CAR_Public/150325.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 60


                             Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of Sidney Hillman Case
ABBVIE INC: Class Action Filed Over Shire Securities
AK STEEL: Recorded $3.5 Million Settlement Loss in 2014
AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations to VEBA Trust
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces "Moore" Suit Alleging Breach of Contract

ARCHER-DANIELS: Sugar Products Class Action in Pretrial Stage
AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
BASF METALS: Faces "Cooksley" Suit for Fixing Prices of Pt and Pd
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Gulf South and MGSC Agree to Indemnification
BROTHER INT'L: Removes "Hobbs" Suit to California District Court

CELGENE CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss IUB's Complaint
CHRYSLER GROUP: "Garcia" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
CHURCH & DWIGHT: June 4 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
COASTAL CAROLINA: Recalls Residential Hydraulic Elevators
COMSCORE INC: Contributed $3.5MM to Class Action Settlement

CREAMISER PRODUCTS: Recalls Creamer Dispensers Due to Fire Risk
DDY INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Mohn" Suit Claims
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal by Weinstat and Nathan Now Pending
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: March 2015 Hearing on Class Cert. Motion
DJO FINANCE: Faces 2 US Cases, 1 Canada Case on Pain Pump Product

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Affirmed Ruling in Vathana Case
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: To Contest Claims in MERS Related Litigation
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Wilson Action in Initial Discovery Stage
FANNIE MAE: Final Approval of 2008 Securities Case Accord Sought

FANNIE MAE: Deal Reached to Resolve 2008 ERISA Litigation
FENTON & MCGARVEY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FIBERGLASS SHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Marcos" Suit Says
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Organic Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Deutsch" Suit Claims
FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
GENERAL MOTORS: "Barros" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Unseul" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Cut-out Shapes Cookies Due to Milk
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Raisin & Apricot Filled Cookies Due to Milk
GMC SKIN CARE: Faces "Reid" Suit in Northern District of New York
GNC HOLDINGS: Removes "Niedermayer" Class Suit to D. New Jersey
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Accused of Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

HERSHEY COMPANY: Appeal by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Pending
HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
HUGH L CAREY: Accused of Discrimination, Retaliation & Harassment
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Macaroni & Cheese Dinners Due to Metal
LA TERRA: Recalls Organic Spinach Dip Due to Listeria

LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Agruss" Suit Consolidated in TCPA Litigation
LIFELOCK INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Bien Class Action
LIFELOCK INC: Served With "Ebarle" Class Action Complaint
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Goldman" Class Action in Cal. Superior Court
LIFELOCK INC: Has Not Been Served Yet With "Trax" Complaint

LOGMEIN INC: Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
LOOMIS ARMORED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Beerbohm" Liability Suit in Louisiana
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Flooring Products
M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery

MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Rafofsky" Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
NUTIVA: Recalls O'Coconut(TM) Products Due to Salmonella
ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Defend Against Merger Class Actions
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in Smoker Health Defense Assoc Case

PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking and Health Class Actions Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff in Brazil Case Takes Appeal
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial Concluded in Letourneau Action in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Trial Court Decision in Conseil Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in Adams Class Action

PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Not Served With "Dorion" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Statement of Claim in "Bourassa" Case Amended
PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in Jacklin Case Won't Take Any Action
PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases Pending as of Feb. 15, 2015

PINNACLE WEST: Plaintiffs' Appeal Now Fully Briefed
POLYCOM INC: Defendants Filed Motions to Dismiss Nathanson Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Order Approving Accord
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Huffman Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NJ Court Dismissed Appeal in Lederman Case

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn and Refiled
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Filed in Bouder
RAYMOND MEISENBACHER: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RETROPHIN INC: Pretrial Conference Set in Sec. 10(b) Litigation

SPINRITE YARNS: Recalls Tizzy Yarns Due to Entanglement Hazard
STATE STREET: Two ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 2 Motions for Summary Judgment Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Against Misclassification Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Challenge Calif. Wage Suit Certification

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Dispute Wage & Hour Suit Certification
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Certification in Wash. OT Suit on Appeal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Certification in Utah Wage Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Arbitration in Cilluffo Complaint
SYBRA INC: Arby's Is Not Disabilities Act-Compliant, Suit Claims

TAX EASE LIEN: Removes "Brown" RICO Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Kale and Quinoa Salad Due to Soy
TEXAS STAR: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Raw Walnuts Due to Salmonella Contamination
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Die to Salmonella

WALTER KIDDE: Removes "Paniagua" Suit to New York District Court
WESTERN UNION: Defendants Filed Brief to Support Dismissal Bid
WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Court Denied Injunction of Special Meeting
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Ordered Plaintiffs to Show Cause Over Trial


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of Sidney Hillman Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs have appealed the
district court's decision to dismiss the case Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and state
deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in
connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from
1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable
relief and attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014, the district court
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have appealed the district court's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the matter is
currently pending.


ABBVIE INC: Class Action Filed Over Shire Securities
----------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that five individuals filed in November
2014 a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and
sellers of certain Shire plc securities between June 20 and
October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief executive officer
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging that the defendants made and/or are responsible
for material misstatements in violation of federal securities laws
in connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.


AK STEEL: Recorded $3.5 Million Settlement Loss in 2014
-------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement of
the Company's Other Postretirement Employee Benefit ("OPEB")
obligations was deemed to have occurred when the Company made the
final benefit payments in 2014 and a settlement loss of $3.5
million was recorded in 2014.

In January 2011, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Butler Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works
relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees.
Pursuant to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
class members through December 31, 2014, and has made combined
lump sum payments totaling $91.0 million to a VEBA trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel, with the final payment made in 2013.

Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel transferred to the VEBA trust
all OPEB obligations owed to the class members under the Company's
applicable health and welfare plans and has no further liability
for OPEB benefits after December 31, 2014. For accounting
purposes, a settlement of the Company's OPEB obligations was
deemed to have occurred when the Company made the final benefit
payments in 2014 and a settlement loss of $3.5 million was
recorded in 2014.


AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations to VEBA Trust
----------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that effective
January 1, 2016, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA trust all OPEB
obligations owed to the class members related to the Zanesville
Retiree Settlement.

In December 2012, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Zanesville Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from the Company's Zanesville Works
relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees.
Pursuant to the Zanesville Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
class members through December 31, 2015, and to make combined lump
sum payments totaling $10.6 to a VEBA trust and to plaintiffs'
counsel over three years. The Company expects to make the final
payment to the Zanesville VEBA trust of $3.1 in 2015.

Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
trust all OPEB obligations owed to the class members under the
Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no
further liability for any claims incurred by the class members
after December 31, 2015, relating to their OPEB obligations. The
effect of the settlement on the Company's total OPEB liability
(prior to any funding of the VEBA trust) was an increase in that
liability of approximately $3.0 in 2012. With respect to this
increase, a one-time, pre-tax charge of $3.8 was recorded in 2012
for legal fees and to reverse previous amortization of the prior
plan amendment.


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces "Moore" Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Janell Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Angie's List, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01243-SD (E.D.
Pa., March 11, 2015) asserts claims for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


ARCHER-DANIELS: Sugar Products Class Action in Pretrial Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2011, certain manufacturers and distributors of sugar
cane and beet sugar products filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Archer-Daniels-
Midland Company, other manufacturers and marketers of high-
fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the Corn Refiners Association,
alleging that the defendants falsely claimed that HFCS is
"natural" and nutritionally equivalent to sugar. The defendants
have filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs. The parties are
currently engaged in pretrial proceedings, Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.


AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Products, Inc. is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall
of certain lots of NATURAL WALNUTS and TRAIL MIXES CONTAINING
WALNUTS because they have the potential to contain Salmonella
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores. Product
was also distributed in Canada and Bermuda.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Aurora is communicating with stores that have received the
affected product. Stores have been instructed to cease
distribution of these products and to remove the affected product
from store shelves.

The affected products were produced by Aurora Products, Inc. The
potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by an
outside company contracted by the FDA revealed the presence of
Salmonella in one container of natural walnuts product. Organic
walnuts are not affected.

Consumers that have the products listed below are urged to not eat
it and destroy the product or return it to the point of purchase.
Customers with questions can contact Aurora Products, Inc. for
further information at (800)-898-1048 between the hours of 9:00AM
to 5:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.

All Potentially Affected Aurora Branded Items are Listed Below:

    AFFECTED    PACKAGE SIZE   UPC CODE       BEST IF USED BY
    PRODUCT     ------------   --------       DATE CODE RANGE
    -------                                   ---------------
    Walnuts     6.5 oz.         65585200097   10/29/15 - 12/7/15
                Plastic Cup
    Walnuts     14.0 oz.        65585200070   10/29/15 - 12/7/15
                Plastic Tub
    Walnuts     Bulk            NO UPC        10/29/15 - 12/7/15
    Walnuts     4.0 oz.         65585200490   10/29/15 - 12/7/15
                Plastic Pouch
    Walnuts     12.0 oz.        65585200316   10/29/15 - 12/7/15
                Plastic Pouch
    Roasted     9.0 oz.         65585200084   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
    Salt Mixed  Plastic Cup
    Nuts
    Roasted     4.5 oz.         65585200252   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
    Salt Mixed  Plastic Pouch
    Nuts
    Roasted     20 oz.          655852003401  1/4/15 - 12/13/15
    Salt Mixed  Plastic Tub
    Nuts
    Roasted     Bulk            No UPC        11/4/15 - 12/13/15
    Salt Mixed
    Nuts
    Roasted No  9.0 oz.         65585200243   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
    Salt Mixed  Plastic Cup
    Nuts
    Roasted No  10 oz.          65585200805   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
    Salt Mixed  Plastic Pouch
    Nuts
    Roasted No  Bulk            No UPC        11/10/15 - 12/10/15
    Salt Mixed
    Nuts
    Raisin Nut  11.0 oz.        65585200094   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
    Party Mix   Plastic Cup
    Cranberry   9.25 oz.        65585200288   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Plastic Cup
    Cranberry   10.0 oz.        65585200826   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Pillow Pouch
    Cranberry   16.0 oz.        65585200827   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Plastic Pouch
    Cranberry   18 oz.          NO UPC        10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Plastic Pouch
    Cranberry   21 oz.          65585200585   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Plastic Cup
    Cranberry   4.5 oz.         65585200208   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix  Single Serve
    Cranberry   1.35 oz.        65585200574   12/16/15
    Health Mix  Single Serve
    Cranberry   Bulk            NO UPC        10/30/15 - 12/13/15
    Health Mix
    5 K Omega   20 oz.          65585200121   11/3/15 - 11/16/15
    Trail Mix   Plastic Cup
    5 K Omega   10 oz.          65585200703   11/3/15 - 11/16/15
    Trail Mix   Plastic Cup
    Forest      13 oz.          65585200571  10/28/15 - 12/13/15
    Bounty      Plastic Cup
   Grail Mix
   Forest      13 oz.          65585200290  10/28/15 - 12/13/15
   Bounty      Plastic Pouch
   Grail Mix
   Forest      17.5 oz.        65585200496  10/28/15 - 12/13/15
   Bounty      Plastic Cup
   Grail Mix
   6 - Section 26 oz.          65585200145  11/6/15 - 12/10/15
   Nut Tray    Plastic Tray
   Assortment
   4 - Section 13 oz.          65585200141  11/6/15 - 12/10/15
   Nut Tray    Plastic Tray
   Assortment

