CAR_Public/150323.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 58


                             Headlines

ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Actos(R) Case
ACTAVIS PLC: Replied to Indirect Purchasers' Amended Complaint
ACTAVIS PLC: Cert. Hearing Held in Kansas Cipro(R) Action
ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set Doryx Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants' Responses Filed in Lidoderm(R) Suit

ACTAVIS PLC: Moved to Stay Opt-Out Purchasers' Suit
ACTAVIS PLC: Named as Defendant in "Mahaffay" Action
ACTAVIS PLC: Updates to Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions
ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle With Luster Plaintiffs
ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Held in Columbia Labs Case Appeal

ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Forest Labs Suit
ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Securities Suit
ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Date Yet in Med West Ballas Pharmacy Case
ACTAVIS PLC: Defendant in "Nack" Suit Filed Certiorari Petition
ACTAVIS PLC: St. Louis Heart Center Case v. Forest Stayed

ACTAVIS PLC: Briefing in Testosterone Case to End by July 2015
ACTAVIS PLC: "Barrett" Suit Parties Working on Discovery Matters
ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Faces 204 Actonel(R) Cases
ACTAVIS PLC: 132 Cases Pending Related to Alendronate
ACTAVIS PLC: Defended by Daiichi Sankyo in Benicar(R) Litigation

ACTAVIS PLC: Six Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Trials Scheduled in 2015
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Fentanyl Transdermal Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: 1,500 Cases Remain Pending Related to Metoclopramide
ACTAVIS PLC: New Propoxyphene Action Filed in Oklahoma State Court
ACTAVIS PLC: Served in 64 Cases Related to Testosterone Products

ACTAVIS PLC: 8 Product Liability Suits Pending Related to Zarah
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Cesare" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Mungum" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
ALL AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Appear at Deposition
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approved in Silverstrand Action

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in "Makena" Case Appeal
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Basham" Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ruhlemann" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed iPhone 4s, "Jones" Suit Claims

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Court Approved Settlement in "Monson" Action
C. R. BARD: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Hernia Products as of Feb. 1
C. R. BARD: 9 Class Suits Over Women's Health Products at Feb. 9
C. R. BARD: Faces Product Liability Suits Over Vena Cava Filter

CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Land Title Lawsuits Dismissed by Courts
COOL AIR: Has Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Action Claims
DOWNTOWN JERRY'S: "Roberts" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EQUIFAX: Agrees to Increase Consumer Protections
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart

GARMIN LTD: April 16 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Katz" Action
GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified Yet in "Meyers" Case
GERMANY: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Pay Sovereign Debt
GRUENENTHAL GMBH: Hagens Berman Sanctioned in Thalidomide Cases
HORIZON LINES: Entered Into MOU to Resolve Merger Class Actions

INSITE VISION: Released From Claims in Besivance Product Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Fitch" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KEY ENERGY: "Jonas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KIAWAH ISLAND: Faces "Moodie' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Martini" Suit Over Harmful Spywares

LIVE NATION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ticket Practices
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Constatine" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Latta" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces 2nd "Latta" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

MCNEIL: Agrees to Pay $25MM Fine to Settle Tylenol FDA Violation
MICHAELS STORES: Sued Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
POM WONDERFUL: Trial Over Deceptive Labeling in the Works
SEGA AMUSEMENTS: Judge Rejects Video Game Class Action Settlement

SKYLINE DRY: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STEVE'S LAWNS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shmil" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over "Hacking" Issue
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards

ULTRAPARK MIAMI: Faces "Soluto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Linsalata" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Freedman" Case in Active Discovery
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in "Dobina" Case Approved
YOSHI NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

* CFPB Tackles Issue on Consumer Arbitration Agreements


                            *********


ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Actos(R) Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that oral argument on the motion to dismiss the Actos(R)
litigation was scheduled for March 10, 2015.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (United Food and Commercial Workers Local
1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and
Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250) against Actavis plc and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson"
now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with
Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone
hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several
additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of Police,
Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L.  --  A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare
Plan v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No.
14-1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.
Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council
No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota
and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund
and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New
England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare
Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed.

Prior to the filing of the Painters District Council and City of
Providence complaints, plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal
court in New York filed a consolidated class action complaint.
Plaintiffs in the Painters District Council and City of Providence
cases subsequently voluntarily dismissed their complaints in
Illinois and Rhode Island, respectively, and refiled their
complaints in the Southern District of New York where all the
cases have been referred to the same judge.

Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20,
2014 (In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 13-
9244). The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an
overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch
of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial
payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 11,
2014. Rather than oppose the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs
amended their complaint on August 22, 2014.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10,
2014. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motion were filed on December
5, 2014 and defendants' reply briefs were filed on January 9,
2015. Oral argument on the motion was scheduled for March 10,
2015.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Replied to Indirect Purchasers' Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint
filed by indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the AndroGel(R)
Litigation.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent
lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated
claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No.
EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On April 8,
2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

On April 21, 2009 the State of California voluntarily dismissed
its lawsuit against Watson without prejudice. The Federal Trade
Commission and the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of
Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private
plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations
concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the
FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et
al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et
al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240);
(Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No.
10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ.
No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On
April 20, 2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.

On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.

On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except
the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010.

On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On
June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that
the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which
include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor
must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and
ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court Androgel Decision").

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge
presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the
LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action
as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22,
2010 order on the motion to dismiss.

In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on
June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including
Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion
for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September
28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs then
appealed.

On September 12 and 13, 2013, respectively, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs filed motions with the
district court, asking the court for an indicative ruling that it
would vacate its final order on the parties' summary judgment
motions and conduct further proceedings in light of the Supreme
Court Androgel Decision, should the Court of Appeals remand the
case to the district court. On October 23, 2013, the district
court granted the motions. The court of appeals remanded the case
back to the district court which has granted plaintiffs relief
under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating
the ruling from which plaintiffs appealed.

On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The Company answered the amended complaint on
September 15, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Cert. Hearing Held in Kansas Cipro(R) Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a hearing on the certification was held on December 15, 2014,
in the action pending in Kansas related to Cipro(R) Litigation.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases
were filed against Watson, Rugby and other Company entities. Many
of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in
various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Florida.

The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in
unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The action pending in Kansas, which the court previously
terminated administratively, has been reopened. Plaintiffs in that
case moved for class certification on February 21, 2014;
defendants' filed opposition to the class certification motion on
May 23, 2014. Class discovery ended on July 25, 2014 and
plaintiffs filed reply briefs in support of certification on
August 22, 2014. A hearing was held on October 28, 2014 on
defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing on class discovery
and a hearing on the certification was held on December 15, 2014.

There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and
Tennessee since 2003.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009,
the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24,
2009. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed
the Superior Court's judgment. On December 13, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme
Court. On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted
review. On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
entered a stay of all proceedings in the case pending a decision
from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade
Commission v. Actavis matter involving Androgel. The California
Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2013 following the
ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and Bayer
announced that they have reached an agreement to settle the claims
pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the
action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the
generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby.

The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court
regarding the impact of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision.
Response briefs were submitted on February 14, 2014. Amicus briefs
were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the parties filed responses
to such briefs on April 24, 2014.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and
indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims
and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set Doryx Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a new trial date has not been set in the Doryx Litigation.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne
prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective
economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. (Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., E.D.Pa. No. 12-cv-03824). In the complaint, Mylan seeks
unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported indirect purchasers, each
in the same court. On December 5, 2013 an additional complaint was
filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132
Health and Welfare Fund and on May 9, 2014, Laborers' Trust Fund
for Northern California filed a complaint each on behalf of
additional groups of purported indirect purchasers. Warner has
moved to dismiss each of these new complaints. In each case the
plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and
Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition
in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages
and/or attorneys' fees. The court consolidated the purported class
actions and the action filed by Mylan and ordered that all the
pending cases proceed on the same schedule.

On February 5, 2013, four retailers, including HEB Grocery,
Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and Walgreen Co., filed in the same
court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities
against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). (Walgreen
Co., Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-
00658). On March 28, 2013, another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a
similar complaint in the same court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner
Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644).
Both retailer complaints recite similar facts and assert similar
legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases.
Both retailer complaints have been consolidated with the cases.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan,
the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers.
On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the
court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of
relief. On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without
prejudice, of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss. On
November 13, 2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement
in principle to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives for $15.0 million.

On February 18, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and after a hearing issued a final approval of the
settlement on September 15, 2014. On April 18, 2014, Warner
Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement to settle the claims of
the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9 million. On May 29, 2014
Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class
representatives for $8.0 million. On July 11, 2014, the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion to approve the settlement with
the court and on September 9, 2014 the court, after a hearing,
issued an order preliminarily approving this settlement. After a
final fairness hearing, the indirect purchaser settlement received
final approval on January 28, 2015. Warner Chilcott and Mylan
filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On June 2,
2014, the court vacated the trial date. A new trial date has not
been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no
assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the
Company will be successful in its defense and whether any
additional similar suits will be filed. The plaintiffs
collectively seek approximately $1.2 billion in compensatory
damages, which includes approximately $1.12 billion in purported
damages of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, opt-out direct
purchaser plaintiffs and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs with whom
the company has settled. The Company believes the damage amounts
are unfounded and without merit. However, any award of
compensatory damages could be subject to trebling. If the
remaining claims are successful such claims could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operation and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants' Responses Filed in Lidoderm(R) Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Defendants' responses to the amended complaint were filed on
January 30, 2015 in the Lidoderm(R) Litigation.

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against
Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's
2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches,
"Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of
putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges
that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo
Pharmaceuticals in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.

Additional lawsuits contain similar allegations have followed on
behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers (Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa.
Civ. No. 13-7217; American Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569)
and suits filed on behalf of a putative class of end-payer
plaintiffs (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v.Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku
Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5280; City of
Providence v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No.
13-771; Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers  --  Employees Health
and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn.
Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938;
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057;
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ.
No. 14-0092; Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare
Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-
0289; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115
Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772; Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International
Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
v. Endo Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-
1548; Irene Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1562).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed.

On December 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial
Workers action filed a motion with the JPML to have all the
Lidoderm(R) antitrust cases consolidated in the Northern District
of California. Plaintiffs in several of the other actions filed
objections and argued for consolidation in districts where their
suits were filed. The motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on
March 27, 2014 and on April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the
cases in the Northern District of California. (In re Lidoderm
Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Cal., MDL No. 14-2521).

An initial case conference was held on May 9, 2014 after which the
court issued a schedule order. Pursuant to that order, on June 13,
2014 the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed amended
and consolidated complaints. The defendants thereafter filed a
joint motion to dismiss on July 28, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the joint motion on September 8, 2014. Defendants
filed reply briefs on October 14, 2014. Oral argument on the
motion was held on November 5, 2014. The court issued its decision
on November 17, 2014 granting the motion in part but denying it
with respect to the claims under Section 1 the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2014.
Defendants' responses to the amended complaint were filed on
January 30, 2015.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Moved to Stay Opt-Out Purchasers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company moved to stay the opt-out direct purchasers'
action in the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew
its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health
Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.,
Civ. No. 13-02000). Additional complaints have been filed by
different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class
of end-payors (A.F. of L.  --  A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan
v. Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014).
Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and
City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307). In addition to the end-payor suits, two
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors
(American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co.
et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and Rochester Drug Co-Operative
Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-
133476).

On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these
cases in one federal district court. After a hearing on September
26, 2013, the JPML issued an order conditionally transferring all
related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District
of Rhode Island. (In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation,
D.R.I. MDL No. 13-2472). A preliminary hearing was held on
November 4, 2013 after which an amended, consolidated complaint
was filed on December 6, 2013.

On February 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs'
filed oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and the Company
filed its responses on April 23, 2014. A hearing was held on June
27, 2014 on the motion to dismiss and on September 4, 2014, the
court granted the motion. On October 6, 2014, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the district court's
opinion and on October 20, 2014, they filed a motion for entry of
a final judgment. Also, on October 20, 2014 the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
September 4, 2014 opinion. On November 21, 2014 the Company moved
to stay the opt-out direct purchasers' action. The Company
anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or
similar allegations.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Named as Defendant in "Mahaffay" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that on December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed in
California state court (Mahaffay v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et
al., CA Super. Ct. Case No. HG14752254) against Actavis, Inc. and
Actavis South Atlantic LLC alleging, among other things, that
Actavis' 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. related to Opana ER(R) (extended release oxymorphone
hydrochloride tablets) is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on
behalf of a putative class of end payer plaintiffs, generally
alleges that Actavis and Impax improperly delayed launching
generic versions of Opana ER(R) in exchange for substantial
consideration from Endo in violation of CA state antitrust, unfair
competition and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
damages and other equitable relief. The Company anticipates
additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar
allegations may be filed.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, this action and any
others like it, if successful, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Updates to Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided
updates to Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three
federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions,
two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class
actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class
action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the Missouri and California consumer protection statutes,
respectively, and state common laws.

