensatory and punitive
damages and $1.8 million for attorneys' fees and statutory
interest through December 31, 2014. During the fourth quarter of
2014, aggregate payments of $14.6 million were made: $12 million
for compensatory and punitive damages and $2.6 million for
attorneys' fees and statutory interest, in satisfaction of the
adverse judgments in the Schlenther, Virginia Williams and Odum
cases.

As of December 31, 2014, an accrual of $10 million is included in
the consolidated balance sheet for estimated costs of the
corrective communications in connection with the U.S. Department
of Justice case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing Set in Remaining Filter Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial court set
February 26, 2015, for a hearing to address the remaining
ventilated filter claim, which is not expected to result in more
than 30 remaining plaintiffs, in the consolidated action, In re:
Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases.

The consolidated action, In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual
Personal Injury Cases, is pending in West Virginia, against both
RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  On April 15,
2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a virtually
complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The only claim remaining
after the verdict was the jury's finding that all ventilated
filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1,
1969, were defective for a failure to instruct. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims lost by the
plaintiffs and purporting to make those claims and all of the jury
rulings immediately subject to appeal.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013. In October 2014, the
West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, issuing an
opinion without oral argument. In January 2015, the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing was denied. The trial court set February
26, 2015, for a hearing to address the remaining ventilated filter
claim, which is not expected to result in more than 30 remaining
plaintiffs.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 7 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that during the fourth
quarter of 2014, seven tobacco-related cases, including one Engle
Progeny case, were served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees. On December 31, 2014, there were 177 cases pending
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees: 161 in the
United States and 16 in Canada, as compared with 165 total cases
on December 31, 2013. The U.S. case number does not include the
approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia
state court as a consolidated action, 3,885 Engle Progeny cases,
involving approximately 4,959 individual plaintiffs, and 2,558
Broin II cases (as hereinafter defined), pending in the United
States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. Of
the U.S. cases pending on December 31, 2014, 14 are pending in
federal court, 146 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily
in the following states: Maryland (29 cases); Florida (26 cases);
Missouri (18 cases); and New York (13 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 697 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Federal Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
697 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,188
of them were pending in state court.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are
commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases.  As of December 31,
2014, 697 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and
3,188 of them were pending in state court. These cases include
approximately 4,959 plaintiffs.

In addition, as of December 31, 2014, RJR Tobacco was aware of 16
additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served.
One hundred twenty-one Engle Progeny cases have been tried in
Florida state and federal courts since the beginning of 2011, and
numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of
pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including
voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include
cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment,"
referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement,"
from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if
rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's right to
recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a
verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made
through court-ordered mediations.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Engle Progeny Cases Final Through Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that twenty-eight Engle
Progeny cases have become final through December 31, 2014. These
cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $213.4
million ($162.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and
$51.3 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest). During
the fourth quarter of 2014, aggregate payments of $14.6 million
were made: $12 million for compensatory and punitive damages and
$2.6 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest in
satisfaction of the adverse judgments in the Schlenther, Virginia
Williams and Odum cases. Based on RJR Tobacco's evaluation, an
accrual of $3.9 million ($2.1 million for compensatory and
punitive damages and $1.8 million for attorneys' fees and
statutory interest for Hiott, Starr-Blundell, Clayton, Webb and
Ward) was recorded in RAI's consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $299MM Judgments for Engle Progeny Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs
have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in
the amount of $136,123,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted)
and in the amount of $163,242,000 in punitive damages, for a total
of $299,365,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in
the appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it
has valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues
beyond the due process issue. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and
its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking and health claims,
including in Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle
Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny
case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can
be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could
have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI
in a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition
for Engle Progeny cases as of December 31, 2014, is consistent
with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition
for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of
RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time
as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 31, 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that six cases, exclusive of
Engle Progeny cases, are scheduled for trial as of December 31,
2014 through December 31, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates
and indemnities.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other
cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-
related trials in 2015. There are six cases, exclusive of Engle
Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2014 through
December 31, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and
indemnitees: two non-smoking and health cases and four individual
smoking and health cases. There are approximately 76 Engle Progeny
cases against RJR Tobacco and/or Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
set for trial through December 31, 2015, but it is not known how
many of these cases will actually be tried

From January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014, 127 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including seven
trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original
proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some
cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 64
cases, including 19 mistrials, tried in Florida (61), Missouri (1)
and West Virginia (2). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were
returned in 58 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three
cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida
was a retrial only as to the amount of damages.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Non-Engle Progeny Smoking Cases Tried in Q4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the fourth quarter of
2014, no non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health cases in
which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, 11 Engle Progeny cases in which RJR
Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

-- In Lourie v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Barbara
Lourie, to be 63% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 3% at fault and the
remaining defendants collectively to be 34% at fault, and awarded
approximately $1.37 million in compensatory damages. Punitive
damages were not awarded.

-- In Kerrivan v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 19%
at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 31% at fault and the remaining
defendant to be 50% at fault; and awarded $15.8 million in
compensatory damages, and $9.6 million and $15.7 million in
punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and the remaining defendant,
respectively.

-- In Russo v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., the court declared a
mistrial because of the inability to seat a jury.