Martins Food Markets, Stop & Shop, Giant Carlisle Food Store,
Giant of Maryland, Brand Products

   AFFECTED    PACKAGE SIZE   UPC CODE       BEST IF USED BY
   PRODUCT     ------------   --------       DATE CODE RANGE
   -------                                   ---------------
   Walnuts     6.5 oz.        68826713594    10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cu
   Cranberry   21 oz.         68826713692    10/30/15 - 12/13/15
   Health Mix  Plastic Cup
   Cranberry   9.25 oz.       68826714713    10/30/15 - 12/13/15
   Health Mix  Plastic Cup
   Roasted     9.0 oz.        68826714736    11/4/15 - 12/13/15
   Salt Mixed  Plastic Cup
   Nuts

Whole Foods Market Brand Products

   AFFECTED    PACKAGE SIZE   UPC CODE       BEST IF USED BY
   PRODUCT     ------------   --------       DATE CODE RANGE
   -------                                   ---------------
   Cranberry   9.25 oz.       65585200288    10/30/15 - 12/13/15
   Health Mix  Plastic Cup
   Cranberry   21 oz.         65585200585    10/30/15 - 12/13/15
   Health Mix  Plastic Cup


BASF METALS: Faces "Cooksley" Suit for Fixing Prices of Pt and Pd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig R. Cooksley, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs
International, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and Standard Bank PLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01817-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015) is brought for
claims arising under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Commodity
Exchange Act to recover damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief for substantial injuries sustained as a result of the
Defendants' alleged nearly eight-year unlawful conspiracy to
manipulate and rig the global benchmarks for physical platinum and
palladium prices, known as the "Platinum and Palladium Fixings,"
as well as the prices of platinum and palladium-based financial
derivative products.

The Defendants are participating members in the Platinum and
Palladium Fixings and a full member of The London Platinum and
Palladium Market.

BASF Metals Limited, a subsidiary of BASF SE, has its principal
place of business in London, England.  BASF is a market-making
member of The London Platinum and Palladium Market.  Goldman Sachs
International is a financial services company and a subsidiary of
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., with its principal place of
business in London.

McLean, Virginia-based HSBC Bank USA, N.A., a subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings Plc, is a banking and financial services company.
London-based Standard Bank Plc, a subsidiary of Standard Bank
Group Limited, is a South African banking and financial services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          Facsimile: (646) 219-6678
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Gulf South and MGSC Agree to Indemnification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Gulf South and
Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC) reached an agreement whereby
MGSC fully indemnified Gulf South against all liability related to
this matter and the cross-claims between Gulf South and MGSC were
settled.

The Partnership's Gulf South subsidiary and several other
defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have
been named as defendants in ten lawsuits, including one purported
class action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit
Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for personal injury and property damage related to an
alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities
in Eight Mile, Alabama. Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC,
the local distribution company for that region, at Whistler
Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user
customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required
by law. The cases are: Parker, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No.
CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-
901057), Austin, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133),
Moore, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et
al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490), Joel G. Reed, et al.
v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265), The Housing Authority
of the City of Prichard, Alabama v. MGSC., et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-901002), Robert Evans, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-902627), Devin Nobles, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-902786) and Richard Eldridge, et al. v. MGSC., et al. (Case
No. CV-2014-903209).

In May 2014, Gulf South and MGSC reached an agreement whereby MGSC
fully indemnified Gulf South against all liability related to this
matter and the cross-claims between Gulf South and MGSC were
settled.


BROTHER INT'L: Removes "Hobbs" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kenneth Hobbs v. Brother
International Corporation, et al., Case No. BC569817, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-01866-PSG-VBK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other class members purchased a
Brother-brand digital copier printer as a result of deceptive
advertising, and "they would not have purchased the products" had
they been aware of their true characteristics.  The Plaintiff
seeks "actual and/or compensatory damages, as well as recoverable
statutory and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, and
equitable relief, including the replacement and/or recall of the
defective DCPs, costs and expenses of litigation."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY TRIAL LAYWERS, APC
          4000 Cover Street, Suite 100
          Long Beach, CA 90808
          Telephone: (562) 499-2121
          Facsimile: (562) 499-2124
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com

               - and -

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          400 W. Lambert Road, Suite C
          Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 494-6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406-0658
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Layne H. Melzer, Esq.
          Lucas K. Hori, Esq.
          RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
          611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931
          Telephone: (714) 641-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 546-9035
          E-mail: lmelzer@rutan.com
                  lhori@rutan.com


CELGENE CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss IUB's Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the International
Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund
(IUB)'s complaint, Celgene said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
("Barr" who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID(R)) allegedly
could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active
pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples
of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing
needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic
versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified
patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited
in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining
approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of
third party payors, is seeking injunctive relief and damages.  On
February 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against IUB's
claims."


CHRYSLER GROUP: "Garcia" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Garcia v. Chrysler Group LLC,
Case No. 2:12-cv-01797, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The New
York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01813-LTS to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathleen M. Fennelly, Esq.
          Thomas R. Curtin, Esq.
          GRAHAM, CURTIN, PA
          4 Headquarters Plaza
          PO BOX 1991
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1991
          Telephone: (973) 292-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 292-1767
          E-mail: kfennelly@grahamcurtin.com
                  tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com

Interested Parties Gabriella Tatum, Jamie Meyer and Denise
Shephard are represented by:

          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07021
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: ltaylor@carellabyrne.com


CHURCH & DWIGHT: June 4 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing regarding the settlement in the ARM &
HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant Litigation is scheduled for
June 4, 2015, Church & Dwight Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant. Specifically, on March
9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company used
labeling and a marketing and advertising campaign centered around
the claim that the ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant is a
"natural" product that contains "natural" ingredients and provides
"natural" protection. The complaint alleged that the claim was
false and misleading because the product contains artificial and
synthetic ingredients. Among other things, the complaint sought an
order certifying the case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs
as class representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to
represent the class. The complaint also sought restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result of
the alleged misconduct; compensatory, actual, statutory and other
unspecified damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and the
purported class; treble damages for alleged violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; punitive damages for alleged violations
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; an order requiring
the Company to immediately cease its alleged wrongful conduct; an
order requiring the Company to engage in a corrective notice
campaign; an order requiring the Company to pay to Plaintiffs and
all members of the purported class the amounts paid for ARM &
HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant; statutory prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2014, the case was settled for an immaterial amount,
and the settlement was granted preliminary approval by the Court
in February 2015.  A final approval hearing regarding the
settlement is scheduled for June 4, 2015. If the Court fails to
approve the settlement, the Company will continue to vigorously
defend itself in this matter. While it is not currently possible
to estimate the amount of any damages or determine the impact of
any equitable relief that may be granted if the litigation
continues and if there is an adverse outcome, such an outcome
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


COASTAL CAROLINA: Recalls Residential Hydraulic Elevators
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Coastal Carolina Elevators LLC, formerly Seaside Elevator LLC, of
Little River, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 240
Residential hydraulic elevators. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The elevator can operate while the gate door is open, posing a
crushing hazard.

This recall involves Elmira Hydraulic residential hydraulic
elevators. The elevators were installed in homes with multiple
floors. They have a manual accordion-style car gate door with
vinyl laminate inserts and a control panel with up and down
buttons, light switch, telephone, emergency stop button and power
failure light. "Cambridge Elevating" is printed on the elevator's
push button panel.

Coastal Carolina Elevators has received three reports of incidents
with the elevators, including one injury that resulted in a
catastrophic brain injury to a 10-year-old boy from Baltimore, Md.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada by Cambridge
Elevating, of Canada and sold at Coastal Carolina Elevators
through residential contractors and home builders, including DR
Horton, in South Carolina from January 2006 through December 2009
for between $16,000 and $25,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled elevators and
contact Coastal Carolina Elevator for a free repair.


COMSCORE INC: Contributed $3.5MM to Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comscore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and its
insurers contributed to the class action settlement fund, of which
the Company's share was $3.5 million.

"On August 23, 2011, we received notice that Mike Harris and Jeff
Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, alleging, among other things, violations by us
of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as well as unjust
enrichment," the Company said.  "The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which, among other things, removed the claim relating to
alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act."

"On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an order certifying a
class for only three of the four claims, refusing to certify a
class for unjust enrichment.  On May 30, 2014, we and the
plaintiffs proposed a tentative settlement subject to approval by
the District Court, and on October 1, 2014, the Court issued its
final approval of those terms.  We were required to establish a
$14 million settlement fund from which class member claims,
attorneys' fees and incentive awards, costs, and administrative
expenses will be paid. We and our insurers contributed to the
fund, of which our share was $3.5 million.  The settlement also
requires us to alter certain portions of our privacy policy and
implement certain additional protocols to ensure that our privacy
practices remain consistent with its disclosures to consumers."