On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied
all plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On February 18,
2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. On April 16, 2013, the First Circuit denied
the petition. On April 30, 2013, plaintiffs in the other two
actions filed an Amended Complaint seeking to certify state-wide
class actions in Illinois, Missouri, and New York under those
states' consumer protection statutes.

On January 13, 2014, the district judge denied plaintiffs' motion
with respect to the proposed Illinois and New York classes and
allowed it with respect to the proposed Missouri class. Forest
filed a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 27, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, Forest reached agreement with the MDL plaintiffs
to settle the Missouri class claims, including claim by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013. In
exchange for a release from class members, Forest will pay $7.65
million into a fund that will cover (1) the settlement benefits
paid to class members, (2) administration costs, (3) incentive
awards to be paid to the representative plaintiffs, and (4)
attorneys' fees and costs. If valid claims are greater than $4.215
million, Forest will pay up to $2.7 million more to pay for the
additional valid claims (the total settlement payment shall not
exceed $10.35 million). The district court judge preliminarily
approved the settlement on March 14, 2014 and issued an order
enjoining all class members and other persons from litigating
claims relating to those covered by the settlement. On September
8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement.

On May 3, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking
to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging
that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has
been deceptive. This action was transferred to the MDL mentioned
in the preceding paragraph and, on July 29, 2013, Forest moved to
dismiss the complaint. The district court judge granted Forest's
motion to dismiss on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on
March 17, 2014 and filed its appeal brief on July 24, 2014. Forest
filed its opposition brief on August 25, 2014.

On November 13, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking to certify a
nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was
transferred to the MDL, and Forest filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on January 15, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the complaint and filed a First Amended
Complaint, which, among other things, added claims on behalf of a
Minnesota class of entities and consumers under Minnesota's
consumer protection statutes. Forest filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint on April 9, 2014. A motion hearing was
held on October 1, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the court issued a
ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the
motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by two third-party payors
seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that
purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes,
and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-
label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was
filed as a related action to the action. Forest filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 30, 2014. In its December 12, 2014
ruling, the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Civ. No. 14-1339) seeking
to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of
Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims
under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme
and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions
of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). On October 14, 2014, the court
entered a conditional transfer order to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where it has
been consolidated with the other actions pending in that court
relating to marketing of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's
response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these actions.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.


ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle With Luster Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the company reached an agreement to settle with the Luster
plaintiffs.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in
two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri Circuit
Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, and arising from similar
allegations as those contained in the federal actions. The first
action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St. Louis
Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

"We have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve this
action for payments that are not material to our financial
condition or results of operations," the Company said.

The second action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption
"Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as
"Luster v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class
action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased
Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under
the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law,
and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was argued on January 8, 2014. On February 21, 2014, we
filed a motion to de-certify the class. Decisions on these motions
are pending. On March 12, 2014, we informed the judge of the MDL
Missouri class settlement described above, including that the
federal class encompasses the members of the certified Missouri
class in Luster. At a status conference on April 2, 2014 the
parties agreed that the action is stayed in light of the
injunction contained in the MDL Preliminary Approval Order,
described above. On January 21, 2015, the company reached an
agreement to settle with the Luster plaintiffs for a payment that
is not material to our financial condition or results of
operations We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have
a material effect on the results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole," the Company said.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Held in Columbia Labs Case Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that oral argument was held on December 9, 2014, on the appeal
related to the Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock
purchasers.

The amended complaint generally alleges that between December 6,
2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as
well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its officers, made
false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of
Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve(R)
progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental drug for
prevention of preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights to
Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended
complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material information concerning the statistical analysis of the
clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection
with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve(R). The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
of the claims in the amended complaint, which the court granted on
June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July
11, 2013. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint on August 9, 2013. On October 21, 2013, the court
granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In
ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court also ruled that if the
plaintiffs seek to further amend the complaint, they must file a
motion within thirty days seeking permission to do so. On December
20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the district
court's motion to dismiss ruling and filed their opening appellate
brief on March 20, 2014. Respondents' briefs in the appeal were
filed on April 9, 2014. The oral argument on the appeal was held
on December 9, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
it intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company
maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in
the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action,
if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient
coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Forest Labs Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the
settlement reached in the Forest Laboratories Securities
Litigation.

In February and March 2014, nine putative stockholder class
actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis
plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have been consolidated under
the caption "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation" (the "Delaware Action"). Five actions were filed in
New York State Supreme Court and have been consolidated under the
caption "Turberg v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al." (the "New
York Action").

On April 4 and May 5, 2014, respectively, the Delaware and New
York plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in their
respective jurisdictions. The amended complaints seek, among other
remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or
damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails
to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction.
The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its
affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches.

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the New York Action
regarding a settlement of both Actions, and that agreement is
reflected in a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which
Forest agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to
the proposed transaction with Actavis, which are contained in a
Form 8-K filed May 28, 2014.

The parties entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on
February 6, 2015 that remains subject to customary conditions,
including court approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been
scheduled.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. There can be no assurance that the Delaware
Court of Chancery will approve the settlement In such event, the
proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, we do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the
results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled in the
settlement reached in the Furiex Securities Litigation.

In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought
against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and
Furiex's board of directors. Two actions were brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery under the captions "Steven Kollman v.
Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." and "Donald Powell v. Furiex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." (the "Delaware Actions"). Two
actions were brought in North Carolina state court under the
captions "Walter Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." and "Christopher Shinneman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." (the "North Carolina Actions"). These actions alleged, among
other things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process.
These actions also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these
alleged breaches. These actions sought class certification, to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex, and an award of
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other
costs. The Kollman and Nakatsukasa actions also sought recission
of the acquisition and unspecified recissory damages if the
acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina
Actions regarding a settlement of all four actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Furiex agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with us, which are
contained in a Form DEFA14A filed June 23, 2014.

On January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement which is subject to court approval. A fairness hearing
has not yet been scheduled.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all four actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction and any disclosure made in connection therewith. There
can be no assurance that the North Carolina state court will
approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement may
be terminated. At this time, we do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Date Yet in Med West Ballas Pharmacy Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that no trial date has been set in the case, Medical West Ballas
Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County
of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, alleging conversion and alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In
April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda
as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the
class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if
the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to
assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
similarly situated third parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an
answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations.

In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand
the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda
lacked evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."

In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs. On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss
claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative
class members who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes
from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay the court
proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC").

On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011,
the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking certification of a
class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent
Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008. The
motion has been briefed. However, the court granted Anda's motion
to vacate the class certification hearing until similar issues are
resolved in either or both the pending Nack litigation or with the
FCC Petition. No trial date has been set in the matter.


ACTAVIS PLC: Defendant in "Nack" Suit Filed Certiorari Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendant in Nack case has filed a petition for
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

On May 1, 2012, an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") was filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.,
purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the
United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising
pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." (Physicians
Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. S.D. Fla., Civ. No. 12-60798). On
July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The
parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition and the FCC's recently filed Public
Notice, described below, which the court granted, staying the
action for sixty days. On April 17, 2014 following the expiration
of the sixty day period, the court lifted the stay but reentered
it sua sponte on May 23, 2014.

Several issues raised in plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda
is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460. Nack concerned
whether there is a private right of action for failing to include
any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary
to a FCC regulation that requires such notice on fax
advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an
amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the
matter, which was held on September 19, 2012. In its ruling,
issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that Walburg's
arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC's regulation
and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such
challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise not
decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full
participation by the FCC. The defendant in Nack has filed a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.


ACTAVIS PLC: St. Louis Heart Center Case v. Forest Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were
named as defendants, along with The Peer Group, Inc. ("TPG"), in a
putative class action brought by the St. Louis Heart Center
("SLHC") under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The action is now
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.

On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, alleging
that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, as amended by the TCPA, on behalf of a proposed class
that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing
of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material
advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or
services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an
opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by
the FCC. The Fourth Amended Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the
violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, interest, and
injunctive and other relief. On July 17, 2013, the district court
granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the
administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petitions,
including any appeal therefrom.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition
with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for
its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with
express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May
2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC
dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an
application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full
Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant
the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC has not ruled on
the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a
Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the
FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or
substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not
violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated
under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public
Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions,
all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. Anda and Forest were
among several parties that submitted comments on the Public
Notice.

On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order granting the FCC
Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a
retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes
sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had
filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed
the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to
intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC
final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express
consent portion of the regulation.

Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses
to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Briefing in Testosterone Case to End by July 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the parties have reached agreement on a briefing schedule for
motions on the pleadings whereby briefing would be complete by
July 7, 2015 in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company and other named pharmaceutical
defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer
protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of
certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products
("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product.
(Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Abbvie Inc., at el., Civ. No. 14-8857).
This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability multi-district
litigation ("MDL"), notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third
parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its
insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring
restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and
multiple damages in an unspecified amount. The Company has not yet
responded to the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend the
action. The parties have reached agreement on a briefing schedule
for motions on the pleadings whereby briefing would be complete by
July 7, 2015.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged. However, an adverse determination in the case
could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: "Barrett" Suit Parties Working on Discovery Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the case "Megan Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc.
and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc." is still in its early stages and
the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as
defendants in an action brought by Megan Barrett, Lindsey Houser,
Jennifer Jones, and Jennifer Seard, former Company Sales
Representatives, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption "Megan Barrett et al. v.
Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc." In
November 2012, Plaintiffs amended the complaint, adding six
additional plaintiffs: Kimberly Clinton, Erin Eckenrode, Julie
Smyth, Marie Avila, Andrea Harley, and Christy Lowder, all of whom
alleged that they were current or former Company Sales
Representatives or Specialty Sales Representatives. In March 2013,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding one additional
plaintiff: Tracy Le, a now-former Company Sales Representative.
The action is a putative class and collective action, and the
Second Amended Complaint alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female Sales
Representatives (defined to include Territory Sales
Representatives, Field Sales Representatives, Medical Sales
Representatives, Professional Sales Representatives, Specialty
Sales Representatives, Field Sales Trainers, and Regional Sales
Trainers) employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to
the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-
class includes all current and former female Sales Representatives
who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the
Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The
proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current,
former, and future female Sales Representatives who were not
compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during
the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also
includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named
Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII,
and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The COmpany said, "We filed a motion to dismiss certain claims on
April 29, 2013, which was argued on January 16, 2014. On August
14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the motion granting it in
part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed
class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a
smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of
the individual plaintiffs' claims."

Forest filed an answer to the complaint on October 27, 2014. On
January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for equitable tolling;
seeking tolling back to April 29, 2013 -- the date of the
Company's filing of the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The Company's response to this motion was due on
January 26, 2015. Plaintiffs had until March 6, 2015 to file a
motion for conditional certification of the Equal Pay Act class.

The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are
beginning to work on discovery matters.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.


ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Faces 204 Actonel(R) Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 204 cases and
a potential defendant with respect to approximately 415 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 627 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R).

The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused
them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but
serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the
jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of
the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the
United States. Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of
discovery in these litigations. The 415 unfiled claims involve
potential plaintiffs that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling
agreement, to postpone the filing of their claims against Warner
Chilcott in exchange for Warner Chilcott's agreement to suspend
the statutes of limitations relating to their potential claims. In
addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Of the approximately 631 total Actonel(R)-related
claims, approximately 75 include ONJ-related claims, approximately
538 include AFF-related claims and approximately four include both
ONJ and AFF-related claims. In some of the cases, manufacturers of
other bisphosphonate products are also named as defendants.
Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is
reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

Sanofi, which co-promoted Actonel(R) with Warner Chilcott in the
United States through the end of 2013 pursuant to a collaboration
agreement, is a defendant in some of Warner Chilcott's Actonel(R)
product liability cases. Sanofi and Warner Chilcott continue to
co-promote Actonel(R) in other countries pursuant to the
collaboration agreement. Under the collaboration agreement, Sanofi
has agreed to indemnify Warner Chilcott, subject to certain
limitations, for 50% of the losses from any product liability
claims in Canada relating to Actonel(R) and for 50% of the losses
from any product liability claims in the United States and Puerto
Rico relating to Actonel(R) brought prior to April 1, 2010, which
included approximately 90 claims relating to ONJ and other alleged
injuries that were pending as of March 31, 2010. Pursuant to the
April 2010 amendment to the collaboration agreement, Warner
Chilcott will be fully responsible for any product liability
claims in the United States and Puerto Rico relating to Actonel(R)
brought on or after April 1, 2010. Warner Chilcott may be liable
for product liability, warranty or similar claims in relation to
products acquired from The Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") in
October 2009 in connection with Warner Chilcott's acquisition (the
"PGP Acquisition") of P&G's global branded pharmaceutical's
business ("PGP"), including ONJ-related claims that were pending
as of the closing of the PGP Acquisition. Warner Chilcott's
agreement with P&G provides that P&G will indemnify Warner
Chilcott, subject to certain limits, for 50% of Warner Chilcott's
losses from any such claims, including approximately 88 claims
relating to ONJ and other alleged injuries, pending as of October
30, 2009.

