CAR_Public/150318.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 55


                             Headlines

AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Class Action
AECOM: Agreed to Pay Fees and Expenses of $900,000
AKORN INC: Faces "Yeung" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
ALIBABA GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
ALPHA NATURAL: $195MM Payments Related to Shareholder Settlement

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settled "Silverstrand" Class Action
AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Action Litigation Reserve Decreased
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Action Over Lime-A-Rita Drink Claim
ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation on Order Certifying Class
ATLAS AIR: Deal Reached With Canadian Plaintiffs Under Review

ATLAS PIPELINE: Tulsa Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
AUTONATION INC: Defending Against Automotive Technicians' Suits
BAPTIST HEALTH: Sued Over Underfunding Workers Retirement Plan
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Calif.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Still a Defendant in AWP Litigation

BRISTOL-MYERS: Defendant in Plavix State Attorneys General Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces 5,500+ Injury Claims Related to Plavix
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits on Behalf of 3K Plaintiffs Over Reglan
BRISTOL-MYERS: 430+ Lawsuits Pending Related to Byetta
CAPITAL HEALTH: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Strip Searches

CELGENE CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Generic Drugs, Suit Says
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
CSX CORP: Court Delayed Proceedings of Fuel Surcharge Case
DELTA AIR: Cert. Motion Filed in 1st Bag Fee Antitrust Litigation
DELTA AIR: Appeal in EU Regulation 261 Class Action Pending

DOZEN BAGELS: Faces "Nahar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ELAUWIT LLC: Faces "Crank" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Suit v. Cotter
EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve on Loss Associated With TCPA Suit
EXELON CORP: Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement in Q2 2015

FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
GROWLIFE INC: To Seek Approval of Class Action Settlement
GUAM: April 16 Conference Scheduled for Tiyan Land Class Action
HARVEST MANAGEMENT: "Jonzun" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HITANO SERVICES: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HOSPIRA INC: Settlement in Sterling Heights Case Fully Funded
HOSPIRA INC: Faces "Casey II" and "Montini" Class Actions
HULU LLC: Judge Likely to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
IGNITE RESTAURANT: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JRB ENGINEERING: "Max-George" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

KING.COM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Computer Access
LA ABUNDANCIA: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LA TAQUERIA: Faces "Zaldivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LEAR CORP: No Approval Yet on Class Suit Deals in US, Canada
LEAR CORP: Dismissed From City of Richmond Class Action

LEAR CORP: Faces Truck Dealers Class Action
LENOVO US: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.C. Over Harmful Spyware
LIBERTY SILVER: Reached Deal Regarding Securities Class Action
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Two Putative Class Action Lawsuits

LJ CAMPBELL: Faces "Santana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Badias" Suit Over Flooring Products
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bloomfield" Over Flooring Products
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Conte" Suit Over Flooring Products
MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $771MM Liability in Merchant Class Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Class Actions Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta
MASTERCARD INC: Cal. High Court Denied Request to Appeal Ruling
MASTERCARD INC: Plaintiffs in ATM Surcharge Suit Appeal Dismissal
MEADWESTVACO: Faces Class Action Over Rock-Tenn Merger
MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits

NBTY INC: Reduced Exposure Estimate in Glucosamine Class Actions
NBTY INC: CCG Filed Motion to Dismiss "Lary" Complaint
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
NEUSTAR INC: Motion to Dismiss IPRS's Amended Complaint Granted
NEW JERSEY: Faces "Kolakowski" Suit Over RICO Violations

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Defending Against Railroad Class Actions
PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement on Track for Approval
POINCIANA MANAGEMENT: "Manuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Against McCaffree Action
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Cruise and Mullaney Class Actions Dismissed

QUICKEN LOANS: Must Face TCPA Class Action
RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Action in Early Stages
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed in December
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Maiman" Class Action
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits on Merger

SAKS FIFTH: Seeks Dismissal of Return Policy Class Action
SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Theft Class Suit
SPANSION INC: Faces "Jeter" and "Stein" Class Actions
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing Indemnity Related to Harkness
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss

SWEET MAPLE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TARGET CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET CORP: Faces False Advertising Class Action
TEMPUR SEALY: Plaintiffs in Norfolk & Benning Actions Appeal
TEMPUR SEALY: Says "Todd" Class Action Lacks Merit

TENNESSEE: Sued Over Alleged Student Voters Discrimination
TIME WARNER: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Actions
TIME WARNER: Defendant in Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
TIME WARNER: Downs and Jarrett Litigation Terminated
TRT HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility

TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settled Occupant Safety Systems Products Suits
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Remains Party to 2 Suits on Endoscopy Center
VERDE ENERGY: Illegally Charges High Premium Rates, Action Claims
VITESSE WORLDWIDE: "Sikiotis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements
WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Not Set in Digital Music Downloads Case
WARNER MUSIC: Deal in Music Download Suit Now Effective
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Doppelt" Class Action


                            *********


AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Australia continues to defend a class action, AECOM said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action
lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of
the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described
traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of
approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including
interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon
as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at approximately
$76 million Australian dollars (including interest). The Company
believes this claim is duplicative of damages already included in
the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon receives a
portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery. The class action
applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired
approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by all applicants and continues to defend this matter
vigorously; AECOM Australia cannot provide assurance that it will
be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and
the resolution of this matter cannot be determined at this time
and could have a material adverse effect on AECOM Australia and
the results of its operations.


AECOM: Agreed to Pay Fees and Expenses of $900,000
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel in the URS merger litigation lawsuits
petitioned the Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and after negotiations, the Company has
agreed to pay fees and expenses of $900,000, AECOM said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014.

Between July 21 and August 4, 2014, six then-stockholders of URS
brought lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(Delaware Court) entitled Falato v. URS Corp, et al., C.A. No.
9921-CB, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et
al., C.A. No. 9924-CB, Petroutson v. URS Corp., et al., C.A. No.
9938, Miller v. URS Corp., et al., C.A. No. 9939-CB, Oklahoma
Police Pension & Retirement System v. Creel, et al., C.A. No.
9975-CB, and Cambridge Retirement System v. Creel, et al., C.A.
No. 9998-CB (collectively, Lawsuits), alleging that the board of
directors of URS breached its fiduciary duties in connection with
URS's then-proposed merger with the Company (Merger) and that the
Company aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs in the
Lawsuits sought to, among other things, enjoin enforcement of a
provision in the applicable merger agreement that plaintiffs
called the "Anti-Waiver Provision" and that plaintiffs had alleged
was impeding the potential for the emergence of competing bids for
URS.

Between July 31, 2014 and August 4, 2014, URS and the Company
clarified to the Delaware Court and the plaintiffs that their
intent with respect to the "Anti-Waiver Provision" was that any
standstill required by that provision would not preclude any
potential alternative suitor from making a topping bid for URS and
agreed to (1) waive all extant standstills contained in non-
disclosure agreements (NDAs) signed by pre-signing bidders for
URS; (2) ensure that any standstills contained in NDAs executed by
potential suitors post-signing would contain an exception to
permit those potential suitors to make topping bids for URS; (3)
clarify the operation of any post-signing standstill to potential
suitors for URS; and (4) disclose the same in URS's proxy
statement seeking stockholder support for the Merger, which
clarification and agreements plaintiffs considered to moot the
claims asserted in the Lawsuits.

On August 28, 2014, the Delaware Court entered an order dismissing
the Lawsuits as moot. On October 16, 2014, URS stockholders voted
to approve the Merger, which closed the following day. On November
17, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Lawsuits petitioned the
Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses, and after negotiations, the Company has agreed to pay
fees and expenses of $900,000.


AKORN INC: Faces "Yeung" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, Timothy A. Dick, and Bruce
Kutinsky, Case No. 1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Akorn, Inc. engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic
and therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital
drugs, and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com

        - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
              lcludwig@pomlaw.com


ALIBABA GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that it
filed a class action complaint against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint was filed on behalf of those persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba securities between
October 21, 2014 and January 28, 2015 and seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must
move the Court no later than March 31, 2015.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, Alibaba made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Alibaba's
business, operations, and prospects.  The complaint alleges that
when this adverse information became known, prices of the
Company's securities declined significantly.

If you wish to view the complaint, please click here: Complaint.
If you wish to discuss the Alibaba litigation, or have questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael
Burnett of Scott+Scott at mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770,
or (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website for more
information: http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


ALPHA NATURAL: $195MM Payments Related to Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 12, 2015, that cash used in operating activities for the
quarter ended December 31, 2014 was $31 million, compared with
cash used in operating activities of $70 million for the fourth
quarter of 2013. Capital expenditures for the fourth quarter of
2014 were $99 million, compared with $95 million in the fourth
quarter of 2013. For the full year 2014, cash used in operating
activities totaled $284 million, including $195 million in
payments related to the shareholder class action settlement, net
of insurance recoveries of $70 million, compared to cash provided
by operating activities of $109 million in the same period a year
ago.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settled "Silverstrand" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2015, that the Company has settled the Silverstrand
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We were the target of a purported class action
complaint filed in March 2010 entitled Silverstrand Investments
et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., which alleged certain
securities laws violations. Although we settled the Silverstrand
case in January 2015, we may also be the target of claims
asserting violations of securities and fraud and abuse laws and
derivative actions or other litigation in the future. Any future
litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our
management's attention and resources, which could cause serious
harm to our business, operating results and financial condition.
Further, we may not be successful in defending ourselves in the
litigation and, as a result, our business could be materially
harmed. These lawsuits may result in large judgments or
settlements against us, any of which could have a negative effect
on our financial condition and business if in excess of our
insurance coverage. Though we maintain liability insurance, if any
costs or expenses associated with litigation exceed our insurance
coverage, we may be forced to bear some or all of these costs and
expenses directly, which could be substantial."


AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Action Litigation Reserve Decreased
----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014, that first quarter 2014 includes a net benefit of $2.2
million from recognizing a decrease in an estimated class action
litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process
for settlement of the class action and third party costs incurred
during the quarter associated with administration of the
settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of
deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs
and income taxes, decreased net loss and loss per common share -
assuming dilution by $0.9 million and $0.01 per share,
respectively.

The Company also said fourth quarter 2013 includes expense of $4.2
million from recognizing an increase in an estimated class action
litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process
for settlement of the class action litigation and third party
costs incurred during the quarter associated with administration
of the settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization
of deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition
costs and income taxes, decreased net income and earnings per
common share - assuming dilution by $1.9 million and $0.02 per
share, respectively.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Class Action Over Lime-A-Rita Drink Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
plaintiffs in a proposed class action filed against a popular beer
maker argue that their lawsuit, filed against the company for its
allegedly deceptive product labeling, should not be dismissed.

Plaintiff Sheila Cruz and the proposed class filed an opposition
to Anheuser-Busch's motion to dismiss earlier in February.

In December, Cruz filed the lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, which
makes Bud Light products.  She alleges the company's Bud Light
Lime-A-Rita products claim to be low in calories, but actually
contain more calories than any other product sold by Anheuser-
Busch.

The lawsuit, which alleges that Anheuser-Busch deceptively
concealed, omitted and misrepresented the calories in the
products, seeks class status for anyone who purchased any flavor
of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita since it was first introduced in 2008.

"Much like the 'Rita Products at issue, A-B's motion to dismiss is
founded on a material omission," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote.