CREAMISER PRODUCTS: Recalls Creamer Dispensers Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CreaMiser Products Corp., of Phoenix, Ariz., now owned by
WhiteWave Foods, of Broomfield, Colo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,600 CreaMiser refrigerated creamer dispensers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A relay inside the creamer dispensers can overheat, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves CreaMiser refrigerated coffee creamer
dispensers for commercial use with model numbers 200, 210 and 400,
digital thermometers and certain serial numbers. The plastic
dispensers were sold in the following colors: black granite, gray
granite and sand. Models 200 and 210 have two creamer dispenser
stations and model 400 has four creamer dispenser stations.
Model, serial number and "CreaMiser Products Corporation" are
printed on a white sticker or metal name plate on the back of the
dispensers.

  Model numbers   Serial numbers
  -------------   --------------
  200             CP200-02001 through CP200-05151
  210             CP210-00001 through CP210-01925
  400             CP400-02001 through CP400-05500

There have been seven incidents with the recalled creamer
dispensers, including two fires at repair facilities and five
units that had melted digital thermometers. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BG2KbT

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Distributors nationwide to convenience stores, quick-serve
restaurants, hospital and workplace cafeterias, college food
service facilities and hotels and motels from January 2001 through
November 2003 for about $990 for the two dispenser models and
about $1,235 for the four dispenser models.

Owners should immediately unplug the recalled creamer dispensers,
remove them from service and contact CreaMiser for a free repair.


DDY INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Mohn" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terese Mohn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and Thomas Mohn, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Geoffrey Goll and DDY, Inc., An Ohio
Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00476 (N.D. Ohio, March 11, 2015),
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Myers, Esq.
          MYERS LAW
          1660 West Second Street, Suite 610
          Cleveland, OH 44112
          Telephone: (216) 236-8202
          Facsimile: (216) 674-1696
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawllc.com


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal by Weinstat and Nathan Now Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs
in the class action filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard
Nathan, DDS have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the
appeal is now pending.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during
the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September
2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court
issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company
intends to defend against this appeal.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: March 2015 Hearing on Class Cert. Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
scheduled a hearing in early March 2015 on plaintiffs' class
certification motion in the case filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS
and Robert Jaffin, DDS.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The
Court has scheduled a hearing in early March 2015 on plaintiffs'
class certification motion.


DJO FINANCE: Faces 2 US Cases, 1 Canada Case on Pain Pump Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is currently
are a defendant in two U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which
has been granted class action status for a class of approximately
45 claimants related to pain pump.

"Over the past 7 years, we have been named in numerous product
liability lawsuits involving our prior distribution of a
disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by
two third-party manufacturers that was distributed through our
Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently are a defendant in two
U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been granted class
action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants. We
discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of
2009. These cases have been brought against the manufacturers and
certain distributors of these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege
that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee
surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. In
the past four years, we have entered into settlements with
plaintiffs in approximately 140 pain pump lawsuits. Except for the
payment by the Company of policy deductibles or self-insured
retentions, our products liability carriers in three policy
periods have paid the defense costs and settlements related to
these claims, subject to reservation of rights to deny coverage
for customary matters, including punitive damages and off-label
promotion.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sima Issacson, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01295 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Affirmed Ruling in Vathana Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the Vathana Class Action, the The Ninth Circuit has affirmed
that EverBank Financial Corp. did not breach the Terms and
Conditions by closing the CDs without consent, but reversed and
remanded the lower courts decision that EverBank did not breach
the customer deposit agreement as to the conversion rate paid to
customers, EverBank said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested
in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit
between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of
deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly
paid the value of the account. In May 2009, EverBank removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
EverBank breached its contract with its customers by invoking the
force majeure provision when closing certain foreign currency
certificates of deposit, and that at the time of account closing,
utilizing an improper conversion rate.

On March 15, 2010, a class was certified for purchasers of a
WorldCurrency(R) Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic
Krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008. On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of whether EverBank breached its contract
with the plaintiff by (1) failing to deliver Icelandic Krona when
EverBank closed the plaintiff's Icelandic Krona certificates of
deposit and (2) using commercially unreasonable conversion rates
when converting from Icelandic Krona to U.S. Dollars.

EverBank filed its reply and cross-motion for summary judgment on
November 22, 2010. On March 9, 2012, the Court entered an Order
Granting EverBank's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that
EverBank was permitted to close the clients Icelandic Krona CDs
without notice to avoid losses to the clients or the bank. On
September 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a brief appealing the lower
court's granting of summary judgment in favor of EverBank. On
October 9, 2012, EverBank filed its responsive brief.

On October 31, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that EverBank did
not breach the Terms and Conditions by closing the CDs without
consent, but reversed and remanded the lower courts decision that
EverBank did not breach the customer deposit agreement as to the
conversion rate paid to customers.

"We continue to believe that the plaintiff's surviving claims are
without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously,"
the Company said.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: To Contest Claims in MERS Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to contest all claims vigorously in the Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services Related Litigation.

MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and
servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the
following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs
allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the
failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording
statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting
Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in
October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio,
and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to
state court; (2) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County
Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in
April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky and now on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; (3) St. Clair County, Illinois
v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc.
et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (4) County of
Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et
al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court, later
removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and
subsequently remanded back to the state court; and (5) Delaware
County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November
2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, and later removed to federal court and subsequently
remanded back to state court.

In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

"We believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intend to contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Wilson Action in Initial Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Wilson Class
Action is still in the pleading and initial discovery stage.

On June 18, 2014, a punitive class action entitled Dwight Wilson,
Jesus A. Avelar-Lemus, Jessie Cross, and Mattie Cross on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. EverBank, N.A.,
Everhome Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company, and American Security Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In this class action case, the plaintiffs seek damages for
overpayment of lender placed insurance premiums, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On
August 22, 2014, EverBank filed its motion to dismiss. This matter
is still in the pleading and initial discovery stage.


FANNIE MAE: Final Approval of 2008 Securities Case Accord Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that lead
plaintiffs in the case In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and plan of
allocation, as well as a motion for attorneys' fees.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) alleged that we, certain of our former officers, and
certain of our underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs also alleged that we,
certain of our former officers, and our outside auditor, violated
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs sought
various forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest,
costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and
injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the court entered an order
allowing FHFA to intervene.

In 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss
the Securities Exchange Act claims.

"As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remained pending against us and certain of our
former officers. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated
complaint on December 31, 2010," the Company said.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and
adding FHFA as a defendant. On August 30, 2012, the court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint,
allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims premised on
Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to proceed along with
plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's risk management
disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the second amended
complaint on October 29, 2012.

On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation. The proposed settlement amount did not
materially impact our results of operations or financial
condition. On November 12, 2014, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiffs
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and plan of
allocation, as well as a motion for attorneys' fees.


FANNIE MAE: Deal Reached to Resolve 2008 ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the
case In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation that would resolve
this matter on behalf of all parties.

In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that
certain of our current and former officers and directors,
including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the
Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors during
the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP
participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie
Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do
so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae
common stock beginning April 17, 2007. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and injunctive
and other equitable relief. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 2, 2012 adding two current Board members and then-CEO
Michael J. Williams as defendants.

On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice
claims against seven former and current directors and officers who
joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans Committee after
Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The court allowed
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims
to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict of interest
claim.

"On October 31, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs that would resolve this matter on behalf of all
parties. The proposed settlement amount did not impact our results
of operations or financial condition," the Company said.


FENTON & MCGARVEY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Harary, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Fenton & McGarvey, Law Firm, P.S.C., and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01824-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., March 11, 2015)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


FIBERGLASS SHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Marcos" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maximo Marcos v. The Fiberglass Shop of Ft. Lauderdale, Corp.,
Loman & Company, Inc., and Richard Loman, Case No. 0:15-cv-60509-
PCH (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff wages at
a rate of time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each
of the overtime hours he worked during the relevant time period.

The Fiberglass Shop of Ft. Lauderdale, Corp., is a Florida for-
profit corporation that was authorized to and actually conducted
its for-profit business in Florida.  Loman & Company, Inc., was a
Florida for-profit corporation that was administrative dissolved
in 2012, but which continued to and actually conducted its for-
profit business afterward.  Richard Loman is a manager, principal,
or owner of both Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of fiberglass repair
and fabrication, painting, rigging, and modification of vessels in
South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 403
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dalah Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01307 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015) seeks relief over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sevi Fraylich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01248 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Organic Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Source, LLC of Buffalo, New York is voluntarily recalling
3,276 plastic tubs (6 oz.) of Wegmans Organic Walnut Halves &
Pieces because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled Wegmans Organic Walnut Halves & Pieces 6oz tubs were
distributed to Wegmans' 85 stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts and sold between
January 27, 2015 and March 17, 2015.

Product: Wegmans Organic Food You Feel Good About Walnut Halves &
Pieces, NET WT 6 oz, packed in clear plastic tubs

Specific Code Date on packages: Best Before 1/27/16 (located on
the bottom label)

UPC: 077890358009

To date, there have been no reported illnesses associated with
this recall.

The recall was initiated as a result of a report received by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration which detected Salmonella in
specific grower lots of organic walnuts.

Wegmans will place automated phone calls to customers who
purchased the recalled product using their Shoppers Club card and
the press release will be posted on their website.

Consumers who have purchased this product should return it to the
service desk at Wegmans for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Wegmans consumer affairs department toll
free at 1(855) 934-3663 Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438912.htm


FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Deutsch" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Malka Deutsch, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. FMS Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01297 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 12, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Co-op is voluntarily recalling several of its products
manufactured with organic garlic powder that were sold under its
Frontier and Simply Organic brands, and one product sold under the
Whole Foods Market brand due to potential Salmonella
contamination. To date, no illnesses have been associated with
these products.