-- In Bishop v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

-- In Taylor v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 42%
at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault, and awarded
approximately $4.5 million in compensatory damages and
approximately $521,000 in punitive damages.

-- In the Webb v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. damages retrial, the
jury returned a verdict of $900,000 in compensatory damages and
$450,000 in punitive damages.

-- In Schleider v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Andrew
Schleider, to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault,
and awarded $21 million in compensatory damages.

-- In Perrotto v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Nicholas
Perrotto, to be 49% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 20% at fault and
the remaining defendants collectively to be 31% at fault, and
awarded approximately $4.1 million in compensatory damages, but
refused to award punitive damages.

-- In the Andy Allen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. retrial, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the
decedent to be 70% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 24% at fault and
the remaining defendant to be 6% at fault, and awarded $3.1
million in compensatory damages and approximately $7.8 million in
punitive damages against each defendant.

-- In Starbuck v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

-- In Haliburton v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

In addition, since the end of the fourth quarter of 2014, a
decision was entered in the following Engle Progeny case:

-- In Gray v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Henry Gray,
to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded
$6 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not
awarded.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, no non-Engle Progeny individual
smoking and health cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were
tried.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 96 Individual Smoking Cases Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
96 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR
Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., as its indemnitee, or
both. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle Progeny or
West Virginia IPIC cases. A total of 94 of the individual cases
are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers or their
survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by or on
behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, referred
to as ETS.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,558 Broin II lawsuits Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
there were 2,558 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have
been no Broin II trials since 2007.

RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and other cigarette
manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in
October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on
behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases
or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The
settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies
to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million
installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to
fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases
associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to
pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and
expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was
approximately $86 million; B&W's portion of these payments was
approximately $57 million. The settlement agreement bars class
members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive
damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they
are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud
or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other
alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed
that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation." With respect to all other issues
relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the individual
plaintiff will have the burden of proof.

On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the
settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this
case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to
all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement
agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to
prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or
negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in
the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear
the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects
actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that
is, specific causation.

As of December 31, 2014, there were 2,558 Broin II lawsuits
pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in Sateriale Case to Begin Nov. 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial in the case
Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is scheduled to begin
November 3, 2015.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that
in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of
Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs,
attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that
the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange
for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices,
deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and
expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all
persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem
Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before
the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the
class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of
all California residents meeting the same criteria. In May 2010,
RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of
jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure
to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In
December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court, and the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.

In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.

In June 2014, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for summary judgment, and
the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Oral
arguments on those motions were held on September 15, 2014.

On December 19, 2014, the court certified a class of California
residents who hold Camel Cash certificates which were distributed
between 1992 and the program's termination on October 1, 2006.

On January 2, 2015, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order on class certification. Briefing on the
motion is to occur in the first quarter of 2015, with a hearing
scheduled for March 30, 2015. Trial is scheduled to begin November
3, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Cases Pending in Illinois, Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that "lights" class-action
cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC,
historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in
December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in Philip Morris's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing is underway in
Philip Morris's appeal in the "Price" class-action case.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.

On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court
with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the
same day.

In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009.

In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip
Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the
trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial
court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the
judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois
Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.

In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In
May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal.

On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear
Philip Morris's appeal. Briefing is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a status conference is
scheduled for February 25, 2015 in the case Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of
the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned, which the judge
denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy
order request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court
granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final
appeal decision in Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference was
scheduled for February 25, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in
December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order
staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. case mentioned. The plaintiffs appealed this stay
order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is
currently no activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a "lights" class-action
case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A status conference is scheduled for February 22,
2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March
2006. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an amended claim was
filed in December 2014 in the case Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited.

The following seven putative Canadian class actions were filed
against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in
courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs'
counsel have been actively pursuing only the action pending in
British Columbia at this time:

-- In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from
the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their
dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes
manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits
and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care
benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

-- In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

-- In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

-- In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who
were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan
court.

-- In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and
suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the
jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a
motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in
support in August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December
2014.

-- In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.

-- In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for
health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Cases Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
all of the federal and state court antitrust cases on behalf of
indirect purchasers had been dismissed.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., in federal and state courts, alleging
that cigarette manufacturers combined and conspired to set the
price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and various
state unfair business practices statutes. In these cases, the
plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class
actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes
directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants. As of
December 31, 2014, all of the federal and state court cases on
behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal Order Entered in "Villarreal" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consent order of
dismissal of remaining claims with prejudice in the case, Richard
Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., was signed by the judge
on January 16, 2015, and entered on January 20, 2015.

In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint
against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and
CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Georgia. The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with
respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional
sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.621, et seq.). Although the
complaint is currently a single plaintiff case, the complaint
seeks collective/class-action status.

RJR Tobacco's and Pinstripe's motion for partial dismissal was
granted on March 6, 2013, thereby eliminating the plaintiff's
disparate impact claim and limiting the relevant time period for
both the plaintiff's claims and potential class claims. RJR
Tobacco and Pinstripe filed answers to the remaining disparate
treatment claim on March 20, 2013. Defendant CareerBuilder was
dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2012. Discovery is
currently proceeding.

The plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion to certify for immediate
appeal the trial court's prior dismissal of plaintiff's disparate
impact and time-barred claims was granted on May 21, 2014. Final
judgment as to certain claims (those claims based on a disparate
impact theory of relief and claims challenging hiring decisions
made before November 19, 2009) was entered on May 21, 2014. The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment on June
18, 2014.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal on
July 3, 2014, which was granted by the Eleventh Circuit on
September 22, 2014. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal was denied by the Eleventh Circuit on December 4,
2014.

The plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss remaining
claims on January 14, 2015. A consent order of dismissal of the
remaining claims with prejudice was signed by the judge on January
16, 2015, and entered on January 20, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by
individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages
in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the usage of American Snuff Co.'s smokeless tobacco
products. These actions are pending before the same West Virginia
court as the smoker cases against RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., as RJR Tobacco's indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to
the court's December 3, 2001 order, the smokeless tobacco claims
and defendants remain severed, and there has been no activity in
these cases for the last 14 years.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Vassallo" Case to Begin in Q1 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that pursuant to a second
amended complaint filed in September 2006, American Snuff Co. is a
defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending in
the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries,
including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of
smokeless tobacco products, allegedly including products
manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than
$15,000. There is no punitive damages demand in this case, though
the plaintiff retains the right to seek leave of court to add such
a demand later. Discovery is underway. Pursuant to the court's
scheduling order, trial is anticipated to begin in the first
quarter of 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing on Supreme Court Petition Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on the
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court
is underway in the ERISA Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and
RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June
2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which
the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered
mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September
2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June
2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed,
holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it
held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan and
remanded the case back to the district court to apply the correct
standard. On September 2, 2014, the Fourth Circuit denied the
defendants' request for rehearing en banc. The mandate from the
Fourth Circuit was issued on October 1, 2014. On November 19,
2014, the district court held a hearing and ordered briefing on
various issues that remain pending on remand, with briefs due on
various dates in January and February 2015.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Briefing on the
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court
is underway. The parties are complying with the briefing schedule
ordered by the district court.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU in Delaware Shareholder Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the third quarter of
2014, Lorillard, the members of Lorillard's Board, RAI and British
American Tobacco p.l.c., were named as defendants in 11 putative
class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by
Lorillard shareholders challenging the proposed Merger with RAI,
referred to as the Delaware Actions. The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the members of the Lorillard
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Lorillard
shareholders by authorizing the proposed merger of Lorillard with
RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the
members of the Lorillard board of directors. On November 25, 2014,
the court granted a motion for consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single action captioned In re Lorillard, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9904-CB and for appointment of lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion to expedite.

Although they believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on
January 15, 2015, the defendants (other than BAT, which was not
named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Actions. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions
agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI would make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which they did on January 20, 2015.

The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation
of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as
practicable. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation. In such event, or if the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not
consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no
force and effect.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU in North Carolina Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that RAI, the members of the
RAI board of directors and BAT have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American
Tobacco PLC, et al., No. 14-CVS-8130 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2014),
brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North
Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder
of RAI. The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014,
and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The
amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to RAI shareholders by approving the Share Purchase and the
sharing of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges
that there were various conflict of interest in the transaction,
and that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by its board of directors. The North Carolina Action seeks
injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other
remedies.

On December 5 and December 8, 2014, all defendants filed motions
to dismiss and to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss is
decided. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina
Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled
for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.

RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a
stipulation of partial settlement to be submitted to the court for
approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of partial
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the partial settlement. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of partial settlement or that the court will approve
the partial settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
a stipulation. In that event, the proposed partial settlement will
be null and void and of no force and effect. As is more fully set
forth in the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding, the
partial settlement will not resolve or terminate the non-
disclosure claims in the North Carolina Action and these claims
will continue to be litigated. In addition, the partial settlement
will not affect the consideration to be paid to Lorillard
shareholders in connection with the Merger.


RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Webber" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Webber, et al. v. Rust-Oleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02248, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01365
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:

          Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: jezrin@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com

Defendant Rust-oleum Corporation is represented by:

          Chad Matthew Clamage, Esq.
          Joshua D. Yount, Esq.
          Lori E. Lightfoot, Esq.
          Michael David Frisch, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kane, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8090
          E-mail: cclamage@mayerbrown.com
                  jdyount@mayerbrown.com
                  llightfoot@mayerbrown.com
                  mfrisch@mayerbrown.com
                  skane@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Reginald Goeke, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K St NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3241
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5241
          E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com


SANDISK CORPORATION: Trial in Ritz Camera Action to Begin June 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that trial in the Ritz
Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action is scheduled to begin on
June 22, 2015.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court.

On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to
substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1,
2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc.
and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19,
2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action
for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, which
is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the
District Court.

On February 3, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims. Trial is
scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015.


SANDISK CORPORATION: 2nd Amend Complaint Filed in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that the plaintiffs in
the federal antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al. have
filed a second amended complaint.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v.
SD-3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.

On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the
District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing
and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District
Court.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 3, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Bid to Nix Securities Case Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the federal securities class action against
Fusion-io et al. is fully briefed and has been taken under
submission by the court.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police
Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v.
Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-io's common
stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between
January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally
allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the
alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a
lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Fusion-io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23,
2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.