In their Feb. 13 filing, the plaintiffs argue that a Florida
federal court recently rejected "nearly all" of the company's
arguments for dismissal.

The plaintiffs contend in their 25-page motion, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, that the
company fails to acknowledge another federal court ruling, Marty
v. Anheuser-Busch Companies LLC.

The ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in September, left standing most of a putative
class action lawsuit against the beer maker.

"Failing to even acknowledge the Marty opinion, A-B also fails to
mention that the court there -- applying California law --
rejected its motion to dismiss and expressly held that, under
California law, the safe harbor protections of [the state's]
Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act do not
preclude the plaintiffs' claims," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote.

"Marty also provides a useful analysis of related issues such as
A-B's deceptive advertising and labeling practices."

In its motion to dismiss, filed Jan. 23, Anheuser-Busch argues
that every label at issue "accurately discloses" the average
number of calories and carbohydrates that the products contain, as
required by the federal agency responsible for alcohol beverage
labeling, the U.S. Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau, or TTB.

An eight-ounce can of Lime-A-Rita contains about 220 calories and
21.9 grams of carbohydrates, according to the plaintiffs' lawsuit.
In comparison, a 12-ounce can of Budweiser contains about 145
calories and 10.6 grams of carbohydrates; a can of Bud light has
about 110 calories and 6.6 grams of carbohydrates; and a can of
Bud Light Lime has about 116 calories and 8 grams of
carbohydrates.

Anheuser-Busch advertises five different Lime-A-Rita flavors each
varying between 192 and 220 calories, and 22.8 and 23.6
carbohydrates per eight-ounce can, according to the complaint.

"Plaintiffs do not contend that these disclosures are inaccurate,"
lawyers for Anheuser-Busch wrote in their motion.  "In fact,
Plaintiffs fail to even inform the Court that the accurate number
of calories and carbohydrates in the products is disclosed on the
products' labels.

"Plaintiffs ignore these disclosures and simply allege that they
believed the products would have fewer calories and carbohydrates
(fewer than what, they never say) solely because the brand name on
the labels includes the statement 'Bud Light Lime.'"

The company argues in its 25-page motion that the complaint should
be dismissed because the challenged labels were approved by the
TTB prior to use.

"The TTB has determined that the use of the term 'light' on a malt
beverage label is not misleading or deceptive as long as the label
contains a statement of average analysis disclosing the actual
number of calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat the product
contains," Anheuser-Busch wrote.  "The labels at issue here
complied with this TTB requirement, and thus were approved by the
TTB prior to being used in the United States.

"Pursuant to California's safe harbor doctrine, Plaintiffs cannot
premise their consumer protection or warranty claims on the use of
the statement 'Bud Light Lime' because the TTB specifically
permits the challenged labels to include that statement."

The company's lawyers also argue that the plaintiffs' claims --
including one for breach of express warranty -- fail because they
have not identified an "actionable misrepresentation."

"Plaintiffs allege only that they subjectively interpreted the
words 'Bud Light Lime' to mean that the products 'were low in
calories and carbohydrates,' and that Plaintiffs do not personally
consider the actual amount of calories and carbohydrates -- as
disclosed on the labels -- to satisfy their subjective definition
of 'low,'" they wrote.

The lawsuit was originally filed in a Los Angeles state court, but
Anheuser-Busch had the case removed to the federal court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Ridout and Caleb
Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson LLP and Kevin Mahoney --
info@mahoney-law.net -- Sam Kim and Nick Poper of Mahoney Law
Group APC. Both law firms are based in Long Beach, Calif.

Anheuser-Busch is represented by New York City firm Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.


ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation on Order Certifying Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company filed an opposition to the court magistrate's
recommendation that the court enter an order certifying the class
in the lawsuits related to the pricing practices of a number of
air cargo carriers.

In 2010, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar"), formerly Polar Air
Cargo, Inc., entered into an agreement with the United States
Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues relating to
the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation").
As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy.

In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief
requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining
plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was
substantial pretrial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether
or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October
2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013.

On October 15, 2014, the court magistrate issued a decision
recommending that the court enter an order certifying the class
for adjudicating the claims.

"We filed our opposition to that recommendation on December 1,
2014 and also intend to vigorously pursue a number of defenses. We
are unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling on our
opposition to class certification and our defenses, or the
ultimate outcome of the litigation," the Company said.


ATLAS AIR: Deal Reached With Canadian Plaintiffs Under Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
settlement agreement reached by the Canadian plaintiffs and Old
Polar is under review.

The Company, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar"), formerly Polar Air
Cargo, Inc., and a number of other cargo carriers were named as
defendants in civil class action suits in the provinces of British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially
similar to the class action suits in the United States.

On August 1, 2014, the Canadian plaintiffs and Old Polar executed
a settlement agreement in which Old Polar agreed, without
admitting violations of law, to pay an immaterial amount in return
for the release of all claims. The settlement agreement is subject
to court approval and currently is under review.


ATLAS PIPELINE: Tulsa Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
that Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (NYSE: APL; "APL") is making
the following supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement/
Prospectus") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by APL on January 22, 2015, in connection
with the proposed settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 13, 2014, by and
among Targa Resources Corp., Targa Resources LP, Targa Resources
GP LLC, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC, Atlas Energy, L.P., APL and
Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC (the "APL Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the terms and
conditions thereof, TRP would acquire APL in a merger between APL
and MLP Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Merger"). Pursuant to the
proposed settlement, APL has agreed to provide the additional
information set forth below under the heading "Supplement to
Definitive Proxy Statement." The following supplemental
disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. To the
extent that information herein differs from or updates information
contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information
contained herein supersedes the information contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. Defined terms used but not defined herein
have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

As disclosed on pages 27 and 91-92 of the Proxy Statement/
Prospectus, five public unitholders of APL filed putative class
action lawsuits against APL, the other parties to the APL Merger
Agreement and certain of their managers. These lawsuits are styled
(a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the
Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b)
William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma; (the "Tulsa Lawsuit") (c) Greenthal Living Trust
U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the
Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike
Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving
Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (together, the
"APL 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"). The Tulsa Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on
February 4, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, the defendants reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit regarding a settlement
of that action. That agreement is reflected in a Memorandum of
Understanding that outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to
settle, dismiss and release all claims which were or could have
been asserted in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, and is subject to
court approval. Defendants agreed to the memorandum of
understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and
expense inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying
that further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The memorandum of
understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including judicial approval of the proposed settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, following notice
to APL unitholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally
approved by the court, it is anticipated that the settlement will
result in a release of all claims that were or could have been
brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of APL
unitholders that they purport to represent challenging any aspect
of or otherwise relating to the Transactions, any actions,
deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Transactions
or any agreements, disclosures, or events related thereto,
including the ATLS Merger Agreement, the APL Merger Agreement and
the disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the APL
Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in
connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate
that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, which the defendants may oppose. APL
or its successor will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys'
fees and expenses awarded by the court. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve the settlement. In
either event, or certain other circumstances specified in the
memorandum of understanding, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The settlement will not affect, among other things, the
consideration to be paid to APL's unitholders in connection with
the APL Merger.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, a special meeting
was slated to be held on February 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., local
time, at the Sofitel Philadelphia, 120 South 17th Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, for the purpose of considering
and voting upon, among other things, the APL Merger Agreement and
the APL Merger. The managing board of APL GP, acting upon the
unanimous recommendation of the conflicts committee of the
managing board, recommends that the APL unitholders vote "FOR" the
proposal to approve and adopt the APL Merger Agreement and to
approve the APL Merger.


AUTONATION INC: Defending Against Automotive Technicians' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AutoNation Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that that the Company is
currently defending several purported class action lawsuits in
California arising out of alleged violations of state wage and
hour laws relating to compensation of automotive technicians.


BAPTIST HEALTH: Sued Over Underfunding Workers Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Baptist Health System Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00382 (N.D. Ala., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to set a funding policy that adequately fund that
anticipated obligations of the Plan in compliance with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Baptist Health System Inc. owns and operates four hospital
campuses located in Birmingham, Alabaster, Jasper and Talladega,
Alabama, and maintains 43 primary and specialty clinics in
Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison L. Riley, Esq.
      M Clay Ragsdale IV, Esq.
      RAGSDALE LLC
      517 Beacon Parkway West
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 290-6800
      Facsimile: (205) 290-6810
      E-mail: allison@ragsdalellc.com
              clay@ragsdalellc.com

         - and -

      Charles E. Robinson, Esq.
      THE ROBINSON LAW FIRM
      Sixth Avenue Court Street West
      Post Office Box 370
      Ashville, Alabama 35125
      Telephone: (205) 594-5133
      E-mail: crobjr@tlflaw.net


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of California, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Bridgepoint
securities between August 7, 2012 and May 30, 2014, inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Bridgepoint securities
during the Class Period, you have until April 27, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
Company had applied an improper revenue recognition methodology to
assess collectability of funds owed by students; (2) as a result,
the Company's revenues and financial results were overstated; (3)
the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5),
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2014, Company issued a press release announcing that,
"on May 2, 2014, the SEC informed the Company that a reassessment
is required under accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States upon certain changes in circumstances, such as when
a student loses financial aid eligibility.  Based on the Company's
internal analysis to date, management has preliminarily estimated
that application of a student-by-student reassessment during the
quarter ended March 31, 2014 resulted in decreases in revenue and
bad debt expense of $0.7 million and $0.2 million, respectively."

On this news, shares of Bridgepoint fell $1.41 per share to
$14.51, or more than 8.85%, in intraday trading on May 12, 2014.

On May 30, 2014, Bridgepoint announced that its financial
statements filed with the SEC for the years ended December 31,
2011 and December 31, 2012, as well as the financial statements
issued for the quarters ended March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and
September 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon.  According to
the Company, these financial statements contained errors related
to revenue recognition that resulted in material misstatements of
revenue, bad debt expense and accounts receivable.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still a Defendant in AWP Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company,
together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has
been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as
suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these
actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average
Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby
injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed
prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company remains a defendant
in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts in
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company
was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the
Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or
negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge
issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that
did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million
and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument took place in May
2013. In June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the
Commonwealth judge's decision and remanded the matter back to the
Commonwealth Court. In January 2015, the Commonwealth Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company. It is possible that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could appeal this decision.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Defendant in Plavix State Attorneys General Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection
and/or false advertising actions brought by several states
relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix*. It is not possible
at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or
their potential impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces 5,500+ Injury Claims Related to Plavix
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of
individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming
personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*.
Currently, over 5,500 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well
as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in
state and federal courts in various states including California,
Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and
Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to
coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product
liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not
possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these
lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits on Behalf of 3K Plaintiffs Over Reglan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs
claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan*
or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product
indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this
time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The
resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 430+ Lawsuits Pending Related to Byetta
------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin, a former
subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product
liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over
430 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 1,900 active
plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury
plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has
agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these claims. The
majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who
allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily
pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming
alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in
Federal Court in San Diego in a recently established multidistrict
litigation, with the next largest contingent of cases pending in a
coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a
substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional
liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be
shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to
reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding
or the potential impact on the Company.


CAPITAL HEALTH: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Strip Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a judge has certified a class-action suit
against Capital Health after a hospital-wide strip search of
patients at Dartmouth's East Coast Forensic Hospital in 2012.

The decision says 33 forensic psychiatry patients at the Nova
Scotia facility were strip searched on Oct. 16, 2012.

Ralph Atkinson speaks out about strip search at Capital Health
Evidence presented by the facility says search took place after a
number of events from June to October 2012, causing the person in
charge of the "rehabilitation side" of the hospital to have
increased concerns about illegal substances being brought into the
hospital.

The events culminated after those in charge began looking for any
contraband -- including illegal substances -- after a number of
patients were "acting oddly" on Oct.15, 2012.

In the written decision Justice Denise Boudreau said there is no
doubt administrators in facilities such as the forensic hospital
need to be able to control their operations, but that strip
searches are highly intrusive.  "A court ruling in this particular
case would likely be helpful in finding the appropriate line
between those two realities."

In his affidavit to the court, lead plaintiff Mark Murray said
they strip searched him with the door open.  He says other
patients could have seen the search and his claim says he may have
also been in view of a video camera.

Mr. Murray said he was happy when his lawyer told him the class
action was certified on Feb. 26.

"I felt absolutely wonderful.  I felt a great justice had been
served and that the members of the class of individuals was
definitively acknowledged," Mr. Murray told CBC News.

Another man, Ralph Atkinson, told CBC last year that the search
made him feel he had been raped.

"I've been sexually abused when I was younger so it just draws
flashbacks back from bad experiences and it just gives you that
wrong feeling, like that gut wrong feeling that you know you've
been violated," he said in September.

Justice Boudreau didn't comment on whether the strip searches in
this case were warranted.

"I make no comment as to the merits of the plaintiffs' case,"
Boudreau's written decision goes on to say.

"These strip searches may ultimately be found to have been
reasonable, or not.  Regardless, important questions are raised,
and a class action will allow those questions to be litigated."

The case is important not just for those who were searched that
day, but also for future patients, said Michael Dull, the lawyer
for the plaintiffs.

"The hospital has immense control over these patients and really
at their whim they can subject them to humiliating strip
searches," said Mr. Dull.  "It's important that the hospital knows
that if they do, then there are consequences."

Strip searches continue

Capital Health wouldn't comment on the certification because it is
before the courts.

Spokesman Everton McLean says strip searches still take place in
the facility as per Department of Health and Wellness policies
that allow such searches.

Formal complaints have also been filed to the Nova Scotia Human
Rights Commission by 21 of the people searched.


CELGENE CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Generic Drugs, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Celgene Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01605
(D.N.J., March 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's illegal
monopolization of, and restraint of trade in the market for
thalidomide (Thalomid(R)) and lenalidomide (Revlimid(R)).

Celgene Corporation is a Delaware biotechnology company that
manufactures drug therapies for cancer and inflammatory disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      James S. Notis, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      560 Sylvan Avenue
      Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
      Telephone: (201) 567-7377
      Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
      E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
              jnotis@gardylaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jblock@blockesq.com
              wstreet@blockesq.com
              elangsen@blockesq.com

         - and -

     Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     492 Ninth Street, Suite 260
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Telephone: (415) 968-8999
     Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00317 (D. Conn., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide.

Charter Communications, Inc. is one of the largest cable
television, Internet, and telephone service providers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Shapiro (ct24075)
      SHAPIRO LAW OFFICES, LLC
      104 Court Street
      Middletown, CT 06457
      Telephone: (860) 347-3325
      Facsimile: (860) 347-3874
      E-mail: jshapiro@shapirolawofficesct.com

         - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

         - and -

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com


CSX CORP: Court Delayed Proceedings of Fuel Surcharge Case
----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that the District Court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation pending the outcome of the class certification remand
proceedings.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. In October 2013,
the District Court held a case management conference to determine
the scope and schedule of the remand proceedings, which are
underway. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits
of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand
proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.


DELTA AIR: Cert. Motion Filed in 1st Bag Fee Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for class
certification has been filed in the First Bag Fee Antitrust
Litigation, but the Court has not yet ruled on it and no class has
been certified to date.

In 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits
were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways ("AirTran"), alleging
that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon
certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at
an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked bag,
Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November
4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12,
2008. The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an
alleged class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee
after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified
treble damages. All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings and remain pending in the Northern District of
Georgia. A motion for class certification has been filed, but the
Court has not yet ruled on it and no class has been certified to
date. Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit
and is vigorously defending these lawsuits.


DELTA AIR: Appeal in EU Regulation 261 Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the EU
Regulation 261 Class Action Litigation have filed an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which remains
pending.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking to
represent all U.S. residents who were passengers on flights during
the period from February 2009 to the present who are allegedly
entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261 because their
flight was cancelled or delayed by more than three hours.
Plaintiffs allege that Delta has incorporated a duty to pay this
compensation into its contract of carriage, and assert a claim for
breach of contract as the basis for their cause of action. The
complaint seeks recovery of the EU Regulation 261 compensation of
EUR600 for each U.S. resident on a flight qualifying for such
compensation.

In October 2013, the District Court granted Delta's motion to
dismiss all claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs have filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which
remains pending. Delta disputes the allegations in the Complaint
and intends to vigorously defend the matter.


DOZEN BAGELS: Faces "Nahar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lutfur Nahar, Zahirul H. Khan and Hassan M. Mehadi, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals
v. Dozen Bagels Co. Inc d/b/a Bagel Cafe, Shlomo Bador, and Avi
Bador, Case No. 1:15-cv-01613 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a food establishment located in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


ELAUWIT LLC: Faces "Crank" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Allen Crank and Rickey Whitney, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly-situated who consent to representation v.
Elauwit, LLC, Elauwit Networks, LLC, and Elauwit Staffing, LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01057 (D.S.C., March 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a media and technology company,
which provides fiber optic networking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin S. Little, Esq.
      BROWNSTEIN NGUYEN AND LITTLE LLP
      1201 Peachtree St NE
      400 Colony Square Ste 200
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (404) 685-1662
      E-mail: ksl@bnllawfirm.com


EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Suit v. Cotter
------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And
Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action complaint
was filed on April 11, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter Corporation, a former
ComEd subsidiary, and six additional defendants. The complaint
alleges that individuals living in the North St. Louis area within
a three-mile radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to
property or loss of use of property due to the defendants'
negligent handling of radioactive materials. On August 22, 2014,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.


EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve on Loss Associated With TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And
Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
ComEd has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best
estimate of probable loss associated with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Lawsuit (ComEd) class action complaint.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. ComEd intends to contest
the allegations of this suit.

In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class
action complaint, which was denied in June 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, ComEd has a reserve, which is not
material, representing its best estimate of probable loss
associated with this class action complaint. As ComEd is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, actual damages
may differ from the estimated amount recorded, which may be
material to ComEd's results of operations, cash flows, and
financial position.


EXELON CORP: Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement in Q2 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas And
Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that final court approval of
the proposed settlement in a class action challenging a proposed
merger is not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015,
at the earliest.

Exelon and Pepco Holdings, Inc. on April 29, 2014, signed an
agreement and plan of merger (as subsequently amended and restated
as of July 18, 2014) to combine the two companies in an all cash
transaction.  PHI and its directors have been named as defendants
in purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named
plaintiffs and other public stockholders challenging the proposed
Merger and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has
been named as a defendant in these lawsuits. Exelon has also been
named in a federal court case with similar claims. In September
2014, the parties reached a proposed settlement which is subject
to court approval. Final court approval of the proposed settlement
is not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015, at the
earliest.

If a plaintiff in these or any other litigation claims that may be
filed in the future is successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the parties from completing the Merger on the terms
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the injunction may prevent
the completion of the Merger in the expected time frame or
altogether. If completion of the Merger is prevented or delayed,
it could result in substantial costs to Exelon. In addition,
Exelon could incur significant costs in connection with the
lawsuits, including costs associated with the indemnification of
PHI's directors and officers.


FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Duguid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00985 (N.D. Cal.,
March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized automated text messages to the Plaintiff and class
member's cellular phone.

Facebook, Inc. is an online social networking service
headquartered at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      10645 North Tatum Blvd.
      Suite 200-192
      Phoenix, AZ 85028
      Telephone: (855) 301-2100 ext. 5533
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

         - and -

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      Stephen Taylor, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      1100 Summer Street
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
              staylor@lemberglaw.com


GROWLIFE INC: To Seek Approval of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
GrowLife, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that the
Company anticipates that Motions for Court Approval of the
Proposed Class Action Settlement will be filed.

Beginning on April 18, 2014, three class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed against the
Company in United States District Court, Central District of
California (the "Court"). At a hearing held on July 21, 2014, the
three class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case with
Bryan Chong as the lead plaintiff (the "Consolidated Class
Action," styled Romero et al. vs. GrowLife et al.). On May 15,
2014 and August 4, 2014, respectively two shareholder derivative
lawsuits were filed against the Company with the Court (the
"Derivative Actions"). On October 20, 2014, AmTrust North America,
the Company's insurer filed a lawsuit contesting insurance
coverage on the above legal proceedings. The AmTrust case was
filed, and recently served on the Company. The Company has yet to
appear in this action. On January 20, 2015, the Court ordered all
of the actions stayed pending completion of mediation of the
dispute.

On October 28, 2014, the parties conducted voluntary, non-binding
mediation of the actions. The parties continued settlement
discussions through the New Year, and reached an agreement on a
mediator's proposal by the first week of February of 2015 to
resolve all litigation. On February 9, 2015, the parties filed a
Joint Notice of Proposed Settlement with the Court presiding over
the Consolidated Class Action. The parties expect that a Joint
Motion for Court Approval of the Proposed Class Action settlement
will be filed in the Romero Action, which will resolve both the
Consolidated Class Action in Romero as well as the pending
Derivative Actions against the Company and other defendants. The
Company anticipates that the Motions for Court Approval of the
Proposed Class Action Settlement will be filed within the next 45
days.

The Company issued a press release on February 12, 2015 regarding
the tentative settlement.  A copy of the press release is
available at http://is.gd/lwflBH

A copy of the Notice of Settlement Agreement dated February 9,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/M2w3TF


GUAM: April 16 Conference Scheduled for Tiyan Land Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Paco, writing for KUAM News, reports that a class action
case filed against the governor, Guam Ancestral Lands Commission,
and Guam International Airport is moving through the District
Court. A scheduling conference has been set for April 16.  On
behalf of all other Tiyan ancestral landowners, Benny Crawford in
January filed a class action complaint seeking compensation for
the airport's continued use of their land which he says they were
never compensated for.


HARVEST MANAGEMENT: "Jonzun" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
D'Anthony Jonzun, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Harvest Management SUB TRS Corp. d/b/a
Holiday Retirement, Case No. 6:15-cv-00341 (M.D. Fla., March 4,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Harvest Management SUB TRS Corp. is a foreign for Profit
Corporation, doing business in Deltona, Florida, which serves
retirement seniors with independent and assisted living
communities across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      14th Floor, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


HITANO SERVICES: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Callejas, Carlos Flores and Jose Rosales on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hitano Services,
Inc. d/b/a Action Complaint Building Services, and Eduardo Perez,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01123 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Hitano Services, Inc. New York corporation and maintains a place
of business at 23 Eliot Drive, Lake Grove, New York 11755, which
provides residential and commercial cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      201 Moreland Road, Suite 10
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Telephone: (631) 240-4355
      Facsimile: (631) 406-4911
      E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com


HOSPIRA INC: Settlement in Sterling Heights Case Fully Funded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
class action lawsuit filed by City of Sterling Heights General
Employees' Retirement System was fully funded by insurance
proceeds.

On September 5, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois approved a settlement and dismissed a class
action lawsuit filed against Hospira and certain of its current
and former corporate officers alleging violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael
Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B.
Begley, amended complaint filed June 25, 2012, the plaintiffs
alleged, generally, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Hospira's financials and
business prospects and failed to disclose material facts affecting
Hospira's financial condition. The settlement was fully funded by
insurance proceeds.


HOSPIRA INC: Faces "Casey II" and "Montini" Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Hospira Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Hospira and members of
its Board of Directors are named as defendants in two class action
lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Agreement and Plan of
Merger by and among Hospira, Pfizer Inc., and Perkins Holding
Company. Pfizer and Perkins Holding Company are also named as
defendants. The lawsuits, which seek to enjoin the proposed
transaction, allege generally that the Merger Agreement resulted
from an unfair process and fails to maximize value for Hospira
stockholders. The first lawsuit was filed by Robert J. Casey II,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, on
February 9, 2015; and the second lawsuit was filed by Samuel
Montini, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, on February 10, 2015.


HULU LLC: Judge Likely to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, Jessica Corso and Allison Grande, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge said on Feb. 26
that she would likely grant Hulu LLC the win in a proposed class
action accusing the company of violating the Video Privacy
Protection Act by revealing users' viewing habits, saying the
plaintiffs lack evidence of a clear disclosure under the law.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said at the start of the
Feb. 26 hearing that she believes the plaintiffs have to show "the
equivalent of a Bork-like disclosure," referring to U.S. Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork, whose video-rental history was leaked
to the press, leading to the passage of the VPPA.  That law
requires evidence showing that the party accused of revealing the
information did so knowingly, Hulu argued in its motion for
summary judgment.

"In the end, I think the evidence isn't there to allege it was a
disclosure, or a knowing disclosure," Judge Beeler said.

The plaintiffs claim that any time they clicked the "like" button
next to a video on Hulu, it would show their Facebook friends that
they'd done so when those friends looked at the same Hulu page.
That was a disclosure of their viewing habits, argued plaintiffs
attorney Scott Kamber of KamberLaw LLC.

Hulu's attorney, Victor Jih of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, argued that
the plaintiffs don't have any evidence to support their argument
that Hulu knew it was revealing users' video preferences.

"They don't reference the source code, they reference an email"
that mentions what happens when users have opted to have their
faces shown after they click that "like" button, Mr. Jih argued.
"We had no idea how Facebook was figuring out how to show faces."

Mr. Kamber, however, argued that the fact that Hulu shows the
faces of a Hulu user's Facebook friends on a Hulu video page
provides a reasonable inference that Hulu knew what was going on.

"Hulu knows Facebook can identify users from the 'like' button,
and that the transmission includes user identification information
and video information," Mr. Kamber argued.

But Judge Beeler said it's still not clear to her that the
transmission of those two things adds up to a disclosure under the
VPPA.  Under the law, if there's a disclosure but the person on
the other end doesn't understand it -- if it's in code, for
example -- then it isn't a disclosure, she said, comparing it to
whispering source code to a baby who doesn't understand language
yet.

"When you enter this realm, there has to be some kind of evidence
of how Facebook would, did or could use it.  Here, it seems
Facebook's end of it is more important," Judge Beeler said.

Ultimately, she took the arguments under submission and didn't
indicate how she would rule.

Last June, Judge Beeler denied without prejudice the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, agreeing with Hulu's contention
that the proposed class of individuals who used both Hulu and
Facebook between April 2010 and June 2012 was not ascertainable
because it would be too difficult to determine which joint users
had had information related to their video-viewing history sent to
Facebook through a "c-user" browser cookie, which appears only if
users have logged into Facebook using a default setting on the
same computer in the previous four weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Parisi and Suzanne
Havens Beckman -- shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi &
Havens LLP, Scott A. Kamber, David A. Stampley and Grace E.
Tersigni of KamberLaw LLC, and Brian R. Strange and Gretchen
Carpenter -- gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com -- of Strange &
Carpenter.

Hulu is represented by Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@omm.com --
Steven M. Dunst and Victor Jih of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The case is In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, case number 3:11-cv-
03764, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 26 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of Texas has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of Ignite Restaurant
Group, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF IGNITE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE
TO THE COMPANY'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ON MAY 11, 2012 OR
BETWEEN MAY 11, 2012 AND OCTOBER 30, 2012

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that a hearing
will be held on June 5, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable
Vanessa Gilmore, United States District Judge of the Southern
District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Courtroom 9A, Houston, Texas
77002, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the Litigation for the sum of $1,800,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which
would result in this Litigation being dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation dated January 23, 2015; (2) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation to distribute the settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of one third of the Gross Settlement Fund,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $330,000, and an
incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to lead plaintiffs,
should be approved.

If you purchased common stock of Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.
pursuant to traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") on May 11, 2012 or between May 11, 2012 and October 30,
2012, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this action.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing
to Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565-7985 (Fax);
info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website,
http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than April 15, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.  If
you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than May 5,
2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to
the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, the Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, or awards to Lead Plaintiff s must be
in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and
received no later than May 16, 2015, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court                  Phillip Kim, Esq.
United States District Court        THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Southern District of Texas -        275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
Houston Division                    New York, NY 10016
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002

                                    Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel

Yosef J. Riemer, P.C.               Robert Y. Sperling
Shireen A. Barday                   Joseph L. Motto
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP                WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
601 Lexington Avenue                35 West Wacker Drive
New York, New York 10022            Chicago, IL 60601-9703

Counsel for Defendants              Counsel for Credit Suisse
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.,      Securities (USA) LLC
Raymond A. Blanchette, III,         Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc.
Jeffrey L. Rager, and               Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Edward W. Engel                     KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.
                                    Lazard Capital Markets LLC,
                                    and Raymond James &
                                    Associates, Inc.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: 212-686-1060
Fax: 212-202-3827

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

Dated: January 30, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


JRB ENGINEERING: "Max-George" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cecil Max-George, and others similarly situated v. JRB
Engineering, LLC and Eric J. Garcia, Case No. 4:15-cv-00582 (S.D.
Tex., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

JRB Engineering, LLC is a Houston-based, full-service geotechnical
engineering, construction materials testing, and environmental
consulting firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com


KING.COM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Computer Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alina Renert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. King.Com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01853 (N.D.
Ill., March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendant intentionally
accesses a protected computer without authorization.

King.Com Inc. is a conglomerate of leading interactive
entertainment companies for the mobile world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      Michael Loren Silverman, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: isalam@siprut.com
              msilverman@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


LA ABUNDANCIA: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Ocampo, Jasmin Vargas Labaves and Juan David Serna, and
other similarly situated current and former waiters, bussers,
prep cooks and dishwashers v. La Abundancia Bakery, Inc., and
Ruben Rojas, Case No. 1:15-cv-01134 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants with its principal
place of businesses located at 63-10 Broadway, Woodside, New York
11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LA TAQUERIA: Faces "Zaldivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Zaldivar, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. La Taqueria El Ranchito, Inc. and Elias
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-01911 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


LEAR CORP: No Approval Yet on Class Suit Deals in US, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation 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 U.S. settlement
agreements between the Company and the classes of indirect
purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the District
Court, and the Canadian Settlement Agreement remains subject to
court approval in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec following the provision of notice to purported class
members.

Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").

Beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
Canadian laws related to competition (the "Canadian Cases"). The
allegations and requests for relief in the Canadian Cases are
substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases.

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases, the
Company entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in
the Consolidated Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "U.S. Settlement
Agreements") and with the plaintiffs in the Canadian Cases on
November 11, 2014 (the "Canadian Settlement Agreement" and
together with the U.S. Settlement Agreements, the "Settlement
Agreements"), under which the class plaintiffs in both the
Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases will release the Company
from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action. The
Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any
wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in
connection with these matters. Because the conduct alleged by the
class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the
Company's emergence from bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the U.S.
Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount
of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by
the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock
and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve
established under the Company's plan of reorganization.

Likewise, the Canadian Settlement Agreement provides that the
aggregate settlement amount of CDN$563,500 will consist of
CDN$23,845 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder
paid from the proceeds of the sale of outstanding common stock and
warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established
under the Company's plan of reorganization.

The U.S. Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The U.S. Settlement Agreements
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014.

The U.S. Settlement Agreements between the Company and the classes
of indirect purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the
District Court, which will be decided following the provision of
notice to purported class members and hearings, with respect to
each class, to confirm the fairness of the settlement.

Likewise, the Canadian Settlement Agreement remains subject to
court approval in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec following the provision of notice to purported class
members.


LEAR CORP: Dismissed From City of Richmond Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation 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 City of Richmond,
California filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (the "District Court") on behalf of itself
and other "Public Entities," comprising states, state
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, as well as local
government subdivisions and agencies, and amended its complaint on
October 3, 2014 (the "Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations
and requests for relief in the Public Entities Complaint are
substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The
Public Entities dismissed the Company, without prejudice, from the
Public Entities' lawsuit on October 9, 2014.


LEAR CORP: Faces Truck Dealers Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation 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 plaintiff filed on
November 21, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the
"District Court") against the Company and several other global
suppliers of wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust and related laws regarding the sales of wire
harnesses for medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, commercial
vehicles and equipment. Plaintiffs purport to be truck and
equipment dealers who are indirect purchasers of wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period. The allegations and requests for relief in the
complaint are otherwise substantially similar to those in the
Consolidated Cases. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this complaint, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these proceedings.


LENOVO US: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
-----------------------------------------------------
Herbert Phillips and Susan Tam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and
Superfish Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01103 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers
with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which,
through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and
sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones,
workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart
televisions.

Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company
that develops various advertising-supported software products
based on a visual search engine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Bilsborrow, Esq.
      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              cdalbey@weitzlux.com


LENOVO US: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.C. Over Harmful Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------
David Wood, Yudhisthir Bissoonnauth, Dan Onken, Richard Seedroff,
Sandra Allen, Sam Ellis, and Ryan Tuckerman, individually and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Lenovo (United
States) Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00077
(E.D.N.C., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive
spyware and malware.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which,
through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and
sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones,
workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart
televisions.

Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company
that develops various advertising-supported software products
based on a visual search engine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan W. Duncan, Esq.
      Stephen M. Russell Jr., Esq.
      VAN LANINGHAM DUNCAN PLLC
      300 N. Greene St., Suite 850
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 645-3320
      Facsimile: (336) 645-3330
      E-mail: aduncan@vldlitigation.com
              srussell@vldlitigation.com

         - and -

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
              Joel@blockesq.com


LIBERTY SILVER: Reached Deal Regarding Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company had
reached a settlement in principle regarding the consolidated
securities class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal
court in the Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.).  The action contains
various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012.  The plaintiff purports to bring
suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including
October 5, 2012.  An amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2013.

On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and
Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as
Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel.  On March
24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties
moved to dismiss the Complaint.

On December 8, 2014, the Company had reached a settlement in
principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed
in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District
of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and
fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through
October 2012.  The settlement, which is subject to final
documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a
payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O
insurance coverage.  This settlement, without in any way
acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and
final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty
Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation.
Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the
Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders
to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind
it.  The settlement is subject to approval by the Court.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Two Putative Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and/or
Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's
subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties
unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 13
individual lawsuits filed in December 2014, and two putative class
action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County,
Alabama. These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan Regional
Medical Center received improper interventional cardiology
procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class
action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015, seeks certification of
a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology
procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr.
Aksut. This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble
damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and
attorneys' fees.


LJ CAMPBELL: Faces "Santana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Santana, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. L.J. Campbell Wholesale Meats, Inc. d/b/a L.J.
Campbell Wholesale Meats, and James Hyland, Case No. 1:15-cv-01594
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

L.J. Campbell Wholesale Meats, Inc. is a meat wholesaler owned by
James Hyland, located at 355 Food Center Drive, Building D6,
Bronx, New York 10474.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Badias" Suit Over Flooring Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin F. Badias, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-20876 (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
      RONALD WEIL PA
      200 S Biscayne Boulevard
      Wachovia Financial Center Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-5352
      Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
      E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net

         - and -

      Theodore Babbitt, Esq.
      BABBITT JOHNSON & OSBORNE
      1641 Worthington Road
      Suite 100 PO Box 4426
      West Palm Beach, FL 33402-4426
      Telephone: (561) 684-2500
      Facsimile: (561) 684-6308
      E-mail: tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com

         - and -

      Wendi Leigh Ribaudo, Esq.
      John Marion Quaranta, Esq.
      WEIL QUARANTA MCGOVERN, P.A.
      200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-5352
      E-mail: wendi@wqmlaw.net
              John@wqmlaw.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bloomfield" Over Flooring Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Bloomfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-01956 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Eshoo Jr., Esq.
      Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
      CHILDRESS DUFFY, LTD.
      500 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 494-0200
      Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
      E-mail: Eeshoo@childresslawyers.com
              mduffy@childresslawyers.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Conte" Suit Over Flooring Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Conte, Mark Reyes, Daniel Tacktill, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated and the general public
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01012 (N.D. Cal.,
March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled
and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and
applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and
off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized
as a known human carcinogen by the United States National
Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              skye@consumersadvocates.com


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $771MM Liability in Merchant Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2014, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a
liability of $771 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases,
MasterCard said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement. MasterCard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. Objections to
the settlement were filed by both merchants and certain
competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections include a
challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the
rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of
trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court
granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, which
has been appealed by objectors to the settlement.

Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements
described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with
respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class
litigation.

At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, MasterCard had $540
million and $723 million, respectively, in the qualified cash
settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance
sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the
defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based
upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out
merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement
fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified
at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In
the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net
pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants,
representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating
to these matters.

During 2014, MasterCard executed settlement agreements with a
number of opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount
previously recorded was deemed necessary. As of December 31, 2014,
MasterCard had accrued a liability of $771 million as a reserve
for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could
have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Class Actions Filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that additional proposed
class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan and
Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British
Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class action lawsuits are
ultimately successful, negative decisions could have a significant
adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's Canadian customers
and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and could result in
substantial damage awards.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs.

In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014
certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The
parties have appealed the certification decision.


MASTERCARD INC: Cal. High Court Denied Request to Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeals court has
affirmed the trial court's approval order in the Attridge action
and the California Supreme Court has subsequently denied the
objectors' request to appeal that ruling.

In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on
behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the
"Attridge action"). The claims in this action seek to leverage a
1998 action by the U.S. Department of Justice against MasterCard
International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. In
that action, a federal district court concluded that both
MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy and a Visa bylaw
provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in
the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary
payment cards (such as American Express or Discover) constituted
unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. The
state court in the Attridge action granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims but denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair
competition claims.

In September 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that
received final approval by the court in the California consumer
actions in August 2010.  The agreement includes a release that the
parties believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge
action.

In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In April 2013, the trial court granted final
approval of a revised settlement agreement, to which the plaintiff
from the Attridge action and three other objectors appealed.  In
October 2014, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's
approval order and the California Supreme Court subsequently
denied the objectors' request to appeal that ruling.


MASTERCARD INC: Plaintiffs in ATM Surcharge Suit Appeal Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the
ATM non-discrimination rule surcharge complaints have appealed the
dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their
complaints.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint described
above, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of
consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at
both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and
monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have
sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of
suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified
their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be
in the tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs' motion
seeking approval to amend their complaints was denied by the
district court in December 2013. The plaintiffs have appealed the
dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend their
complaints.


MEADWESTVACO: Faces Class Action Over Rock-Tenn Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Spiers, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
hungry for more class-action cases, law firms from around the
country are again targeting another big Richmond merger.

The January announcement of the pending marriage of Richmond-based
Fortune 500 MeadWestvaco and fellow packaging giant Rock-Tenn Co.
sparked response from law firms across the country.

These firms are all in search of the same thing: a MWV shareholder
who disagrees with the deal and is willing to sign on as lead
plaintiff for a potential class-action case.  It's a practice
that's become the norm following the announcement of big deals
involving publicly traded companies.

The MWV-Rock-Tenn deal is at least the fourth merger in recent
years involving a Richmond company to be targeted by this legal
strategy.

Tucker McNeil, director of corporate communications for MWV, said
the company and its attorneys are well aware of the tactic.

"It's not unlike any of these firms to troll out there for
possible folks to join in a class-action suit," Mr. McNeil said.
"It was not news to our legal team by any stretch.  They certainly
weren't surprised when it happened."

MeadWestvaco's deal, which would create a colossus company with
combined $15.7 billion in revenue, was announced Jan. 26.

Within days, at least half a dozen law firms took to the Internet
claiming they are investigating the merger and potential claims
against the MWV board of directors.

In a merger situation, firms typically argue that the deal may not
be in shareholders' best interest and that they are looking for
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other alleged violations.

Similar language is used in each of the posts, which tell
shareholders that they have the option to file a class-action
lawsuit.

For example, San Diego law firm Robbins Arroyo said in its release
that its investigation "focuses on whether the board of directors
at MeadWestvaco is undertaking a fair process to obtain maximum
value and adequately compensate its shareholders."

The firm contends that the $49.13 merger consideration represents
a premium of 8.7 percent, based on MWV's closing price last
December.

"This premium is significantly below the average one-month premium
of nearly 29.15 percent for comparable transactions within the
past five years," the firm says, adding that the merger
consideration "is significantly below the target price of $60" set
by a financial analyst in January.

"In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining
MeadWestvaco board of directors' decision to sell the company now
rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the
company's continued success and future growth prospects."

If a lawsuit is filed in such an instance, it typically seeks to
either block the deal, force changes in its terms or force
settlements that can be potentially lucrative to both the
plaintiff and the law firms.

Deals involving Union Bankshares, Owens & Minor and the former
Franklin Federal Savings Bank all were subject to similar tactics.
And each led to lawsuits filed and cases that ended with varying
results.

While no lawsuit had been filed against MWV as of Feb. 25, at
least two of the law firms' online posts refer to a complaint
filed in Delaware state court.  A search of online court records
did not produce such a complaint.

Should it close, the stock-for-stock deal will give MWV
shareholders control of about 51 percent of the combined company.
Richmond would then be home to the country's second-largest
packaging company, behind only International Paper.

Mr. McNeil said MWV stands by the numbers in the deal.

"We've got fairness opinions," he said. "Our board is confident
what we're doing is the right thing."


MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------
Securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against Model N,
Inc. and others, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers and underwriters of the IPO. The lawsuits were
brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to
represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the
Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The
lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on
its financial statements. However, based on currently available
information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome
of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


NBTY INC: Reduced Exposure Estimate in Glucosamine Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has reduced its
estimate of exposure to $6,100,000 in the class actions related to
Glucosamine-based dietary supplements.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain
indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolved all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return
for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and
notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on
October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain
objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment
on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
February 3, 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000,
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to
$6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected
in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the
cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on
the part of NBTY.


NBTY INC: CCG Filed Motion to Dismiss "Lary" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that Corporate Mailings, Inc.
d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and that motion is pending.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit was scheduled
to be heard on March 16, 2015.

On July 25, 2014, a Federal Securities class action lawsuit
entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies,
Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in
Central District of California. The action generally alleges the
Company violated certain federal securities laws by allegedly
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
product and business prospect of that product. Specifically, the
complaint alleges the next-generation product did not exist as of
November 8, 2011 and there was no reasonable basis for stating
that there was a growing interest or serious interest in the
product; the product had been gaining momentum or that it had been
well received. The plaintiff has filed an amended consolidated
complaint including the previous allegations.

On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit stating that the plaintiff's complaint fails to
sufficiently plead the allegations and essential elements of the
claims. Following responsive pleadings by plaintiff and defendant,
the motion is scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2015.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be meritless and intends to
vigorously defend the action including but not limited to motions
to dismiss. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability
insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at
this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment
that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it
is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these
proceedings will or will not have material adverse effect on the
Company. As of the date of this filing, a class had not yet been
established.


NEUSTAR INC: Motion to Dismiss IPRS's Amended Complaint Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted NeuStar, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS's amended
complaint, NeuStar said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,
or the Alexandria Division, against us and certain of our senior
executive officers.  The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for
purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased our securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014,
inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive
relief."

On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order
appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public
Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff.

"On November 6, 2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on
December 8, 2014, we moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint.
On December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to our motion to
dismiss.  On December 29, 2014, we filed a reply brief to the IPRS
opposition.  The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the
motions on January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an
order granting our motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with
prejudice.  IPRS has the right to appeal the dismissal," the
Company said.


NEW JERSEY: Faces "Kolakowski" Suit Over RICO Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
David Kolakowski, all others similarly situated v. Governor
Christopher Christie, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01583 (D.N.J.,
March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, (RICO)
Chapter 96 of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1961-1968.

Governor Chris Christie is the Acting Governor for the State of
New Jersey located at Hughes Justice Complex, 25 West Market
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Kolakowski, PRO SE
      54 Deal Lake Point Road
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      E-mail: davidk@kolaco.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Defending Against Railroad Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to defend antitrust class
actions filed against the Company and other Class I railroads, the
company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the Company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

"We believe the allegations in the complaints are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not believe the
outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on our
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity," the
Company said.

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the Company and
four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended
in August 2013.


PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement on Track for Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed $400
million deal to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing Pfizer
Inc. of misleading investors about illegal off-label drug
marketing was put on track for approval on Feb. 26, but not before
a Manhattan federal judge asked pointed questions about the value
of the deal and demanded a fresh round of opt-out notices for
investors.

The dollar value "seems like a lot of money," U.S. District Judge
Alvin K. Hellerstein told the litigants -- foes since the suit was
filed in May 2010, but now allies in trying to consummate the
accord -- but he worried at the preliminary approval hearing
whether that sum really would mean anything, especially for small
investors.

"That's pretty much low," Mr. Hellerstein said, after hearing that
the settlement marks a recovery of just less than 15 cents per
damaged share -- far less than that $1.26 per damaged share a
plaintiffs' damages expert had estimated.  "To see this come in
this way is disappointing."

He said that small investors especially would be less likely to
take action to collect because the per share recovery at their
level "isn't worth doing anything."

But plaintiffs' counsel Michael J. Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP reminded Judge Hellerstein that
any recovery at trial would have been subject to the vagaries of a
jury.

And defense counsel Steven M. Farina -- sfarina@wc.com -- of
Williams & Connolly LLP noted that the defense put the damage per
share figure at "zero" because, among other things, Pfizer
disclosed a dividend cut to fund its purchase of Wyeth on the day
of the January 2009 stock drop central to the litigation. Dividend
cuts tend to trigger intense sell-offs.

Both sides also noted that if fewer people claim, the recovery for
claimants will grow.  And, they noted, institutional investors
will be active in the proposed settlement, claiming most of the
potential recovery.

"It's a terrific settlement," Mr. Dowd said.

Judge Hellerstein also ordered the sides to craft a new opt-out
notice that explains clearly how the litigation came to its
current stage.  He said that he has received letters from the
public complaining that they had received notice too late or found
the notices to be unclear.

The sides warned that anyone who opted out at this stage likely
would forgo any recovery because the relevant statutes of
limitations have elapsed for an alleged fraud that took place more
than six years ago.

Judge Hellerstein said that should be made clear -- and he swept
aside concerns raised by Pfizer's counsel that a new rash of opt-
outs could threaten the settlement.

"It's important to us that we buy complete peace here," Farina
said.

In reply, Judge Hellerstein said that if Pfizer "wants to blow up
the settlement, so be it. I'll try the case."

Investors say that Pfizer made misleading disclosures in marketing
four drugs: Bextra, which Pfizer voluntarily pulled off the market
in 2005 amid safety concerns; anti-psychotic treatment Geodon;
anti-epileptic treatment Lyrica; and antibiotic Zyvox. Pfizer also
concealed kickbacks to physicians to promote sales, the investors
claim.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Dowd of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Pfizer is represented by Steven M. Farina of Williams & Connolly
LLP.

The case is Jones et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., case number 1:10-
cv-03864, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


POINCIANA MANAGEMENT: "Manuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalena Manuel, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Poinciana Management, Inc., and Robert
Spiegel, Case No. 9:15-cv-80282 (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Poinciana Management, Inc. provides property management and other
real estate-related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Scott Dwoskin, Esq.
      Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
      SCHWARZBERG , ASSOCIATES
      Phillips Point-East Tower
      777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 253-2211
      E-mail: edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com
              steve@schwarzberglaw.com


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Against McCaffree Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that McCaffree
Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program ("McCaffree") filed on
March 18, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against
Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach
of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and prohibited
transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class
action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of defined
contribution retirement plans that invested in any Principal
Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks
disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly
retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal
Life has filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 11,
2014, the court granted the motion. McCaffree filed a notice of
appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal Life will continue to
aggressively defend the case.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Cruise and Mullaney Class Actions Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Cruise and
Mullaney cases were dismissed on December 15, 2014.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors,
LLC; Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate
Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits
alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the
Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed
complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and
are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.
Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals on December 31, 2013. The case was dismissed on December
15, 2014.


QUICKEN LOANS: Must Face TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------
Emily Field, Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Andrew Scurria, writing for
Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on Feb. 25 nixed
Quicken Loans Inc.'s attempt to duck a proposed Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action accusing it of using contact
information bought from a credit reporting bureau to call
consumers' cellphones, saying the plaintiff sufficiently alleged
the calls were autodialed.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected Quicken's argument that
lead plaintiff Christopher Legg didn't plead standing under the
TCPA since he didn't claim that Quicken made calls to his phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system.  The judge noted that
Mr. Legg referred to Quicken's use of an autodialer at least 15
times in his complaint and specifically alleged the types of
calls.

"Defendant claims that these allegations are not sufficient under
the TCPA and that plaintiff 'must allege' how defendant's
equipment meets the criteria for an 'ATDS under the TCPA,'" the
judge said.  "But this is a far too exacting standard -- defendant
does not point to statutes or case law that requires such
specificity and it is too high of a burden to expect a plaintiff
to know the type of equipment a defendant uses."

The judge said that Mr. Legg's allegations are a "short and plain
statement of the claim," sufficient to put Quicken on notice.

Mr. Legg alleges that Quicken called his cellphone from at least
six numbers between January and February of 2013, according to the
judge, and describes the content of the calls.

The calls included pre-recorded messages or connections to a
Quicken representative aggressively marketing its financial
products, the judge said.

The judge also rejected Quicken's argument that Legg's complaint
should be dismissed because he didn't claim he was the subscriber
of the cellphone service.

According to Judge Scola, Legg doesn't have to allege he is the
subscriber to state a claim under the TCPA; he only has to claim
that he is the called party, which he did.

"Defendant's argument may be applicable at the summary judgment
stage if Plaintiff is unable to show that he is the subscriber of
the cellphone at issue, but there is no requirement that a
plaintiff plead that he or she is the subscriber," the judge said.

Christopher Legg claims that Quicken obtained "trigger leads" --
contact information for people who recently had their credit
history investigated by rival mortgage lenders -- and then
violated the TCPA by calling them using an autodialer, which can
randomly and sequentially generate telephone numbers and dial them
by itself.

Quicken made cold calls to more than 100 people who were not
customers of the company in January 2013, using an autodialer
after obtaining phone numbers from sources other than the
recipients, such as Experian PLC and other credit reporting
agencies that advertise the sale of trigger leads, the complaint
alleges.

Quicken is represented by Andrew Kemp-Gerstel -- AKG@LGPLaw.com --
J. Randolph Liebler and Melissa D. Goolsarran of Liebler Gonzalez
& Portuondo.

Legg is represented by Scott David Owens and Patrick Christopher
Crotty of The Law Office of Scott D. Owens and by Alexander H.
Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC.

The case is Christopher Legg v. Quicken Loans Inc., case number
0:14-cv-61116, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Action in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Ingrid
Barahona California class action remains in the early stages of
litigation.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona seeks damages
and penalties under California law alleging that she and the
putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business
practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to,
among others, failure to provide certain rest and meal periods, as
well as failure to pay minimum wages and overtime. Ms. Barahona
alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies
and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's
allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms.
Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are
vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a
preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.
In addition, the Company believes that the plaintiff's class
definition is overly broad and cannot meet California's class
action certification requirements.

On August 28, 2014, the Company filed an Answer to Ms. Barahona's
First Amended Complaint, and the case remains in the early stages
of litigation. The Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the final outcome of the matter.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed in December
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consolidated class
action lawsuit against the Company was dismissed without prejudice
on December 10, 2014.

On July 10, 2014, the first of two purported securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants us and
certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuits, which were
consolidated on September 26, 2014, alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
us related to our Phase 3 trial of Revolixys in patients
undergoing certain percutaneous coronary intervention procedures.
Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that we failed to disclose
facts related to the potential risk of several allergic reactions
following the administration of Revolixys and therefore made false
or misleading statements about Revolixys' safety. This
consolidated lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on December
10, 2014.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Maiman" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported
shareholder of the Company filed on February 2, 2015, a putative
class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado Biosciences,
Inc., Case No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware, challenging the proposed stock-for-stock Merger of the
Company with Tobira. The complaint names as defendants: (i) each
member of the Company's Board of Directors, (ii) the Company,
(iii) Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiff alleges
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
merge the Company with Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b)
implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of
interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement that are alleged to favor Tobira and deter alternative
bids. Plaintiff also generally alleges that the entity defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the consummation
of the Merger and an award of costs and expenses, including a
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company
believes the litigation is without merit.


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits on Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2014, Riverbed Technology, Inc. (Riverbed) entered
into a definitive agreement (Merger Agreement) to be acquired by
the private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo for $21.00 in cash
per outstanding common share (the Merger).

Riverbed Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with
the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby,
ten purported class action lawsuits have been filed. Seven
complaints, captioned Gary Merryman, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et
al., filed on December 19, 2014 and amended on January 21, 2015,
Kamesh Bathla, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December
22, 2014 and amended on January 14, 2015, Domenico Carlucci,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others, Similarly Situated v.
Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December 23, 2014 and
amended on January 15, 2015, First Financial Trust, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed
Technology, Inc. et al., filed on December 23, 2014, Gerard Byrne,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Boustridge et al., filed on December 24, 2014, Richard Krol, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed
Technology, Inc. et al., filed on January 8, 2015 and amended on
January 15, 2015, and David Jessen v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et
al., filed on January 15, 2015, were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On January 30 and February 2, 2015, the Delaware actions were
consolidated as In Re Riverbed Technology Inc. Shareholder
Litigation. Two complaints, captioned Ken Steiger, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology,
Inc., et al., filed on January 16, 2015, and Louis Benson, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed
Technology, Inc., et al., filed January 20, 2015, were filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court, in the State of California. One
complaint captioned Seth Olson, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., et al.,
filed February 5, 2015, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.

In general, the complaints assert that, among other things, the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
to stockholders by initiating a process that undervalues Riverbed,
by agreeing to a transaction that does not adequately reflect
Riverbed's true value, and/or by failing to disclose material
information relating thereto, and that Riverbed, Newco, Merger
Sub, Thoma Bravo, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, and/or
Elliott aided and abetted the Board of Directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The federal complaint further asserts violations
of federal securities laws related to the dissemination of the
purportedly false and materially misleading proxy and seeks a
declaration that certain provisions in the Company's amended and
restated bylaws concerning forum selection and fee shifting are
invalid. The complaints generally seek to enjoin the merger or,
alternatively, seek rescission of the merger in the event the
defendants are able to consummate it.

"We intend to vigorously contest these claims," the Company said.


SAKS FIFTH: Seeks Dismissal of Return Policy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Saks
Fifth Avenue wants a proposed class action filed over its return
policy tossed, arguing that the named plaintiff has failed to show
she's sustained any damages.

The upmarket department store chain filed its motion to dismiss in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Feb. 6.

In December, Jennifer Shaouli filed a proposed class action
against Saks over allegations that the retailer violated the
state's False Advertising Act and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, or
CLRA.

Ms. Shaouli said she bought a pair of shoes at the Saks store at
9600 Wilshire Blvd. in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Jan. 18, 2014.
The next month, Ms. Shaouli allegedly received a letter from Saks
stating that any purchases she made after Feb. 25, 2014 at the
store would not be accepted for returns, exchanges, credits or
refunds.  She also was allegedly told she could no longer shop at
saks.com, and future transactions in Saks stores also could be
restricted.

She claims no signs or language were posted in the store making
her aware of Saks return policy, which states it can decline
requests to return, exchange, credit or refund merchandise if the
customer had a high return rate or unreasonable return pattern.

The store policy also states it can suspend a customer's ability
to make purchases online, as well as refuse future transactions in
stores.

Ms. Shaouli sued, seeking full restitution.

But lawyers for the retailer argue that Ms. Shaouli hasn't
established she's sustained any damages and that she's failed to
allege Saks refused any attempt by her to return merchandise.

In addition, the retailer contends the plaintiff has failed to
mitigate her damages.

"Plaintiff acknowledges that when she violated Defendant's
existing return policy by returning $149,245 of merchandise
purchased from Defendant over a 12-month period, Defendant sent
her letters explaining that she had violated Defendant's
established return policy and gave her two-weeks advance notice
that it would restrict her ability to return merchandise purchased
in the future," lawyers for Saks wrote in the 15-page motion.  "At
no time before, during or after that two-week warning period did
Plaintiff ever attempt to return any outstanding unreturned
merchandise, and Defendant never refused to accept any returns
from Plaintiff.

"Her failure to mitigate bars any damages she seeks on her Unfair
Competition Law, CLRA and negligent misrepresentation claims."

Ms. Shaouli's complaint also fails to allege that Saks violated
any of the CLRA provisions at issue, based on their plain meaning,
Saks argues.

"There is no violation unless Defendant made representations or
advertisements regarding goods and services themselves (not
regarding any transaction for the goods or services)," lawyers for
the retailer wrote.

Saks argues that Ms. Shaouli lacks standing because she has been
"fully aware" of the retailer's return policy for nearly a year.

Saks is represented by David E. Fink -- dfink@kelleydrye.com --
and Ken D. Kronstadt of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP's Los Angeles
office.  Ms. Shaouli is represented by Beverly Hills attorney Paul
L. Mankin IV.


SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Theft Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on Feb. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit* against Shorter University over a September 2014
incident in which hundreds of current and former students'
personal and medical information was allegedly stolen out of a
filing cabinet in an unlocked room on campus.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, several plaintiffs, who
are former members of Shorter University's athletic program,
allege the school "failed to safeguard and secure personally
identifiable" student information, including birth dates, Social
Security numbers, and billing information, as well as "personal
health-related information," according to court documents.  On or
around September 23, 2014, court documents say, records for as
many as 900 current and former Shorter students were allegedly
stolen from an unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room by "an
unauthorized person."  Plaintiffs, whose records were maintained
by Shorter University from at least 2007 to 2014, had their
personal medical records stored at Shorter after they underwent
physical examinations, a prerequisite necessary to participate in
Shorter's athletic program.

Although the school sent letters to some individuals notifying
them of the data breach, they did not reach every student subject
to the theft, and some students did not receive any message that
their information may have been stolen, according to allegations
contained in court documents.  As these plaintiffs prepared to
file their tax returns, according to court documents, they were
allegedly informed that someone had already used their Social
Security number and other information to file their tax returns
and claim their tax refunds.

For any current students or Shorter alumni who believe their
information may have been taken, however, attorney John Yanchunis
offered some advice pertaining to getting ahead of the problem
before it can get any worse.

"Place a fraud alert with the credit reporting companies,"
Mr. Yanchunis said.  "Get your free credit reports, and create an
Identity Theft report by filing a complaint with the Federal Trade
Commission and your local police department."

To contact Morgan & Morgan about this data breach, please visit
http://www.ForThePeople.com/free-case-evaluation

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan -- http://www.forthepeople.com/-- is one of the
largest plaintiffs' law firms in the country with more than 20
offices throughout Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and New York.  The firm handles cases nationally
involving personal injury, medical malpractice, consumer class
action, and securities fraud, as well as complex litigation
against drug and medical device manufacturers.

*Case no. 4:15-cv-00033, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division


SPANSION INC: Faces "Jeter" and "Stein" Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Spansion Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that Walter Jeter filed on
December 17, 2014, a class action complaint in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (No.
114CV274635) against Spansion Inc., its directors, Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation, and Mustang Acquisition Corporation. On
December 24, 2014, Shiva Y. Stein filed a similar class action
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924) against the same defendants.

On January 12, 2015, each of the plaintiffs filed substantially
identical amended complaints. Both cases allege that the proposed
merger was the result of a flawed process and provides
insufficient value to Spansion's shareholders, and further allege
that the disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2014
are materially incomplete and misleading. Plaintiffs in both cases
assert claims against Spansion's directors for a breach of
fiduciary duty and, as to Spansion Inc., Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation and Mustang Acquisition Corporation, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin
the Merger Agreement between Spansion Inc. and Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation which was announced on December 1, 2014,
or alternatively, rescission in the event the defendants are able
to consummate it, damages and attorney fees and costs.

Spansion Inc. and the other named defendants have not filed an
answer or other responsive pleading to the complaints or the
amended complaints.

The Company has not accrued an amount related to this case as it
is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
a range of possible loss.

Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc., et. al., Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, (No. 114CV274635);
Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc., el. al., Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924).


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing Indemnity Related to Harkness
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disputes The Boeing Company's
position on indemnity related to the Harkness class action, Spirit
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company ("Boeing") et al. was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (the "Harkness Class Action").
The defendants were served in early July 2007. The defendants
included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita
Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and
Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit
AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals. The putative class consists of
approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The
parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members who
asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals
who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas,
were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10
years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and
who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that
were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by
Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were
unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought a
declaration that they were entitled to the early retirement
pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction
ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages
pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing
all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice. Plaintiffs'
claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the litigation.

Boeing has announced that the plaintiffs and Boeing agreed on June
12, 2014 to a settlement of this matter, subject to a fairness
hearing. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is
entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable
damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms
of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition
between Boeing and Spirit (the "APA") and has filed suit against
Spirit seeking a ruling that it is so entitled. Spirit disputes
Boeing's position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution
of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action commenced against Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D.
Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas are
currently awaiting a decision by the district judge on the
defendants' motion to dismiss, Spirit said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the Amended Complaint. The parties have fully briefed
the defendants' motion, presented oral arguments before the court
on February 6, 2015 and are currently awaiting a decision by the
district judge.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this
matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


SWEET MAPLE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Sweet Maple Cafe, LLC and Laurene J. Hynson,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01913 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


TARGET CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Rouse, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00048 (S.D. Tex.,
March 3, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, minimum
wages, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, attorneys' fees,
costs of court, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and all other available
statutory remedies and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota Corporation and is the second
largest discount retailer that operates 1,793 stores in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
      WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 528-4455
      Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
      E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com


TARGET CORP: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Mello, writing for Law360, reports that a Target Corp.
herbal supplement buyer slammed the retailer with a putative class
action in California federal court on Feb. 25 alleging it violated
false advertising laws by selling store-branded Up & Up
supplements like St. John's wort that contained no trace of the
key ingredients listed on the labels.

The Feb. 25 suit comes on the heels of a recent investigation by
the office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman that
said many store-brand herbal supplements from Target and other
major retailers contained little or none of the herb purportedly
in the bottle.  In making the announcement, Mr. Schneiderman said
mislabeled or mystery ingredients in the products could pose a
serious harm to people with allergies.

Linda Boss of Manteca, California, filed the lawsuit after buying
Target's Up & Up brand St. John's wort for four years.  The suit
said she chose Up & Up instead of other brands specifically
because of the ingredients.

"Plaintiff and other consumers did not know or have reason to know
that Target's herbal supplements did not contain the herbal
ingredients listed on their labels," Ms. Boss' suit says.
"Plaintiff and other consumers would [not] have purchased the
herbal supplements had Target not misstated their true
composition."

Earlier in February, Mr. Schneiderman called on retailing giants
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walgreen Co., GNC Corp. and Target to stop
selling certain of their herbal supplements.  Several lawsuits
have already been filed against those retailers since the
investigation was announced.

Mr. Schneiderman said his office's investigation conducted DNA
tests on supplements such as St. John's wort, echinacea and
ginseng. In nearly 80 percent of the cases, the supplements did
not have the herb purported to be the main ingredient. In some
cases, the supplement contained ingredients not listed on the
label.

Ms. Boss' lawsuit points to the Schneiderman study a well as a
study done by the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics at the
University of Guelph in Canada.

"The Guelph study focuses in part on St. John's wort -- the
supplement plaintiff purchased here -- and found that the bottles
labeled as St. John's wort contained none of the herb and instead
contained rice and Senna alexandrina -- an Egyptian shrub often
taken as a laxative," the lawsuit says.

Ms. Boss's attorneys say there are potentially thousands of other
consumers who purchased Target-brand supplements, providing the
basis for a class action.  The complaint notes Northern California
must account for a sizeable chunk of Target's sales, as the
retailer has 262 of its nearly 1,800 stores in California, making
it a proper venue for a federal case.

The complaint alleges Target's actions amount to deceptive
business practice, false advertising and negligence.

Ms. Boss claims Target's actions caused over $5 million in
damages.  She is seeking restitution and other monetary damages,
attorneys fees and an order for corrective action on Target's
part.

Ms. Boss is represented by Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com --
Daniel C. Girard and Eric H. Gibbs of Girard Gibbs LLP.

Counsel information for Target was not available.

The case is Boss v. Target Corp. et al., case number 3:15-cv-
00855, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


TEMPUR SEALY: Plaintiffs in Norfolk & Benning Actions Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the
cases, Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 20, 2012; and Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 25, 2012, Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The cases were filed on June 20 and 25, 2012, against the Company
and two named executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and
concealment of material information concerning the Company's
competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted
share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012
fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two
lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated
complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered
final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain,
however, and although the Company does not currently expect to
incur a loss with respect to these matters, the Company cannot
currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the
suit, an estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that
could result in the event of an adverse judgment in this suit, or
whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


TEMPUR SEALY: Says "Todd" Class Action Lacks Merit
--------------------------------------------------
The case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, lacks merit and is at a very
preliminary stage, Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries.

The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very
preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


TENNESSEE: Sued Over Alleged Student Voters Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Nashville Student Organizing Committee, Justin Bautista-Jones,
Tyshaunda Blanche, Jarrett Harper, Jahmelia Stenson, Justen
Williams-Reed, Courtney Kirksey-Warren, Breonna Frierson, Makayla
Spencer, Kree Kelly, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Tre Hargett, in his official capacity as
Tennessee Secretary of State, Mark Goins, in his official capacity
as Coordinator of Elections, Case No. 3:15-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn.,
March 4, 2015), arises out of the Tennessee's strict voter ID law,
which requires in-person voters to present one of a limited number
of photo IDs, alleged to intentionally discriminates against out
of-state college and university students, and has the purpose and
effect of denying and abridging the right to vote on account of
age.

Tre Hargett is the Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee.

Mark Goins is the Coordinator of Elections for the Office of the
Tennessee Secretary of State's Division of Elections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas S. Johnston Jr., Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

     Jon Sherman, Esq.
     FAIR ELECTIONS LEGAL NETWORK
     1825 K. St., NW, Suite 450
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: (202) 248-5346
     Facsimile: (202) 331-1663
     E-mail: jsherman@fairelectionsnetwork.com


TIME WARNER: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class
action litigation related to the Comcast merger entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement,
subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and
certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding
litigation challenging the merger.

Following the announcement of the Comcast merger on February 13,
2014, eight putative class action complaints challenging the
merger were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders, seven
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These
complaints were captioned: Barrett v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et
al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Karl Graulich IRA v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.); Wedeking v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.); Lassoff v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Thomas v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Tangarone v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.); and
Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.).

On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff in Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable
Inc. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme
Court and re-filed the action in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware under the caption Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable
Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.).

Likewise, on March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs in Empire State Supply
Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. voluntarily discontinued
the action in the New York Supreme Court, and re-filed the action
on March 27, 2014 in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware under the caption Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time
Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.).

On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.) filed an
amended complaint.

On April 2, 2014, the Court orally granted a motion to consolidate
the pending actions in the New York Supreme Court under the
caption Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.), which the Court did formally by written order on April
15, 2014.

On April 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The various complaints name as defendants the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Comcast and Tango
Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The complaints assert that
the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during the Comcast
merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and
approving the Comcast merger, and that Comcast and Merger Sub
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints also allege that the Company and its Board of Directors
failed to disclose in the registration statement related to the
Comcast merger material facts relating to the merger. The
complaints seek, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining
the shareholder vote on the Comcast merger, unspecified
declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, and costs and fees.

On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement,
subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and
certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding
litigation challenging the merger.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the
lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive
final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not
consummated, intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Defendant in Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is the
defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district
courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for
pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends
to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Downs and Jarrett Litigation Terminated
----------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in
Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al. v. Insight
Communications Company, L.P. did not appeal the grant of summary
judgment, terminating the litigation.

On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes,
which is similar to the federal claim against the Company in In
re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, discussed
above. The plaintiffs were seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On July 19, 2013, TWC filed a motion for summary judgment, which
argued that Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not coerce
the plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a necessary
element of the plaintiffs' claim.

On July 29, 2014, the court granted TWC's summary judgment motion
and entered judgment in TWC's favor. On August 26, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on
December 1, 2014. The plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of
summary judgment, terminating the litigation.


TRT HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Swartz v. TRT Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Omni Hotels, Case No.
1:15-cv-01604 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide facility that is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

TRT Holdings, Inc. owns and operates Omni Berkshire Place hotel
located at 21 East 52nd Street at Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
      FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
      North Miami, FL 33181
      Telephone: (305) 891-5199
      Facsimile: (305) 893-9505
      E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com

         - and -

      Paul F. Conzdal, Esq.
      1330 Avenue ofthe Americas; Suite 23A
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 688-3637
      Facsimile: (646) 924-3406
      E-mail: condzalesq@msn.com


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settled Occupant Safety Systems Products Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. settled, for immaterial amounts,
certain purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of vehicle
purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers alleging that
the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and
raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products, TRW said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "We have settled, for amounts that are
immaterial to us, certain purported class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct
purchasers alleging that the Company and certain of its
competitors conspired to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety
Systems products. These lawsuits were filed on various dates from
June 2012 through May 2014 in, or were consolidated in, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Once
the court approves the settlements, those cases will be dismissed.
We have also settled, for an amount that is immaterial to us,
similar cases filed in various courts in Canada on behalf of
vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers."


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., and other named defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in
principle to settle all pending class actions related to the
merger in exchange for the Company's agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures, TRW said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

TRW said, "On September 15, 2014, we entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ZF Friedrichshafen
AG, a stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the Federal Republic of Germany ("ZF"), and MSNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Merger Sub") and a wholly owned subsidiary of ZF
held directly by ZF North America, Inc. ("ZNA"), pursuant to which
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "ZF
Merger") with the Company surviving the ZF Merger as an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of ZF. At a special stockholders meeting
held on November 19, 2014, our stockholders adopted the Merger
Agreement."

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement on September 15, 2014, seven purported stockholders of
the Company initiated legal actions challenging the merger. On
September 19, 2014, purported stockholder New Jersey Laborers
Pension Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the
Oakland County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the
Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Company Board"), in an action styled New
Jersey Laborers Pension Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et
al., No. 2014-143032-CB.

On September 26, 2014, purported stockholder Joseph Bidwell filed
a putative class action complaint in the Wayne County Circuit
Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA,
Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action
styled Bidwell vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 14-
012463-CB.

On October 3, 2014, purported stockholder Daniel Fumia filed a
putative class action complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court in
the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub,
and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Daniel
Fumia v. James F. Albaugh, Francois J. Castaing, Robert L.
Friedman, Michael R. Gambrell, J. Michael Losh, David W. Meline,
Jody G. Miller, MSNA, Inc., John C. Plant, Neil P. Simpkins, David
S. Taylor, TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF Friedrichshafen AG,
ZF North America, Inc., No. 14-012818-CB.

On October 6, 2014, purported stockholder Alan Abramson filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company
Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in an action styled Abramson vs. TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10203- VCL.

On October 15, 2014, purported stockholder Zhao Nie filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub and the
Company Board in an action styled Nie vs. TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp., et al., No. 10236-VCL.

On October 21, 2014, purported stockholder Luther Berry and
purported stockholder I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund
each filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members
of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in actions styled Berry
vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10264-VCL and
I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund vs. TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10265-VCL, respectively.

TRW said, "The complaints include claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the individual directors, alleging that the directors
violated the duties of loyalty, good faith and due care owed to
our stockholders. The complaints also include claims for aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek,
among other forms of relief, an order enjoining the transaction,
rescinding the Merger Agreement to the extent it has already been
implemented, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs."

"On November 12, 2014, plaintiffs, the Company and other named
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
agreeing in principle to settle all pending actions in exchange
for the Company's agreement to make certain supplemental
disclosures, which were filed on the same date in a supplement to
TRW's October 20, 2014 definitive proxy statement. Pursuant to the
MOU, the parties intend to settle, subject to court approval,
certain claims, while the other pending litigation will be
dismissed. We anticipate the litigation will be resolved and will
not interfere with or delay the closing, but until court approval
is obtained and the cases are dismissed, some uncertainty remains.
The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant."


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Remains Party to 2 Suits on Endoscopy Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
remains party to two class actions brought on behalf of uninfected
patients of the endoscopy center of Southern Nevada.

In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in
compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against
a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory
that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of
an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent
physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an
outbreak of hepatitis C.  The trial court reduced the overall
award to $366 million.  In 2014, the Company settled this and all
other pending suits brought by individuals allegedly infected by
hepatitis C for an amount that is not material to the Company's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Although
the Company remains party to two class actions brought on behalf
of uninfected patients of the endoscopy center seeking the cost of
medical monitoring, the Company does not believe these matters are
material to its results of operations, financial position, or cash
flows.


VERDE ENERGY: Illegally Charges High Premium Rates, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane C. Roberts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00312 (D.
Conn., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
practice of charging high premium rate for electricity regardless
of fluctuations in the underlying market price.

Verde Energy USA, Inc. Delaware corporation with principal place
of business is located at 101 Merit Seven Corporate Park, Norwalk,
CT 06851, which is an independent electric supplier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6295
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


VITESSE WORLDWIDE: "Sikiotis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sikiotis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v.  Vitesse Worldwide Chaufeeured Services,
Inc. and Shahin Abaspour, Case No. 3:15-cv-00316 (D. Conn., March
3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, penalty damages and attorney's fees brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vitesse Worldwide Chaufeeured Services, Inc. is a Connecticut
corporation with a principal place of business located at 25
Crescent Street, Stamford, Connecticut, which provides limousine
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Pantuso III, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      E-mail: apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the appeal related to the class action lawsuit filed
by Arthur Merkin and James Smith against Vonage America, Inc., is
now complete, though oral argument has not yet been scheduled,
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United
States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26,
2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.
On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration.  On March
6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings
pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on
March 26, 2014.  Briefing on the appeal is now complete, though
oral argument has not yet been scheduled.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, Jonathan Randles and Carolina Bolado, writing for
Law360, reports that an Oklahoma man hit Wal-Mart Stores Inc. with
a proposed class action on Feb. 26 alleging that dietary
supplements the company sells under a store brand don't contain
the herbs listed on their labels, adding to the growing litigation
nationwide against Wal-Mart and other retailers over similar
products.

Ron Coats alleges that Wal-Mart's Spring Valley brand dietary
supplements didn't contain ginkgo biloba, ginseng, echinacea and
other ingredients listed on their labels, in violation of state
consumer protection law.

Mr. Coats points to a recent investigation by the office of New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that found the herbal
supplements sold by Wal-Mart, Target Corp., Walgreen Co. and GNC
Holdings Inc. either didn't contain labeled substances or
contained ingredients that were not listed on the labels.

"The quality and quantity of the herbal ingredients are not
obvious and are hidden to [the] average consumer and would only
manifest itself in a scientific test analysis such as conducted by
the New York attorney general," the complaint says.

Mr. Coats seeks to represent Oklahoma and national classes
composed of Oklahoma residents and all consumers, respectively,
who bought the Spring Valley supplements labeled gingko biloba,
St. John's wort, ginseng, garlic, echinacea and saw palmetto.
Coats seeks compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief,
claiming that the amount at issue exceeds $5 million.

The complaint asserts claims against Wal-Mart of unfair and
deceptive practices, breach of implied warranty of merchantability
and fraudulent concealment.

The action follows two other recent suits targeting Wal-Mart and
GNC in Florida and Ohio.

In a suit filed in the Southern District of Florida, lead
plaintiff Kelly Reyes said that GNC's Herbal Plus products that
claim to contain gingko biloba, St. John's wort, ginseng and
echinacea do not have any of the herbs in them.

In a second suit filed in the Northern District of Ohio, lead
plaintiff Dave Mager targeted GNC, Wal-Mart and nutritional
supplement maker and distributor NBTY Inc. for selling mislabeled
herbal supplements, including the GNC Herbal Plus line and Wal-
Mart's Spring Valley.

Those suits were the latest in a slew of complaints filed against
Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen and GNC days after Mr. Schneiderman
announced his investigation.  Mr. Schneiderman released
information about the state's investigation on Feb. 3, providing
the basis for the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaints.

DNA testing was performed on at least three samples of each of the
six herbal supplements that were tested, the attorney general
said.  Overall, only 21 percent of the herbal supplements New York
regulators tested contained DNA from the plants listed on the
products' label.

Wal-Mart's line of supplements performed the worst,
Mr. Schneiderman said, with only 4 percent of the retailer's
products tested showing DNA from plants listed on the product
labeling.

Some of the herbal supplements contained rice, beans, wheat,
citrus and other materials that regulators said is meant to act
like filler in place of the actual active ingredient.

Mr. Schneiderman is now investigating the retailers for possible
violations of New York's business code, including deceptive
business practices and deceptive advertising.

Mr. Coats is represented by Wilfred K. Wright Jr. of Wright Law
PLC and Allan Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- and Conlee
Whiteley of Kanner & Whiteley LLC.

Counsel information for Wal-Mart was unavailable.

The case is Coats v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15-cv-
00096, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.


WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Not Set in Digital Music Downloads Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
reply date has not yet been set in the class action lawsuits
related to the pricing of digital music downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However,
on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain for the class of internet download
purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended
complaint on August 31, 2011.

Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order,
the case is currently in discovery. Disputes regarding the scope
of discovery are ongoing.  Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification
brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's reply date has not yet been
set.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made.


WARNER MUSIC: Deal in Music Download Suit Now Effective
-------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement
in the music download putative class action suits was slated to
become effective on February 25, 2015, after a 30-day appeals
period.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on
a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones.

"In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording artists have
initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of the major
record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have the
interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to
their different and separate contracts," the Company said.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order,
the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead
class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint
on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of
the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million
(less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration
and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of
downloads and ringtones. Class members had until May 31, 2014 to
file claims, opt-out or object to the Class Action Settlement. No
class members made perfected objections to the settlement.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement on November 26, 2014.  On January 12, 2015, the Judge
granted final approval of the settlement.  The settlement will
become effective on February 25, 2015, after a 30-day appeals
period. The Company has recorded what it believes is an
appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not
material.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Doppelt" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder of Windstream Holdings, Inc.
("Windstream") filed on February 9, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Doppelt v.
Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10629-VCN. Plaintiff
alleges that Windstream's Board of Directors (the "Board")
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Windstream to issue a
proxy statement that allegedly omitted material information in
connection with a special meeting of stockholders scheduled to be
held on February 20, 2015 to vote on certain amendments to
Windstream Corporation's charter and to approve a 1 for 6 reverse
stock split (the "Special Meeting"), Windstream said in its Form
8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Special Meeting until additional
public disclosures are made. Windstream and the Board believe the
lawsuit is without merit and plan to vigorously defend against the
claims made in the lawsuit. A hearing was scheduled for February
19, 2015.


                             *********

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  * * *