The product in question was raw material received by Frontier,
which tested positive for Salmonella during a test by the United
States Food and Drug Administration. Given that Salmonella may be
present, Frontier is immediately initiating this recall.

Frontier Co-op is immediately initiating added precautions to the
safety of the supply chain and instituting additional product
testing, beyond FDA guidelines, to mitigate any future occurrence.

Consumption of products containing Salmonella can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections,
endocarditic and arthritis.

Recalled products were sold in all 50 states and in some parts of
Canada to distributors, retailers and consumers. Below the release
is a list of products containing the organic garlic powder. Images
of the affected products can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.frontiercoop.com/recalldisclaimericon.

On foil bulk packages, the four-digit lot code will be found on
the front label directly above the UPC code. On bottled items, the
four-digit lot code can be found on the bottom of the bottle. On
seasoning mixes, the four-digit lot code is embossed on the right
side of the packet.

Consumers should not consume these products and should either
throw away any remaining products or return to the point of
purchase for a refund.

Please contact Frontier Co-op with any questions or to inquire
about replacement or reimbursement at 1- 800-669-3275 Monday
through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central time.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Barros" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Barros v. General Motors, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00101, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01794-JMF to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Baggot, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000
          PO Box 3390
          Tampa, FL 33601-3390
          Telephone: (813) 223-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4752
          E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Unseul" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Unseul v. General Motors, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 15-CA-0000058, was transferred from the Circuit Court of the
20th Florida Judicial Circuit in Lee County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01791-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Baggot, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000
          PO Box 3390
          Tampa, FL 33601-3390
          Telephone: (813) 223-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4752
          E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Cut-out Shapes Cookies Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand seasonal cut-out shapes cookies,
baked and sold inside Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets
through March 18, have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle
due to an undeclared milk allergen. The affected cut-out cookies
were produced in various holiday-themed shapes (see attached
sample images), and were sold plain, or decorated with icing or
sprinkles. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction
if they consume these products. The product is safe for
consumption by those who do not have milk allergies.

The recalled cut-out cookies were purchased by customers in Giant
Eagle and Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Maryland and West Virginia. The cookies were sold individually in
the bakery service case as well as in clear packages with UPCs of:

  --- 77993 90046 1 count seasonal cut-out cookie, 1 ounce
  --- 37973 00199 1 count decorated cut-out cookie, 2 ounces
  --- 17972 10298 2 count decorated cut-out cookies, 5 ounces
  --- 89685 80499 10 count cut-out cookies, 15 ounces
  --- 69748 80499 12 count cut-out cookies, 24 ounces.

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue when customers reported
cases of illness associated with the cut-out cookies, which
prompted further investigation. The product label for the cut-out
cookies, which contain milk, omitted milk as an allergen.
Additionally, the Company encourages customers with milk allergies
to check their pantries and freezers for any seasonal cookies that
may have been stored or frozen.
Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EDT.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle completed its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438986.htm


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Raisin & Apricot Filled Cookies Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand Raisin Filled and Apricot Filled
cookies, baked and sold individually from the Bakery department
service counters inside Giant Eagle and Market District
supermarkets through March 20, have been voluntarily recalled by
Giant Eagle due to an undeclared milk allergen. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The product is safe for consumption by those who do not have milk
allergies.

The recalled Raisin Filled and Apricot Filled cookies were
purchased by 62 customers in Giant Eagle and Market District
supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia.
There are no reported illnesses to date associated with this
recall.

The cookies were sold individually from the bakery service counter
with UPCs of:

  --- 57991 70069 1 count Raisin Filled Cookie, 2 ounces
  --- 77979 70069 1 count Apricot Filled Cookie, 1 ounce

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue during ongoing ingredient
declaration monitoring. The product label for the cookies, which
contain milk, omitted milk as an allergen. Additionally, the
Company encourages customers with milk allergies to check their
pantries and freezers for any cookies that may have been stored or
frozen.

Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EDT.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439276.htm


GMC SKIN CARE: Faces "Reid" Suit in Northern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliza Reid and Tracy Waters, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GMC Skin Care USA Inc. d/b/a G.M.
Collin, Case No. 8:15-cv-00277-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015)
seeks relief pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI, FARUQI LAW FIRM
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Removes "Niedermayer" Class Suit to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Niedermayer v. GNC Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. CAM-L-450-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01829-RMB-KMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of New Jersey citizens, who
purchased GNC store brand "Gingko Biloba" between February 4,
2009, and the present in a GNC store located in New Jersey.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the statements in the Product's label are
false because in actuality, the Product contains no Gingko Biloba
whatsoever.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
          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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron M. Bender, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite 250
          Princeton Forrestal Village
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 987-0050
          Facsimile: (609) 951-0824
          E-mail: abender@reedsmith.com


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Accused of Sex Discrimination and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Theidon v. Harvard University, and the President and
Fellows of Harvard College, Case No. 1:15-cv-10809 (D. Mass.,
March 12, 2015) alleges sex discrimination and retaliation in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Employment
Practices Law.

Ms. Theidon, former John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social
Sciences in the Department of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts
and Sciences at Harvard College, brings the action against Harvard
University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College for
allegedly retaliating against her by denying her tenure
immediately after and because she (a) supported a student-led
campaign for a safe campus, which advocated for the reexamination
of procedures governing Harvard's response to complaints of sexual
assault, and (b) opposed what she reasonably viewed as a sexually
hostile environment toward women, who complained of sexual assault
and sexual harassment at Harvard; and for denying her tenure
because of her gender, subjecting her to a heightened scrutiny not
applied to her predecessors or successor.

Harvard University is an institution of higher education located
in Cambridge, Massachusetts and is a recipient of Federal
financial assistance.  Harvard University is a corporation
incorporated and with a principal place of business in
Massachusetts.  The President and Fellows of Harvard College is
the duly empowered governing board of Harvard University.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Rodgers, Esq.
          ELIZABETH A RODGERS, P.C.
          111 Devonshire Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 742-7010
          Facsimile: (617) 742-7225
          E-mail: erodgers@theemploymentlawyers.com

               - and -

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com

               - and -

          Linda M. Correia, Esq.
          CORREIA & PUTH, PLLC
          1775 K Street, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 602-6500
          Facsimile: (202) 602-6501
          E-mail: lcorreia@correiaputh.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: Appeal by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal by the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit remains pending.

In 2007, the Competition Bureau of Canada began an inquiry into
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the sale and
supply of chocolate products sold in Canada between 2002 and 2008
by members of the confectionery industry, including Hershey
Canada, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice also notified the
Company in 2007 that it had opened an inquiry, but has not
requested any information or documents.

"Subsequently, 13 civil lawsuits were filed in Canada and 91 civil
lawsuits were filed in the United States against the Company. The
lawsuits were instituted on behalf of direct purchasers of our
products as well as indirect purchasers that purchase our products
for use or for resale. Several other chocolate and confectionery
companies were named as defendants in these lawsuits as they also
were the subject of investigations and/or inquiries by the
government entities referenced above. The cases seek recovery for
losses suffered as a result of alleged conspiracies in restraint
of trade in connection with the pricing practices of the
defendants," the Company said.

The Canadian civil cases were settled in 2012. Hershey Canada,
Inc. reached a settlement agreement with the Competition Bureau of
Canada through their Leniency Program with regard to an inquiry
into alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the
sale and supply of chocolate products sold in Canada by members of
the confectionery industry. On June 21, 2013, Hershey Canada, Inc.
pleaded guilty to one count of price fixing related to
communications with competitors in Canada in 2007 and paid a fine
of approximately $4.0 million. Hershey Canada, Inc. had promptly
reported the conduct to the Competition Bureau, cooperated fully
with its investigation and did not implement the planned price
increase that was the subject of the 2007 communications.

With regard to the U.S. lawsuits, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation assigned the cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are
seeking actual and treble damages against the Company and other
defendants based on an alleged overcharge for certain, or in some
cases all, chocolate products sold in the U.S. between December
2002 and December 2007 and certain plaintiff groups have alleged
damages that extend beyond the alleged conspiracy period. The
lawsuits have been proceeding on different scheduling tracks for
different groups of plaintiffs.

On February 26, 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment
to the Company in the cases brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that had not sought class certification as well as
those that had been certified as a class. The direct purchaser
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit") in
May 2014. The appeal remains pending before the Third Circuit.

The remaining plaintiff groups -- the putative class plaintiffs
that purchased product indirectly for resale, the putative class
plaintiffs that purchased product indirectly for use, and direct
purchaser Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. -- dismissed their
cases with prejudice, subject to reinstatement if the Third
Circuit were to reverse the District Court's summary judgment
decision. The District Court entered judgment closing the case on
April 17, 2014.


HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Clark v. HMSHost Corporation, Host International, Inc.,
and Host Services of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01282-FB-JO
(E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015) asserts that the Plaintiff is entitled
to unpaid wages from the Defendants for all hours worked by her as
well as for overtime work for which she did not receive overtime
premium pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

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

Directly or through wholly owned subsidiaries, including
Defendants Host International, Inc. and Host Services of New York,
Inc., HMSHost Corporation manages and oversees the operations of
food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports
and other travel facilities, and acts with its subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


HUGH L CAREY: Accused of Discrimination, Retaliation & Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardat v. The Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority,
Battery Park City Parks Conservancy Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01816-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015) is brought to remedy the
Defendants' alleged intentional, unlawful discrimination against,
harassment of, and retaliation against the Plaintiff, and their
unlawful termination of the Plaintiffs' employment based on his
race, national origin, and religion in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and New York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Hardat is a 32-year-old Asian, Hindu male with ancestors of
Indian descent.  He is a resident of Queens, City of New York.

Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority is a domestic public
benefit corporation organized under the laws of the state of New
York.  BPCA has a principal place of business in New York City.
BPCA is the parent company of BPCPC.  Battery Park City Parks
Conservancy Corporation is a domestic not-for-profit corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York.  BPCPC has a
principal place of business in Battery Place, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall B. Bellovin, Esq.
          Evan E. Richards, Esq.
          BALLON STOLL BADER & NADER, P.C.
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 575-7900
          Facsimile: (212) 764-5060
          E-mail: mbellovin@ballonstoll.com
                  erichards@ballonstoll.com


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Macaroni & Cheese Dinners Due to Metal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods Group is voluntarily recalling approximately 242,000
cases of select code dates and manufacturing codes of the Original
flavor of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Dinner -- due to the possibility
that some boxes may contain small pieces of metal. The recalled
product is limited to the 7.25-oz. size of the Original flavor of
boxed dinner with the "Best When Used By" dates of September 18,
2015 through October 11, 2015, with the code "C2" directly below
the date on each individual box. The "C2" refers to a specific
production line on which the affected product was made.

Some of these products have also been packed in multi-pack units
that have a range of different code dates and manufacturing codes
on the external packaging (box or shrink-wrap), depending on the
package configuration (see table below).

Recalled product was shipped to customers in the U.S. and several
other countries, excluding Canada. The affected dates of this
product were sold in only these four configurations:

  --- 7.25 oz. box, Original flavor
  --- 3-pack box of those 7.25 oz. boxes, Original flavor
  --- 4-pack shrink-wrap of those 7.25 oz. boxes, Original flavor
  --- 5-pack shrink-wrap of those 7.25 oz. boxes, Original flavor

The following is being recalled:

  Product  Name of   Sell Unit   Individual   Individual Multi
  Size     Product   Best When   Box Best     Box UPC    -Pack
  ---      -------   Used By     When Used    -------    Unit UPC
                     Code Date   By Code                 --------
                     & Mfr.      Date & Mfr.
                     Code        Code
                     ----        ----
7.25 oz.   Kraft     NA          18 SEP 2015  0 21000-   NA
each       Macaroni              C2 through   65883 1
           & Cheese              11 OCT 2015
           Boxed                 C2
           Dinner
           Original
           Flavor

3-Pack     3-Pack    09 SEP 2015 18 SEP 2015  0 21000-   0 21000-
Box        Kraft     XDG         C2 through   65883      105076 5
(Three     Macaroni  27 SEP 2015 11 OCT 2015
7.25 oz.   & Cheese  XDG         C2
Boxes)     Boxed     01 OCT 2015
Net Wt.    Dinner    XDG
21.75 oz.  Original  02 OCT 2015
           Flavor    XDG
                    03 OCT 2015
                    XDG
                    20 NOV 2015
                    XDG

4-Pack     4-Pack   18 SEP 2015 18 SEP 2015  0 21000-
Shrink-    Kraft    C2          C2 through   65883 1
wrap(Four  Macaroni 19 SEP 2015 11 OCT 2015  0 21000-
7.25 oz.   & Cheese C2          C2           72540 3
Boxes)     Boxed    08 OCT 2015
Net Wt.    Dinner   C2
29 oz.     Original
           Flavor

5-Pack     5-Pack   18 SEP 2015 18 SEP 2015   0 21000-
Shrink     Kraft    through     C2 through    65883 1
-wrap      Macaroni 11 OCT 2015 11 OCT 2015   0 21000-
(Five 7.25 & Cheese XAR or C2   C2            77436 4
oz. Boxes) Boxed
Net Wt.    Dinner
36.25 oz.  Original
           Flavor

No other sizes, varieties or pasta shapes and no other packaging
configurations are included in this recall. And no products with
manufacturing codes other than "C2" below the code date on the
individual box are included in this recall.

Kraft has received eight consumer contacts about this product from
the impacted line within this range of code dates and no injuries
have been reported. We deeply regret this situation and apologize
to any consumers we have disappointed.

The recalled product was shipped by Kraft to customers nationwide
in the U.S. The product was also distributed to Puerto Rico and
some Caribbean and South American countries -- but not to Canada.

Consumers who purchased this product should not eat it. They
should return it to the store where purchased for an exchange or
full refund. Consumers also can contact Kraft Foods Consumer
Relations at 1-800-816-9432 between 9 am and 6 pm (Eastern) for a
full refund.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRFT) is one of North America's
largest consumer packaged food and beverage companies, with annual
revenues of more than $18 billion. The company's iconic brands
include Kraft, Capri Sun, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Maxwell
House, Oscar Mayer, Philadelphia, Planters and Velveeta. Kraft's
22,000 employees in the U.S. and Canada have a passion for making
the foods and beverages people love. Kraft is a member of the
Standard & Poor's 500 and the NASDAQ-100 indices. For more
information about Kraft, visit www.kraftfoodsgroup.com and
www.facebook.com/kraft.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438708.htm


LA TERRA: Recalls Organic Spinach Dip Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
La Terra Fina is issuing a voluntary recall of its Organic Spinach
Dip due to a potential health risk from Listeria exposure. The
recall of product available in Bay Area Costco stores is a
precaution. This is the only product that has been impacted and
there have been no reports of illness.

  Product Name                   UPC Code       Best-By Date
  ------------                   --------       ------------
La Terra Fina Organic Thick &    640410513730   3/24/2015
Creamy Spinach Dip & Spread,                    4/01/2015
24-ounce tub                                    4/14/2015
                                                4/20/2015

The quality of its products and satisfaction of its customers is
La Terra Fina's top priority. The brand follows rigorous food
safety and ingredient testing standards and is withdrawing this
product out of an abundance of caution for consumer safety. La
Terra Fina urges consumers who have purchased this item in the
impacted region to discard any opened or unused product and
contact their local Costco store for a refund.
Consumer questions on the issue can be directed to La Terra Fina's
Consumer Affairs by calling 510-999-0050.


LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Agruss" Suit Consolidated in TCPA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Agruss v. Life Time Fitness,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00766, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-01124-JNE-SER to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Life Time Fitness, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) Litigation, MDL No. 0:14-md-02564-JNE-SER.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
allegations that Life Time sent unsolicited commercial text
messages to the Plaintiffs' (and the putative class members')
wireless telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system,
without the Plaintiffs' (or the putative class members') consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jigar K. Patel, Esq.
          THE JKP LAW FIRM
          10560 W. Cermak Rd.
          Westchester, IL 60154
          Telephone: (708) 562-9880
          Facsimile: (708) 562-9879
          E-mail: jkp@thejkplawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
          Erin L. Hoffman, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com
                  erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com


LIFELOCK INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Bien Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss the Bien class action will be held on
March 16, 2015.

"On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing herself and seeking
to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from
February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014, inclusive, filed a class
action complaint in United States District Court for the District
of Arizona alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against us, Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  We refer to
this complaint as the Bien Complaint. On March 10, 2014, Joseph F.
Scesny also filed a class action complaint in the same court
against the same parties that made substantively similar
allegations and requested substantially similar relief as the Bien
Complaint.  We refer to this complaint as the Scesny Complaint,"
the Company said.

On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the Bien Complaint and
Scesny Complaint into a single action captioned In re LifeLock,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

"On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, against us, Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Hilary Schneider
seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our
securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive, or
the Class Period," the Company said.  "The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleged that we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs.
Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or
failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our
business, operational, and compliance policies, including with
regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and
our and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order.   The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain
public statements made by Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and
Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial
statements issued during the Class Period, were false and
misleading.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

On September 15, 2014, the Company, along with Ms. Schneider and
Messrs. Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.   On October 15, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed a Memorandum In Opposition to the Company's motion
to dismiss.

"Pursuant to the court's order of September 17, 2014, a hearing on
our motion to dismiss was held on December 1, 2014.   On December
17, 2014, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint
and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. The
lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, on
January 16, 2015. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint no
longer names Ms. Schneider as a defendant, but otherwise makes
substantively similar allegations as the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. It alleges that we, along with Messrs. Davis and Power,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose
material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and
compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our
services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis'
compliance with the FTC Order. The Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleges that, as a result, certain public statements
made by Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and
certain of our financial statements issued during the Class
Period, were false and misleading. The Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs. We, along with Messrs.
Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint on January 30, 2015. A hearing on our motion to
dismiss will be held on March 16, 2015," the Company said.


LIFELOCK INC: Served With "Ebarle" Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs Napoleon
Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed on January 19, 2015, a nationwide
putative consumer class action against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

"The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in deceptive marketing
and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in
violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and are seeking
declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act.
The plaintiffs also seek certification of a nationwide class of
consumers who are or were subscribers of  our identity theft
protection services since January 19, 2014, compensatory damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs. We were served with the complaint
on January 22, 2015.   An answer or other responsive pleading is
due on March 2, 2015," the Company said.


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Goldman" Class Action in Cal. Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiff Etan Goldman
filed on January 29, 2015, a California putative consumer class
action complaint against the Company in Santa Clara Superior Court
in San Jose, California.

"The complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic
Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide
required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and
cancellation policies.  The complaint also seeks certification of
a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased
subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since
December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.  Our answer or other
response is due on March 4, 2015," the Company said.


LIFELOCK INC: Has Not Been Served Yet With "Trax" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiff Thomas A. Trax
filed on February 2, 2015, a class action complaint against the
Company in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.

"This complaint asserts that we violated California's Automatic
Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide
required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and
cancellation policies. The complaint seeks certification of a
class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased
products and/or services from us as part of an automatic renewal
plan or continuous service offer since February 2, 2011,
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a
constructive trust and/or disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  We have not yet been served with the complaint," the
Company said.


LOGMEIN INC: Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------
Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in the putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

"On August 28, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
or collectively, the Plaintiffs," the Company said.  "After we
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 30, 2015, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2015."

"The amended complaint includes claims made under California's
False Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Law and relates to
the marketing and sale of our Ignition for iOS application, or the
App, and the Plaintiffs' continued use of the App. The Plaintiffs'
complaint seeks restitution, damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the
claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the
inherent unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this
litigation is still in its early stages, we are unable to predict
the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible
loss or range of loss associated with this litigation at this
time."