On September 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the
court.


SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Entered Into MOU in "Bushansky" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simplicity Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Stephen
Bushansky (the "Plantiff") filed on October 10, 2014, a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California against the Company, the directors of
the Company and HomeStreet. The lawsuit purports to be brought on
behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders, excluding the
directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by failing to take adequate measures to ensure that the interests
of Simplicity's stockholders are properly protected and by
conducting a merger process that prevents competitive bidding. The
complaint further alleges that HomeStreet aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The
lawsuit sought to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.

On January 8, 2015, the Company, the individual director
defendants of the Company and HomeStreet entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (the "MOU") with the Plaintiff regarding the
settlement of the lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOU, the Company agreed
to provide additional information to Simplicity stockholders in
its definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on January 6,
2015. The Company, HomeStreet and the other defendants deny all of
the allegations in the lawsuit.  The Company and the individual
director defendants of the Company believe the disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement of the Company filed with the SEC on
December 10, 2014 were adequate under the law. Nevertheless, the
Company, HomeStreet and the other defendants agreed to additional
disclosures in the Company's definitive proxy statement to settle
the lawsuit in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


SMARTHEAT INC: Court Denied Class Certification in Leshinsky Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the Court denied class
certification in the case Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al.,
and gave plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more
rigorous, and a far more convincing submission."

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, our
President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief Financial
Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not
officers of the Company during the alleged class period. A second
amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption
Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales.

"On May 8, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied,
the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without
prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once again filed
a motion for class certification," the Company said.  "On
September 19, 2014, we filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's
motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a
response on October 20, 2014."

"By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality,
adequacy and predominance.  Specifically, the Court found that
plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry
as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price
inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the
injury to all class members could not be established by common
proof.  In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common
issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the
adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were
typical of other class members.  The Court also expressed doubts
as to how plaintiffs would establish damages.  The Court's denial
of class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave
plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous,
and a far more convincing submission. . . "

"The pleadings and court orders are publicly available. We intend
to continue to vigorously defend this action, as we believe the
allegations against us are without merit," the Company said.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Minn. Court Dropped 2 of 3 Counts in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solera Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Minnesota court
dismissed two of the three counts in a class action lawsuit with
prejudice and, of the remaining count, dismissing one claim with
prejudice and one claim without prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, Solera, Explore, and Audatex North America,
Inc. were each served with a civil complaint filed against them
and another defendant by an insurance company third party claimant
in Minnesota state court.  The complaint seeks state-wide class
action status for similarly situated claimants, claiming that the
defendant's methodology for determining the value of total loss
vehicles violates Minnesota law.

"We filed a motion to dismiss on April 18, 2014.  The complaint
was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota and an amended complaint was filed on July
16, 2014. We and our co-defendant moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and on October 31, 2014, the Court issued an order
dismissing two of the three counts with prejudice and, of the
remaining count, dismissing one claim with prejudice and one claim
without prejudice," the Company said.


ST. PETERS, MO: "Thompson" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. removed the class action
lawsuit captioned Thompson, et al. v. St. Peters, Missouri, City
of, et al., Case No. 1511-CCF00027, from the 11th Judicial Circuit
Court, St. Charles County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00404 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs challenge the legality of certain ordinances
enacted by St. Peters relating to what is commonly referred to as
"red light camera program."  Pursuant to contracts between Redflex
and St. Peters, Redflex provided St. Peters with equipment to
operate the red light camera program.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
          Patrick A. Watts, Esq.
          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          STURYCZ WATTS, LLC
          5757 Phantom Drive, Suite 250
          St. Louis, MO 63042
          Telephone: (877) 314-3223
          Facsimile: (888) 632-6937
          E-mail: nathan@swattslaw.com
                  pwatts@swattslaw.com
                  joel@swattslaw.com

Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is represented by:

          Omri E. Praiss, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          The Plaza in Clayton
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1530
          E-mail: omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com


SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT: Removes "Faust" Class Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Faust, et al. v. Sunstate
Equipment Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2015-00002808-CU-OE-CT,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00505-JLS-MDD to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from issues relating to labor/management
relations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@aiwazian.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Greg Stephen Labate, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com


TECH COLLECTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Dick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01093
(E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Filed Certiorari Petition in Reglan Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a petition for
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on December 16,
2014, Teva said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

Teva and/or its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
approximately 4,000 product liability lawsuits brought against
them and other manufacturers by approximately 4,400 plaintiffs
claiming injuries (including allegations of neurological
disorders, such as tardive dyskinesia) from the use of
metoclopramide (the generic form of Reglan(R)). Certain of these
claims are covered by insurance. For over 20 years, the FDA-
approved label for metoclopramide has contained warning language
about the risk of tardive dyskinesia, and that the risk of
developing the disorder increases with duration of treatment and
total cumulative dose. In February 2009, the FDA announced that
manufacturers of metoclopramide would be required to revise the
label, including the addition of a "black box" warning about the
risk of tardive dyskinesia resulting from long-term usage. The
cases of approximately 500 of the plaintiffs have been dismissed
or otherwise resolved to date. Teva expects to be dismissed from
at least some of the remaining cases on the basis that some
plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they used a Teva product.
Approximately 40% of the plaintiffs are parties to cases against
Teva that are part of a mass tort proceeding in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas. These cases have been stayed pending
resolution of Teva's petition for certiorari, which was filed with
the United States Supreme Court on December 16, 2014.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Four Pliva Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that four or five cases outside the mass tort jurisdictions in
which Pliva, Inc. is a defendant are or may be scheduled for trial
in 2015.