In May 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into a settlement agreement
in respect of up to 74 ONJ-related claims, subject to the
acceptance thereof by the individual respective claimants. Warner
Chilcott recorded a charge in the six months ended June 30, 2013
in the amount of $2.0 million in accordance with ASC Topic 450
"Contingencies" in connection with Warner Chilcott's entry into
the settlement agreement. This charge represents Warner Chilcott's
current estimate of the aggregate amount that is probable to be
paid by Warner Chilcott in connection with the settlement
agreement. In September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into a
separate settlement agreement in respect of up to 53 additional
ONJ-related claims, subject to the acceptance thereof by the
individual respective claimants. Assuming that all of the relevant
claimants accept the settlement agreements, approximately 587
Actonel(R)-related claims would remain outstanding, of which
approximately 31 include ONJ-related claims, approximately 538
include AFF-related claims and approximately four include both ONJ
and AFF-related claims. However, it is impossible to predict with
certainty (i) the number of such individual claimants that will
accept the settlement agreement or (ii) the outcome of any
litigation with claimants rejecting the settlement or other
plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs with ONJ, AFF or other
Actonel(R)-related claims, and the Company can offer no assurance
as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in any of these
matters. An estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if
any, to the Company relating to proceedings with (i) claimants
rejecting the settlement or (ii) other plaintiffs and potential
plaintiffs with ONJ, AFF or other Actonel(R)-related claims is not
possible at this time. The Company believes it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and Warner Chilcott maintains
product liability insurance against such cases. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or
if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: 132 Cases Pending Related to Alendronate
-----------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that approximately 132 cases are pending against Actavis and/or
its affiliates in various state and federal courts related to
Alendronate Litigation.

Beginning in 2010, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate, for personal
injuries including femur fractures and ONJ allegedly arising out
of the use of alendronate. Approximately 132 cases are pending
against Actavis and/or its affiliates in various state and federal
courts, representing claims by approximately 176 plaintiffs. These
cases are generally at their preliminary stages. Fifty-one
lawsuits also name as a defendant Cobalt Laboratories, which
Watson acquired in 2009 as part of its acquisition of the Arrow
Group, in connection with Cobalt's manufacture and sale of
alendronate. Twenty cases naming the Company and/or its affiliates
were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-
district litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Fosamax
(Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243).
In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases
then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third
Circuit affirmed. Any cases filed against the Company in the
District of New Jersey MDL after the Court's January 2012
dismissal are subject to a case management order that calls for
their dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims
should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. To date, no
plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the District of
New Jersey against the Company has moved for such exemption and
all such cases have been dismissed. Eleven other cases were part
of an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where the Company filed a similar motion to
dismiss. The Court granted, in part, that motion to dismiss, which
has resulted in the dismissal of eight cases. The Company has also
been served with nine cases that are part of consolidated
litigation in the California Superior Court (Orange County). In
2012, the Orange County Court partially granted a motion filed on
behalf of all generic defendants seeking dismissal. The cases in
California were stayed while appeals were taken. Those appeals
were recently exhausted and, the Company has not yet been able to
determine how that will affect the cases filed against and served
on it. All cases pending in state courts in Kentucky and Missouri
have been discontinued against the Company. The remaining 120
active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County. In that state court
proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. As a
result, the Company has obtained the stipulated dismissal of 299
cases. Due to a recent reorganization of the mass tort docket in
the State of New Jersey, the coordinated alendronate proceedings
have been transferred to Middlesex County.

The Company has not yet determined what affect, if any, the
transfer of venue will have on the New Jersey state court
litigation. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation.

"These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification
arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows," the Company
said.


ACTAVIS PLC: Defended by Daiichi Sankyo in Benicar(R) Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that approximately 62 actions involve allegations that Benicar(R),
a treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi
Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal
injuries. Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is
defending the Company in these lawsuits.


ACTAVIS PLC: Six Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Trials Scheduled in 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that six trials are scheduled in 2015 with the possibility that
additional cases could be set for trial in 2015 or 2016 related to
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Litigation.

Forest and its affiliates are defendants in 12 actions involving
allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to
individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent
event. The MDL that was established for the federal suicidality-
related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri has concluded and the remaining cases have
been remanded to the federal district courts in which they were
filed originally. The Company was granted summary judgment in two
cases, one of which is being appealed. The other case may be
appealed. At present, six trials are scheduled in 2015 with the
possibility that additional cases could be set for trial in 2015
or 2016.

Approximately 195 of the actions against Forest and its affiliates
involve allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various
birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-
plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated
in Cole County Circuit Court in Missouri. One action is set for
trial in Cole County in November 2015. Another action is pending
in Orange County, California and is set for trial in June 2015.
Multiple actions also were filed in New Jersey and at present
there are 10 actions pending in Hudson County, New Jersey. None of
the New Jersey cases are set for trial. There are birth defect
cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are set
for trial.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Fentanyl Transdermal Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that discovery is ongoing in the Fentanyl Transdermal System
Litigation.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Actavis and other Company affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl transdermal system
products, for personal injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of
the use of the fentanyl transdermal system products. Actavis
settled the majority of these cases in November 2012. Since that
time, additional cases have been resolved individually and/or are
in the process of being resolved. There are approximately three
cases that remain pending against the Company in state and federal
courts that have not been resolved. Discovery is ongoing.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: 1,500 Cases Remain Pending Related to Metoclopramide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that approximately 1,500 cases remain pending related to
Metoclopramide Litigation.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the
Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either
initiating or defending appeals on such motions. The Company
believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against
the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and
indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom the
Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008.
With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: New Propoxyphene Action Filed in Oklahoma State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a new propoxyphene action naming Watson among the many
defendants was filed in Oklahoma state court and it is believed
that others may have been filed in that court as well, although
Watson has not yet been served with the Complaints in the Oklahoma
case(s).

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,385
plaintiffs. Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district
litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet,
Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2226). Four of the MDL cases were voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiffs with prejudice.

On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the
generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL
cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by
the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion affirming
the District Court's dismissal of the generic defendants in all
respects. It is anticipated that the plaintiffs will seek further
review by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs had 90 days
from the issuance of the Sixth Circuit's decision within which to
file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court but they did not do so. In addition to the 77
consolidated cases, the MDL court remanded seven additional cases
to California state court. Defendants jointly filed a petition
with the Sixth Circuit to appeal that remand, which petition was
denied, as was the subsequently filed petition for rehearing on
the petition to appeal. The Sixth Circuit's Order denying
Defendants' petition for rehearing was recently vacated due to the
Ninth Circuit's granting of a petition for en banc rehearing on
the same issue. The Ninth Circuit case involves remand by a
federal court in California to state court in a propoxyphene case
involving the same defendants. The Sixth Circuit has now stayed
these 7 cases pending the ruling of the Ninth Circuit on the
issue.

The Ninth Circuit issued its en banc opinion on November 18, 2014
reversing the district court's remand to California state court.
Defendants notified the Sixth Circuit of the opinion issued by the
Ninth Circuit, and on December 1, 2014 filed a Motion to Lift Stay
of the 7 cases pending in the Sixth Circuit, requesting that the
Sixth Circuit accept Defendants' petition for permission to appeal
and summarily reverse the district court's remand order.

Approximately 35 of the cases naming Watson or its affiliates have
been consolidated in a state court proceeding pending in the
Superior Court of California in Los Angeles. After the
consolidation, the defendants jointly removed all of the cases to
various U.S. District Courts in California after which counsel for
the plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state court. The
various U.S. District Court Judges granted the motions. The
defendants jointly appealed the remand of these cases to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the granting
of the motions to remand. The defendants then jointly petitioned
the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the defendants'
appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' Petition and
oral argument was heard on June 26, 2014.

On November 18, 2014 the Ninth Circuit, en banc, issued its ruling
reversing the remand of the California cases to state court. In
light of the Ninth Circuit's en banc opinion, the Company is
awaiting further direction from the court regarding the California
cases. The defendants in the California cases have served notice
of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Judge handling the cases in
state court so that his court can return the cases to the various
District Courts from which they were remanded. Once all the cases
are returned to the District Courts, the defendants will attempt
to have the cases transferred to the MDL, which may not be
possible under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, or
request that the cases be assigned to a single District Court
Judge in California. Once these procedural matters are resolved
the Company will file demurrers and motions to dismiss.

On November 18, 2014 a new propoxyphene action naming Watson among
the many defendants was filed in Oklahoma state court and it is
believed that others may have been filed in that court as well,
although Watson has not yet been served with the Complaints in the
Oklahoma case(s).

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Served in 64 Cases Related to Testosterone Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were
filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well
as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products,
for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.
Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in sixty-four currently pending actions, all of which are
pending in federal court.

On June 6, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all federal actions claiming injury from testosterone
products be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (In re
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation,
MDL 2545). Accordingly, the federal actions have been consolidated
into MDL 2545.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. These
cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early
stages. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance
against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain
and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.
These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: 8 Product Liability Suits Pending Related to Zarah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a number of product liability suits, eight (8) in total, are
pending against the Company and/or certain of its affiliates as
well as other manufacturers and distributors of oral contraceptive
products for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of
the generic oral contraceptive, Zarah(R). All of the actions are
consolidated in the Yaz/Yasmin Multidistrict Litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. The injuries alleged include, but are not limited to,
pulmonary emboli, deep vein thrombosis, and gallbladder disease.
These cases are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet
commenced.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Cesare" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clemente Cesare, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No.
0:15-cv-60466 (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Whitt, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      711 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 201
      Naples, FL 34102
      Telephone: (239) 430-7070
      Facsimile: (239) 213-1970
      E-mail: mwhitt@robinskaplan.com

         - and -

      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      E-mail: bpersky@robinskaplan.com
              hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
              klerner@robinskaplan.com
              mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 349-8500
      Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
      E-mail: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Mungum" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mangum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No.
5:15-cv-01064 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
      Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
      Sarah B. Abshear, Esq.
      THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 687-6611
      Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
      E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
              jwilliams@moginlaw.com
              sabshear@moginlaw.com


ALL AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Appear at Deposition
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Jones and Josh Watson ask the court to hold in contempt
Chief Operating Officer of All American Auto Protection, Inc.
Harout Pambuckchyan for failing to appear at deposition, in the
class action law suit styled illegal telemarketing campaign, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01656 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2015).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael C. Righetti, Esq.
      Matthew Righetti, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI PC
      456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94101
      Telephone: (415) 983-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
      E-mail: mike@righettilaw.com
              matt@righettilaw.com


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approved in Silverstrand Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. District
Court entered final judgment on February 2, 2015, approving the
settlement in the Silverstrand Class Action.

The Company said, "A purported class action complaint was
originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments
et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-
10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December
17, 2010. The second amended complaint, filed on December 17, 2010
alleged that we and our former President and Chief Executive
Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-members of our
Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010 offering of
common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief
Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged
omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common
stock offering on or about January 21, 2010."

"After litigating the class action lawsuit for several years, on
September 12, 2014, we and the other defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs (on behalf of
themselves and each of the class members) to resolve the class
action securities lawsuit. Pursuant to the stipulation of
settlement, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the
class members and certain other persons, and dismissal of the
lawsuit with prejudice, we agreed to cause our insurer to pay
eligible class members and their attorneys a total of $3.75
million. On October 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court preliminarily
approved the settlement, and potential class members were notified
of the proposed settlement and the procedures by which they could
seek to recover from the settlement fund, object to the settlement
or request to be excluded from the settlement class and on January
30, 2015, the stipulation of settlement was approved by the U.S.
District Court. The U.S. District Court entered final judgment on
February 2, 2015. Any appeals of the settlement are due by March
4, 2015. We have recorded the $3.75 million settlement amount in
prepaid and other current assets and a corresponding amount in
accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheet as of December
31, 2014, as the settlement amount will be fully covered by our
insurance carrier. There was no impact to our consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014."


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in "Makena" Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court of Appeals
set March 12, 2015 as the date for oral argument in the appeal in
the Makena Securities Litigation.

On October 19, 2011, plaintiff Frank Julianello filed a complaint
against Lumara Health (then-named K-V Pharmaceutical Company ("K-V
Pharmaceutical")) and certain individual defendants, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the
"Court"), alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Lumara Health between February 14,
2011 and April 4, 2011. The complaint alleges class members were
damaged by paying artificially inflated stock prices due to Lumara
Health's purportedly misleading statements regarding Makena
related to access and exclusivity.

On October 31, 2011, plaintiff Ramakrishna Mukku filed a complaint
against Lumara Health, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Lumara Health
between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011. The complaint alleges
class members were damaged by paying artificially inflated stock
prices due to Lumara Health's purportedly misleading statements
regarding Makena related to access and exclusivity.

On November 2, 2011, plaintiff Hoichi Cheong filed a complaint
against Lumara Health, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Lumara Health, who purchased or otherwise acquired
K-V Pharmaceutical securities between February 14, 2011 and April
4, 2011, seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act. The
complaint alleges class members were damaged by purchasing
artificially inflated stock prices due to Lumara Health's
purportedly misleading statements regarding Makena related to
access and exclusivity.