LOOMIS ARMORED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Glover v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80333-
DMM (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Glover worked for the Defendant as a driver or driver's
helper.

Loomis Armored US, LLC was the Plaintiff's employer and a
corporation conducting business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Beerbohm" Liability Suit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Beerbohm and Sarah Beerbohm, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability corporation; Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation; and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00788
(E.D. La., March 11, 2015) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin E. Alsterberg, Esq.
          Julie Quinn, Esq.
          QUINN ALSTERBERG LLC
          855 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 324-6601
          Facsimile: (504) 836-6565
          E-mail: justin@quinnalsterberg.com
                  julie@quinnalsterberg.com

               - and -

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER LLP
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (855) 783-2553
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4040


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Flooring Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason D. Clark and Christi L. Clark, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber
Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., and
Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00748-MHC (N.D.
Ga., March 12, 2015) is brought for the alleged damages caused by
dangerously defective composite laminate flooring products and
engineered wood flooring products containing unacceptably high,
toxic levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

The class action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities, who purchased Flooring
Products produced in China that were manufactured for Lumber
Liquidators and that contain excess amounts of formaldehyde
(CH2O).  The Plaintiffs allege that exposure to the dangerously
defective Flooring Products places them and all other purchasers
of these Flooring Products at risk of serious harm, illness or
death.

Lumber Liquidators manufactured, distributed, and sold this
Flooring Product under the "Dream Home" brand name.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAWPC
          Bank of America Center
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net
                  rpaul@bm.net

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallce.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties are
currently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, In Re
Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR).

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
moved to dismiss. The court issued an order denying Wilmington
Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The parties are
currently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shimon Seror, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01823-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., March 11, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Rafofsky" Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Rafofsky and Joshua Iron Wing, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., a
California corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01848 (C.D. Cal.,
March 12, 2015) asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


NUTIVA: Recalls O'Coconut(TM) Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------
Nutiva, an Organic Superfoods company, has initiated a voluntary
product recall of the following O'Coconut(TM) products after being
notified by supplier that samples of a raw material in this
product have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. "We
are choosing to voluntarily recall three of our O'Coconut items as
a precautionary measure to provide the safest products for our
customers," states John Roulac, Nutiva'' CEO.

The affected products include:

  Product Description Packaging  Unit  Display  Master  Lot  Exp
  #       ----------- ---------  UPC   UPC      Case    Code Date
  -------                        ---   ---      UPC     ---- ----
                                                ------
BAR312    O'Coconut   Singles/   6-    N/A      6-      18FEB 18
          (TM)        Bag of 8   92752-         92752-  15L   FEB
          Classic                10557-         10558-6       16
                                 9
BAR202    O'Coconut   Singles/   6-     6-      6-      24FEB 24
          (TM)        Caddy of   92752- 92752-  92752-  15L   FEB
          Hemp & Chia  24        10502- 10503-  10386-        16
                                 9      6       5
BAR302    O'Coconut   Singles/   6-     6-      6-      20FEB 20
          (TM)        Caddy of   92752- 92752-  92752-  15L   FEB
          Classic     24         10500- 10501-  10385-        16
                                 5      2       8

The latter two items (BAR202 & BAR302) were distributed via
Nutiva.com or as samples only.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or
refunds may contact (800) 993-4367 or email help@nutiva.com.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Defend Against Merger Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Orbital Sciences Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 20, 2015, intends to defend the class
actions related to the merger transaction with Alliant Techsystems
Inc.

On April 28, 2014, Orbital entered into a definitive transaction
agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") with Alliant Techsystems
Inc. ("ATK") that provides for the merger (the "Merger") of
Orbital with the Aerospace and Defense Groups of ATK ("ATK A&D")
following the spin-off of ATK's Sporting Group business
("Sporting") to ATK's stockholders (the "Distribution" and
together with the Merger, the "Transaction").  At closing, the
combined company will be named Orbital ATK, Inc. ("Orbital ATK").
The Transaction Agreement provides that each share of Orbital's
common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
Merger will be converted into the right to receive 0.449 shares of
ATK common stock.  Orbital's stockholders will own approximately
46.2% of Orbital ATK, and ATK's stockholders will own
approximately 53.8% of Orbital ATK at the closing of the
Transaction.  This transaction is subject to stockholder approval
and other customary closing conditions.

Putative class action and derivative lawsuits challenging the
proposed merger transaction with ATK have been filed on behalf of
Orbital stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the directors of Orbital breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and that ATK aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs in each
of these lawsuits seek, among other relief, to enjoin the proposed
merger or to rescind it in the event it is consummated.  Orbital
believes the allegations and claims asserted in the complaints in
these actions to be without merit and intends to defend these
actions vigorously.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in Smoker Health Defense Assoc Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 2004

Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff: Brazil/The Smoker Health
Defense Association

Verdict: The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess actual damages,
which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size
of the class was not defined in the ruling

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $380) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of
the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In addition, the defendants filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
This appeal is still pending, Philip Morris International Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking and Health Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of
February 15, 2015, there were a number of smoking and health cases
pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as
follows:

* 62 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (23),
Brazil (23), Canada (2), Chile (7), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1),
Italy (2), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 62
such cases on December 31, 2013, and 76 cases on December 31,
2012; and

* 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs
in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on
December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.

Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege
personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on
behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms
of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and
injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases
include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect,
lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory
negligence, and statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff in Brazil Case Takes Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Plaintiff in the second class action pending in Brazil, Public
Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e
Comercio Ltda., appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the Company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and
their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their relatives; and
(iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred
for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian
States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and
should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao
Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated
that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of
judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings.

"This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo,
and our subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010.
In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice," the
Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial Concluded in Letourneau Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial
concluded in December 2014 in the class action pending in Canada,
Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.

"In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau
v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in
December 2014. The parties now await the judgment. There is no
fixed time period by which the trial court must issue its
decision," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Trial Court Decision in Conseil Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
parties now await the judgment in the case Conseil Qu‚b‚cois Sur
Le Tabac Et La Sant‚ and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., and there
is no fixed time period by which the trial court must issue its
decision.

"In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Qu‚b‚cois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sant‚ and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, our
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the
trial court ruled that the federal government would remain as a
third party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals
dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal
government. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December
2014. The parties now await the judgment. There is no fixed time
period by which the trial court must issue its decision," the
Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in Adams Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
preliminary motions are pending in the case Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

"In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, our subsidiaries,
and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary
motions are pending."


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case
-------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no
activity in the case Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

"In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, our
subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Not Served With "Dorion" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that to date,
the Company, its subsidiaries, and indemnitees have not been
properly served with the class action complaint, Dorion v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

"In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and
our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Statement of Claim in "Bourassa" Case Amended
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim in the case Bourassa
v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

"In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and
our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased
smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products
and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive
on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory
diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents
and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
In December 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of
claim," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in Jacklin Case Won't Take Any Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
Plaintiff's counsel in the case Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., has indicated that he does
not intend to take any action in this case in the near future.

"In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, and
our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has
indicated that he does not intend to take any action in this case
in the near future," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases Pending as of Feb. 15, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of
February 15, 2015, there were 2 lights cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Chile (1) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases
on December 31, 2013, and 7 such cases on December 31, 2012.

Lights Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on
behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of
the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.

The Company also said, "In the class action previously pending in
Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.,
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004,
our subsidiary and our indemnitees (PM USA and our former
importer) were defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class
action claiming that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim sought recovery of
the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member. In November 2012, the court denied
class certification and dismissed the individual claims.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On November 17, 2014,
plaintiffs withdrew their appeal at the request of the Supreme
Court. The case is now terminated, and we will no longer report
it."


PINNACLE WEST: Plaintiffs' Appeal Now Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal by plaintiffs is now
fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.  On January
13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision.  The
appeal is now fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  We are unable to predict the outcome of this
matter," the Company said.


POLYCOM INC: Defendants Filed Motions to Dismiss Nathanson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action,
presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al.

"On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against us and
certain of our current and former officers and directors. On
December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel," the Company said.

On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint.  "The amended complaint alleges that, between January
20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, we issued materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding
our business, operational and compliance policies, including with
respect to our former Chief Executive Officer's expense
submissions and our internal controls. The lawsuit further alleges
that our financial statements were materially false and
misleading. The amended complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. At this time, we are unable to estimate any
range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class
action," the Company said.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Order Approving Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has issued
a final order approving the class action settlement in the
consolidated nationwide class actions In re Prudential Insurance
Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts
to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life
insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of
the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by
the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re
Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract
Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the
retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to
be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time,
to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and
asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty
and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust
enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-
judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was
denied.

In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.
In August 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion without prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment
motions on the issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual
injury. In October 2012, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. In November 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and
Order stating that the named plaintiffs: (1) did not suffer a
cognizable legal injury; (2) are not entitled to any damages based
on allegations of delay in payment of benefits; and (3) are not
entitled to disgorgement of profits as a remedy. The Court ordered
further briefing on whether nominal damages should be awarded and
whether any equitable relief should be granted.

In February 2014, the parties filed briefs on the issues addressed
in the Court's order. In August 2014, the Court granted
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of this matter as a
class action settlement. In December 2014, the Court issued a
final order approving the class action settlement and dismissed
the consolidated complaint with prejudice. The settlement was
within the amount reserved for this matter.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Huffman Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in
Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company filed a motion seeking
leave to amend the complaint.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of
ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.
In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the
outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In August 2014, the Court lifted
the stay, and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to amend the complaint.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NJ Court Dismissed Appeal in Lederman Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the New Jersey
Appellate Division dismissed the appeal without prejudice related
to the case Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al.

From November 2002 to March 2005, eleven separate complaints were
filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli &
Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et
al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution
agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235
claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance
employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing
the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired
with Leeds Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of
contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to
the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability
to the claimants.

In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases
for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen
County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that
resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235
plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within
existing reserves for this matter.