There are mass tort proceedings under way in state courts in
California and New Jersey. In the California litigation, which now
includes about half of the total plaintiffs, the defendants'
motion to dismiss has been denied. In the New Jersey proceeding,
the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, on
federal preemption grounds, all claims other than those based on
an alleged failure to timely update the label. The appellate court
affirmed that decision, and Teva has sought leave to appeal to the
New Jersey Supreme Court. All of the cases in the New Jersey
proceeding with respect to the generic defendants have been stayed
pending resolution of the appeal. Four or five cases outside the
mass tort jurisdictions in which Pliva, Inc. is a defendant are or
may be scheduled for trial in 2015.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismissed Direct Purchaser Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's
motion to dismiss in the direct purchaser cases and requested
briefing on the impact of its ruling for the indirect purchaser
cases, Teva said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva
for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with
their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release
venlafaxine (generic Effexor(R) XR) entered into in November 2005.
The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by
a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain
pharmacies. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement
between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry.

On October 7, 2014, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in
the direct purchaser cases and requested briefing on the impact of
its ruling for the indirect purchaser cases. The parties have
submitted proposed orders that would dismiss all claims against
Teva so that all plaintiffs can proceed to appeal. Certain
plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal.

Annual sales of Effexor(R) XR were approximately $2.6 billion at
the time of settlement and at the time generic versions were
launched in July 2010.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cert. Bid in Barr Suit Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that in the Kansas action involving Barr Laboratories Inc., class
certification briefing concluded on August 22, 2014 and the court
heard oral argument on plaintiffs' class certification motion on
December 15, 2014 before taking it under advisement.

Barr Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of Teva ("Barr"), is a
defendant in actions in California, Florida and Kansas alleging
that a January 1997 patent litigation settlement agreement between
Barr and Bayer Corporation was anticompetitive and violated state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

In the California case, the trial court granted defendants'
summary judgment motions, and the California Court of Appeal
affirmed in October 2011. The trial court approved a $74 million
class settlement with Bayer, and the California Supreme Court has
received supplemental briefs addressing the effect of the AndroGel
case on plaintiffs' appeal of the grant of summary judgment for
the remaining defendants in this case. Based on the plaintiffs'
expert testimony in a prior federal multidistrict litigation,
estimated sales of ciprofloxacin in California were approximately
$500 million during the alleged damages period.

In the Kansas action, class certification briefing concluded on
August 22, 2014 and the court heard oral argument on plaintiffs'
class certification motion on December 15, 2014 before taking it
under advisement; no schedule has been set in the Florida action.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Oral Argument in Lamictal Case Held in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that oral argument for the appeal related to the class action over
Lamictal was held on November 20, 2014.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") and Teva for alleged
violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their
settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic
Lamictal(R)) entered into in February 2005. In August 2012, a
purported class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a nearly
identical complaint against GSK and Teva. The plaintiffs claim
that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and
seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the District Court
dismissed the cases.

On January 24, 2014, the District Court denied the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and affirmed its
original dismissal of the cases. The direct purchaser plaintiffs
have appealed this ruling. Oral argument for the appeal was held
on November 20, 2014.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately $950 million at the
time of the settlement, and approximately $2.3 billion at the time
generic competition commenced in July 2008.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: To Settle With Plaintiffs on Nexium Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Teva agreed to settle with all plaintiffs on all claims
related to Nexium(R).

Starting in September 2012, plaintiffs in numerous cases,
including overlapping purported class actions, sued AstraZeneca
and Teva, as well as Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy's, for violating the
antitrust laws by entering into settlement agreements to resolve
the esomeprazole (generic Nexium(R)) patent litigation. Teva
entered into its settlement agreement in January 2010. These cases
were consolidated and transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On November 24, 2014,
Teva agreed to settle with all plaintiffs on all claims. On
December 5, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy, finding that their settlement agreement
was not the cause of delay for the entry of generic Nexium(R).


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Proceedings in Philadelphia Actions Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that two groups of end payors who opted out of the action in the
District of Massachusetts filed on June 18, 2014, complaints in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the "Philadelphia
Actions") with allegations nearly identical to those in the
District of Massachusetts action. Proceedings in the Philadelphia
Actions are stayed pending resolution of the action in the
District of Massachusetts. Annual sales of Nexium(R) were
approximately $6.3 billion at the time the Teva settlement
agreement was entered into, and annual sales are currently
approximately $6 billion.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion to Dismiss Niacin Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that in April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of and
end payors for Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation
over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Teva and Abbott's motion to dismiss was denied on
September 8, 2014.

Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately $416 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time
generic competition commenced in September 2013.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Solodyn Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that since July 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in several
federal courts by purported classes of end payors for, and direct
purchasers of, Solodyn(R) ER (minocycline hydrochloride) against
Medicis, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers,
including Teva. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreements between Medicis and the generic
manufacturers violated the antitrust laws. Teva entered into its
agreement with Medicis in March 2009. A multidistrict litigation
has been established in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On September 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that did not name Teva as a defendant.

Annual sales of Solodyn(R) ER were approximately $380 million at
the time Teva settled, and approximately $765 million at the time
generic competition entered the market on a permanent basis in
November 2011.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Argument Held on Bid to Nix Aggrenox Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in
several federal courts by purported classes of end payors for, and
direct purchasers of, Aggrenox(R) (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets)
against Boehringer Ingelheim ("BI"), the innovator, and several
Teva entities. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August
2008 violated the antitrust laws. A multidistrict litigation has
been established in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut. Oral argument on Teva and BI's motion to
dismiss was held on October 27, 2014.

Annual sales of Aggrenox(R) were approximately $340 million at the
time of the settlement, and are approximately $470 million at the
current time.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Motions to Dismiss ACTOS Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purported classes of end payors for ACTOS(R) and ACTOplus
Met(R) (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin) against
Takeda, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers,
including Teva. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreements between Takeda and the generic manufacturers
violated the antitrust laws. Teva entered into its agreement with
Takeda in December 2010. Defendants' motions to dismiss are
pending, and argument has been set for early February.

At the time of the settlement, annual sales of ACTOS(R) were
approximately $3.7 billion and annual sales of ACTOplus Met(R)
were approximately $500 million. At the time generic competition
commenced in August 2012, annual sales of ACTOS(R) were
approximately $2.8 billion and annual sales of ACTOplus Met(R)
were approximately $430 million.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Defending Against Actiq Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Cephalon Inc. is a defendant in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in which plaintiffs, third party payors, allege
approximately $700 million in losses resulting from the promotion
and prescription of Actiq(R) for uses not approved by the FDA
despite the availability of allegedly less expensive pain
management drugs that were more appropriate for patients'
conditions. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was held in July 2013. If the court grants
certification, a jury trial will be scheduled.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Cephalon Faces Provigil & Gabitril Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Cephalon Inc. is defending a putative class action law suit
with similar off-label claims involving Provigil(R) and
Gabitril(R) brought by the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, District Council 47 Health and Welfare
Fund.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Litigation Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Shareholder
Litigation.

On December 18, 2013, a putative class action securities lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities
between January 1, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint
alleges that Teva and certain directors and officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section
20 of the Exchange Act, by making false and misleading statements
that failed to disclose the existence of significant internal
discord between Teva's board of directors and senior management
concerning execution of Teva's strategies, including
implementation of a cost reduction program.

On July 8, 2014, an amended complaint was filed, changing the
starting date of the alleged class period to August 1, 2013. On
October 17, 2014, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff is seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.


TL CANNON: 2nd Cir. Weighs in on Class Certification Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
David D. Yeagley, Esq. -- dyeagley@ulmer.com -- of Ulmer & Berne
LLP, in an article for Law360, reports that in Roach v. T.L.
Cannon Corp., Case No. 13-3070 (Feb. 10, 2015), the Second Circuit
weighed in on the issue of whether class certification can be
denied on the basis that individualized damages calculations
defeat Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance prerequisite. The Second
Circuit held:

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), does not require
that damages be measureable on a classwide basis for certification
under Rule 23(b)(3).

In order to analyze class certification defenses and case
management approaches that will remain important in light of the
Second Circuit's decision (i.e., where are we going?), it is
helpful to first review the past few years of class certification
jurisprudence (i.e., how did we get here?).

Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the high court
issued its decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
(2013).  In Comcast, the Supreme Court addressed how damages-
related issues should be considered in the context of a rigorous
analysis of the class certification prerequisites.

Following Comcast, it is generally accepted that a rigorous
analysis of the class certification prerequisites extends to the
requirement that the damages methodology correspond to the
particular wrongdoing being alleged.  That is, class certification
should be denied if the methodology measures "damages that are not
the result of the wrong."  Likewise, the question that the Supreme
Court presumably was going to answer in Comcast -- whether expert
opinion testimony going to the ability to develop a classwide
damages model must pass Daubert scrutiny at the class
certification stage -- is gaining general acceptance.

However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Comcast, there
emerged divisive precedent regarding the meaning of the statement
that Rule 23(b)(3) requires that "damages are susceptible of
measurement across the entire class."  The proverbial fork in the
road on this issue was foreshadowed by the dissent in Comcast,
which observed that the majority's statement "breaks no new
ground."  According to the dissent, Rule 23 jurisprudence would
continue to reflect the principle that "individual damages
calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule
23(b)(3)."

A number of district court decisions denying class certification
have read Comcast to now require the plaintiff to establish an
aggregate total of class action damages, in effect holding that
class certification requires a sum-certain model or push-button
spreadsheet.  For these courts, different amounts or inputs into a
classwide damages formula is enough to defeat class certification,
reasoning that Comcast requires a damages model that does not
involve individualized facts.  Along these lines, the district
court in Roach, in a decision that was vacated by the Second
Circuit, reasoned that class certification must be denied because
the plaintiff did not offer a model of damages susceptible of
measurement across the class.  Other courts have read Comcast more
narrowly, holding that individualized issues of damages cannot,
standing alone, defeat class certification. Still other courts
have bifurcated damages issues from classwide issues of liability.

The Second Circuit's decision in Roach directly confronts the
post-Comcast issue of whether class certification should be denied
where -- and solely on the basis that -- there is no classwide
damages model or calculation, holding that "Comcast Corp. [. . .]
does not require that damages be measurable on a classwide basis
for certification under Rule 23(b)(3)."  The Second Circuit's
ruling means, at a minimum, that class certification cannot be
denied on the basis that a damages calculation would be based on
different numbers or amounts entered into a common, classwide
methodology or formula.  For example, Roach teaches that class
certification cannot be denied simply because class members
purchased different numbers of defective widgets or paid different
prices for those widgets.  Similarly, in a Fair Labor Standards
Act overtime case, class certification cannot be denied because
one employee would be entitled to a larger recovery than another
employee based on differences in the number of hours worked.

So where do we go from here? Based on the jurisprudence under Rule
23, it seems that courts will continue to deny class certification
on damages-related considerations in at least four instances.

First, courts are likely to deny class certification where the
question of whether (or if) a particular member of the class
suffered or incurred any damage depends on individualized evidence
and factual determinations.  This is the distinction between fact
of damage and amount of damage, such as where there is no common
and classwide injury.  While the causation-driven question of
injury or harm to putative class members is sometimes considered
as presenting individualized issues of fact under Rule 23(b)(3),
the same issue can also be raised on grounds of class
ascertainability or of an overbroad class definition.

Second, courts will readily deny class certification where the
calculation of individual damages would depend on different
theories or methodologies, especially where the applicability of a
given theory or methodology depends on individual facts or
circumstances.

Third, as set out in Comcast, courts will deny class certification
where the damages calculation methodology does not correspond to
the theory of wrongdoing.

Fourth, it appears that courts will continue to deny class
certification where the calculation of individual damages would
not be based on any classwide methodology or objectively
ascertainable data entered into a common formula, but instead
would depend on a series of individualized determinations. For
example, damages for pain and suffering or other emotional
distress are inherently individualized (and may not arise on a
classwide basis), as are consequential damages for lost profits.
In these instances, the presence of individualized defenses (e.g.,
mitigation) also could factor into the Rule 23 analysis.

Additionally, if Roach means that class certification cannot be
denied solely on the basis of individualized damages computations
(such as individual inputs into a common and classwide formula),
then what case management approaches or procedures are available
to courts to bring a class action case to conclusion?

The case management alternatives could include one or more of the
following: (1) bifurcation of cases between liability and damages
phases; (2) use of "opt-in" or "claims made" classes; (3) use or
authorization of "average" recoveries or distributions, use of a
disgorgement theory or calculation, or reliance on a "price
premium" damages theory rather than an out-of-pocket loss theory;
(4) use or authorization of econometric or statistical modeling;
(5) shifting the burden to the defendant to ascertain or calculate
class members' damages; and (6) use of special masters in post-
liability claim processing proceedings.  In contested class
actions, defendants will raise due process and other objections to
these and other case management techniques, which can have the
effect of reducing or minimizing the plaintiff's burden of proof
or impairing a defendant's right to defend against damages claims.

In the final analysis, it does not appear that the Second
Circuit's decision in Roach will usher in a new era of class
action certifications.  Rather, it seems that the Second Circuit
is reading the majority Comcast opinion like the dissent: that the
majority opinion did not significantly alter the Rule 23
landscape.  If Roach calls into further doubt the viability of a
new theory to defeat class certification under Rule 23(b)(3),
there are still arguments and theories on both sides of the case.
It's back to business as usual.


UBER TECH: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Background Check Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings, Esq., Tim J. St. George, Esq. and Alan D.
Wingfield, Esq., of Troutman Sanders report that on February 6,
Uber filed a motion to compel individual arbitration of a class
action lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to its
alleged background check practices.  If Uber is successful in
compelling arbitration, it will provide another example of the
value of arbitration agreements in the face of litigation.

In Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc, the plaintiff sued Uber,
among other defendants, in a class action lawsuit for alleged
violations of the FCRA's background check provisions.
Specifically, the plaintiff claims that Uber violated the FCRA by
allegedly ordering a background check without properly disclosing
that it would procure a background check and without obtaining the
plaintiff's authorization for the background check.  Further, the
plaintiff also claims that once Uber obtained the background
check, it violated the FCRA's adverse action notice provisions.

In Uber's February 6 filing, it requests the court to dismiss the
plaintiff's class action complaint and require the plaintiff to
arbitrate the dispute on an individual basis.  In other words,
Uber argues that the plaintiff is prohibited under an arbitration
agreement from pursuing his background check claims in court and
that he is prohibited from arbitrating those claims on a class
basis.  The arbitration agreements in question, according to Uber,
apply to disputes arising out of or related to the plaintiff's
relationship with Uber, including the termination of the
relationship.  These agreements further provide that arbitration
can be brought "on an individual basis only" and not "on a 'class
. . . action basis.'"

Following Supreme Court guidance, federal courts have shown a
proclivity in recent years toward enforcing valid arbitration
provisions, including arbitration provisions precluding class-wide
arbitration.   Employers should consider utilizing arbitration
provisions in connection with their employment processes.


VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Veldos, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01097
(E.D.N.Y., March 3, 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


WEST ASSET: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, New York Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Membreno, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. West Asset Management Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01090 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes "Williams" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Valere Williams v. Western
Express, Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1500825, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00402-JGB-SP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims of employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
          ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW APC
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 505-6283
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4584
          E-mail: greg@adeptemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Samir Indravadan Sheth, Esq.
          Sandeep J. Shah, Esq.
          SHAH SHETH LLP
          650 Town Center Dr., Suite 1400
          Newport Beach, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 955-4551
          Facsimile: (714) 966-0663
          E-mail: samir@shahshethlaw.com
                  sandeep@shahshethlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jamie E. Wrage, Esq.
          Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
          Richard D. Marca, Esq.
          GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN AND TILDEN
          3750 University Avenue, Suite 250
          Riverside, CA 92501-3335
          Telephone: (951) 684-2171
          Facsimile: (951) 684-2150
          E-mail: jamie.wrage@greshamsavage.com
                  jeff.olsen@greshamsavage.com
                  richard.marca@greshamsavage.com


* Settlements Put Class Action Funding on Spotlight in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Woodhouse, Esq., and Katrina Sleiman, Esq., of Corrs Chambers
Westgarth report that the rapid growth of the litigation funding
industry and a number of recent significant class action
settlements has placed the spotlight on the funding of class
actions in Australia.

CAN LAWYERS HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE ACTION?

In 2014, a number of securities class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of Victoria by Melbourne City Investments Pty
Limited (MCI) as lead plaintiff against, among others, Treasury
Wine Estates Limited (TWE) and Leighton Holdings Limited (LHL).

On the day of its incorporation, MCI purchased 140 shares in TWE
for $693.  MCI also purchased 39 shares in LHL for $684.06 and
small parcels of shares costing less than $700 in various other
publicly listed companies.  The sole director and shareholder of
MCI (Mr. Elliott) was also the legal representative for the
plaintiffs and was funding the litigation on a no win-no fee
basis.

In mid 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Elliott could not
act for the plaintiffs at the same time as MCI was the lead
plaintiff on the basis that an observer would consider that he is
compromised in his role as a solicitor such that there would be a
real risk that he could not give detached, independent and
impartial advice taking into account not only the interests of MCI
(and its potential exposure to an adverse costs order), but also
the interests of group members.

However, the Court did not consider that the proceedings were an
abuse of process.  TWE appealed that aspect of the decision.

In late December 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by a
majority of 2:1 and permanently stayed the proceeding, finding
that MCI's sole purpose was to use any cause of action it may have
"to create an income-generating vehicle for its solicitor", which
it did by buying a small parcel of TWE shares.  The Court of
Appeal stressed the importance of maintaining public confidence in
the fairness of court processes.

Mr. Elliott used a different funding model for the Banksia
Securities Limited (BSL) class action, which was also commenced in
2013.  In that proceeding, MCI was not the lead plaintiff.
However, the matter was funded by BSL Litigation Partners Limited
(BSL), of which Mr. Elliott was secretary and one of its three
directors.  Mr. Elliott was also the plaintiff's solicitor.

The major investors in BSL were a self-managed superannuation
fund, a company controlled by Mr. Elliott (holding a 45% interest)
and a company controlled by the wife of the plaintiff's senior
counsel, Mr. Norman O'Bryan SC (holding a 45% interest).

In November 2014, the Supreme Court of Victoria restrained
Mr. Elliott and Mr. O'Bryan SC from acting for the lead plaintiff
due to conflicts of interest.

The Court considered that the main risk arising from the lawyers'
pecuniary interest in the outcome of the class action was that
they might not fulfill, or might not be seen to fulfill, their
duties to the Court.

The Court considered that the arrangement was an attempt to skirt
around the prohibition on contingency fees, which was "inimical to
the appearance of justice".

RELAXATION OF RULES REGARDING CONTINGENCY FEES AND CONDITIONAL
BILLING

Lawyers in Australia can use conditional billing arrangements
where their fees are only paid if a successful outcome is
achieved.  Lawyers can also charge an uplift fee which does not
exceed 25% of the total fee.  As noted by the Court in the Banksia
Securities class action, lawyers cannot charge contingency fees
(being fees calculated by reference to the amount recovered) due
to concerns that it creates perverse incentives.

However, in December 2014, the Productivity Commission released a
report which recommended sweeping reforms to promote access to
justice and remedy a system that it says is "too slow, too
expensive and too adversarial".  One of the key recommendations is
to remove the ban on contingency fees.  It is not yet clear
whether the recommendation will be acted upon.

In 2015, Legal Profession Uniform Laws are expected to come into
effect in NSW and Victoria which lift the current prohibition in
NSW on conditional billing with an uplift in damages claims.  The
new laws will apply to almost three quarters of Australia's
lawyers.  Given most if not all class actions are damages claims,
the impact may be significant.


                             *********

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  * * *