On March 8, 2012, the Julianello, Mukku and Cheong cases were
consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V
Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-CV-
1816. On May 4, 2012, the Court appointed Lori Anderson as Lead
Plaintiff in the matter. On April 22, 2013, the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and oral argument was
held before the Court on November 26, 2013. Lumara Health joined
in the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting Lumara
Health's motion to dismiss the class action complaint without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to file a second amended
complaint with respect to a limited issue of whether Lumara
Health's statements about Lumara Health's financial assistance
program for Makena were materially false or misleading. On April
16, 2014, the Plaintiff's filed a motion to reconsider asking the
Court to reconsider its order restricting the scope of Plaintiff's
ability to amend its complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider and entered a judgment granting Lumara
Health's motion to dismiss on June 6, 2014. On July 1, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals and briefs have been submitted to the Court. The Court
of Appeals set March 12, 2015 as the date for oral argument.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ackerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Greetings Corporation and AG
Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01656 (D.N.J., March 6, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
commercial text messages.

American Greetings Corporation is a New Jersey corporation that
design, manufacture and sale seasonal greetings cards and other
social expression products.

AG Interactive, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of American
Greetings Corporation, which provides electronic greetings and
other content for the digital marketplace distributing social
expression products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Basham" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate
of James Basham, and FREDA McCLENDON, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.), motions to dismiss
were filed on behalf of:

   * 21st Century North America Insurance Company and 21st Century
     Centennial Insurance Company;

   * Infinity Defendants which consist of Infinity Assurance
     Insurance Co., Infinity Auto Insurance Co., Infinity Casualty
     Insurance Co., Infinity General Insurance Co., Infinity
     Indemnity Insurance Co., Infinity Insurance Co., Infinity
     National Insurance Co., Infinity Preferred Insurance Co.,
     Infinity Premier Insurance Co., Infinity Property & Casualty
     Corp., Infinity Property & Casualty Group, Infinity Reserve
     Insurance Co., Infinity Safeguard Insurance Co., Infinity
     Security Insurance Co., Infinity Select Insurance Co.,
     Infinity Specialty Insurance Co., Infinity Standard Insurance
     Co.;

   * Travelers Defendants which consist of The Travelers
     Defendants are: St. Paul Fire and Casualty Insurance Company,
     St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian
     Insurance Company, St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance
     Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, St. Paul
     Protective Insurance Company, St. Paul Surplus Lines
     Insurance Company, TravCo Insurance Company, Fidelity and
     Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (the successor in
     interest to Travelers Auto Insurance Co. of New Jersey, and
     also misnamed in the complaint as Travelers of New Jersey
     Group), Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers
     Casualty and Surety Company of America, Travelers Casualty
     Company of Connecticut, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company
     of America, Travelers Commercial Casualty Company, Travelers
     Commercial Insurance Company, The Travelers Companies, Inc.
     (formerly known as The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.,
     and also misnamed in the complaint as St. Paul Travelers
     Group, and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Companies), Travelers
     Excess and Surplus Lines Company, The Travelers Home and
     Marine Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company,
     The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Travelers
     Indemnity Company of Connecticut, The Travelers Lloyds
     Insurance Company, Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance
     Company, Travelers Personal Insurance Company, Travelers
     Personal Security Insurance Company, Travelers Property
     Casualty Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty
     Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty
     Corporation;

   * American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) and
     American National General Insurance Company (ANGIC); and

   * Met P&C Defendants which consist of Metlife Auto & Home,
     Metlife Auto & Home Group, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance
     Company, Metropolitan Direct P &C Insurance Company,
     Metropolitan General Insurance Company, Metropolitan Group
     Property & Casualty Company, Metropolitan Lloyds Insurance
     Company Of Texas, and Metropolitan P & C Insurance Company

This action is against over seventy insurance companies, including
21st Century, the Infinity Defendants, the Travelers Defendants,
ANPAC and ANGIC, and the Met P&C Defendants, and it arises from
their alleged use of a computer software program known as
"Colossus." Plaintiff Freda McClendon was an insured of Defendant
Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Company (MGP&C). James
Basham was an insured of Defendant ANPAC.  Each of these
Plaintiffs allege that the use of Colossus by all Defendants led
to the underpayment and/or devaluation of their covered UM/UIM
claims.

According to District Judge Susan O. Hickey's March 10, 2015
orders, copies of which are available at http://is.gd/hatAvl
http://is.gd/3kmVas and http://is.gd/P84POUfrom Leagle.com,
"[d]ue to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all
of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on
the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This
includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith),
unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and
constructive fraud."  For these reasons, the Court ruled that 21st
Century's, the Infinity Defendants' and the Travelers Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss are granted. All of Plaintiffs' claims against
these parties are dismissed without prejudice.

With regards ANPAC and ANGIC's motion, Judge Hickey, in his order
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/DbFUNufrom
Leagle.com, held that Plaintiff Eddie Basham's claims against
ANPAC, James Basham's insurer, are the only claims that are not
dependent on conspiracy allegations. ANPAC has submitted some
dismissal arguments on Basham's direct claims for breach of
contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment, tortious interference,
fraud, and constructive fraud. However, a large portion of ANPAC's
motion, and the vast majority of Plaintiffs' response, was devoted
to the sufficiency of the conspiracy allegations. Due to a lack of
comprehensive briefing, and due to the changing landscape of the
case as a result of the Court's ruling on the conspiracy
allegations, the Court finds that ANPAC's motion on Plaintiff
Basham's direct claims should be denied without prejudice at this
time. ANPAC should re-file its motion to dismiss and focus on (1)
Plaintiff Basham's direct claims against ANPAC and (2) how this
case should progress in its current iteration.  Accordingly, ANPAC
and ANGIC's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part. All of Plaintiffs' conspiracy-based claims against ANPAC and
ANGIC are dismissed without prejudice. The only claims that remain
are Plaintiff Eddie Basham's direct claims against Separate
Defendant ANPAC.

Meanwhile, Judge Hickey concluded that the only claims against a
Met P&C defendant that are not dependent on conspiracy allegations
are Plaintiff Freda McClendon's claims against her insurer,
Separate Defendant MGP&C. MGP&C has submitted some dismissal
arguments on McClendon's direct claims for breach of contract, bad
faith, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, fraud, and
constructive fraud. However, a large portion of MGP&C's motion,
and the vast majority of Plaintiffs' response, was devoted to the
sufficiency of the conspiracy allegations. Due to a lack of
comprehensive briefing, and due to the changing landscape of the
case as a result of the Court's ruling on the conspiracy
allegations, the Court finds that MGP&C's motion on Plaintiff
McClendon's direct claims should be denied without prejudice at
this time. MGP&C should re-file its motion to dismiss and focus on
(1) Plaintiff McClendon's direct claims against MGP&C and (2) how
this case should progress in its current iteration.  Met P&C's
motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted in part and denied in
part. All of Plaintiffs' conspiracy-based claims against Met P&C
are dismissed without prejudice. The only claims that remain are
Plaintiff Freda McClendon's direct claims against Separate
Defendant MGP&C.  A copy of Judge Hickey's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/V5ul5dfrom Leagle.com.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ruhlemann" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Ruhlemann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00345 (D.
Conn., March 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David N. Rosen, Esq.
      DAVID N. ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      400 Orange St
      New Haven, CT 06511
      Telephone: (203) 787-3513
      Facsimile: (203) 789-1605
      E-mail: drosen@davidrosenlaw.com


APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed iPhone 4s, "Jones" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Jones and Kyle Stirnaman v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00249 (S.D. Ill., March 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the
capabilities of the iPhone 4S.

Apple Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in California, which designs, develops, and sells
consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and
personal computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
      MONTROY LAW OFFICES
      412 Missouri Avenue
      East St. Louis, IL 62201
      Telephone: (800) 333-5297
      Facsimile: (618) 274-8369
      E-mail: CMontroy@MontroyLaw.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Feola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Edward R. Cameron, Jeffrey A. Cammerrer, Mark G.
Eisenschenk and Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01654 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. sells new household
appliances through a chain of company-owned retail stores and also
provides turnkey appliance recycling and replacement services for
electric utilities and other sponsors of energy efficiency
programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
      355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Court Approved Settlement in "Monson" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"Court") entered an order on December 26, 2014, approving a
settlement and dismissing a shareholder derivative and class
action captioned Monson v. Friedman, et al. (the "Action").
Pursuant to the settlement, and in exchange for releases and a
dismissal of the Action with prejudice, Mr. Jeffrey I. Friedman
voluntarily relinquished, and the Company rescinded, 63,714 of the
125,000 options awarded to him in 2012, and for the twelve-month
period following final settlement, the Company will not award any
stock options to Mr. Friedman. Also, the Company will implement
additional processes relating to the future granting of equity
awards and pay for plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses approved
by the Court with respect to the Action.

"We maintain insurance that will help defray the cost of the
settlement, and the settlement did not have a material impact on
our financial results," the Company said.


C. R. BARD: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Hernia Products as of Feb. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 1, 2015,
approximately 80 federal and 45 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 125 plaintiffs, as well as
three putative class actions in the United States are currently
pending against the company with respect to its Composix(R)
Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products
(collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. One of
the U.S. putative class action lawsuits consolidated eight
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  In April 2014, a settlement was reached with
respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within
amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 25 of
the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately
25 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the
majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was
subject to certain conditions, including requirements for
participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage
in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. The company cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that
have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the
putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: 9 Class Suits Over Women's Health Products at Feb. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 9, 2015,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 14,090 plaintiffs have been filed against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women. In addition,
five putative class actions in the United States and four putative
class actions in Canada have been filed against the company (all
lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims").

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees. With respect to approximately half of the filed
and asserted Women's Health Product Claims, the company believes
that two subsidiaries of Covidien plc ("Covidien"), each a
supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and
indemnify the company with respect to any product defect
liability.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "District Court"),
the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014. The first trial in
the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against
the company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed
this decision.

During the third quarter of 2013, the company settled one MDL case
and one New Jersey state case. In addition, during the third
quarter of 2013, one MDL case was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice.

On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the District Court ordered
that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual
cases, respectively, for trial (the timing for which is currently
unknown). These pre-trial orders resulted in significant
additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the
second quarter of 2014 and are expected to result in material
additional cost in 2015 in defending Women's Health Product
Claims. The District Court may also order that the company prepare
additional cases for trial, which could result in material
additional cost in future periods. During the second quarter of
2014, the company reached an agreement with two plaintiffs' law
firms to settle their inventory of cases, representing more than
500 of the filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims, which
the company believes are not the subject of Covidien's
indemnification obligation. The company also settled one MDL case
that was originally scheduled for trial in May 2014.

In the third quarter of 2014, the company reached an agreement
with a plaintiffs' law firm to settle approximately 25 of the
filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims, which the company
believes are not the subject of Covidien's indemnification
obligation. The settlements reached in 2014 for Women's Health
Product Claims were within the amounts previously recorded by the
company.

In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include
additional inventory settlements. A trial is scheduled to begin in
the MDL in February 2015, however as of the date of this filing
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case. A state court trial in Missouri is scheduled for April 2015.
The company anticipates that multiple additional trials, including
a possible consolidated trial, may occur in 2015.

In December 2014, Covidien filed a motion for leave to amend their
answer in the underlying MDL for Women's Health Claims to assert
cross-claims against the company in the Women's Health Product MDL
to challenge the indemnification provisions of certain of their
supply agreements with the company. On January 22, 2015, the
company initiated litigation and/or arbitration seeking, among
other things, declaratory relief under its supply agreements with
two subsidiaries of Covidien in three separate jurisdictions --
New Jersey state court, the English High Court of Justice in
London and Atlanta, Georgia.

The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product
Claims. The case numbers do not include approximately 850 generic
complaints involving women's health products where the company
cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine
whether any of those cases involves the company's women's health
products. In addition, the case numbers do not include
approximately 1,800 claims that have been threatened against the
company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. While
the company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the
Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including
through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of these claims and the related litigation with
Covidien will not have a material adverse effect on the company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Faces Product Liability Suits Over Vena Cava Filter
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 9, 2015,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by 50
plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various
federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries
associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products
(all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The
first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and
resulted in a judgment for the company. The company expects
additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the
next 12 months.

During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized
settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product
Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the
amounts previously recorded. The case numbers set forth above do
not include approximately 150 claims that have been threatened
against the company but for which complaints have not yet been
filed.

While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product
Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot
give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Land Title Lawsuits Dismissed by Courts
---------------------------------------------------------
For the past nine years, Capital Holdings and its sister
corporation, Season's Land Corporation, have legally sold and
conveyed land through use of installment sales contracts.
Season's commonly held title to the majority of the parcels and
always tendered free and clear title after all payments had been
made.  Many of those sales were financed through Capital, which
worked with buyers to modify loans when an accommodation was
needed. Despite such accommodations, some purchasers still cannot
pay off their contracts.  As reported by Courthouse News Service
and Class Action Reporter in September 2011, this led one group of
buyers to sue Capital and Season's and members of the Jet Sison
family.

Despite their scorched-earth tactics to try to sully the names of
the Defendants, the consolidated lawsuit of Plaintiffs Tuan Tran,
Vincent Nguyen, Chi Pham and Frank Nguyen landed with a thud.
After protracted litigation, Plaintiffs conceded in Court that
there was no fraud involved in the purchase of their land from
Capital.  For Jet Sison, the president of Capital and Season's,
this acknowledgement validated the integrity of her operations and
has put to ease the minds of many buyers, who seek to purchase
land in the High Desert.

Throughout the course of the litigation, numerous buyers declared
under oath that Defendants treated them fairly and they received
full value for their money.  Upon signing a land sales contract,
buyers always received a right of immediate possession and use of
their property, followed by a transfer of full legal title by
Season's once payments were completed.

Two judges also shot down four attempts by Plaintiffs' counsel to
bring a class action against Defendants.  As the Court noted,
other than the claims of Plaintiffs' allegations, no one else was
complaining about Capital's sales practices.  By contrast, the
Court emphasized that the Defendants had presented evidence of 23
purchasers who stepped up to say that "[n]one of them agree with
the contentions raised by plaintiff."  In the end, the Court found
no evidence that buyers were misled by Capital's sales practices
and that "even plaintiff had not expressly stated he was [misled]
by any misrepresentation in the [land sales] Agreement."  As the
Court noted, whether or not Capital held title to the properties
they sold was unimportant, so long as legal title was conveyed
when a buyer paid off the purchase price, and the evidence before
the Court demonstrated that Capital has a perfect record of
transferring legal title when due.

Despite sensationalist headlines that reported on Plaintiffs'
class action allegations, Defendants have been vindicated.  Today,
Jet Sison continues to serve clients in the High Desert free of
any cloud of wrongdoing.

The legal proceedings in which Capital Holdings and its affiliates
prevailed are (i) Tuan Tran v. Capital Holding, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-1521 (S.D. Calif.) (Burns, J.) (rejecting RICO claims),
(ii) Pham v. Capital Holdings, Case No. 10-cv-971 (S.D. Calif.)
(Burns, J.) (same), and (iii) Pham v. Capital Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 37-2011-00097871-CU-FT-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct. San Diego
County) (Alksne, J.) (denying certification of a plaintiff class
and dismissing case).

Capital Holdings and its affiliates were represented by:

          Kenneth M. Jones, Esq.
          JoAnn Victor, Esq.
          GONZALEZ, SAGGIO & HARLAN, LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 487-1400


COOL AIR: Has Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Langford and Edward George Galan, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated
v. Cool Air Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Graham Heating & Air
Conditioning, Case No. 4:15-cv-00129 (N.D. Fla., March 6, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing multiple
telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry.

Cool Air Solutions, Inc. is a company headquartered in Largo, FL
that offers HVAC maintenance and repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


DOWNTOWN JERRY'S: "Roberts" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Roberts, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Downtown Jerry's, LLC d/b/a Rusty's Raw Bar & Grill
and Arnold Travino, Case No. 2:15-cv-00144 (M.D. Fla., March 6,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Rusty's Raw Bar & Grill restaurant
in Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 967-5377
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: murthy@forthepeople.com


EQUIFAX: Agrees to Increase Consumer Protections
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office has reached a
settlement agreement with the country's three largest credit
reporting agencies to increase consumer protections, including
making it easier to dispute mistakes on credit reports and
lessening the effects of medical debt.

The announcement came on March 9 after months of negotiations
between the companies -- Equifax, Experian and TransUnion -- and
Mr. Schneiderman.

Consumer advocates have long sought a revamp that would reduce
errors on credit reports and make correcting them easier.  Data
collected by the agencies on about 200 million people are used to
create credit scores, which can determine who gets a loan and how
much interest is paid on it.  This has the potential to affect
"every aspect of their lives," said Mr. Schneiderman during a news
conference on March 9 at his office in Manhattan.

"Every day in every community in New York and across the country,
someone is applying for a mortgage for their first home, trying to
get a home equity line of credit to repair damage, trying to buy a
car, trying to get quotes for insurance, trying to get a job,"
Mr. Schneiderman said.

"A bad credit report can make every one of these basic steps in
American life difficult or, far too often, impossible."

Under the changes, people who contest items in their credit
reports will receive more information concerning those disputes,
including instructions on what they can do if they don't like the
answer they get.

In a bid to increase accuracy, medical debts won't be reported
until after a 180-day waiting period to allow time for insurance
payments to be applied.  The agencies agreed to remove from credit
reports previously reported medical collections that have been or
are being paid by insurance companies.

This comes after a move in August by Fair Isaac Corp., the company
behind the commonly used FICO credit score, in which it announced
that medical debt would have a smaller effect on the score.  It
also said at the time that debts that go to collection agencies
and are repaid wouldn't count against a consumer's FICO score.

According to a statement from the Consumer Data Industry
Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents
the companies, they are touting the changes as the National
Consumer Assistance Plan.

"While all three nationwide credit bureaus have been and continue
to operate in compliance with the applicable federal and state
laws, we have never hesitated to go beyond the letter of the law
to voluntarily improve the existing credit reporting environment,"
said Stuart Pratt, president and CEO of the group, in the
statement.

Equifax, Experian and Trans Union are honing their focus to better
handle disputes with consumers and to help victims of identity
theft and fraud.  The agencies will also jettison reports on debts
that didn't arise from a contract or agreement with the consumer,
such as tickets or fines.

The changes are intended to provide people with more transparency
and more simple navigation when dealing with the bureaus that hold
their credit reports.

Julie Menin, commissioner of the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs, who also appeared at the press conference, said
that the country's credit reporting system is "too impersonal" and
"too inaccurate."  She said a study conducted by her office showed
there are 825,000 "unbanked" New Yorkers and that bad credit can
be a barrier to getting a bank account.

"When hard-working people don't have access to banking they spend
money they can't afford on fringe financial services, fail to
save, go into debt and struggle to maintain healthy credit,"
Ms. Menin said.  "In short, they cannot achieve financial
stability."

Susan Shin, senior staff attorney at the New Economy Project, said
at the press conference that the reporting agencies' dispute
resolution process has been a "nightmare" for some of the
thousands of people who have sought assistance from her
organization.

"It's been like banging your head against a brick wall," Ms. Shin
said.

A working group will be formed under the agreement to regularly
review consistency and to ensure that collected data is applied to
consumers uniformly.

Mr. Schneiderman said the settlement became effective on March 6
and that provisions will be enacted over the next three years.
For Mr. Schneiderman's office, the case was handled by
Karla Sanchez, the executive deputy attorney general; Jane Azia,
chief of the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau; special
counsel Carolyn Fast and assistant attorney general Melissa
O'Neill.

Experian was represented by Darryl Gibson, general counsel for the
company and Daniel McLoon, a partner at Jones Day in Los Angeles;
Equifax was represented by John Kelley III, the company's chief
legal officer, and Siran Faulders, a partner at Troutman Sanders
Richmond and Washington; TransUnion was represented by John
Blenke, the company's general counsel, and Claude Szyfer, a
partner of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in New York.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart
------------------------------------------------------------------
At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201503.pdfeditors of
the Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have
posted a chart, updated on Mar. 17, 2015, organizing information
about the 24 lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are
handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings.
Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any
purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights
are reserved by the publishers.  For additional information,
contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beard.com by e-mail or (215)
945-7000 by telephone.

Earlier this week, the Honorable Margaret M. Sweeney entered an
order in Fairholme v. U.S., Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.),
setting June 29, 2015, as the date to complete jurisdictional
discovery, and directing the parties to file a status report by
Mon., July 13, 2015, letting her know how they want to proceed.
When jurisdictional discovery is completed, Fairholme should have
what it needs to respond to the Government's motion to dismiss
(Doc. 20, filed Dec. 9, 2013) Fairholme's complaint.  The
completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme v. U.S. will
also trigger in the Court of Federal Claims:

    (A) the filing of the Government's motion to dismiss Arrowood
v. U.S.;

    (B) setting deadlines for the plaintiffs to file their
responses to the Government's motions to dismiss Cacciapalle v.
U.S., Fisher v. U.S., and Washington Federal v. U.S.; and

    (C) the filing of the Government's answers to or motions to
dismiss the complaints filed in Rafter v. U.S. and Reid v. U.S.

The Government will likely renew its request to stay further
briefing until the D.C. Circuit has ruled on the pending appeals
from Judge Lamberth's decision.  In those appeals, the parties are
awaiting direction from the D.C. Circuit about how many words
their appellate briefs may contain.

By Apr. 6, 2015, Continental Western is expected to file a notice
of appeal from Judge Pratt's decision in Continental Western v.
FHFA seeking review of the dismissal of the Iowa insurer's lawsuit
in the Eighth Circuit.


GARMIN LTD: April 16 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Katz" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 27, 2014, that the court has scheduled a hearing on
April 16, 2015, on Garmin's motion to dismiss the case Andrea
Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit
with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding
an additional claim for unjust enrichment.  On February 4, 2014,
the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.  The plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6,
2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the
District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims
for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham
Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act.  The relief she requested
is the same.  On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer
the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of
Illinois.  On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court
for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue.

On December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain
counts of the complaint.  The court has scheduled a hearing on
this motion on April 16, 2015.  No class has been certified at
this time.

"Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified Yet in "Meyers" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 27, 2014, that no class has been certified at this
time in the case Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Garmin International, Inc. Garmin USA, Inc.
and Garmin Ltd.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees.

On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin
Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1,
2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory
relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are
defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive
counts. No class has been certified at this time.

"Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GERMANY: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Pay Sovereign Debt
--------------------------------------------------------
Hassan A. Abbas, Esq., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Bundersrepublik Deutschland a/k/ a Federal
Republic of Germany and JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00332 (D.D.C., March 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of all holders
of bearer bonds for violation of the Defendants' contractual and
legal obligation, specifically by wrongfully expropriating the
Class members' money and by failing to pay the principal and
interest.

Bundersrepublik Deutschland is known as Federal Republic of
Germany is a sovereign state with its main offices in Berlin,
Germany.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. is a multi-national financial and banking
services company, headquartered in Manhattan, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hassan A. Abbas, Esq.
      PRO SE
      19 Don Carlos Drive
      Hanover Park, IL 60133
      Telephone: (630) 233-0621


GRUENENTHAL GMBH: Hagens Berman Sanctioned in Thalidomide Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has sanctioned plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro for its conduct in three of the 52 thalidomide personal-
injury cases brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In adopting the report and recommendation of special master
William T. Hangley, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond said
Hagens Berman's objections to the sanctions recommendation only
further solidified his decision to confirm Mr. Hangley's findings
that the firm engaged in "bad-faith advocacy."

"Mr. Hangley found that Hagens Berman continued to prosecute the
actions well after it knew they were baseless, time-barred, or
both," Judge Diamond said.  "Unfortunately, the firm's dishonesty
in resisting sanctions and its objections to Mr. Hangley's report
and recommendation only confirm his findings."

The sanctions recommendation dealt with only three of the initial
52 cases that were filed by Hagens Berman, all alleging the use of
thalidomide by the plaintiffs' mothers while pregnant in the 1950s
and 1960s caused the plaintiffs' birth defects.

Defendants Gruenenthal GmbH and GlaxoSmithKline had each moved for
sanctions against the firm as it related to the cases of Jack
Merica, Lawrence Boiardi and Roel Garza.  Additional defendant
Sanofi-Aventis joined in a summary judgment motion seeking
dismissal of the three cases but did not join in the sanctions
motion.

Judge Diamond adopted Mr. Hangley's recommendation that
Gruenenthal be awarded 100 percent of its reasonable fees and
expenses incurred solely in the cases filed on behalf of
Merica, Boiardi and Garza and 3/49 of its reasonable fees and
expenses incurred on work that addressed the three plaintiffs'
matters as well as other plaintiffs' matters.  The 49 represented
the remaining cases after three repeat claimants were dismissed,
according to Mr. Hangley's report.

While that award was under his statutory authority to issue
sanctions, Judge Diamond said that, in the alternative, he issued
the sanctions under his inherent authority to do so.  Gruenenthal
is seeking $177,000 in fees from Hagens Berman.

Judge Diamond also adopted Mr. Hangley's decision to hold in
abeyance GSK's motion for sanctions after receiving a letter from
GSK's counsel that the motion may be withdrawn as part of an
agreement to dismiss all but one of the 29 cases still pending
against GSK.

That agreement is pending approval from Diamond, who had
previously said he was "disturbed" by what had occurred and asked
Mr. Hangley to issue a report as to whether all of the plaintiffs
knowingly and willingly consented to the dismissal of their cases.

That issue involves whether Hagens Berman has a conflict in
looking to dismiss its clients' cases for no financial award while
accepting a promise from GSK that it will not continue to seek
sanctions against the firm once the cases are dismissed.  Hagens
Berman has strongly denied a conflict exists, as has GSK.  The
issue has been briefed and is awaiting a recommendation from
Hangley.  The firm would continue the cases against the other two
defendants.

Also still undecided is Hagens Berman's request to withdraw as
counsel altogether in a handful of the cases.  Judge Diamond has
not issued any orders or made any rulings on that matter.

Hagens Berman filed a lengthy objection Dec. 18 to Mr. Hangley's
report and recommendation for sanctions. In it, the firm alleged
Mr. Hangley based his findings on arguments the defense never
made, looked at conduct outside of the three cases at issue and
allegedly made several errors in his findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The firm argued it was denied due process as a
result.  The firm has consistently argued that it has only
zealously pursued its clients' claims.

In his opinion on March 9, Judge Diamond said, "Hagens Berman's
67-page brief appears to do little more than confuse and exhaust
the reader."

The sanctions requests deal with Hagens Berman's failure to review
and withdraw some of its cases by a defense-imposed deadline of
April 11.  The defendants had gleaned through some discovery that
certain of the cases could not detail that the plaintiffs didn't
know thalidomide caused their injuries let alone that any
fraudulent concealment occurred tolling the otherwise-expired
statute of limitations, Mr. Hangley said.  In other cases, the
plaintiffs couldn't show their mothers took the drug, he said.

GSK said in a March letter to Hagens Berman that it would bear its
own costs for the litigation through April 11 in any cases
dismissed by Hagens Berman.  But in the cases that proceeded to
more discovery beyond that date, GSK would seek costs and attorney
fees, Mr. Hangley said.  The deadline passed and Hagens Berman did
not dismiss any of the cases.

The firm eventually agreed to dismiss the three cases at issue in
the sanctions motions, however, after additional discovery and
defense motions for summary judgment.

Diamond said in his opinion that rather than dismiss cases before
the April 11 deadline, the parties went through what Mr. Hangley
described as "massive" discovery.

"The evidence then produced -- to which Hagens Berman had access
before April 11 -- belied the claims of almost all plaintiffs and
often contradicted critical allegations in their complaints,"
Judge Diamond said.

Judge Diamond rejected Hagens Berman's examples of how
Mr. Hangley's report violated the firm's due process rights,
saying that one of the firm's examples of such violations "gives
new meaning to 'frivolous.'"

Judge Diamond said the firm has contended throughout the
litigation that it has acted only to benefit its clients through
zealously and ethically pursuing their claims.  But the judge said
Mr. Hangley found the firm's actions were not entirely beneficial
to its clients.  He cited to one plaintiff's letter in which she
asked the court not to allow Hagens Berman to abandon her case.

The law firm had argued consideration of that letter, when it
wasn't included in the motion for sanctions, violated its due
process rights.  Judge Diamond said Mr. Hangley appropriately
referenced the letter in an effort to give context to the firm's
conduct.

Judge Diamond said he is well aware that sanctions should not be
imposed in a way that would discourage zealous advocacy or against
counsel that urge courts to change the law. But he said Hagens
Berman's advocacy at issue was not zealous.

"It was dishonest," Judge Diamond said.

The judge also said Hagens Berman never argued its "repeated
misstatements" were in an effort to change the law.

"On the contrary, Hagens Berman initiated these time-barred cases
apparently intending to evade providing an honest answer to the
dispositive question of when its clients knew or reasonably should
have known that thalidomide could have caused their birth
defects," Diamond said, adding the firm "felt no obligation to
remain tethered to the truth."

Craig R. Spiegel -- craigs@hbsslaw.com -- one of the Hagens Berman
lawyers handling the thalidomide cases, did not return a call
seeking comment.  Neither did Gruenenthal's attorney, Albert
Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott.  Michael T. Scott -- mscott@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith represents GSK in the cases and declined to comment.


HORIZON LINES: Entered Into MOU to Resolve Merger Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 13,
2015, Horizon Lines, Inc. (the "Company") entered into Amendment
No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Amendment No. 1") with
Matson Navigation Company, Inc. ("Matson"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Matson ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to Amendment
No. 1, the parties have agreed to reduce the termination fee
payable by the Company to Matson under certain circumstances
pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of November 11, 2014, by and among the Company, Matson
and Merger Sub (the "Merger Agreement") from $17,149,600 to
$9,500,000.

Other than as expressly modified pursuant to Amendment No. 1, the
Merger Agreement, which was filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC by the Company on November
13, 2014, remains in full force and effect as originally executed
on November 11, 2014.

Memorandum of Understanding

On November 11, 2014, the Company and Matson entered into the
Merger Agreement, pursuant to which Matson agreed to acquire,
through Merger Sub, all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock in exchange for the right to receive cash in the
amount of $0.72 per share. As previously disclosed, on November
11, 2014, the Company has also entered into a Contribution,
Assumption and Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with
The Pasha Group pursuant to which The Pasha Group will acquire,
through its subsidiary SR Holdings LLC, the Hawaii operations of
the Company via an asset sale in exchange for $141,500,000
("Hawaii Operations Sale"). On January 28, 2015, the Company filed
a definitive proxy statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement")
describing the Merger and the Hawaii Operations Sale with the SEC.

As disclosed in the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement, three
putative class actions were filed in connection with the Merger in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"): (a) Joshua Loken v.
Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10399-VCL (filed on or
around November 25, 2014) (the "Loken Action"); (b) J. Cola, Inc.
v. Horizon Lines, Inc., C.A. No. 10412-VCL (filed on or around
December 1, 2014) (the "Cola Action"); (c) Finn Kristiansen v.
Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., C.A. No. 10418-VCL (filed on or around
December 2, 2014) (the "Kristiansen Action"). On or around January
29, 2015, a fourth putative class action was filed in the Court:
Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., C.A. No. 10594-
VCL (the "Schwartz Action").

On February 5, 2015, the Court consolidated the Loken, Cola,
Kristiansen, and Schwartz Actions (the "Consolidated Action"). On
February 13, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, subject to
the court's approval (the "Memorandum of Understanding"),
providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the
Consolidated Action.

Pursuant to such Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Company's
stockholders through a supplement to the Company's Definitive
Proxy Statement (the "supplement") and the Company and Matson
agreed to amend the Merger Agreement in order to reduce the amount
of the termination fee payable by the Company to Matson under
certain circumstances pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Merger
Agreement from $17,149,600 to $9,500,000. On February 13, 2015,
the Company, Matson and Merger Sub entered into Amendment No. 1,
as described above.

The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in
the Actions are entirely without merit and, in the event the
settlement does not resolve them, intend to contest them
vigorously.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of the Company in connection with the Merger or
the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of the Company
scheduled for February 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., local time, at 601
Lexington Avenue, 50th Floor, New York, New York 10022, to
consider and to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement, among other things.

A copy of the supplement is available at http://is.gd/KDNDN6

A copy of the press release issued available at
http://is.gd/jOJ8WU


INSITE VISION: Released From Claims in Besivance Product Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insite Vision Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has
received a complete release of all claims in a complaint over the
Bausch & Lomb product Besivance.

On January 3, 2013, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint in
circuit court in Fayette County, Kentucky against Bausch & Lomb
and the Company alleging that they were injured when treated with
the Bausch & Lomb product Besivance following a photorefractive
keratectomy. In February 2013, Bausch & Lomb removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.

"We moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and in January 2014,
the plaintiffs filed a response conceding to our motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. In March 2014, the matter was
taken off docket by the District Court. We subsequently received a
complete release of all claims," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Fitch" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Thompson, Lee Fitch, Chris Harrison, Jonathan Nelson,
William Purviance, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees v. International Paper Company, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00758 (N.D. Tex., March 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

International Paper Company is a pulp and paper company doing
business in the Northern District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kalandra Nicole Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROB WILEY PC
      1825 Market Center Blvd, Suite 385
      Dallas, TX 75207
      Telephone: (214) 528-6500
      Facsimile: (214) 528-6511
      E-mail: kwheeler@robwiley.com

         - and -

      Rob J. Wiley, Esq.
      ROB WILEY PC
      1825 Market Center Blvd, Suite 385
      Dallas, TX 75207
      Telephone: (214) 528-6500
      Facsimile: (214) 528-6511
      E-mail: rwiley@robwiley.com


KEY ENERGY: "Jonas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jonas, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Key Energy Services Inc., Case No.  4:15-cv-00462
(M.D. Pa., March 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Key Energy Services Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1800,
Houston, Texas 77010, which provides a full range of services to
oil and natural gas production companies, including well
maintenance and workover services, well completion and
recompletion services, fluid management services, fishing and
rental services, and other oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


KIAWAH ISLAND: Faces "Moodie' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Moodie, Rayon Fisher, Desmond Ellis, and Keisha Collins-
Ennis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Kiawah Island Inn Company, LLC d/b/a Kiawah Island Golf Resort,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01097 (D.S.C., March 6, 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 resort on Kiawah Island, South
Carolina, that contains multiple golf courses, lodging options
including a hotel and villas, a spa, tennis courts, and other
recreation options for guests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucy Clark Sanders, Esq.
      Nancy Bloodgood, Esq.
      FOSTER LAW FIRM
      895 Island Park Drive, Suite 202
      Daniel Island, SC 29492
      Telephone: (843) 972-0313
      E-mail: lsanders@fosterfoster.com
              nbloodgood@fosterfoster.com


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Martini" Suit Over Harmful Spywares
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Martini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case
No. 4:15-cv-01069 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 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:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com
              jhill@ckslaw.com


LIVE NATION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ticket Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Genova, writing for Law.com, reports that Live Nation
Entertainment and the National Football League scored individual
federal court victories over the last month when potential class-
action suits against them, alleging unlawful conduct,
discriminatory ticket practices and violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), were tossed by New Jersey judges.

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan in Newark dismissed Finkelman
v. National Football League on Jan. 21, and U.S. District Judge
Anne Thompson in Trenton, New Jersey, dismissed Forst v. Live
Nation Entertainment on Feb. 27.

There was no written opinion with Sheridan's order to dismiss
Finkelman, but the NFL's attorneys, Jonathan Pressment --
jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com -- and Joseph Lawlor --
joseph.lawlor@haynesboone.com -- of Haynes & Boone in New York
City, wrote on their website that Sheridan determined the
plaintiffs "were unable to demonstrate the requisite elements of a
statutory violation and causation."

Judge Thompson's written opinion stated that the Forst complaint
"contains only bare, conclusory allegations of unlawful conduct."

"Plaintiffs broadly assert [their claims] without any additional
supporting facts," she wrote, though she added that the plaintiffs
"adequately pled the remaining CFA elements of ascertainable loss
and causation."  She will allow the class to amend its complaint.

But Judge Thompson also barred would-be ticket buyers from
becoming Forst class members, writing that, "There appears to be
no reliable and administratively feasible means of identifying
nonpurchasers who would have bought concert tickets but for
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct."

Both judges also dismissed with prejudice claims of unjust
enrichment in their respective suits, citing no demonstration of a
"sufficiently direct relationship" between plaintiffs and
defendants.

Finkelman, filed in January 2014, and Forst, filed in April 2014,
alleged that the general public was at an unfair advantage to
obtain tickets to two high-profile events: Super Bowl XLVIII and
Bruce Springsteen's 2012 "Wrecking Ball" tour, both held at
MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

In Finkelman, plaintiff Josh Finkelman of New Brunswick, New
Jersey, said he shelled out $4,000 for a pair of nosebleed tickets
to last February's Super Bowl XLVIII between the Denver Broncos
and Seattle Seahawks.

Mr. Finkelman alleged the NFL, which typically allows for a
percentage of tickets to be released for public sale through a
lottery, while remaining tickets are distributed to its 32 teams,
sponsors, media networks and others, illegally withheld nearly all
available tickets for corporate use rather than releasing them for
sale to general consumers.

The proposed class in the Springsteen suit, Forst, was estimated
to include thousands of people who bought tickets at higher-than-
face-value for five New Jersey Springsteen shows.  Named plaintiff
Marilyn Forst, of East Windsor, New Jersey, claimed that Live
Nation had deals with ticket brokers or others allowing them to
purchase large blocks in advance before the general public was
given a chance.

Those alleged ticket sale policies violate an amendment to the
CFA, which bars withholding tickets "from sale to the general
public in an amount exceeding 5 percent" of available seating, the
suits claimed, forcing fans to pay "grossly inflated prices" on
the secondary market or through exclusive entertainment packages.

The 5 percent maximum on withholding tickets was added to the
Consumer Fraud Act in 2002, in response to the findings of the
Ticket Brokering Study Commission created by Gov. Christine Todd
Whitman in 1997 to review industry practices.

Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in Roseland, New Jersey, represents the
plaintiff in both of the suits, as well as the plaintiff in
another case, Pollard v. AEG, which was filed in February 2014.

In the Pollard complaint, Jessica Pollard, of New York City, sued
concert promoters AEG Live, AEG Live New Jersey and Concerts West,
alleging that general consumers were priced out of four Bon Jovi
shows at MetLife Stadium in May and July 2009 and two Justin
Bieber dates at Newark's Prudential Center in July 2013.  The case
is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in
Newark.

"All three suits raise the identical legal issue," Mr. Nagel said,
citing that when the Ticket Brokering Study Commission uncovered
"rampant withholding" of tickets, it inspired a "need for
legislative change."

Mr. Nagel said that Thompson and Chesler agreed on two "critical"
points of legislation, that the CFA statute is applicable, and
that there is demonstration of ascertainable loss.  But Mr. Nagel
took issue with Sheridan's decision in Finkelman, noting that the
NFL admitted in court papers that it only made 1 percent of Super
Bowl tickets available to the public.

"If the whole purpose [of the statute] is to make 95 percent of
tickets available," Nagel said, "you tell me how a court can say
you can hold 99 percent? Judge Sheridan is not in step with the
other two [judges]."

Appeals are planned or have been filed in all of the suits.

Messrs. Pressment and Lawlor did not respond to an email seeking
comment, nor did David Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig's Florham Park, New Jersey, office, who, along
with Philip Sellinger, represented Live Nation.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Constatine" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Constatine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:15-cv-00130 (N.D. Fla., March 6, 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:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Latta" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Latta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00512 (E.D. Cal., March 6, 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:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Keith Custis, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              kcustis@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces 2nd "Latta" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Latta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-at-
00313 (E.D. Cal., March 6, 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:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Keith Custis, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              kcustis@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rickie Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01069 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 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:

      James Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com


MCNEIL: Agrees to Pay $25MM Fine to Settle Tylenol FDA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that makes children's
Tylenol has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge for its failure to
correct faulty manufacturing practices, agreeing to pay $25
million to resolve the matter.

McNeil, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that had made the over-
the-counter medicine in its Fort Washington plant, agreed to pay a
$20 million criminal fine and a $5 million criminal forfeiture to
settle a misdemeanor charge for violating the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act by introducing adulterated drugs into interstate
commerce, according to the guilty plea filed in federal court in
Philadelphia on March 10.

The company had distributed bottles of liquid Tylenol with
metallic pieces in them for about a year after first becoming
aware of the problem, according to the plea agreement.

In May 2009, a consumer returned a bottle of infants' Tylenol
since it had "black specks" in it, according to the agreement.
McNeil identified the specks as having nickel- and chromium-rich
components that were not supposed to be in the medicine.

Part of the machinery used to make children's and infants' Tylenol
and Motrin includes a metal composite called Waukesha 88 that is
composed primarily of nickel and also has tin, iron, bismuth and
chromium, according to the agreement.

At the time, McNeil didn't connect the particles in the medicine
to the manufacturing plant's equipment and didn't initiate a
corrective and preventive action, or CAPA, as is required by the
company's standard operating procedures, according to the plea
agreement.

McNeil found more metallic pieces in medicines manufactured in
January and March 2010, but, again, didn't link the contamination
to its machinery or initiate a CAPA.

In April, McNeil began connecting the incidents to its machinery
and had an inspection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
which "determined that McNeil lacked a CAPA plan covering the
particles and other foreign material found in the infants' and
children's OTC liquid drugs," according to the plea agreement.

The FDA found that McNeil wasn't conforming to current good
manufacturing practices, or cGMP, which renders the drugs
adulterated, according to the plea agreement.

Later that April, McNeil recalled certain batches of children's
and infants' Tylenol and Motrin.

The maximum statutory penalty for misdemeanor with which McNeil
was charged is $200,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever
is greater, according to the plea agreement.  The total of $25
million that McNeil agreed to pay "is based on a percentage of the
sales of specific infants' and children's OTC liquid medicines
between May 2009 and April 2010," according to the plea agreement.

"The law requires that drugs be produced under the most rigorous
of quality standards. When companies fail to exercise the
vigilance that the law demands, they will be held accountable,"
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Louis D. Lappen said in a prepared
statement.  "Drug companies should be aware that failing to adhere
to good manufacturing practices subjects them to penalties and
prosecution."

McNeil issued a statement highlighting its recall and noting that
the problem didn't pose a health risk to consumers.

"This plea agreement fully and finally resolves the federal
government's investigation, and closes a chapter on actions that
led the company to review and significantly improve its
procedures," said Carol Goodrich, a McNeil spokeswoman, in a
prepared statement.  "McNeil has been implementing enhanced
quality and oversight standards across its entire business to
ensure we are best able to meet our commitment to consumers,
patients and doctors who rely on our products."


MICHAELS STORES: Sued Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Michaels Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01644 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to comply with disclosure requirements
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, before procuring and
utilizing information contained in consumer reports to conduct
background checks on prospective and current employees.

Michaels Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is the largest
specialty retailer of general crafts, home decor items, picture
framing, materials and services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to a
consolidated class action entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) setting forth the terms of a settlement.

In connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, purported stockholders of the Company have filed
putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against various combinations of the Company, the
members of the Board, Shire, Parent and Purchaser, captioned
Bragger v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10553-VCN,
Grimaldi v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10563-VCN,
Goldstein v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10577-
VCN, Mantler v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10580-
VCN, and Lyons v. Tombros, et al., C.A. No. 10590-VCN (Actions).
Pursuant to an order granted on February 2, 2015 by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (Consolidation Order), the
Actions were consolidated into one action captioned In Re NPS
Pharmaceuticals Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10553-VCN
(Consolidated Action). The Consolidation Order applies to any
future-filed actions relating to the subject matter of the
Consolidated Action.

On February 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
filed a consolidated class action complaint (Consolidated
Complaint), naming as defendants the Company, members of the
Board, SPHIL and Purchaser.  The Consolidated Complaint generally
alleges that the individual director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by approving the
Merger Agreement because the merger consideration is unfair,
certain terms of the Merger Agreement are unfair, the individual
defendants are financially interested in the Merger and certain
disclosures in the Company's Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on January 23, 2015 (as
amended and supplemented from time to time, the Schedule 14D-9)
concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
are materially misleading or incomplete. The Consolidated
Complaint further alleges that the corporate defendants aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated
Action seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or in the event that an
injunction is not awarded, unspecified money damages, costs and
attorney's fees.

On February 6, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting forth the
terms of a settlement of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the
terms of the MOU, and without agreeing that any of the claims in
the Consolidated Action have merit or that such supplemental
disclosures were required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, the Company issued supplemental disclosures
contained in Amendment No. 4 to the Schedule 14D-9, filed with the
SEC on February 6, 2015. Also pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
the parties expect to execute a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to approval by the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware following notice to the Company's stockholders. There
can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement.

The settlement terms provide that the Consolidated Action will be
dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants, and that all
defendants will be released of any and all claims relating to,
among other things, the Merger Agreement and the merger
contemplated thereby, if and when the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware approves the settlement.


POM WONDERFUL: Trial Over Deceptive Labeling in the Works
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that with a boost from last year's U.S. Supreme Court victory, POM
Wonderful LLC is maneuvering for a trial against The Coca-Cola Co.
over the labeling of its competing juice.

On March 6, lawyers on both sides agreed to be ready for a trial
in a year, according to a joint status report filed with the
court.  That trial would be just one chapter in the litigation
between POM and its competitors.  POM, which makes 100 percent
pomegranate juice, has faced prior juries in three cases against
competitors over claims they've made about their products -- with
mixed results.

But on June 12, the U.S. Supreme Court found that POM could sue
Coca-Cola under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark law, even
though the label on subsidiary Minute Maid's Pomegranate Blueberry
Flavored Blend of Five Juices had complied with the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and Federal Drug Administration regulations.

The ruling reversed a 2010 summary judgment decision by U.S.
District Judge S. James Otero in the Central District of
California.

POM, which originally filed the suit in 2008, claims that
Coca-Cola's label misleads consumers into believing that the
product contains mostly pomegranate and blueberry juice when, in
fact, 99.4 percent of it is apple and grape juice.

In the March 6 status report, POM's attorney Forrest Hainline --
fhainline@goodwinprocter.com -- a partner in the San Francisco
office of Boston's Goodwin Procter, said his client wanted "a
broad reopening of both fact and expert discovery," in part
because evidence that Coca-Cola's product contained only 0.3
percent pomegranate and 0.2 percent blueberry juice came out late
in the case.  On March 9, Judge Otero held a status conference in
the case.

"This case is substantially different than the one the court
allowed the parties to prepare," wrote Mr. Hainline, in the status
report.  Mr. Hainline stepped in to represent POM last month.

Coca-Cola attorney Steven Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- a partner at New York's Patterson Belknap
Webb & Tyler, urged Judge Otero to allow him to bring a summary-
judgment motion next month based on an "unclean-hands defense" --
that is, that POM's own health claims about its product are
misleading.  POM, through its advertising, has stated that
drinking its pomegranate juice prevents heart disease, prostate
cancer and erectile dysfunction.

On Jan. 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld
a Federal Trade Commission finding that POM had made deceptive ads
touting the health benefits of its juice.

"No trial on that issue is necessary today, however, because it
has already been conclusively adjudicated that POM's pomegranate
health benefit claims were fraudulent," Mr. Zalesin wrote, citing
the FTC case.

Juries have not been favorable to POM in cases in which its
competitors have attacked its health claims.  In one case, the
jury sided with Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., which had compared
POM's juice to "snake oil." In a case against Tropicana Products
Inc., owned by PepsiCo Inc., a jury found that POM had deceived
its own consumers by failing to disclose that its products
contained mostly water and, in some cases, other fruit juices.

But POM cited a 2010 decision in which U.S. District Judge A.
Howard Matz refused an unclean-hands defense that Welch Foods Inc.
brought on a summary judgment.  In that case, a jury found that
Welch's had deliberately deceived consumers in the labeling of its
White Grape Pomegranate juice, but awarded POM no damages.


SEGA AMUSEMENTS: Judge Rejects Video Game Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge cited several reasons on March 9 for rejecting a
class action settlement over an allegedly rigged video arcade
game, including that the proposed attorney fees exceeded payouts
to aggrieved consumers.

Judge Richard Berman on March 9 refused to approve the $650,000
payout to gamesters allegedly defrauded over Sega's Key Master
game because of an implausible method of identifying, notifying
and paying the plaintiffs and because their attorneys stood to be
paid $850,000 under the deal.

"No such legal fee has ever been approved by this court," Judge
Berman said in Brown v. Sega Amusements, U.S.A., 13-cv-07558.

The Key Master game calls for players to use a remote-controlled
arm carrying a key to insert into any one of a number of vertical
lock-shaped cutouts.  A joystick is used to maneuver horizontally
and a large button moves the arm vertically to get the key into
the lock and free up a prize.

The complaint alleges the marketing and sale of the game was
"false, deceptive and likely to mislead consumers because the
machines are pre-programmed to prevent players from winning a
prize even if they have followed the instructions on the game to
effectively fit the key in the lock and 'win' the game."

Instead, plaintiffs' lawyers said, the game wouldn't spit out a
prize until enough money had been deposited.

Proposed lead class counsel Frederick Isquith and Janine Pollack,
partners at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, reached a
settlement in 2014 with lawyers for the Sega defendants, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman partner Fusae Nara, counsel Timothy Russo
and associate Andrew Kim.

The settlement called for the judge to certify two subclasses of
people who paid one and two dollars starting on Nov. 1, 2010 to
play the game.  One class is for people who successfully inserted
the Key Arm in the Key Hole and received no prize and the second
class is for people who failed to insert the Key Arm into the Key
Hole and did not receive a prize or other compensation.

In his decision rejecting the settlement, without prejudice,
Berman said notification of people in the two classes "is, for
obvious reasons, problematic" because, aside from two lead
plaintiffs, the class members are unknown.  He said the proposed
methods of notifying the class -- Internet and mobile phone banner
ads, a press release on PR Newswire, a notice in one issue of
People magazine -- left it "unclear to the court" what the
proposed notice entails and whether it will work.

Mr. Berman said he had no idea what the class looks like, asking
"Are they students? Do they work? If so, what do they do? Do they
read People magazine?" He also said it appears that anyone who
reviews the proposed settlement notice and fills out a claim form
can get paid, so "The potential for fraudulent claims is
meaningful."

The first proposed subclass, those who successfully inserted the
Key Arm, would get $275,000 of the settlement money and the second
proposed subclass $375,000.  Mr. Berman said the amounts appeared
arbitrary.  He said the parties "make no attempt to present a
factual basis" for how they arrived at that figure.

"How much value did each class member lose by not receiving a
prize?" he asked.  "How much would they receive if the litigation
were successful? What specifically were the risks of this
litigation?"

The judge also said that a proposed player notice to be displayed
prominently on the machines themselves was confusing because it
states "if you get the key into the hole, the Key Master will vend
a prize" but it also states that the game "may currently be set in
a mode where prizes may be more difficult to win for a certain
number of plays."

The confusing language, he said, could either be the result of
"drafting difficulties or the parties' failure to confront core
factual allegations in the complaint" -- that the machines are
preprogrammed so that even those who successfully get the key in
the lock still might not win.

Finally, Mr. Berman rejected the settlement agreement's "service
awards" to the two lead plaintiffs, one of $7,500 for the name
plaintiff C. Stuart Brown, and a second one of $2,500 to
Yael Brown, who filed a similar complaint in the Central District
of California that is also being resolved in the settlement, Kempe
v. Sega Amusements, U.S.A., CV-14-0281.  The judge said he does
not usually grant monetary service awards to plaintiffs in class
actions.

Mr. Isquith said the lawyers will get back to work to satisfy
Berman's objections.

"I'm certain there's nothing flawed with the settlement itself,"
Mr. Isquith said on March 9.  "We're going to review the opinion
and see if we can repair what the judge sees are the issues.'"


SKYLINE DRY: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ting Yun Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Skyline Dry Cleaners And Laundry Corporation
d/b/a Skyline Cleaners, Zhixiong Qiu, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-
10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01647 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages overtime and minimum wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a laundry and dry cleaning services
company located at 379 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


STEVE'S LAWNS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Artemio Gonzalez and Augustin Tolentino, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Steve's Lawns,
Inc., Steve's Masonry, Inc. and any other entities affiliated
with, controlling, or controlled by Steve's Lawns, Inc., Steve's
Masonry, Inc. and Steven Slackman, Case No. 1:15-cv-01693
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the landscaping, and masonry
business with its principal place of business at 30 Sephar Lane,
Chestnut Ridge, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Lee Genova, Esq.
      Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com
              lcoyle@vandallp.com
              lambinder@bivas.net


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shmil" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Shmil, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01634 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 5, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain
airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting
vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, they
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C.
      101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360
      Conshohocken, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      Facsimile: (484) 342-0701
      E-mail: penny@gsk-law.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over "Hacking" Issue
-----------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a Dallas
plaintiffs attorney has filed a class action against three of the
nation's largest auto sellers in a California federal court,
alleging that the defendants' vehicles are susceptible to be
"hacked" -- allowing basic functions of a car to be electronically
wrestled away from drivers.

The case, Cahen v. Toyota Motor, was filed on March 10 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and names
Toyota, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors as defendants.

"Because defendants failed to ensure the basic electronic security
of their vehicles, anyone can hack into them, take control of the
basic functions of the vehicle and thereby endanger the safety of
the driver and others," the complaint alleges.

The complaint also alleges that "the hacker could take control of
such basic functions of the vehicle as braking, steering and
acceleration -- and the driver of the vehicle would not be able to
regain control."

"It's a nationwide class, and we allege a Texas class," said
Marc Stanley of Dallas' Stanley Law Group, who filed the
complaint, which alleges breach of warranty, among other things,
on behalf of the proposed class.

"I want them to fix the problem. I want them to put in a firewall
that allows [the vehicle's computer] to continue to work but
protects it from hackers," Mr. Stanley said.  "They are using
ancient technology in these cars for the communication system. And
they need to fix the defects."

Mr. Stanley said the lawsuit comes on the heels of a report
released last month by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, called
"Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers
at Risk" which noted that wireless technologies in cars represent
"potential threats to both automobile security and to consumer
privacy."

The Auto Alliance, an automotive manufacturers trade group,
released a response to Markey's report, stating that they "believe
that strong consumer data privacy protections and strong vehicle
security are essential to maintaining the continued trust of our
customers."

James Cain, a GM spokesman, declined to comment on the merits of
the complaint but noted that the issue received considerable
publicity after the Markey report was released.

"A quick read of the publicity suggests that the plaintiffs are
simply being opportunistic," Mr. Cain said.

Cindy Knight, public affairs manager for Toyota, declined to
comment about the complaint. Whitney Eichinger, a spokeswoman for
Ford, also declined to comment.

Mr. Stanley noted that he chose to file the class action in the
Northern District of California because the plaintiffs have
prevailed there against automakers in similar cases.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Stengle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal officials said on March 13 that a guardrail system found
on many U.S. highways met safety standards in crash tests that
followed accusations they have speared cars.

Forty states have stopped installing the guardrails, and Trinity
Industries Inc. stopped shipping them after a Texas jury found in
October that the company had failed to tell regulators about
design changes made in 2005.

Guardrails are designed to crumple and absorb impact, but critics
said the cost-cutting design change made it more likely the
guardrails would spear cars that crash into either end of the
guardrail.  The jury verdict in October centered on the company's
failure to tell regulators about the changes, not whether the
guardrails were safe.  Trinity faces several wrongful-death and
injury lawsuits.

The Dallas-based company said it would decide soon whether to
resume shipping the guardrails after the March 13 findings from
the Federal Highway Administration.  The agency said Trinity's
ET-Plus systems passed the last four of eight safety tests.  The
agency had already announced last month that the guardrails passed
the first four tests.

In the tests, the guardrails did not penetrate the cars, although
in one case the driver's door was crumpled.  The highway agency
said an independent safety reviewer judged that the driver in such
a wreck would have been unlikely to be seriously injured.

In a letter to state highway officials, a Trinity executive and an
official for Texas A&M University, which helped design the
ET-Plus, anticipated that the last test would be criticized even
though the guardrails passed.  In crashes at 60 mph, extensive
damage to the outside of vehicles should be expected, they said.

There are an estimated 200,000 ET-Plus units along the nation's
roadways.  Highway agency officials said their analysis of the
guardrails is not finished.  Officials from the Federal Highway
Administration and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials are still looking at other crash data
collected involving the guardrails.

"The analysis we are conducting is aimed at providing every
possible assurance that this device and devices like it down the
road are performing as designed," Federal Highway Administration
Deputy Administrator Gregory Nadeau said, adding, "We are going to
continue to drill down and provide as much data as we possibly can
to give decisions makers, in the states especially, the
information they need to render appropriate judgment for this and
other road safety hardware."

He said that because of the successful crash tests, the ET-Plus
will remain eligible for federal funding.

Some lawmakers have been critical of FHWA's evaluation of the
guardrails, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal.  The
Connecticut Democrat accused the Federal Highway Administration of
having "an "unacceptable pattern of inadequate oversight" and
called the crash tests "sham tests rife with flaws."  He said the
agency allowed the manufacturer to apply "older, less rigorous
testing standards."

However, administration spokesman Neil Gaffney defended the tests,
saying the agency used criteria that were the safety standards at
the time the guardrails were developed.

The device met the crash test criteria and developed by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
that is followed by individual states.

Texas is among states that had suspended any new installations of
the ET-Plus.  A Texas Department of Transportation spokesman said
on March 13 that the agency was waiting further analysis by
highway officials before deciding what to do next.

The jury in October found that Trinity should to pay at least $175
million for failing to tell regulators about the design change.

Following the verdict, which Trinity said it would appeal, the
judge ordered mediation between Trinity and the whistleblower who
filed the lawsuit, Virginia guardrail installer Joshua Harman.
Talks have not yet produced a settlement. If they fail, the judge
could triple the damages.


ULTRAPARK MIAMI: Faces "Soluto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy William Romero Soluto and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Ultrapark Miami LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
20937 (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

Ultrapark Miami LLC owns and operates an Automobile Parking Space
in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Linsalata" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Linsalata, David Fensterstock and Jason Birnhak,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Walgreen Co., GNC Holdings, Inc., Target Corporation, and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01189 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representation
of their store-brand herbal supplements that did not contain the
herbs identified on their products' labels.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business located in Deerfield, Illinois, which is the largest
drug retailing chain in the United States.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
which is engaged in the retail sale of health and nutrition
related products.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its principal
place of business located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is the
second-largest discount retailer in the United States.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Bentonville, Arkansas, which operates
a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. London, Esq.
      Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
      DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
      59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 566-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
      E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
              vanello@douglasandlondon.com

         - and -

      Lawrence P. Krasin, Esq.
      EDELMAN, KRASIN & JAYE, PLLC
      One Old Country Road, Ste 210
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 742-9200
      Facsimile: (516) 742-7622
      E-mail: LKrasin@ekjlaw.com


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Freedman" Case in Active Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014,
that the case Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al.,
is in active discovery.

The Company said, "In March 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern
District of New York against us and certain current and former
officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities
laws related to the restatement of our historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims
related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July
24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced
settlement negotiations such that settlement is deemed probable
and we maintain an accrual of the estimated probable loss."

That case is in active discovery.

"We cannot predict the outcome of these cases including the amount
of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to
occur relative to these cases, the aggregate impact to our
financial condition could be material."


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in "Dobina" Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014,
that the settlement in the case Dobina v. Weatherford
International was approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on January 5, 2015, and final
judgment entered on January 30, 2015.

The Company said, "In March 2011, a purported shareholder class
action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al.,
No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, following our announcement
on March 1, 2011 of a material weakness in our internal controls
over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our
historical financial statements (the "2011 Class Action"). The
lawsuit alleged violation of the federal securities laws by us and
certain current and former officers. During the three months ended
December 31, 2013, we entered into negotiations to settle the 2011
Class Action. As a result of these negotiations, settlement became
probable and a settlement agreement was signed on January 29,
2014. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2015, and final
judgment entered on January 30, 2015. The settlement agreement
required payments totaling $53 million which was entirely funded
by our insurers."


YOSHI NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yong Jie Li, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated v. Yoshi New York Inc. d/b/a Yoshi Sushi
Japanese Cuisine, Siu Fong Kwok, Xiao Zhou doe, John Doe and Jane
Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01643 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages overtime and minimum wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 131 Avenue
A, New York, New York 10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


* CFPB Tackles Issue on Consumer Arbitration Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
for years, businesses have argued that mandatory arbitration is
good for consumers, that it's faster and cheaper and the outcome
is as good or better than going to court.

A new study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
contradicts many of those claims, potentially laying the
groundwork for the agency to restrict or abolish consumer
arbitration agreements in the financial-services sector.

Such agreements, typically found in the small print of credit card
and checking-account agreements, cover tens of millions of
consumers, who are compelled to resolve disputes through
arbitration and are barred from joining class actions.

"It's been incredibly depressing to be a consumer protection
lawyer for years.  This study changes everything," said Paul
Bland, executive director of Public Justice, speaking at a CFPB
field hearing in New Jersey on March 10.  "It's an exciting,
incredibly cool day."

As part of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the agency, Congress
directed the CFPB to conduct a study on the use of predispute
arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.  Congress
further said the CFPB "by regulation, may prohibit or impose
conditions or limitations on the use of" such arbitration clauses
in consumer financial contracts if the bureau finds that doing so
"is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers,"
and is "consistent with the study."

Despite a carefully neutral, just-the-facts tone, the 728-page
study paints a damning picture of arbitration for consumers.

Among the findings: Over a two-year period, American Arbitration
Association neutrals issued 341 decisions in disputes that
involved credit cards, checking accounts, prepaid cards, payday
loans, private student loans and mobile wireless contracts.

Consumers won awards in 32 cases -- less than 10 percent -- and
obtained debt forbearance in 46 cases. The total combined relief
in all cases: under $400,000.

Companies also filed 244 claims or counterclaims against
consumers, winning award totaling $2.8 million in 227 disputes, or
93 percent of the time.

During the same time period -- 2010 to 2012 -- individual
consumers filed an average of 1,200 lawsuits in court per year.
Only two cases went to trial, and the consumers won just under $1
million.
The real difference is in class actions.  According to the CFPB,
about 32 million consumers were eligible for relief through class
action settlements in federal court each year.  Over the past five
years, courts approved 422 settlements, yielding more than $2.7
billion in cash, in-kind relief, expenses and fees -- with about
18 percent going to lawyers.

Arbitration is "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for companies said
Myriam Gilles, a professor of law at Yeshiva University Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law, speaking at the field hearing.  "It has
nothing to do with effective dispute resolution.  What's going on
is liability avoidance."

Ballard Spahr partner Alan Kaplinsky -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com
-- defended arbitration, which he called "a great solution for
both consumers and companies because everyone benefits from a
process is that is faster, cheaper and more congenial than
litigation."

Mr. Kaplinsky, who also spoke at the field hearing, criticized the
study for not surveying consumers who have been through
arbitration about whether they were satisfied with the experience.

"Many plaintiffs lawyers don't like arbitration because it goes
against their economic self-interest," he said.  "We believe the
legal system is broken in a lot of places, and that includes class
action litigation.  . . . The majority of class actions are
frivolous or filed for the purpose of extracting individual
settlements."

Still, the CFPB found no evidence that arbitration clauses led to
lower prices for consumers.  The agency "looked at whether
companies that include arbitration clauses in their contracts
offer lower prices because they are not subject to class action
lawsuits.  . . . The CFPB found no statistically significant
evidence that the companies that eliminated their arbitration
clauses increased their prices or reduced access to credit
relative to those that made no change in their use of arbitration
clauses."

CFPB Director Richard Cordray said the agency will begin meeting
with stakeholders to discuss the report.

"In our governing statute, Congress specified that the results of
this arbitration study are to provide the basis for important
policy decisions that the Consumer Bureau will have to make in
this area," he said.  "So people are right to be interested in
digesting these results and considering how we intend to fulfill
the objectives."


                             *********

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  * * *