In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered
mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40
of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the
Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the
dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs
were within existing reserves for this matter. In July 2014, the
Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion dismissing
with prejudice the complaint of one of the two remaining
plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company. In August 2014,
an appeal was filed from the Court's summary judgment decision. In
January 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division dismissed the
appeal without prejudice.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn and Refiled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class was subsequently withdrawn and refiled in December
2014.

In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling
Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of
federal securities law. The complaint names as defendants the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer,
the Principal Accounting Officer and certain members of the
Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly
false and misleading statements were made regarding the Company's
current and future financial condition based on, among other
things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability
for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or
their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii)
the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal
law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the
escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an
undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional
putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National
Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 &
172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension
Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss. In July 2014, plaintiffs' filed a motion to certify a
class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011. That motion
was subsequently withdrawn and refiled in December 2014.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Filed in Bouder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint
sought back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008,
the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.

Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to
pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of
California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter.

Subsequent amendments to the complaint resulted in additional
allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine
states' overtime and wage payment laws. In February 2010,
Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had
been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary
judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs.
In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of
the state law claims. In August 2010, the district court granted
Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal
overtime claims. In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in its entirety. In July 2013, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, permitting
plaintiffs to file a motion to certify a class of employee
insurance agents seeking recovery under state wage and hour laws.
In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.

No updates were provided in Prudential's Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


RAYMOND MEISENBACHER: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs., P.C., and John
Does 1 to 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01845-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., March 11,
2015) seeks relief from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          PHILIP D. STERN ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC
          2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
          Union, NJ 07083
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-0866
          E-mail: pstern@philipstern.com

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Cwibeker, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated
d/b/a Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01298
(E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RETROPHIN INC: Pretrial Conference Set in Sec. 10(b) Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an initial pretrial
conference was scheduled for March 11, 2015, in the Section 10(b)
Litigation.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014. In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan
filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel,
and to consolidate the two related actions. On February 10, 2015,
the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff,
and approved lead counsel. Lead plaintiff's deadline to file a
consolidated amended complaint is March 3, 2015. An initial
pretrial conference is currently scheduled for March 11, 2015.


SPINRITE YARNS: Recalls Tizzy Yarns Due to Entanglement Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Spinrite Yarns LP, of Washington, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 620,000 Bernat Tizzy Yarn in the U.S and about
220,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

In finished knit or crochet items, the yarn can unravel or snag
and form a loop, posing an entanglement hazard to young children.

The recall includes all 11 colors of Bernat brand Tizzy Yarn. The
yarn was sold as a ball or skein in a 3.5 ounce package with a
paper sleeve. The green sleeve has a striped border with a photo
of a baby in a knitted sweater and "Bernat" printed in all white
capital letters and "Tizzy" printed in yellow and orange letters.
UPC codes included in the recall are printed under the barcode on
the paper sleeve. Below is a full listing of the color numbers,
color names and UPC codes included in the recall.

  Color #      Color Name             UPC
  -------      ----------             ---
  24005        Marshmallow White      057355350380
  24114        Playtime Denim         057355375970
  24128        Blue Skies             057355350397
  24230        Sweet Green Pea        057355350403
  24305        Pixie Purple           057355350410
  24412        Red Riding Hood        057355375987
  24421        Posey Pink             057355350427
  24611        Dandelion Yellow       057355350434
  24627        Playtime               057355366336
  24628        Creamsicle             057355350441
  24711        Day Dream              057355355521

Bernat has received two reports of children becoming entangled
from unraveling or snagging yarn blankets. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8u0lT2

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Jo-
Ann Stores, Michaels and other craft retail stores nationwide and
online at www.yarnspirations.com from April 2012 through February
2015 for between $4.50 and $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the yarn or finished yarn
projects, keep them out of the reach of young children, and
contact Bernat for a full refund.


STATE STREET: Two ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston
-------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed in February 2011 in federal court in Boston
seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf
of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange
transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative
class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which
State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an
unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach
of the duty of loyalty. Two other putative class actions are
currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various
violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us
that executed indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street
from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that State Street caused
class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect
foreign exchange trades with State Street. The complaints seek
unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable
relief.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 2 Motions for Summary Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Swift has two
motions for summary judgment pending before the court in the
Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles.

The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.  On November 14, 2008,
the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence
of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of
Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the
trial court issued the following rulings with respect to certain
motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel
arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class;
(3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract;
and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on
statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add
new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the
employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative.

Swift has two motions for summary judgment pending before the
court: 1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee class
since there is no class representative; and 2) to dismiss
plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing. The Company intends to continue to pursue all available
appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company
believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,
further, that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Against Misclassification Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Swift intends to
vigorously defend against any proceedings related to the Ninth
Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending
the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The District Court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration alleging that the
agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of
plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration
agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published
decision "expressly held that a district court must determine
whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration
under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter".

As a consequence of this determination by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator
should determine whether the contract is an employment contract
exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16,
2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for
writ of certiorari.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Challenge Calif. Wage Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in the
California Wage, Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell
Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted.

On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed
plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal
and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code. Plantiff
has appealed. Minimum wage claims (specifically that pay per-mile
fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related services)
timeliness of such pay and issue of class certification remain
pending.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell
Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a
resolution in the Burnell Complaint.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all of
our defenses against liability and damages pending a determination
of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class in both matters, as well as the merits
of these matters, should the classes be certified. The final
disposition of both cases and the impact of such final
dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Dispute Wage & Hour Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in the
California Wage and Hour Class Action.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The
putative class includes current and former non-exempt employee
truck drivers who performed services in California within the
four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to pay for
all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the
merits, should the class be certified. The final disposition of
the case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Certification in Wash. OT Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
appealing the limited certification of the Washington dedicated
drivers in the Washington Overtime Class Action.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the
Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three-year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest
periods.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not certify any
other class or claims, including any class related to over the
road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further limited the
class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated drivers that
either begin or end their shift in the state of Washington and
therefore are Washington-based employees. Swift is appealing the
limited certification of the Washington dedicated drivers.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the
merits of these matters, should the class be certified. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Certification in Utah Wage Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc., intends to vigorously defend against
collective action certification in the Utah Minimum Wage
Collective Action.

On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by Jacob
Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer
and John Does 1-10: Jacob Roberts and Collective Action Plaintiffs
John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-
EJF ("the Roberts Complaint"). The putative nationwide class
includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within
the three-year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper
compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the putative
collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state-mandated
minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training.

The issue of collective action certification in the Roberts
Complaint must first be resolved before the court will address the
merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses
against liability and damages, pending a determination of
collective action certification. Central intends to vigorously
defend against collective action certification, as well as the
merits of this matter, should the collective action be certified.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Defend Arbitration in Cilluffo Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Central
Refrigerated Services, Inc., intends to vigorously defend
collective arbitration in the Cilluffo Complaint.

On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed
by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire
and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all
similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.,
Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class
involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
FLSA, and that such owner-operators should be considered
employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and
state law contractual claims. On September 24, 2012, the
California District Court ordered that the FLSA claim proceed to
collective arbitration under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act
("UUAA") and not the FAA. The September 24, 2012 order directed
the arbitrator to determine the validity of proceeding as a
collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then if the arbitrator
determines that such collective action is permitted, then the
arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's FLSA claim. On November
8, 2012, the California District Court entered a clarification
order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was to proceed to
collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the plaintiff's forced
labor claim and state law contractual claims were to proceed as
individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs seeking to pursue
those specific claims. Central filed a motion for reconsideration
and a motion for interlocutory appeal of the California District
Court's orders, both of which were denied and the claims are
proceeding to collective and individual arbitration as originally
ordered.

On December 9, 2013 the arbitrator determined that the issue of
misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a
collective arbitration, however the plaintiffs forced labor claim
and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach
of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and
not as a class.

Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the
Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and
any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on
the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SYBRA INC: Arby's Is Not Disabilities Act-Compliant, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Foster, Individually v. SYBRA, Inc., a Michigan Corporation
and CNL APF Partners, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, Case
No. 1:15-cv-10916-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.,
March 12, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Foster, a resident of Swanton, Ohio, was diagnosed with
cerebral palsy and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility.  He
alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers at the
Defendants' property located in Bridgeport, Michigan.  He contends
that the barriers to access at the property have endangered his
safety.

The Defendants own, lease, lease to, or operate a place of public
accommodation known as Arby's located in Bridgeport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
          The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Telephone: (419) 241-9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


TAX EASE LIEN: Removes "Brown" RICO Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brown, et al. v. Tax Ease Lien
Servicing, LLC, et al., Case No. 13-CI-400421, was removed from
the Jefferson Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky (Louisville).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00208-CRS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Dwyer, Jr., Esq.
          THE ZIELKE LAW FIRM
          462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1250
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-4600
          Facsimile: (502) 214-3158
          E-mail: jdwyer@zielkefirm.com

Defendants Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC, Tax Ease Lien Investments
1, LLC, Blue Grass Abstract, LLC, Lien Data Services, LLC and Phil
Migicovsky are represented by:

          Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq.
          Joseph Lee Hamilton, Esq.
          Marjorie Ann Farris, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          Telephone: (502) 681-0342
          Facsimile: (502) 779-6026
          E-mail: cmctighe@stites.com
                  jhamilton@stites.com
                  mfarris@stites.com

Defendants Hayden Craig & Grant, PLLC n/k/a Craig Law Office,
PLLC, and Richard Eric Craig are represented by:

          R. Eric Craig, Esq.
          WEBER & ROSE, PSC
          471 W. Main Street, Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-2200
          Facsimile: (502) 589-3400
          E-mail: ecraig@weberandrose.com

Defendants Sherrow, Sutherland & Associates, PSC, and Billy W.
Sherrow are represented by:

          Matthew D. Henderson, Esq.
          110 W Vine Street, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40507-1658
          Telephone: (859) 254-4941


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Kale and Quinoa Salad Due to Soy
------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Florida Inc., of Orlando, FL is voluntarily recalling
a limited quantity of Kale and Quinoa Salad because they have the
potential of containing an undeclared soy allergen within the
dressing packet in the salad.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
ingredient label on the bottom of the packaging did not indicate
the presence of soy.

People who have severe sensitivity or allergies to soy may run the
risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The salads were sold in a limited number of Wawa stores in
Florida. There are 134 units of the affected Kale and Quinoa Salad
which have the code date of "sell by" 3/22/2015 TFFLD076A1 5:00am,
packaged in a 7.5oz plastic container. The affected product was
distributed to stores on 3/17/15.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This voluntary recall does not apply to any other Wawa or Taylor
Farms products distributed in the United States.

Customers who have purchased Wawa Kale and Quinoa Salad with "sell
by" date 3/22/2015 in Florida are urged to discard the product and
contact the Wawa Call Center at 1-800-444-9292 24 hours a day 7
days a week for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Taylor Farms Florida at 407-
495-7333, Monday through Friday between 8am and 4pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439263.htm


TEXAS STAR: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------
Texas Star Nut and Food Co., Inc. of Boerne, Texas is voluntarily
recalling Nature's Eats Natural Macadamia Nuts, Lot Code
#31435001, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Nature's Eats Natural Macadamia Nuts, Lot Code #31435001 was
distributed only to HEB stores, in Texas. The product was sold
between 12/30/2014 and 3/20/2015.

Product: Nature's Eats Natural Macadamia Nuts 6 oz. is Lot Code #
31435001 packed in cello bags.

Specific Code Date on Packages: Best Before 12/23/2015 located on
the bottom of the nutritional label on the back of the bag. The
only potential affected lot code is #31435001.

The recall was initiated as a result of a report received by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration which detected Salmonella in a
random sampling of our Nature's Eats Natural Macadamia Nut
product. The recall was as the result of a routine sampling
program by the FDA which revealed that the finished products
contained the bacteria.

No illnesses have been reported in relation to this product at
this time.

The company has ceased the production and distribution of the
product as the FDA and the company continues their investigation
as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Nature's Eats Natural Macadamia Nuts,
Lot Code #31435001 are urged to not eat or discontinue consuming
the affected product and return the product to HEB for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-844-
571-5555 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time.


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Raw Walnuts Due to Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company is recalling Raw Walnuts because these
products have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled Trader Joe's Raw Walnuts were distributed to Trader
Joe's stores nationwide.

The products are packaged in clear plastic bags with the UPC Codes
printed on the back. For the Raw California Walnut products, the
"BEST BY" dates and Lot Numbers can be found printed on the back
of the packages. For the Organic Raw Walnut products, the "BEST
BY' dates can be found printed on the front of the packages.

All potentially affected Raw Walnut products are as follows:

  UPC       Product Description     "BEST BY" Dates   Lot Numbers
  ---       -------------------     ---------------   -----------
00373685    Trader Joe's Nuts Raw    12/2015           GU4345
            California Walnut Pieces
            - 16oz

00943338    Trader Joe's Nuts Raw   12/2015           GU4346
            California Walnut Halves                  GU4349
            & Pieces - 16 oz                          GU4356

00519342    Trader Joe's Nuts Raw   12/2015           GU4350
            California Walnut Baking
            Pieces - 16 oz

00519328    Trader Joe's Nuts Raw   12/2015           GU4343
            California Premium                        GU4344
            Walnut Halves - 16oz                      GU4351
                                                      GU4352

00586627    Trader Joe's Organic Raw OCT 15 2015      N/A
            Walnut Halves & Pieces   OCT 16 2015
            - 12oz                   OCT 17 2015
                                     OCT 20 2015
                                     OCT 21 2015
                                     NOV 17 2015
                                     NOV 18 2015
                                     NOV 19 2015
                                     NOV 20 2015
                                     NOV 28 2015
                                     DEC 01 2015

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
an outside company contracted by the FDA revealed the presence of
Salmonella in certain packages of Trader Joe's Raw Walnuts.
Out of an abundance of caution, Trader Joe's removed all lots of
these products from store shelves and will suspend sale of these
products while the FDA and the manufacturers involved continue
their investigation into the source of the problem.

To date, Trader Joe's Company has not received any illness
complaints related to these recalled products.

Customers who have purchased any of this recalled Raw Walnut
product are urged not to eat it, and to dispose of the product or
return it to any Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with
questions may contact Trader Joe's Customer Relations at (626)
599-3817 [Monday through Friday, 6:00AM to 6:00PM PST].

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438476.htm


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Die to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a specialty retailer of
organic and natural products, is expanding their recall of Natural
Grocers brand Organic Garlic Powder to all lots as the product has
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Consumption of products containing Salmonella can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms)
endocarditic and arthritis.

This recall was initiated after being notified of positive
Salmonella findings in product from our supplier, which was
repackaged by us.

The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with
Natural Grocers label notating Julian pack on dates and pricing
per pound. The product was produced in size ranges of 0.25 pound
to 0.30 pound. The lots being recalled are identifiable by Julian
packed on date and include:

61-15, 40-15, 20-15, 351-14, 006-15, 316-14, 329-14, 288-14, 301-
14, 275-14, 267-14, 252-14, 237-14

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 95 stores located
in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations
of Natural Grocers stores at: http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-
locationsdisclaimer icon.

Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

To date, the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers
who may have purchased this product should discontinue use and
return it to the store for credit or refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling:

Customer Service
303-986-4600, ext. 531
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., MST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439032.htm


WALTER KIDDE: Removes "Paniagua" Suit to New York District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc., incorrectly named
as Kidde, Inc. d/b/a Kidde, Incorporated a/k/a Kidde and Kidde
Supply, Kidde Fire Safety (USA), removed the lawsuit captioned
Paniagua v. Kidde, Inc., et al., Case No. 306377/2014, from the
Supreme Court of the state of New York, Bronx County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01858-PAE to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff claims that on February 7, 2005, when Plaintiff was
eleven years old, a fire broke out in the apartment he was living
in with his mother and sister.  The apartment, located in
Manhattan, was owned by the New York City Housing Authority.  The
Plaintiff was allegedly injured in the fire, and his mother
perished.

The case purports to be a products liability and negligence action
in which the Plaintiff alleges that a smoke alarm manufactured by
Kidde was defectively designed.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Kidde smoke alarms installed in the apartment were defectively
designed and "failed to provide sufficient warning to allow safe
escape from a dangerous fire."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James T. Hunt, Jr., Esq.
          SLATER, TENAGLIA, FRITZ & HUNT, P.A.
          395 W Passaic Street, Suite 205
          Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
          Telephone: (201) 820-6001
          Facsimile: (212) 692-0202
          E-mail: james.hunt@stfhlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter Joseph Fazio, Esq.
          AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 593-5458
          Facsimile: (212) 593-6970
          E-mail: pjfazio@arfdlaw.com


WESTERN UNION: Defendants Filed Brief to Support Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants filed a
reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint filed by City of Taylor Police and Fire
Retirement System.

On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Court
appointed SEB Asset Management S.A. and SEB Investment Management
AB as lead plaintiffs. On October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint, which asserts the
same claims as the original complaint, except that it brings the
claims under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the
individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint also
adds as a defendant another former executive officer of the
Company.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during the
purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012,
defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those
regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from
its compliance program; (2) the Company's ability to increase
market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand
competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under
the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in
Mexico; and (4) the Company's progress in implementing an anti-
money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area.

On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On January 5, 2015, plaintiffs
filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On January 23, 2015, defendants
filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. This action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.


WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Jason Douglas filed
on March 12, 2014, a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009,
the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless
telephones without their consent. The plaintiff has not sought and
the Court has not granted class certification. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter. However, due to the
preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the uncertainty as to whether
it will ever be certified as a class action, the potential outcome
cannot be determined.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Court Denied Injunction of Special Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2015, that on February 9, 2015, a purported stockholder of
Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream") filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10629-VCN.
Plaintiff alleged that Windstream's Board of Directors (the
"Board") breached their fiduciary duties by causing Windstream to
issue a proxy statement that allegedly omitted material
information in connection with a special meeting of stockholders
scheduled to be held on February 20, 2015 to vote on certain
amendments to Windstream Corporation's charter and to approve a 1
for 6 reverse stock split (the "Special Meeting"). Plaintiff
sought to enjoin the Special Meeting until additional public
disclosures were made. A hearing was held on February 19, 2015 at
which the court denied the requested injunction of the Special
Meeting. Accordingly, the Special Meeting was to be held as
scheduled on February 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Central time).


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Ordered Plaintiffs to Show Cause Over Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs
in the Bryant Holdings Securities Litigation to show cause, by
February 20, 2015, why Plaintiffs' individual claims should not be
set for trial beginning July 13, 2015.

"On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 24, 2008
and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
damages under the federal securities laws for statements and/or
omissions allegedly made by us and the individual defendants
during the Class Period which plaintiffs claimed to be false and
misleading," the Company said.

"The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No
current officers or directors were named in the lawsuit. The
parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013
and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties, which
agreement remains subject to approval by the court. Court approval
cannot be assured. Substantially all of the payments contemplated
by the settlement will be covered by our liability insurance. The
self-insured retention on this matter has been accrued.

"On August 19, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying
plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval and,
on November 18, 2013, the Court denied that Motion.  Each denial
was based primarily on deficiencies that the Court perceived in
the plan that plaintiffs proposed for allocation of the settlement
proceeds among class members.  On February 18, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval. On
February 11, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Motion for Preliminary Approval, based primarily on deficiencies
that the Court perceived in the evidence plaintiffs submitted to
show compliance with the procedural requirements for certifying a
settlement class, including appropriate procedures regarding
notice to the settlement class.  The Court ordered Plaintiffs to
show cause, by February 20, 2015, why Plaintiffs' individual
claims should not be set for trial beginning July 13, 2015."


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *