CAR_Public/150506.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 90


                             Headlines


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Against Class Suit
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Action
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Ocwen Added as Defendant to Amended Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Warman" Suit Says
AMERICAN REALTY: 10 Securities Class Actions Consolidated

AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond to Wunsch Case
AMERICAN REALTY: No Response Yet to Respond to Securities Action
AMERICAN REALTY: 2 Objectors Appeal Settlement Order
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Defending Against Securities Class Actions
APACHE CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice

BEDNEST LTD: Recalls Bed Side Cribs Due to Non-Compliance
BNSF RAILWAY: Still Defending Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Suit
BP PLC: Jury Trials for Oil Spill-Related Medical Claims Approved
BUYERS CASH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cabalona" Suit Claims
C3R MEGA: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CAFE 71: "Iriarte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Jury Awards $13MM to Asbestos Victim
COMMUNITY BANK: Settled Two Related Class Actions
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Litigation Committee Issues Report

CONTRACT SECURITY: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CROCS INC: No Notice of Appeal Filed Over Class Action Dismissal
CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court to Schedule Oral Argument
DIMITRI'S ON THE WATER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DIODES INCORPORATED: No Hearing Date Set in Class Action Appeal

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Shareholder Class Actions
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Antitrust Class Action
EAGLE ROCK: Court Dismissed 3 Class Action Lawsuits
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS Inked MSAs to Settle 45,400 Mesh Claims
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 47 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 230 Testosterone Cases Pending Against EPI
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Civil Class Action Filed in Illinois
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Antitrust Litigation to Begin 2017
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Engel" Merger Class Suit

ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Yeager" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Coggia" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Blankman" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Bazini" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Hinnau" Merger Class Suit

ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Weaver" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Dieckman" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Berlin" Merger Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: 5 Suits Challenging PVR Acquisition Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: District Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Suit Claims

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Certification Denied in Bartoni Action
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Court Consolidated Class Actions
ESTES EXPRESS: Faces "Pipkin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Continue Cert. Objections in Hearing Loss Case
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Updates in Philadelphia Hearing Loss Litigation

FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. Superior Court Class Action
FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. District Court Class Action
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Deal Reached in Market Rate Savings IRA Case
FLEMING TRUCK: Faces "Quintero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 30,198 Cars Over Broken Door Latches

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 4,618 Cars Over Improper Nickel Plating
HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Sweet Potato & Beef Medley Products
HUBBARD'S TOWING: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Merger Class Action Settlement Still Pending
HUDSON PACIFIC: Faces Class Action by Fundamental Partners

IMPERVA INC: Defendants Filed Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action
INTEGRYS ENERGY: Entered MOU to Settle Class Actions
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Atwood
INTUIT INC: Sued Over Lax TurboTax Software Security Protections
JANSSEN INC: Recalls Ortho-Cept Tablets Due to Health Risk

JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Trailers Due to Defective Wheels Hubs
JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Trailers Due to Defective Wheels Hubs
JONIKAL INC: Faces "Contreras' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
K & K STEEL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KCG HOLDINGS: New York and New Jersey Shareholder Suits Dismissed

KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE: Court Ends Case Over Motorcycle Design
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Facing 60 Coal Tar Pitch Cases as of Dec. 31
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits in Class Action Stayed
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
LAZAR GOURMET: Recalls Beef Samosa Products Due to Mustard

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Updates on Hardboard Trim Litigation
MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Cases
MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Morehouse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Dismissal Bid Still Pending
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approved Withdrawal Petition

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed 2nd Amended Complaint
MIDKIFF HOLDINGS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MIDLAND CREDIT: Removed "Sam" Class Suit to Southern New York
MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendants in Minocycline Case

MYLAN INC: Decision Pending on Bid to Dismiss Pioglitazone Suit
MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at Dec. 31 on Product Liability Claims
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Smithtown Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Appeal in "Farb" Class Action Still Pending
PHARMERICA CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Approve Settlement

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carpinelli" Suit Says
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Munchkin Loses Appeal in Diaper False Ad Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Appeal in CBNV Litigation Pending
PNC FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation
PNC FINANCIAL: Court Denied Motion for Reconsideration

PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Lauren" Complaint Pending
PNC FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Filed in Montoya Case
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims
RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Funds Named as Lead Plaintiffs
RENASANT CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Stein" Case

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Court Approval Hearing Set
REX ENERGY: Conducting Class Discovery for Cardinale Action
S & S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Olson" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Parties Settle All Legal Proceedings

SOUTHERN RESTAURANT: "Guta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: MOU Reached in OmniAmerican Merger Case
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settlement Payment Fully Covered by Insurance
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Hearing Held Over Posting Order Settlement
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Preliminary in Nature

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees to Pay $2.4-Bil. in Actos Suit
TREAD INC: Faces "Agosto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRULIA INC: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Stockholder Litigation
TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims
XOOM CORPORATION: To Defend Against Alexander Liu Class Action

* Judges Can Review EEOC Job Bias Settlement Efforts


                            *********


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Against Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that "In January 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of
our executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging certain misstatements and
omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's
financial performance in violation of the federal securities laws.
We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the
claims made in this lawsuit."


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
William C. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource, Home
Loan Servicing Solutions Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation,
NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation,
including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i)
the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those
entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an
allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse
himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount,
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses.

"We believe the complaint is without merit. At this time, we are
not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can
we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Ocwen Added as Defendant to Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Lead
Plaintiffs have filed an amended class action complaint which adds
Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and
transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated
Altisource share prices.  The court subsequently appointed the
Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified
amount of damages.

Altisource intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.  Altisource
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate the potential loss, if any, arising from the suit, given
that motions to dismiss have not yet been filed or adjudicated,
discovery has not commenced and significant legal and factual
issues remain to be determined.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Warman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Warman, individually and on be0half of all others similarly
situated v. American National Standards Institute, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00907 (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

American National Standards Institute oversees the creation,
promulgation and use of thousands of norms and guidelines that
impact businesses in numerous industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
      AMARTIN LAW, PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 308-6880
      Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
      E-mail: alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Travis K. Jang-Busby, Esq.
      SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES
      2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
      Carlsbad, CA 92011
      Telephone: (760) 206-3566
      Facsimile: (760) 579-7319


AMERICAN REALTY: 10 Securities Class Actions Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2013, that between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the
Company and its current and former officers and directors (along
with others) were named as defendants in ten putative securities
class action complaints in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. At a February 10, 2015 status
conference, the court consolidated these actions, appointed a lead
plaintiff, designated the complaint filed in Teachers Insurance
and Annuity Association of America v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH), as the
consolidated class action complaint, and set a deadline of April
10, 2015 for the defendants to respond to the consolidated class
action complaint. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of
the Company's securities. The proposed class period runs from May
6, 2013 to October 29, 2014.


AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond to Wunsch Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2013, that on November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-
012816 (the "Maryland Securities Action," and together with the
SDNY Actions, the "Securities Actions"). On December 23, 2014, the
Company removed the Maryland Securities Action to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern
Division), under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-4007 (ELH), and seeks to
transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Maryland Securities Action
asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made in connection with the Company's
securities issued in connection with the Cole Merger. The Company
is not yet required to respond to this complaint.


AMERICAN REALTY: No Response Yet to Respond to Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2013, that on January 15, 2015 and February 20, 2015, the
Company and certain of its former directors and officers were
named as defendants in two individual securities fraud actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Jet Capital Master Fund, L.P. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-307
(AKH) (the "Jet Capital Action") and Twin Securities, Inc. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., No. 15-cv-1291 (AKH)
(the "Twin Securities Action," and together with the Jet Capital
Action, the "Individual Securities Actions"). The Individual
Securities Actions seek money damages and assert claims for
alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 14(a), 18 and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, as well as common law fraud under New York
law in connection with the purchase of the Company's securities.
At a February 10, 2015 status conference, the court set a deadline
of April 10, 2015 for the defendants to respond to the complaint
in the Jet Capital Action. The defendants are not yet required to
respond to the complaint in the Twin Securities Action.


AMERICAN REALTY: 2 Objectors Appeal Settlement Order
----------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2013, that the defendants in the consolidated Baltimore Merger
Actions, which were filed by Cole stockholders challenging the
Cole Merger, mailed a Notice of Pendency of Derivative and Class
Action (the "Class Notice") to the Cole stockholders on October 7,
2014, following the court's preliminary approval of the parties'
Settlement Stipulation. On December 3, 2014, the parties in the
consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions executed an Amended
Stipulation and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
(the "Amended Stipulation") modifying the Stipulation. A final
settlement hearing in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions
was held on December 12, 2014, and on January 13, 2015, the
Baltimore Circuit Court issued an order approving the settlement
pursuant to the terms of the Amended Stipulation. Two objectors
have since filed a notice of appeal of the settlement order.
Following court approval of the settlement of the consolidated
Baltimore Merger Actions, the Wunsch case was dismissed
voluntarily on January 21, 2015.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Defending Against Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, Inc. is still defending a putative
securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

"We and certain of our officers are defendants in related putative
securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York," the Company said.  "Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to
represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the
court issued an order consolidating the related actions,
appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of co-lead
counsel. On September 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and
other relief. Plaintiffs assert the Section 11 claim on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in
or traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013 and did not
sell those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December
12, 2013. We believe the allegations to be unfounded and will
vigorously pursue its defenses; however, we cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss, if any. In addition, we have
received three stockholder demands for production, pursuant to
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, of our books
and records."


APACHE CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Adams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 7:15-cv-00056-RAJ (W.D.
Tex., April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the Defendant's
Midland, Texas site.

Apache Corporation owns and operates an oil and gas exploration
and production company with its principal place of business at
2000 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 100, Houston, Texas 77056.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON AND BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


BEDNEST LTD: Recalls Bed Side Cribs Due to Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 27, 2015
Posting date: April 27, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53115

This recall involves the Bednest bedside cribs by Bednest Ltd. One
side of the bedside sleeping product is lower than the others to
allow positioning near a bed and access to the infant for care and
feeding.

In Canada, these recalled bedside sleeping products are not
compliant with various requirements under the Cribs, Cradles and
Bassinets Regulations. For example:

These products do not meet the minimum side height requirement for
cribs established by the Regulations.

The use of a bedside sleeping product with a side lowered can lead
to the following hazards:

If the space between the bed and the product is too wide, a baby
can become trapped. It may seem like there is no gap, but one
might be created when the adult lies down.

If the fabric over the frame is not securely attached, it can
bunch up when the side is folded down, creating an opening between
the fabric and the product's frame. This opening can cause a baby
to suffocate or fall.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these bedside sleeping products in
Canada.

Health Canada has become aware of the death of a 7-week old infant
in the United Kingdom, who strangled when she became entrapped
with her neck on the top rail of the lowered side of the bedside
sleeping product.

While there have been direct sales to Canadian consumers the
number of recalled bedside sleeping products sold to Canadian
consumers is unknown.

The time period sold is unknown.

Manufactured in Europe.

Distributor: Bednest Ltd.
             Stratford Upon Avon
             UNITED KINGDOM

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bed-side
sleeping products.

Parents and caregivers should never leave a child unattended in a
bedside sleeping product with the side lowered.  Room sharing is a
safer sleeping choice for babies than the use of bedside sleeping
products.

Health Canada encourages parents and caregivers to follow the safe
sleep advice outlined in Is Your Child Safe: Sleep Time.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Gr5bjg


BNSF RAILWAY: Still Defending Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend against the allegations
in the Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were
consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District
Court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class
action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other
Class I railroads in April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by
the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads
appealed the class-certification decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.
The Company continues to believe that these claims are without
merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.
The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


BP PLC: Jury Trials for Oil Spill-Related Medical Claims Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that oil spill cleanup workers who
sue BP for medical problems that surface later in life have the
right to make their case before a jury, a federal judge has ruled.

The BP oil spill medical settlement reached in 2012 was set up to
pay cleanup workers and others who experienced certain illnesses
during the immediate aftermath of the April 2010 disaster.

The settlement was designed to keep medical claims out of the
courtroom.  But it left an option for claimants who later develop
cancer or other chronic ailments they believe were spill-related
to file a separate lawsuit against BP.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said on April 27 that the
settlement terms do not specify whether these so-called back-end
litigation option cases must be tried before a judge or a jury.
He also rejected BP's argument that maritime law bars jury trials
in the oil spill medical cases.

If an individual wants a jury trial, they can ask for one, he
said.

"BP disagrees with the Court's ruling and is considering its
options," company spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an email on
April 28.

The company sought to limit the cases to bench trials, which
require a single judge to make a decision.

Jury trials last longer and can cost more. Some see juries as more
likely to award damages to claimants.  The recent decision could
affect hundreds of existing claims.

In November, Judge Barbier ruled that the settlement required
workers claiming chronic medical problems needed to be diagnosed
by a doctor before April 16, 2012, a date outlined in the
agreement.

BP argued the date was a hard deadline for diagnoses.  Plaintiffs'
lawyers said claimants simply needed to file a claim and get the
process started by that point.  The ruling could force thousands
of cleanup workers out of the settlement and into back-end
litigation over their claims.


BUYERS CASH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cabalona" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Cabalona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buyers Cash Club, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01827-LB (N.D.
Cal., April 23, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
contacting class members' cellular telephone in an effort to sell
or solicit its services using an automatic telephone dialing
system.

Buyers Cash Club, LLC is in the business of selling work-at-home
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


C3R MEGA: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Alvarez on behalf of others similarly situated v. C3R Mega
Auto Diagnostic Inc. and Rafael Fuerte, Case No. 1:15-cv-03205
(S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto mechanic shop located at 11
West 169 Street, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francisco Castillo, Esq.
      CASTILLO STEPHENS, LLC
      305 Broadway, Ste 1400
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (646) 434-0049
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0301
      E-mail: cslawyers@attorney1.com


CAFE 71: "Iriarte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Iriarte, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Cafe 71, Inc. d/b/a Cafe 71 , 94 Corner Cafe
Corp. d/b/a 94 Corner Cafe, Alexander Zarwi and Mohinder Singh,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03217-CM (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two cafes in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
The case Beeman, et al. v. Anthem Prescription Management, Inc.,
et al. is still in its early stages, said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in February 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against a number of  pharmacy benefit managers,
including current subsidiaries of the Company, by several
California pharmacies. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to
comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code
Section 2527 to conduct studies of pharmacy dispensing fees and
provide the results to third-party payors in California, and seek
money damages.  Because the lawsuit was stayed by appeals,
including a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, for
nearly its entire history and was remanded back to the District
Court in 2014, it is still in its early stages. As of December 31,
2014, based on currently available information, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a potential impact in this matter.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Jury Awards $13MM to Asbestos Victim
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Los Angeles jury awarded $13 million to a 73-year-old woman who
contracted a deadly disease from using asbestos-containing talcum
powder manufactured by Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Jurors deliberated for two hours on April 28 before finding that
New York-based Colgate was 95 percent responsible for Judith
Winkel's mesothelioma, a fatal lung disease, according to her
lawyers.  The verdict included $1.4 million in damages for her
husband.

Ms. Winkel's lawyers said she got the rare cancer from using
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder.

"This is an example of the legal system exposing what a company
should have been honest about 50 years ago," attorney
Chris Panatier said.  "Judith Winkel only wanted a jury to hear
the truth about this product and hopefully to help others who are
similarly exposed."

While billions of dollars have been paid in verdicts and
settlements to people sickened by exposure to asbestos, it's often
in cases related to use of the mineral in construction materials
or insulation.  Tiny fibers of the carcinogen can be breathed in
and lodge in the lungs, leading to fatal illnesses such as
asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The Food and Drug Administration conducted a study more than five
years ago that found no asbestos in cosmetics it tested containing
talcum powder.  However, the agency said there's been concern
about asbestos contamination in talc since the 1970s. Some studies
have shown a possible association between use of talc powders and
ovarian cancer but have not conclusively linked the two, the
agency said.

Jurors found the company negligent for the design, manufacture or
sale of the product and found that it presented a substantial
danger that they failed to warn consumers about.

Colgate, which sold Cashmere Bouquet in 1995, said it was
disappointed with the verdict.

"We believe that the facts and evidence presented at trial showed
that Cashmere Bouquet . . . played no part in causing the
plaintiff's illness," the company said in a statement.

Mr. Panatier said it was the first verdict against Colgate-
Palmolive involving asbestos exposure from talcum powder.

An appeals court in New Jersey recently affirmed a $1.6 million
verdict awarded to a man with mesothelioma who said he got the
disease from cosmetic talc.

In Ms. Winkel's case, there will be no appeal. She and Colgate
reached a confidential settlement on April 29 before the jury was
set to hear evidence to determine punitive damages.


COMMUNITY BANK: Settled Two Related Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Bank reached an
agreement in principle to settle two related class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania which were commenced October 30, 2013 and May 29,
2014, respectively.

The first action alleged that notices provided by the Bank in
connection with the repossession of the named plaintiff's
automobile failed to comply with certain requirements of the
Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and
related statutes.  The plaintiff sought to pursue the action as a
class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated
plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and sought to
recover statutory damages under the UCC. The second action filed
May 29, 2014 contained similar allegations, which the plaintiff
also sought to pursue as a class action for statutory damages. In
both cases, the Bank contested the allegations that the notices
were deficient, asserted various legal defenses and counterclaims,
and opposed class certification in both of the cases.  On
September 30, 2014, the Bank reached an agreement in principle to
settle both actions for $2.8 million in exchange for releases of
all claims.  The settlement is subject to final documentation,
notice to the class members and Court approval. A litigation
settlement charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement
of the class actions was recorded in the third quarter of 2014,
and is included in the Other expenses line item in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Litigation Committee Issues Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Special Litigation Committee has issued a report stating that the
class action claims lack merit and should not proceed.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Enventis shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger
with Enventis in which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., Enventis
and members of the Enventis board of directors have been named as
defendants.  The shareholder actions were filed in the Fifth
Judicial District, Blue Earth County, Minnesota.  The actions are
called: Hoepner v. Enventis Corp. et al, filed July 15, 2014, Case
No. 07-CV-14-2489, Bockley v. Finke et al, filed July 18, 2014,
Case No. 07-CV-14-2551, Kaplan et al v. Enventis Corp. et al,
filed July 21, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2575, Marcial v. Enventis
Corp. et al., filed July 25, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2628, and
Barta v. Finke et al, filed August 14, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-
2854.  The actions generally allege, among other things, that each
member of the Enventis board of directors breached fiduciary
duties to Enventis and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of
Enventis to the Company for consideration that allegedly is unfair
to the Enventis shareholders, agreeing to terms that allegedly
unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing offer, as
well as allegations regarding disclosure deficiencies in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus.  The complaints also allege that the
Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the
Enventis board of directors.  The lawsuits seek, amongst other
things, equitable relief, including an order to prevent the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
The Enventis board of directors appointed a Special Litigation
Committee to address the claims.

"We believe that these claims are without merit," the Company
said.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the five lawsuits as In Re: Enventis Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489.  On September 23,
2014, the District Court entered an order that denied the
plaintiffs' request for expedited proceedings and stayed all
proceedings "pending the completion of the Special Litigation
Committee and the issuance of its decision."  On February 2, 2015,
the Special Litigation Committee issued a report stating that the
claims lack merit and should not proceed.


CONTRACT SECURITY: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Jacobs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Contract Security Forces, LLC and Jerome Johnson, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00538-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va., April 23, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing private security
services for clients in Virginia and surrounding geographic areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


CROCS INC: No Notice of Appeal Filed Over Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
No notice of appeal has been filed on the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit, and the action is now terminated as to Crocs, Inc.
and its affiliated individuals, Crocs said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"We and certain current and former officers and directors were
named as defendants in complaints filed by investors in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado," the Company
said. "The first complaint was filed in November 2007 and several
other complaints were filed shortly thereafter. These actions were
consolidated and, in September 2008, the district court appointed
a lead plaintiff and counsel. An amended consolidated complaint
was filed in December 2008. The amended complaint purported to
state claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased our common
stock between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008 (the "Class
Period"). The amended complaint also added our independent auditor
as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading public
statements about us and our business and prospects and, as a
result, the market price of our common stock was artificially
inflated. The amended complaint also claimed that certain current
and former officers and directors traded in our common stock on
the basis of material non-public information. The amended
complaint sought compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class in an unspecified amount, including interest, and also
sought attorneys' fees and costs of litigation."

"On February 28, 2011, the District Court granted motions to
dismiss filed by the defendants and dismissed all claims. A final
judgment was thereafter entered. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. We
and those current and former officers and directors named as
defendants entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the
plaintiffs to resolve all claims asserted against us by the
plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class. Our independent
auditor was not a party to the Stipulation of Settlement. The
Stipulation of Settlement received preliminary approval from the
District Court on August 28, 2013. On September 18, 2014, the
District Court entered an order of final approval of the
settlement and, on September 19, 2014, the District Court entered
final judgment dismissing the action against us and those current
and former officers and directors named as defendants in its
entirety with prejudice. The full settlement amount has been paid
by our insurers. Since no notice of appeal was filed during the
appeal period, this action is now terminated as to Crocs and its
affiliated individuals. Crocs considers this matter closed."


CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court to Schedule Oral Argument
------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that it is expected that the
Court of Appeals will schedule oral argument at some point within
the next six to nine months in an appeal on the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from
the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's
allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines,
methodology for grading loans, and the process for making
provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested
information regarding certain presentations Company officers have
given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts,
brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully
cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue
to do so if and to the extent any further information is
requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in
connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict
the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still
continuing."

"In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former
Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On
January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions
for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No.
CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court also
appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the
"Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for
the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

"On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated
complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of
the purported class.

"Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following
filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the
District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but
providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended
complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same
defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on
October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25,
2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013.

"Although the District Court's May 2013 order of dismissal
provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and
restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on
June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of
Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that
the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with
prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30,
2013, the District Court entered its order dismissing the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on October 24, 2013.

"With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs' opening brief was
filed on June 7, 2014, the Company's reply brief was filed on July
7, 2014, and the plaintiff's rebuttal brief was filed on August
20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule
oral argument at some point within the next six to nine months,
and would then issue its opinion at some point six to nine months
thereafter.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case.


DIMITRI'S ON THE WATER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Morales, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Andreas Salivaras, Dimitri Salivaras, and
Dimitri's on the Water, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00967 (M.D. Fla.,
April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 698
Dodecanase Blvd., Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
       FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
       Westshore Center
       1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400
       Tampa, FL 33607
       Telephone: (813) 639-9366
       Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
       E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


DIODES INCORPORATED: No Hearing Date Set in Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no hearing date has been
set in an appeal on the dismissal of the securities class action
lawsuit.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
issued on September 15, 2014, an order regarding the putative
securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators
and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No.
6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class
Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff-
appellants filed their opening brief to the Fifth Circuit on
January 14, 2015. No hearing date has been set. Defendants-
respondents intend to continue defend this action vigorously.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. intends to vigorously defend
against shareholder class action lawsuits and shareholder
derivative action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo.

In September 2014, a putative shareholder derivative action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company (nominally and in a derivative
capacity) and several of its officers and directors for alleged
violations of fiduciary duties to the Company for, among other
things, permitting the Company to issue alleged material
misstatements and omissions regarding the financial performance of
Turbo. This lawsuit generally asserts, purportedly on the
Company's behalf, the same underlying factual allegations as those
made in the class action lawsuits discussed above and has been
deemed a related case.

These lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of shareholders
as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At
this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against antitrust class action.

In September and October 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
were filed against the Company and various other companies in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the
defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation
agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The
lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
worked for the defendants at any time from 2004 to the present.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.


EAGLE ROCK: Court Dismissed 3 Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
A court has dismissed three class action lawsuits filed by alleged
unitholders of the Partnership, Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

In March and April 2014, alleged unitholders of the Partnership
filed three class action lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the
Partnership's public unitholders.  Plaintiffs in each lawsuit
alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Midstream
Business Contribution, including alleged breaches of fiduciary or
contractual duties, alleged aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of duty, and alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The plaintiffs sought
to have the sale rescinded and receive monetary damages and
attorneys' fees. In August 2014, the court consolidated the
lawsuits into an action styled In re Eagle Rock Energy Partners,
L.P. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-
lead counsel. On November 19, 2014, the court dismissed the action
without prejudice.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS Inked MSAs to Settle 45,400 Mesh Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (AMS) and certain
plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability
claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements
(MSAs) regarding settling up to approximately 45,400 filed and
unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating
counsel.

On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification
regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal
placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides
recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized
training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the
risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in
diagnosing and reporting complications.

In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public
Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public
and the medical community of the potential complications
associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat
POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that
adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and
questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a
treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The
July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek
specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise
their patients about the risks associated with these procedures
and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. The
FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9,
2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of
transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI. At the
conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended
reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to
Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that
manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional
post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended
that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain
as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT)
slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post-
market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings,
the advisory panel recommended premarket studies for new devices
and additional post-market surveillance studies.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal
surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for
urinary incontinence, such as Endo's subsidiary AMS, to conduct
post-market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates
relating to the use of these products. AMS received a total of
nineteen class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic
floor repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to
place sixteen of these study orders on hold for a variety of
reasons. Three of these post-market study orders remain active and
AMS is continuing the process of complying with these orders. In
these orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the
recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that
urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP be
reclassified from Class II to Class III.

On April 29, 2014, the FDA issued a statement proposing to
reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse
repair from Class II to Class III. Further, the FDA proposed to
reclassify urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from Class
I to Class II, and to establish special controls for surgical
instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. The FDA
stated that it was proposing these changes based on the tentative
determination that general controls by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of
these devices. Although this proposal was subject to a 90 day
comment period, to date the FDA has not taken further action
regarding these proposals.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various state courts, a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL
No. 2325), as well as in Canada, and other countries outside the
United States alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI.
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities.

As of December 31, 2014, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel
representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered
into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 45,400 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs,
which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through
December 31, 2014, were entered into solely by way of compromise
and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS. All MSAs are subject to a process
that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the
settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs
provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into
which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds
requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by
each law firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met,
then AMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that
law firm. In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right
of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are
authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in
Qualified Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and
cash equivalents in the December 31, 2014 Consolidating Balance
Sheet.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 20, 2015,
approximately 600 MCP cases are currently pending against
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals (Qualitest) and/or the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries.

Qualitest, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of the prescription medicine
metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders
and death. Qualitest and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest.

Litigation similar to that described may also be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot predict
the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any
additional litigation will be brought against the Company or its
subsidiaries. As of February 20, 2015, approximately 600 MCP
cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple
plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the
Company or certain of its subsidiaries.

The Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement with
certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach resolution of
substantially all of these pending MCP cases. The agreement was
entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not
in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or
any of its subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlements
will be participation by the majority of plaintiffs involved in
pending litigation. If certain participation thresholds are not
met, the Company will have the right to terminate the agreements.
Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel. The cost of this
settlement has been incorporated into the increase in our legal
loss contingency reserve.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 47 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 20, 2015,
approximately 47 propoxyphene cases are currently pending against
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals (Qualitest) and/or the Company.

Qualitest and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain
medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment,
damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing
show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain
claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest and the
Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those decisions to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 27, 2014, the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the cases that had been
pending as part of a consolidated appeal. In November 2012,
additional cases were filed in various California state courts.
While many of these cases were initially remanded and pending in a
state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, the Ninth
Circuit sitting en banc has reversed these remands, finding
federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, these actions
have been returned to the federal courts to which they were
initially removed.  On November 18, 2014, additional multi-
plaintiff cases were filed in state court in Oklahoma. Litigation
similar to that described above may also be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries, but Qualitest and the
Company intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore
all options as appropriate in the best interests of Qualitest and
the Company," the Company said.

As of February 20, 2015, approximately 47 propoxyphene cases, some
of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, for this matter.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 230 Testosterone Cases Pending Against EPI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 20, 2015,
approximately 230 cases are currently pending against Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and its new affiliate, Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, including its new subsidiary Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along with other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications
containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel and
Delatestryl(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI and other
manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases
pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District
of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the federal
cases filed against EPI that have been transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545,
litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common
Pleas Philadelphia County and in New York State Supreme Court.
Litigation similar to that described may also be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal
court will be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as
tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be
brought against the Company or EPI, but EPI intends to contest the
litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in
the best interests of EPI and the Company," the Company said.

As of February 20, 2015, approximately 230 cases are currently
pending against EPI and its new affiliate, Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., some of which were filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed
in Canada.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Civil Class Action Filed in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a civil class action
complaint was filed on November 5, 2014, in the Northern District
of Illinois against EPI and various other manufacturers of
testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health
insurance companies and other third party payers that had paid for
certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts
of EPI and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certain
testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), and other civil RICO claims.
Further, the complaint alleges that EPI and other defendant
manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws
through their marketing of certain testosterone products. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for this matter, if any.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Antitrust Litigation to Begin 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial in the Antitrust
Litigation was scheduled to begin on April 10, 2017.

On June 13, 2014, pursuant to a case management order entered by
Judge William H. Orrick, the direct and indirect purchasers each
filed consolidated amended class complaints. In addition, one
indirect purchaser, Government Employees Health Association
(GEHA), filed a separate complaint. On November 17, 2014, the
Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing,
which were filed on behalf of all defendants. Plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on December 19, 2014. Defendants jointly moved
on January 30, 2015 to dismiss certain claims in the second
amended indirect purchaser complaint and in GEHA's second amended
complaint. The Court has not reached a decision yet on defendants'
motion, and the cases are proceeding to the discovery phase of the
litigation in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is
scheduled to begin on April 10, 2017.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Engel" Merger Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Partnership unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf
of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on
behalf of the Partnership in the 162nd Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as
defendants the General Partner, the members of the General
Partner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominal
party, the Partnership. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the
General Partner's directors breached duties to the Partnership and
the Partnership's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair
process and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the
General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and
(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Yeager" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 9, 2015,
Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class
action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders
and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in the 134th
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Yeager
Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the
Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Coggia" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 10,
2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a
class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in
the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the
"Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in
the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel
Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Blankman" Merger Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 3, 2015,
Linda Blankman, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class
action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit"). The allegations and claims in the
Blankman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Engel Lawsuit.
However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not allege any derivative
claims and includes the Partnership as a defendant rather than a
nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one of the General Partner's
directors, Richard Brannon, who was named in the Engel Lawsuit.
The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the General Partner's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the unitholders by failing to
maximize the value of the Partnership, failing to properly value
the Partnership, and ignoring conflicts of interest. The plaintiff
also asserts a claim against the non-director defendants for
aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same relief that the
plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Bazini" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 6, 2015,
Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a class
action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common unitholders
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief
sought in the Bazini Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the
Blankman Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Hinnau" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 11,
2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Weaver" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 11,
2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Dieckman" Merger Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 11,
2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The allegations,
claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the Dieckman Lawsuit
does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Defendant in "Berlin" Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 13,
2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnership unitholder, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The allegations,
claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


ENERGY TRANSFER: 5 Suits Challenging PVR Acquisition Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that five putative class
action lawsuits challenging the PVR Acquisition are currently
pending.

All of the cases name PVR Partners, L.P., PVR GP and the then-
incumbent directors of PVR GP, as well as the Partnership and the
General Partner (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as
defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported
unitholder of PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative
class consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP
breached their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR
GP, PVR and the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors
of PVR GP in the alleged breach of these fiduciary duties, and, as
to the actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP,
and the directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i)
injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional
information concerning the transaction, (iii) rescission or an
award of rescissory damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs
and (v) the accounting for damages allegedly causes by the
defendants to these actions, and, (vi) such further relief as the
court deems just and proper.

The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v.
PVR Partners, L.P., et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al. and Saul
Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., each pending in the Court of
Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen Bushansky
v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al.; and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners,
L.P., et al., pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and
Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs
agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled
Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement
agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation
of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery (which was completed
as of September 5, 2014), class certification and final approval
by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania. If
the Court approves the settlement, the Settled Lawsuits will be
dismissed with prejudice and all defendants will be released from
any and all claims relating to the Settled Lawsuits.

The settlement did not affect any provisions of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR
unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have
entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden,
risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation.


ENERGY TRANSFER: District Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a US District Court
has issued a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of
all claims in the Eagle Rock Shareholder Litigation.

Three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Eagle Rock
Midstream Acquisition were previously filed in federal district
court in Houston, Texas. All cases name Eagle Rock and its current
directors, as well as the Partnership and a subsidiary, as
defendants. One of the lawsuits also names additional Eagle Rock
entities as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a
purported unitholder of Eagle Rock (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs"), both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of public unitholders of Eagle Rock. The Plaintiffs in
each case seek to rescind the transaction, claiming, among other
things, that it yields inadequate consideration, was tainted by
conflict and constitutes breaches of common law fiduciary duties
or contractually imposed duties to the shareholders. Plaintiffs
also seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Partnership
and its subsidiary are named as "aiders and abettors" of the
allegedly wrongful actions of Eagle Rock and its board. In
November 2014, the US District Court issued a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal without Prejudice of all claims in this matter.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Certification Denied in Bartoni Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
denied certification on the meal and rest period claims of all
unionized employees in Northern California in the Bartoni class
action.

Four different lawsuits putative class action lawsuits have been
filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008,
Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta
filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles, and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities
failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in compliance with
California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest
breaks or pay premium compensation for missed breaks. The
plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these claims and are
seeking lost wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees under
California law. The Court has certified classes in the
consolidated Karapetian/Agular case on claims alleging that AMR
has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to
dispatches and call takes, that AMR has an unlawful time round
policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting rates for
those employees; the Court denied certification of the rest period
claims of these employees.

In Banta, the Court denied certification of the meal and rest
period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is being
appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class on
overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel have indicated that they
intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a
recent Court of Appeals decision.

In Bartoni, the Court denied certification on the meal and rest
period claims of all unionized employees in Northern California, a
decision that is being appealed. While the Court certified a class
on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to
decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy complies with a
recent Court of Appeals decision. The Company is unable at this
time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.


ENZYMOTEC LTD: Court Consolidated Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Enzymotec Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court consolidated
the stockholder class action cases as In re Enzymotec Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-CV-05556.

On September 5, 2014 and September 30, 2014, two stockholders
filed class action complaints in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, or the Court, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's ordinary shares
in its initial public offering or between September 27, 2013 and
August 4, 2014. The lawsuits name as defendants the Company, its
directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters of its
initial public offering and assert claims under the United States
federal securities laws. On February 11, 2015, the Court
consolidated the cases as In re Enzymotec Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 14-CV-05556 though a schedule for an
amended complaint and responses thereto has not yet been set.  The
Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.


ESTES EXPRESS: Faces "Pipkin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason W. Pipkin, for and on behalf of himself and all other
employees of Estes Express Lines, similarly situated v. Estes
Express Lines, Case No. 3:15-cv-00249-REP (E.D. Va., April 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Estes Express Lines is a freight transportation provider based in
Richmond, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Colt North, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER& EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      751-A Thimble Shoals Blvd.
      Newport News, VA 23606
      Telephone: (757) 873-1010
      E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com

         - and -

      David R. Simonsen Jr., Esq.
      Vickey Ann Verwey, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER& EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      8003 Franklin Farms Dr, Suite 131
      Richmond, VA 23229-5107
      Telephone: (804) 285-1337
      E-mail: DSimonsenJ@aol.com
              VAVerwey@aol.com


FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Continue Cert. Objections in Hearing Loss Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
continue its objections to any attempt at certification in the
Hearing Loss Litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review
by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme
Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this
case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered
for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of
these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. The Company's response to these
motions was filed on February 13, 2015. The Company intends to
continue its objections to any attempt at certification.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Updates in Philadelphia Hearing Loss Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the
Hearing Loss Litigation in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania.

The Company has been sued over hearing loss outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71
plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were
dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company.
Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four
cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included
reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a
Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the
law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants,
on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the
"Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the
Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had
lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these new Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.
In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 38 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. During
March 2014, an action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of
Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case
likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company.
After the Company filed pretrial motions, 32 Erie County
firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York. Defendants have filed various pretrial
motions seeking dismissal of these cases.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. In
the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company
recorded reimbursements from CNA of $0.3 million, $0.5 million and
$0.7 million, respectively, related to legal defense costs.


FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. Superior Court Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. intends to defend a stockholder class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

"On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, the members of our Board of Directors,
our Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March
2014 follow-on public offering," the Company said.  On July 17,
2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
against the same defendants. The complaints allege violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the
follow-on public offering, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  The Company intends to defend the
litigation vigorously.  Based on information currently available,
the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable.


FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. District Court Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. intends to defend a stockholder class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities between January 2, 2014, and November 4,
2014. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
class. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.
Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Deal Reached in Market Rate Savings IRA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that First
Commonwealth Bank and the various plaintiffs reached a preliminary
global settlement of the Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action on
January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that the Bank promised
class members a minimum interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate
Savings Account for as long as the class members kept their money
on deposit in the IRA account. The class asserted that the Bank
committed fraud, breached its modified contract with the class
members, and violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") when it resigned as custodian
of the IRA Market Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the
class members a roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate.

Plaintiffs sought monetary damages for the alleged breach of
contract, punitive damages for the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade
Practice and Consumer Protection Law violations and attorney's
fees. The court granted class certification as to the breach of
modified contract claim and denied class certification as to the
fraud and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law claims. The breach of contract claim was predicated
upon a letter sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier
decision by the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts. The
letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the class action claims.
The Court found that the Bank retained the right to resign as
custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning as
custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of the
underlying IRA contract. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed
the denial of class certification to the claims of fraud in the
execution and violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior Court found
that none of the other issues were ripe for appeal. Jurisdiction
was returned to the Court of Common Pleas where the individual
fraud and UTPCPL claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan were scheduled
for trial.

In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former
members of the McGrogan class alleging fraud in the execution and
violation of the UTPCPL based upon substantially similar facts to
the claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan.

In January 2015, the Bank and the various plaintiffs reached a
preliminary global settlement of this litigation. The settlement,
which is subject to court approval and other conditions, would
resolve the claims of the 36 individual plaintiffs and the claims
of the other former members of the McGrogan class. First
Commonwealth established a reserve in the amount of $8.6 million
as of December 31, 2014 against the anticipated cost of the
settlement.


FLEMING TRUCK: Faces "Quintero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Dario Quintero and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Fleming Truck Sales, Corp, Sanfer Trucks Corp,
Fleming Equipment Corp, Luis F. Caceda a/k/a Fernando Caceda,
Stephen J. Caceda, Sandra Caceda, Case No. 1:15-cv-21516-CMA (S.D.
Fla., April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants are used truck dealers that regularly transact
business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 30,198 Cars Over Broken Door Latches
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 30198
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015175TC
ID number: 2015175
Manufacturer recall number: 15S16

On certain vehicles, the door latches may have a broken pawl
spring tab. This could result in the door not latching correctly.
As a result, doors which appear to be latched could unlatch while
driving. This could increase the risk of injury to a vehicle
occupant seated next to the door, or result in damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will replace all four door latches with a more
robust part.

   Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----        ----------------------
   FORD          FIESTA       2012, 2013, 2014
   FORD          FUSION       2013
   LINCOLN       MKZ          2013


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 4,618 Cars Over Improper Nickel Plating
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 4618
Source of recall: Transport Canada
ID number: 2015176
Manufacturer recall number: 15S13

On certain vehicles, improper nickel plating of certain fuel pump
internal components could contaminate the pump, potentially
resulting in an inoperative fuel pump. This could result in a no-
start condition, or an engine stall without warning and without
the ability to restart the vehicle, which could increase the risk
of a crash. Correction: Dealers will replace the Fuel Delivery
Module (FDM).

   Make      Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----      ------          ----------------------
   FORD      FIESTA          2014
   FORD      FOCUS           2014
   FORD      ESCAPE          2014
   FORD      EDGE            2014
   FORD      TRANSIT CONNECT 2014


HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Sweet Potato & Beef Medley Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Heinz Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on April 15, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Heinz Canada is recalling Heinz brand Sweet Potato & Beef Medley
from the marketplace due to potential loss of seal, which could
cause spoilage. Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product has been sold nationally.

Check to see if you have the product in your home. If the product
is in your home, do not consume it.

If an infant has been fed any of the Heinz brand Sweet Potato &
Beef Medley described above, discontinue use and monitor for
symptoms. Consumption of spoiled food may cause symptoms such as
upset stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. If you have any concerns,
please seek medical attention.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

This warning was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.
The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead
to the recall of other products. If other products are recalled,
the CFIA will notify the public through an updated Food

  Brand name  Common name    Size    Code(s)     UPC
  ----------  -----------    ----    on product  ---
                                     ----------
  Heinz       Sweet Potato    213 mL  2017AU04    0 579050 2
              and Beef Medley

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/wyow69


HUBBARD'S TOWING: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Berry, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hubbard's Towing, LLC and David Hubbard, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00270-SSB-KLL (S.D. Ohio, April 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a towing services company with its
principal place of business in Hamilton County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Langendorf, Esq.
      LANGENDORF LAW FIRM
      1081 N. University Blvd., Suite A
      Middletown, OH 45042
      Telephone: (513) 705-4104
      Facsimile: (513) 705-4106
      E-mail: jamesplang@aol.com


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Merger Class Action Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that if the New Jersey Court
approves the settlement in the merger class action contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding, the Actions will be dismissed
with prejudice.

On August 27, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Wilmington Trust
Corporation ("WTC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank
Corporation ("M&T").  Since the announcement of the Merger,
eighteen putative class action complaints have been filed in the
Court of Chancery, Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its
directors, M&T, and WTC challenging the Merger. Six putative class
actions challenging the Merger have also been filed in the
Superior Court for Bergen County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey
(the "New Jersey Court"). The lawsuits generally allege, among
other things, that the Hudson City Bancorp directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Hudson City Bancorp's public
shareholders by approving the Merger at an unfair price, that the
Merger was the product of a flawed sales process, and that Hudson
City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading and incomplete Form S-4
with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction. All 24
lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Certain of the
actions also seek an accounting of damages sustained as a result
of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions.  Under the terms of the MOU,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other named defendants, and all the
plaintiffs have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the
Merger, subject to approval of the New Jersey Court. Pursuant to
the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T agreed to make available
additional information to Hudson City Bancorp shareholders. The
additional information was contained in a Supplement to the Joint
Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an exhibit to a Current
Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013. In addition, under the
terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the New
Jersey Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the
Actions will be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement will not
affect the Merger consideration to be paid to Hudson City
Bancorp's shareholders in connection with the proposed Merger. In
the event the New Jersey Court approves an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses in connection with the settlement, such fees and
expenses shall be paid by Hudson City Bancorp, its successor in
interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


HUDSON PACIFIC: Faces Class Action by Fundamental Partners
----------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and Hudson Pacific Properties,
L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that following the December 8, 2014
announcement that the company and operating partnership had
entered into the asset purchase agreement with the sponsor
stockholders, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed on January
22, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco, captioned Fundamental Partners, v. Hudson
Pacific Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-543775.

"The complaint names as defendants, among other parties, our
company and the members of our board of directors, and alleges,
among other claims, that our directors breached their fiduciary
duties by "effectively" selling control to the sponsor
stockholders and by failing to disclose purportedly material
information to stockholders in connection with the purchase
agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining or rescinding the purchase agreement and an award of
attorneys' fees and other costs. We believe the complaint has no
merit and intend to vigorously defend against plaintiff's
allegations," the Company said.


IMPERVA INC: Defendants Filed Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Imperva, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against us and certain of our officers,"
the Company said.  "On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order
appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The
lawsuit again names us and certain of our officers and purports to
bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased our publicly
traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The
plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about our operations and business and financial results
and purports to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs incurred in the
action and equitable/injunctive or other relief. On January 6,
2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint."


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Entered MOU to Settle Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Integrys Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company entered
into a memorandum of understanding with counsel for plaintiffs in
the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions.

"Since the June 23, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement with
Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), we and our board
of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, were named defendants
in ten class action lawsuits and/or derivative complaints brought
by purported Integrys Energy Group shareholders challenging the
proposed merger," the Company said. "Two lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin
Court"): Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Amo
Action") and Inman v. Schrock, et al., (the "Inman Action"). Three
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Brown County,
Wisconsin: Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor
v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; and Albera v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al. (together with the Amo and Inman
Actions, the "Wisconsin Actions"). Two lawsuits were filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: Taxman v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et
al., (the "Illinois Actions"). Three lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Federal Court"): Steiner v. Budney, et al., and Collison v.
Schrock, et al., (the "Steiner and Collison Actions"); and Tri-
State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. (the "Tri-
State Action")."

Each of the Wisconsin and Illinois Actions was either dismissed or
consolidated with the Amo Action, and, with the exception of the
Inman plaintiff, whose action was consolidated after the fact, the
plaintiffs in the Wisconsin Actions joined Plaintiff Amo in filing
an amended complaint on October 3, 2014. The Collison Action was
consolidated with the Steiner Action.

"The Wisconsin Actions and Steiner and Collison Actions allege,
among other things, that members of our board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, that
the merger agreement involves an unfair price, that it was the
product of an inadequate sales process, that it contains
unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers, that the members of our board were unjustly
enriched at our expense, and that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus omits material information. The complaints
further variously allege that we, Wisconsin Energy, and/or its
acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the merger agreement was
entered into in breach of our directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an
injunction enjoining our board from consummating the merger, (iii)
an order directing our board to exercise its duty to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of Integrys Energy
Group's shareholders, (iv) an order granting the class members any
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants, (v) a
rescission of the merger or damages, in the event that it is
consummated, (vi) disgorgement of benefits or compensation
obtained as a result of the purported breaches of fiduciary duty,
and/or (vii) an order directing additional disclosure regarding
the merger. The Tri-State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction and alleges that we, our board, Wisconsin Energy, and
Gale E. Klappa (the Wisconsin Energy Chief Executive Officer)
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. It alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement misrepresented or omitted
material facts, including material information about the allegedly
unfair and conflicted sales process, the inadequate consideration
offered in the proposed transaction, and our actual intrinsic
value.

"On November 12, 2014, our counsel, our board of directors, Mr.
Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") with counsel for plaintiffs in the Amo,
Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions pursuant to which we
and Wisconsin Energy agreed to make additional disclosures
concerning the merger. The MOU also provides that, solely for
purposes of settlement, the Wisconsin Court will certify a class
consisting of all persons who were record or beneficial
shareholders of ours at any time between June 23, 2014 and the
consummation of the merger (the "Class"). In addition, the MOU
provides that, subject to approval by the Wisconsin Court after
notice to the members of the Class (the "Class Members"), the Amo,
Steiner and Collison, and Tri-State Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice and all claims, including derivative claims, that the
Class Members may possess with regard to the merger will be
released. In connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs'
counsel has expressed its intention to seek an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. The amount of the award to the plaintiffs'
counsel will ultimately be determined by the Wisconsin and/or
Federal Courts. This payment will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be received by any of our shareholders in the
merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a definitive settlement agreement or that the Wisconsin
Court will approve the settlement. In the absence of either event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be
terminated.

"We, our board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy each
have denied, and continue to deny, that we or they have committed
or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or
breaches of duty or engaged in any of the alleged wrongful acts,
and we, our board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy
expressly maintain that we and they diligently and scrupulously
complied with fiduciary, disclosure, and other legal duties. We,
our board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy are
entering into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to
eliminate the risk, burden, and expense of further litigation.
Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement, or any public filing
shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of
filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the
additional information contained herein or in any public filing
associated with the proposed settlement of the Amo, Steiner and
Collison, and Tri-State Actions."


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Atwood
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no decision has been
made by the Court on the motion to dismiss the class action filed
by Scot H. Atwood.

"On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us and certain
of our officers as defendants," the Company said. "These lawsuits
were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of
anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between
January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014."

"The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees. The lawsuits allege that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in our public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to our January
9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early
based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically,
the lawsuits claim that our January 9, 2014 announcement was
misleading because it did not contain information regarding
certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated
patients compared to placebo. On April 22, 2014, two individuals
each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was
subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative
class as contemplated by the order of the Court. On August 14,
2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which has been opposed by the lead plaintiff. Oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. No decision
has been made by the Court on the motion to dismiss. The lead
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees."

"We believe that we have valid defenses to the claims in the
lawsuit and intend to deny liability and defend ourselves
vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of these lawsuits or whether the outcome will be
material to us. Therefore, we have not accrued for any loss
contingencies related to these lawsuits."


INTUIT INC: Sued Over Lax TurboTax Software Security Protections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a suit
filed on April 20 against Intuit Inc., plaintiffs lawyers claim
lax security protections in the company's TurboTax software are to
blame for a recent spike in fraudulent tax returns.

Intuit didn't take adequate steps to stop criminals from using
TurboTax to steal customers' personal information, file false
returns on their behalf and cash in their refunds, according to
the complaint.  The suit, filed less than a week after this year's
tax filing deadline, comes after an uptick in fraudulent state
returns briefly shut down TurboTax's service and reportedly
prompted an FBI investigation.

"Rather than protecting customers' personal and financial
information by implementing stricter security measures, TurboTax
has instead knowingly facilitated identity theft tax refund fraud
by allowing cybercriminals easy access to its customers' most
private information," the lawyers wrote in the complaint filed in
the Northern District of California.  Intuit has a duty to protect
sensitive customer data, according to the complaint, and the
company's website promises that "all TurboTax platforms offer a
secure, easy-to-use experience."  Instead, the lawyers claim
Intuit waited years to implement a "very basic" two-step
authentication system already used by email and social media
companies.  The company didn't make the change until February,
after widespread reports of fraud.

Plaintiffs lawyers also accuse Intuit of failing to notify victims
after their personal information was used to file fraudulent tax
returns.

An Intuit spokeswoman said the Mountain View-based company doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

The plaintiffs' legal team includes Richard McCune of McCuneWright
in Redlands; Michael Sobol of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
in San Francisco; and John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan in
Florida.

The lawyers seek to represent a nationwide class of TurboTax
customers who had personal data stolen, and a second nationwide
class of non-customers who were victims of fraudulent returns
filed in their name through TurboTax.  They accuse the company of
aiding and abetting fraud, breach of contract and violating
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Records Act.

Tax fraud has ballooned as more people file their taxes
electronically with the help of tools such as TurboTax's software
or online platform.  Instances of suspected electronic tax fraud
jumped from 500,000 in 2010 to almost two million in 2013, the
plaintiffs lawyers wrote, citing data from the Internal Revenue
Service.  The IRS prevented an estimated $24.2 billion in
fraudulent refunds in 2013, and paid another $5.8 billion in
refunds that were later deemed fraudulent.

According to the suit, Intuit insiders have accused the company of
turning a blind eye to tax fraud.  Shane MacDougall, a former
Intuit security engineer, filed a whistleblower complaint with the
Securities and Exchange Commission claiming he frequently tried to
correct ongoing tax fraud and was rebuffed, the suit states.

Robert Lee, a former security business partner at Intuit's
consumer tax group, told media outlets that Intuit scaled back its
protections when executives realized the criminals were taking
their business to TurboTax's competitors.

A February post on the TurboTax blog called the accusations by
former employees "unfounded" and "without merit."

"We recognize that some employees who work in information security
would like us to do more to prevent fraud," the post says, "and we
are committed to doing so as fast as we can to combat the
constantly evolving and increasingly sophisticated methods of
cybercriminals."


JANSSEN INC: Recalls Ortho-Cept Tablets Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 24, 2015
Posting date: April 27, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I and II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53137

Out of Specification results for active pharmaceutical ingredients
(desogestrel and ethinyl estradiol) during stability testing at 30
months (expiry 36 months). Type I risk to health for patients who
should not get pregnant, whether for medical reasons or exposure
to agents detrimental to a developing fetus. Type II risk for the
general population.

Depth of distribution: Patient level (pharmacies to contact their
patients)

Ortho-Cept Tablets (28 DAY)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02042533
Dosage form: Tablet
Strength: Desogestrel 0.15 mg
          Ethinyl Estradiol 0.03 mg
Lot or serial number: 13DM732
Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Trailers Due to Defective Wheels Hubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Wheels
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015174TC
ID number: 2015174

On certain travel trailers, the wheel hubs may have been
manufactured with improperly hardened wheel studs that may break,
which could cause a complete separation of the wheel(s) from the
travel trailer and a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the defective
hubs.

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      -----------------------
   STARCRAFT            2016


JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Trailers Due to Defective Wheels Hubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Wheels
Units affected: 30
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015173TC
ID number: 2015173

On certain travel trailers, the wheel hubs may have been
manufactured with improperly hardened wheel studs that may break,
which could cause a complete separation of the wheel(s) from the
travel trailer and a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the defective
hubs.


JONIKAL INC: Faces "Contreras' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Contreras individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Jonikal Inc. d/b/a New Ranch Restaurant, Louis
Pleuritis, John Pleuritis and Nick Pleuritis, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03210-AJN (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in
excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a diner located at 1619 Westchester
Avenue, Bronx, NY 10472.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


K & K STEEL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Velez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. K & K Steel Pipe Wholesalers, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-00980 (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

K & K Steel Pipe Wholesalers, Inc. is a steel pipe wholesalers and
distributors in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: 813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


KCG HOLDINGS: New York and New Jersey Shareholder Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KCG Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in the New
York shareholder action filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance with
Prejudice; and the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder
actions filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in
the New Jersey Court.

Delaware Litigation

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight,
the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges
that Knight, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought
includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the
extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight,
the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed
by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number
of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less
likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers
for Knight. The complaint also alleges that Knight and GETCO aided
and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers
(to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated for all
purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions into a single action
captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013, the co-lead plaintiffs in the
Delaware Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint and
motions for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. In
addition to the allegations in the initial complaints, the
Delaware amended complaint contains allegations that the Knight
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing
stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the
proposed transaction in the Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed
with the SEC on February 13, 2013 (the "Preliminary Proxy").


New Jersey Litigation

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment
Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel
Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding
Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission
of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment
Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel
Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding
Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission
of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 20, 2013, Knight moved to dismiss or, in the
alternative, stay the New Jersey actions in deference to the
first-filed Delaware actions. The New Jersey court granted the
motion on March 28, 2013, and ordered that the New Jersey actions
be stayed for all purposes in deference to the first-filed
Delaware actions.

New York Litigation

On January 15, 2013, Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, GA-
GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as defendants in an
action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case
No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
(New York County). The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the
stockholders mentioned above who previously sent Knight a
derivative demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both
derivative and class action claims. First, it purports to assert
derivative claims, which allege, among other things, that the
seven Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012
breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by
failing to erect and oversee effective safeguards to prevent
against technology issues, such as the one that occurred on August
1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a realized pre-tax loss of
approximately $457.6 million. Second, it asserts putative class
action claims resulting from the proposed Mergers for (1) breach
of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants; and (2)
aiding and abetting the purported breach of fiduciary duty against
GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic. The complaint generally
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the Mergers at an inadequate price, agreeing
to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting
agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders
would make successful competing offers for Knight, and that
certain of Knight's directors have conflicts of interest in
connection with the transaction, including that certain directors
sought to enter into the transaction to avoid potential liability
relating to the derivative claims asserted in the complaint. With
respect to the merger claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the proposed Mergers, rescission of the proposed
Mergers (to the extent they have already been consummated) and
attorneys' fees. With respect to the derivative claims, the
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the Knight
directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution
and/or compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed
class of Knight stockholders. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which, in addition to the allegations
in the initial complaint, contains allegations that the Knight
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing
stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the
proposed transaction in the Preliminary Proxy.

On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved by order to show cause for
expedited discovery in support of his claims. The New York court
issued an order on March 25, 2013, setting a hearing on the
plaintiff's motion for April 4, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the
parties in the New York action reached an agreement with respect
to the matters raised in the plaintiff's motion and other aspects
of the action, and as a result, on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff
withdrew his motion for expedited discovery. On April 9, 2013, the
New York court granted permission for the plaintiff to withdraw
his motion.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder
actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement
of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and
GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement"). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make
certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as
to KCG's risk committee charter.

The memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Knight's former stockholders. It also
contemplated that in the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing would be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery would consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it would resolve and release all
claims that were brought or could have been brought in the
Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including
claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger
Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's former
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplated that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by KCG.

On June 5, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Stipulation"). As contemplated in the memorandum of
understanding, the Stipulation provides, among other things, that
in exchange for the supplemental disclosures and changes to
Knight's and KCG's risk committee charters, and upon final
approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Delaware and New
York stockholder plaintiffs, and a class of former Knight
stockholders that includes such plaintiffs, will finally and fully
resolve and release all claims that were brought or could have
been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder
actions, including claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers,
the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection
therewith. The Stipulation further provides that counsel for the
Delaware and New York shareholder plaintiffs will seek, and the
defendants will not oppose, court approval of an award of
attorneys' fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $490,000. The
Stipulation and the settlement it contemplates, is not, and should
not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by
any of the defendants. Nonetheless, the defendants entered into
the settlement to avoid the risk of the stockholder actions
delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers, to minimize the
substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of
continued litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the claims
in the stockholder actions.

On June 9, 2014, the parties to the Stipulation filed the
Stipulation and associated exhibits with the Delaware Court of
Chancery, seeking among other things, preliminary approval of the
settlement, conditional certification of a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only, and the
scheduling of a final settlement hearing.

On June 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation, conditionally certifying a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only pursuant
to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and
scheduling a final settlement hearing to be held on September 26,
2014. The Court's preliminary order provided that at the final
settlement hearing, the Court would, among other things, determine
whether to finally certify the non-opt-out class of former Knight
stockholders, determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class and should be approved by
the Court, determine whether to enter a final order and judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice, consider the application for
attorneys' fees and costs by counsel for the Delaware and New York
shareholder plaintiffs, and rule on such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate. The Court's preliminary order further
provided that members of the conditionally-certified class would
receive notice of the settlement hearing at least 45 days prior to
the hearing, which notice would describe, among other things, the
material terms of the settlement and the procedures for class
members to follow if they wished to object to the settlement
and/or be heard at the final hearing.

On September 26, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a
settlement hearing to determine, among other things, whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
class. Following the hearing, the Delaware Court issued a final
order and judgment that, among other things, (a) determined that
the defendants had complied with the notice requirements under
Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23; (b) certified a non-opt-out
class action pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(1) and (b)(2); (c) found the proposed settlement to be
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the
class, and approved it pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rule
23(e); (d) released the defendants from any claims that were
brought, or could have been brought, by the plaintiffs in the
Delaware or New York shareholder actions as well as from claims
that could have been brought by the shareholders who sent demand
letters to the Company described in the previous section; and (e)
granted an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to
attorneys for plaintiffs in the Delaware and New York shareholder
actions in the amount of $425,000. Pursuant to the order and final
judgment, the Delaware shareholder action was dismissed with
prejudice.

As contemplated by the settlement, on October 9, 2014, the
plaintiff in the New York shareholder action filed a Stipulation
of Discontinuance with Prejudice. In addition, on September 2,
2014, the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder actions filed a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in the New Jersey
Court.


KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE: Court Ends Case Over Motorcycle Design
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Riccardi, writing for Law.com, reports that Delaware's
long-arm jurisdiction did not extend to reel in a Norwegian
corporate civil defendant even though it had engaged in previous
litigation in the U.S. district court based in the state, the
Superior Court for New Castle County has ruled.

The court's decision effectively ended a case over injuries
suffered by a North Carolina man in a car accident in South
Dakota, which he alleged was caused by the faulty design of a
three-wheeled motorcycle.

Superior Court Judge Calvin L. Scott Jr., writing in Herman v.
BRP, granted defendant Kongsberg Automotive Holding's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Scott said Delaware courts could not extend personal
jurisdiction to Kongsberg Automotive Holding under the state's
long-arm statute.

The court's decision let Kongsberg Automotive Holding out of a
strict products liability and negligence cause of action brought
by the plaintiff, Charles Herman, over injuries he allegedly
sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred Aug. 8, 2012,
in Sturgis, South Dakota.

The accident involved a 2012 Can-Am Spyder Roadster, a three-
wheeled motorcycle, in a test drive.  The vehicle was owned by BRP
US, which was among the defendants in the case.  Mr. Herman
alleged the vehicle or its steering mechanism "malfunctioned or
failed to turn, causing it to run off the road and crash."

Judge Scott observed in a footnote that Delaware law does not
recognize strict products liability.

Defendants in the case included Kongsberg Inc., a Canadian company
and subsidiary of Kongsberg Automotive Holding.  Kongsberg Inc.
supplied component parts used in the Can-Am Spyder Roadster,
according to a footnote in the opinion.

Judge Scott's opinion focused solely on the Delaware court's
jurisdiction, if any, over Kongsberg Automotive Holding.

Kongsberg Automotive Holding argued it lacked sufficient contacts
with Delaware and connection to the cause of action to satisfy the
state's long-arm statute.

But the plaintiff argued Kongsberg Holding's "voluntary efforts to
litigate in the forum state constitutes consent to jurisdiction in
this state," Scott wrote.

The plaintiff was referring to a still-unresolved action that
Kongsberg Automotive Holding filed against Teleflex (also a
defendant named in Herman's complaint) over an alleged breach of
contract.

Judge Scott said the court could not extend general jurisdiction
over Kongsberg Automotive Holding because of its status as parent
corporation to Kongsberg Inc.

"Personal jurisdiction over a foreign holding company may not be
exercised merely because of that corporation's relationship with
an allegedly at-fault subsidiary, even if that subsidiary is
itself a Delaware corporation," Judge Scott said.  But Kongsberg
Inc., the parts supplier, was not a Delaware corporation but a
Canadian one without personal jurisdiction contacts of its own,
Judge Scott went on to say.

Kongsberg Inc., Judge Scott observed, had in fact already been let
out of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Moreover, Judge Scott said, discovery on the subject of
jurisdiction showed that there was "an absence of any contacts
between Kongsberg Holding and Delaware that are regular,
persistent, or the source of substantial revenue."

The previous litigation between Kongsberg Holding and Teleflex,
which was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
did not establish sufficient contacts for the state courts to
exercise long-arm jurisdiction and did not represent a waiver by
Kongsberg Automotive Holding of any challenge to Delaware
jurisdiction.

The key question for Scott was whether the federal litigation
between Kongsberg Automotive Holding and Teleflex was related to
the Herman case.  The judge said it was not.

Mr. Herman was not a party to the contract, nor were any other of
the named defendants in Mr. Herman's complaint.  The case was a
breach of contract action, while Mr. Herman's complaint states a
personal injury cause of action.  The Kongsberg Holding-Teleflex
action was filed in 2009, long before Mr. Herman's accident on the
Can-Am Spyder Roadster.

"As emphasized by the relevant case law, whether the previous and
current actions arise from the same underlying transaction or
transactions is the primary consideration for determining if the
separate legal actions are sufficiently related for the court to
confer jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant," Judge Scott
wrote.  The judge concluded that there was "no logical
relationship" between the contract case filed in 2009 and the
personal injury case stemming from Herman's 2012 accident.

Judge Scott also said contracts entered into by Kongsberg did not
form the basis for long-arm jurisdiction.

First, he said a contract between a Delaware corporation and a
nonresident to transact business outside the First State "cannot
alone serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction over the
nonresident."  It is also well-established that a choice of
Delaware law provision in a contract is not a sufficient
transaction of business in the state to create personal
jurisdiction.

Kevin J. Connors -- kjconnors@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey
Warner Coleman & Goggin in Wilmington was defense counsel for
Kongsberg Automotive Holding.

Timothy E. Lengkeek -- tlengkeek@ycst.com -- of Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington was the attorney for Herman.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Facing 60 Coal Tar Pitch Cases as of Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Koppers Inc., along with
other defendants, is currently a defendant in lawsuits filed in
two states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a variety
of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to coal
tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are approximately 112
plaintiffs in 60 cases pending as of December 31, 2014 as compared
to 111 plaintiffs in 61 cases pending as of December 31, 2013. As
of December 31, 2014, there are a total of 59 cases pending in
state court in Pennsylvania, and one case pending in state court
in Tennessee. Koppers Inc. has been dismissed from three cases
formerly pending in state court in Arkansas.

The plaintiffs in all 60 pending cases seek to recover
compensatory damages, while plaintiffs in 55 cases also seek to
recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 59 cases filed in
Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the
court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs in the
Tennessee state court case each seek damages of $15.0 million. The
other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and
include companies such as Beazer East, Inc., United States Steel
Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., Vertellus Specialties
Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil
Corporation, SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. Discovery is
proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of
these cases.

The Company has not provided a reserve for these lawsuits because,
at this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of these cases
cannot be reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is
vigorously defending these cases, an unfavorable resolution of
these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of
operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits in Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery on the merits
in a class action lawsuit is stayed until further order of the
court.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive
damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.

Under the current scheduling order, the Court has set a deadline
of February 23, 2015 for completion of class factual discovery
with expert witness discovery to follow. Discovery on the merits
is stayed until further order of the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is awaiting
a ruling by the court on a motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit.

Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that KPC's
wood preservative products and formulas are defective, and the
complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of
contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of
Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
statute. The putative class is defined as all users (residential
or commercial) of wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products in the United States who purchased such wood products
from January 1, 2004 to the present.

Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures.

The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC has filed a motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs have responded to the motion and KPC has
filed a reply. The motion has been fully briefed and the Company
is awaiting a ruling by the court. The Company has not provided a
reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot
reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of
loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of
resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined.


LAZAR GOURMET: Recalls Beef Samosa Products Due to Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lazar Gourmet Foods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9791

  Brand name  Common name  Size   Code(s)     UPC
  ----------  -----------  ----   on product  ---
                                  ----------
Lazar Gourmet Beef Samosas 400 g  0425C    7 79283 10269 4
Foods


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Updates on Hardboard Trim Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the
Hardboard Trim Litigation.

The Company said, "We were named in four putative class action
lawsuits filed against us in United States District Courts during
the first quarter of 2012 related to non-treated hardboard trim
product formerly manufactured at our Roaring River, North Carolina
hardboard plant: Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation., Case No.
4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa) (filed March 8, 2012, as a state-
wide putative class); Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00484-JGC (N.D. Ohio) (filed February 28,
2012, as a state-wide putative class); Bristol Village Inc. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-00263
(W.D.N.Y.) (filed March 30, 2012, as a state-wide putative class
or, alternatively, as a nation-wide putative class) and Prevett v.
Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-348-ORL-18-KRS (M.D. Fla)
(filed March 5, 2012, as a state-wide putative class). A fifth
lawsuit, Eugene Lipov v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case 1:12-CV-00439-
JTN (W.D. Mich) (filed May 3, 2012) was filed as a statewide
putative class action in the second quarter of 2012. These
lawsuits follow two state-wide putative class action lawsuits
previously filed against LP in United States District Courts:
Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No. 2:08-CV-00047
(E.D.N.C.). and Ellis, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No.
3:11-CV-191 (W.D.N.C.)

The Hart case was certified by the District Court as a class
action on July 15, 2011.

The Holbrook case was dismissed by the District Court on August
29, 2012 and appealed by the plaintiffs to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal on all counts except the express warranty.

The Ellis case was dismissed in its entirety by the District Court
which dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit on November 2, 2012.

The Prevett case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
May 31, 2012 and replaced by Riley v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No.
6:12-CV-00837-18 (M.D. Fla) (filed June 4, 2012 as a state-wide
putative class).

The Riley case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
December 17, 2013.

The Lipov case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
November 27, 2013.

On August 30, 2013, the District Court in the Hart case
decertified the class and granted summary judgment on the claims
brought by the individual plaintiff's dismissing the entire case.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and decertification to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On October 4, 2013, another lawsuit, Harbison v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, Case No. 2:13-CV-00814 (W.D. Pa.) was filed as a
putative class action. On February 17, 2014, the U.S. District
Court granted, in part, LP's motion to dismiss and on March 20,
2014, the court granted summary judgment in favor of LP on the
breach of express warranty claim. This matter is being appealed by
the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On September 18, 2014, the district court in Brown v. Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation., Case No. 4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa)
(filed March 8, 2012, as a state-wide putative class) granted LP's
motion for summary judgment and denied as moot Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration
of the court's order.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuits were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and
injunctive and other relief under various state law theories,
including negligence, violations of consumer protection laws, and
breaches of implied and express warranties, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

"While some individual owners of structures within the putative
classes may have valid warranty claims, we believe that the claims
asserted on a class basis are without merit and we intend to
defend these matters vigorously. We have established warranty
reserves for the hardboard trim in question pursuant to our normal
business practices, and we do not believe that the resolution of
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity," the
Company said.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Cases
---------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said class action plaintiffs
have appealed the dismissal of their cases to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Company intends to
continue vigorously defending the cases, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District
of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases
are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases
filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed.

The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
consolidated and have since been dismissed. The plaintiffs in the
Securities Cases had filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements
related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the
calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late
filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the dismissal of Magnum
Hunter's previous independent registered accounting firm, the
Company's characterization of the auditors' position with respect
to the dismissal, and other matters identified in the Company's
April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended. The consolidated amended
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Exchange Act based on alleged false statements made regarding
these issues throughout the alleged class period, as well as
claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act based
on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the Company's
internal controls made in connection with a public offering that
Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The consolidated amended
complaint demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to
the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by
the decline in the Company's stock price between February 22, 2013
and April 22, 2013. In January 2014, the Company and the
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Securities
Cases. On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Cases and,
accordingly, the Securities Cases have now been dismissed. The
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to continue vigorously
defending the Securities Cases. It is possible that additional
investor lawsuits could be filed over these events.


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Morehouse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Morehouse, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. and Motor
Mills Snubbing, L.L.C., Case No. 7:15-cv-00057-RAJ (W.D. Tex.,
April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants are in the business of providing equipment and
services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Sico, Esq.
      William Clifton (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
      SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER & BRAUGH, LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N. Carancahua St.
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: csico@swhhb.com
              calexander@swhhb.com


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Dismissal Bid Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit is still pending before the
District Court.

"On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged
purchasers of our common stock filed purported class action
complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas," the Company said.  "Both of the complaints sought to
represent a class of purchasers of our stock between November 6,
2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading information and failing to
disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project
bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each
complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs."

"By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
substantially the same claims as were made in the two original
complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports
to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award
for attorneys' fees and other costs. On April 7, 2014, MII and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On May 22,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss, and MII and the other defendants filed a reply in support
of the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 23, 2014. The motion
to dismiss is still pending before the District Court. We believe
the substantive allegations contained in the consolidated amended
complaint are without merit, and we intend to defend against these
claims vigorously."


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approved Withdrawal Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Israeli Court
has approved the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the Israeli
Claim.

On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli Claim was
filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant"). The Israeli
Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company's
President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are
responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court.

On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities
Litigation disclosed herein. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court
approved this procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli
proceedings.

On January 7, 2015 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company,
filed a request to withdraw the Israeli Claim (and related class
action claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the decision to dismiss
the U. S. Class Action (In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
Securities Litigation disclosed herein), reached the conclusion
that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Israeli
Claim and have the complaint approved as a class action.  Neither
the plaintiff nor its attorneys received or will receive any
benefit in return for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2015, the Israeli Court approved the Withdrawal
Petition and dismissed the Israeli Claim.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
dismissed the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint with prejudice
in the case Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation.

On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate putative class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging purported violations of the
securities laws. On May 14, 2013, the court consolidated the
complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On July
12, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint
against the same defendants. On October 11, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
transferred the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for Northern California ("the Court"). On March 31, 2014,
the Court dismissed the Amended Consolidated Complaint for its
failure to allege adequately falsity or scienter.

On May 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint. The Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and violations of
Israel Securities Law, 1968. It alleges that defendants made false
or misleading statements (or failed to disclose certain facts)
regarding the Company's business and outlook and seeks unspecified
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and
proper. On July 7, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court heard oral argument on
August 20, 2014 and on December 17, 2014 dismissed the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint with prejudice. The matter was
captioned, In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-JD.


MIDKIFF HOLDINGS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Lopez Guzman, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Midkiff Holdings, LLC d/b/a GM Construction
d/b/a GM Construction TX, Ochoa V Construction, Glenn Midkiff, and
Victor Ochoa, Case No. 3:15-cv-01229-L (N.D. Tex., April 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company that
regularly transacts business within Dallas County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Removed "Sam" Class Suit to Southern New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mark Sam v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC and Encore Capital Group,
Inc., Case No. 152888, was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03222 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew B. Johnson, Esq
      MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER
      88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 376-6433
      E-mail: MBJohnson@mdwcg.com


MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that additional motions remain pending
and a trial date has not been scheduled in the Modafinil Antitrust
Litigation.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery
has now closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. On January 28,
2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment
motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis
decision. Additional motions remain pending and a trial date has
not been scheduled.


MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendants in Minocycline Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited
are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended
complaint involving Minocycline.

On May 1, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a civil
investigative demand to Mylan pertaining to an investigation being
conducted to determine whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation,
Mylan, and/or other generic companies engaged in unfair methods of
competition with regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn(R) products
and generic Solodyn(R) products, as well as the 2010 settlement of
Medicis' patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix
Laboratories Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited).
Mylan has cooperated with the FTC and has responded to the
requests for information.

Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited,
along with other drug manufacturers, were named as defendants in
civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent
direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn(R),
and assert violations of federal and state laws, including
allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis
with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to
generic Solodyn(R). Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was
filed on September 12, 2014, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited
are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended
complaint.


MYLAN INC: Decision Pending on Bid to Dismiss Pioglitazone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that a decision remains pending on Mylan
and the other defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint
involving Pioglitazone.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014 and a decision remains pending.


MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at Dec. 31 on Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Company had accrued
approximately $13.4 million at December 31, 2014 related to
product liability claims.

The Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits
and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of
certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company,
including but not limited to its Fentanyl Transdermal System,
Phenytoin, Propoxyphene, and Alendronate. The Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and
is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From
time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise
resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that
are in the best interests of the Company. The Company had accrued
approximately $13.4 million at December 31, 2014 and $13.8 million
at December 31, 2013.

"It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses
above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such
reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances,
however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments
received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued," the Company
said.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Smithtown Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the litigation relating to the Smithtown transaction
have filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a settlement,
People's United Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On February 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, Smithtown and several of
its officers and directors were named in lawsuits commenced in
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March 13,
2008 and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete. As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United on November 30, 2010, People's
United has become the successor party to Smithtown in this matter.

Following extensive preliminary filings with the Court by both
parties, an agreement in principle to settle this matter was
reached on October 23, 2014, subject to completion of appropriate
documentation and Court approval. On January 12, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement with the Court. The amount of the agreed-upon
settlement has been adequately reserved.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Appeal in "Farb" Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011 and alleges that
the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in the posting of
electronic debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount. The Complaint also alleges that such practices were
inadequately disclosed to customers and were unfairly used by the
Bank for the purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the
number of overdrafts a customer is assessed. The Complaint seeks
certification of a class of checking account holders residing in
Connecticut and who have incurred at least one overdraft fee,
injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution of overdraft fees paid, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
Court. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on May 15, 2012, the Bank filed a Motion to Strike
the Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2013, the Bank renewed its
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Court denied
the Bank's Motion to Strike and its renewed Motion to Dismiss.

On September 23, 2013, the Bank filed its Revised Answer, Special
Defenses and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint. A Court hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain
of the Bank's Defenses and a Counterclaim was held on January 30,
2014. The Court postponed consideration of that Motion and, on
April 28, 2014, held a hearing to consider whether it has
jurisdiction to hear the case. On July 28, 2014, the Court
dismissed the case in its entirety for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because all of the claims are preempted by federal
law. On August 15, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
with the Connecticut Appellate Court and, on September 25, 2014,
filed a motion to transfer the Notice of Appeal to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

No updates were provided in People's United Financial, Inc.'s Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


PHARMERICA CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica Corporation awaits a decision on the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.

On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all
claims raised in the complaint. The parties moved on September 8,
2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class
for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing
on that motion. No hearing has yet been set on that motion and the
Corporation awaits a decision on the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carpinelli" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Carpinelli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No.
3:15-cv-00904-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful and abusive practice to collect a debt.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a New Jersey corporation that
is engaged in the business of debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fisher Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Munchkin Loses Appeal in Diaper False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that it stinks to be No. 2 -- that's why two leading diaper pail
makers have spent years wrangling in court over who's No. 1 at
keeping odor out.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 20 struck
down Munchkin Inc.'s attempts to revive a $13.5 million false
advertising verdict against Playtex Products LLC, maker of the
Diaper Genie.

Munchkin attorney R. Cameron Garrison -- cgarrison@lathropgage.com
-- a partner at Kansas City, Mo.'s Lathrop & Gage, said his client
was evaluating its options, including whether to petition an en
banc panel of the Ninth Circuit to review the ruling.  He wrote in
an email that the jury heard evidence showing "that Playtex
continued to tell consumers its Diaper Genie pails were #1 in odor
control despite multiple internal Playtex tests revealing that
claim to be false."

The dispute is one of several involving the makers of diaper
pails, which are depositories for dirty diapers.  Long dominated
by the Diaper Genie, the market now involves several competitors,
some of which have gone to court over advertising claims.

Los Angeles-based Munchkin, which sells the Munchkin Arm & Hammer
Diaper Pail, sued in 2011 after Playtex began challenging
statements that its diaper pail was "The New #1 in Odor Control"
and, citing laboratory tests, better than the Diaper Genie II and
Diaper Genie II Elite. Munchkin sought to stop many of Playtex's
claims, including that the Diaper Genie II and Diaper Genie II
Elite were "Proven #1 in Odor Control."

In court, Playtex countersued, challenging Munchkin's "New #1"
statement, which appeared on the product's packaging.

In 2012, a federal jury awarded nearly $13.5 million to Munchkin
after finding that Playtex had engaged in false advertising as to
two claims, including its "Proven # 1 in Odor Control" statement
on the Diaper Genie II Elite box.

The jury awarded nothing to Playtex, which is based in Shelton,
Conn.

After the verdict, Playtex, represented by Seattle's Davis Wright
Tremaine, brought in a new team from Los Angeles-based Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher.  In a motion for new trial, they challenged an
instruction that allowed the jury to presume injury, even though
neither advertising claim explicitly compared the product to
Munchkin's.

U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz granted the motion after
concluding that the claims weren't comparative and that both
companies, although dominant, weren't the only players in the
market at the time.  He later called the case an "overblown
dispute" after it failed to settle before he retired.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright, faced with a retrial, ruled in
2013 that Munchkin couldn't introduce theories that would have
boosted its potential damages to more than $100 million.

"At that point, Munchkin found itself without any damages
evidence," said Richard Doren -- rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- a
partner at Gibson Dunn who represents Playtex.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld the rulings on damages.
Munchkin's attorney, Garrison, declined to address the damages
issue.  But he noted that the Ninth Circuit's decision also means
the jury's finding against Playtex stands.

"Thanks to that jury, the Arm & Hammer Diaper Pail by Munchkin
continues to proudly carry its Proven #1 in Odor Control
advertising claim to this day," he wrote.


PNC FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Appeal in CBNV Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company's appeal from the granting of the motion for class
certification in the CBNV Mortgage Litigation is pending.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were
filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other
defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans
made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal
court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court,
were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re:
Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation
(No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674).

In January 2008, the Pennsylvania district court issued an order
sending back to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, for Wake County, North Carolina the claims of two
proposed class members. These claims are asserted in a case
originally filed in 2001 and captioned Bumpers, et al. v.
Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342).

MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania

In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint consolidated amended
class action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits
pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint names CBNV,
another bank, and purchasers of loans originated by CBNV and the
other bank (including the Residential Funding Company, LLC
("RFC")) as defendants. (In December 2013, the Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding involving the RFC was completed with the
company being liquidated and claims against the company being
resolved, including, through a settlement between the plaintiffs
and RFC approved in November 2013, the claims in these lawsuits.)
The principal allegations in the amended complaint are that a
group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the
"Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second
residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and the other bank,
that CBNV and the other bank charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan fees to the
Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the
referrals. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of all borrowers
who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage
loan, secured by their principal dwelling, from either CBNV or the
other defendant bank, the terms of which made the loan subject to
HOEPA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
damages (including treble damages under RICO and RESPA),
rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest,
and attorneys' fees. In November 2011, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2013, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the
claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not originate or was not
assigned to CBNV, narrowing the scope of the RESPA claim, and
dismissing several of the named plaintiffs for lack of standing.
The court also dismissed the claims against the other lender
defendant on jurisdictional grounds. The limitation of the
potential class to CBNV borrowers reduces its size to
approximately 22,500 from the 50,000 members alleged in the
amended complaint. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013.

In August 2013, the Company filed a motion seeking leave to appeal
the granting of the motion for class certification. The court
granted the motion in October 2013, and the Company's appeal is
pending.

North Carolina Proceedings

The plaintiffs in Bumpers make similar allegations to those
included in the amended complaint in the MDL proceedings.
Following the remand to North Carolina state court, the plaintiffs
in Bumpers sought to represent a class of North Carolina borrowers
in state court proceedings in North Carolina. The plaintiffs claim
that this class consists of approximately 650 borrowers. The
district court in Pennsylvania handling the MDL proceedings
enjoined class proceedings in Bumpers in March 2008. In April
2008, the North Carolina Superior Court granted the Bumpers
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their individual claims
and awarded them approximately $11,000 each plus interest. CBNV
appealed the grant of the motion for summary judgment. In
September 2011, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in
part and reversed in part the granting of the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment. The court affirmed the judgment on the
plaintiffs' claim that they paid a loan discount fee but were not
provided a loan discount. It reversed the judgment on the
plaintiffs' claim that they were overcharged for settlement
services and remanded that claim for trial. The court also held
that, in light of the Pennsylvania district court's injunction
against class proceedings having been vacated in September 2010,
the trial court may on remand consider the issue of class
certification.

In August 2012, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition for discretionary review of the decision of the
North Carolina Court of Appeals. The appeal was argued in January
2013. In August 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed
the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the
Superior Court for further proceedings. In September 2013, after
the other plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case, the remaining
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint in the
trial court. The plaintiff's remaining claims, as reflected in the
proposed amended complaint, relate exclusively to the loan
discount fee.


PNC FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint related to the
unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising from
electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits.

Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank, National City Bank and RBC
Bank (USA) have been named in lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on ATM
and debit transactions to customers and related matters. All but
two of these lawsuits, both pending against RBC Bank (USA), have
been settled. The following is a description of the remaining
pending lawsuits.

The pending lawsuits naming RBC Bank (USA), along with similar
lawsuits pending against numerous other banks, have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "MDL
Court") under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2010 that
consolidated all of the claims in these MDL Court cases. The first
case against RBC Bank (USA) pending in the MDL Court (Dasher v.
RBC Bank (10-cv-22190-JLK)) was filed in July 2010 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
other case against RBC Bank (USA) ( Avery v. RBC Bank (Case No.
10-cv-329)) was originally filed in North Carolina state court in
July 2010 and was removed to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina before being transferred to
the MDL Court. An amended complaint was filed in Avery in August
2010.

These cases seek to certify multi-state classes of customers for
the common law claims (covering all states in which RBC Bank (USA)
had retail branch operations during the class periods), and
subclasses of RBC Bank (USA) customers with accounts in North
Carolina branches, with each subclass being asserted for purposes
of claims under those states' consumer protection statutes. No
class periods are stated in any of the complaints, other than for
the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state and
claim.

The customer agreements with the plaintiffs in these two cases
contain arbitration provisions. RBC Bank (USA)'s original motion
in Dasher to compel arbitration under these provisions was denied
by the MDL Court. This denial was appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While this appeal was
pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, following which the court of appeals
vacated the MDL Court's denial of the arbitration motion and
remanded to the MDL Court for further consideration in light of
the Concepcion decision. RBC Bank (USA)'s motion to compel
arbitration, now covering both Dasher and Avery, was denied in
January 2013.

"We appealed the denial of the motion to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which, in February 2014,
affirmed the order of the district court denying arbitration. We
filed a motion asking the court of appeals to reconsider its
decision, which it denied in March 2014," the Company said.  "In
April 2014, we filed a motion asking the court of appeals to stay
its ruling pending the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The court of appeals
granted our motion later in April 2014 and stayed its ruling until
July 2014. We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in June
2014, which was denied in October 2014. Accordingly, the stay of
the court of appeals' ruling is no longer in effect. In December
2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint."

The complaints in each of these lawsuits allege that the banks
engaged in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising
from electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The principal
practice challenged in these lawsuits is the banks' purportedly
common policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from
highest amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the
number of overdraft fees assessed. Other practices challenged
include the failure to decline to honor debit card transactions
where the account has insufficient funds to cover the
transactions.

The plaintiffs assert claims for unconscionability; unjust
enrichment; and violation of the consumer protection statute of
North Carolina. In the Dasher complaint, the plaintiffs also
assert claims for a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and for conversion. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, restitution of overdraft fees paid, unspecified actual and
punitive damages (with actual damages, in some cases, trebled
under state law), pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
declaratory relief finding the overdraft policies to be unfair and
unconscionable.


PNC FINANCIAL: Court Denied Motion for Reconsideration
------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
district court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration of
the denial of its motion to dismiss in the Captive Mortgage
Reinsurance Litigation.

In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was filed
against PNC (as successor in interest to National City Corporation
and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage insurance
companies in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought as a
class action, alleges that National City structured its program of
reinsurance of private mortgage insurance in such a way as to
avoid a true transfer of risk from the mortgage insurers to
National City's captive reinsurer. The plaintiffs allege that the
payments from the mortgage insurers to the captive reinsurer
constitute kickbacks, referral payments, or unearned fee splits
prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), as well as common law unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs
claim, among other things, that from the beginning of 2004 until
the end of 2010 National City's captive reinsurer collected from
the mortgage insurance company defendants at least $219 million as
its share of borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums and
that its share of paid claims during this period was approximately
$12 million. The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of
all persons who obtained residential mortgage loans originated,
funded or originated through correspondent lending by National
City or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1,
2004 and the present and, in connection with these mortgage loans,
purchased private mortgage insurance and whose residential
mortgage loans were included within National City's captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, statutory damages under RESPA (which include treble
damages), restitution of reinsurance premiums collected,
disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees.

In August 2012, the district court directed the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs filed in September
2012. In November 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court dismissed, without prejudice, the amended
complaint in June 2013 on statute of limitations grounds. A second
amended complaint, in response to the court's dismissal order, was
filed in July 2013.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, also
in July 2013. In August 2014, the court denied the motion to
dismiss," the Company said.

"We then filed an uncontested motion to stay all proceedings
pending the outcome of another matter currently on appeal before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that
involves overlapping issues. In September 2014, the district court
granted the stay. In October 2014, the court of appeals decided
that other matter, holding that the RESPA claims in that case were
barred by the statute of limitations. We then filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of our motion to dismiss in light of
the court of appeals' decision. In January 2015, the district
court denied our motion."


PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Lauren" Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. is pending.

In June 2013, a lawsuit (Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al.(Case
No. 2:14-cv-00230)) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, subsequently transferred
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, against PNC Bank and American Security Insurance Company
("ASIC"), a provider of property and casualty insurance to PNC for
certain residential mortgages. This lawsuit, which was brought as
a class action, alleges, with respect to PNC Bank, that it
breached alleged contractual (including the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing) and fiduciary duties to residential
mortgage borrowers, and, as to Ohio borrowers, violated the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practice Act, all in connection with the
administration of PNC Bank's program for placement of insurance
for borrowers who fail to obtain hazard insurance coverages
required by the terms of their mortgages. The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that defendants placed insurance in
unnecessary and excessive amounts and that PNC Bank improperly
profited from these arrangements, principally as a result of the
payment of commissions to PNC Bank and of reinsurance arrangements
between PNC and the insurance provider. The plaintiff originally
sought to certify a nationwide class and an Ohio sub-class of all
persons who, during applicable periods, have or had a residential
mortgage loan or line of credit with PNC Bank, and had hazard
insurance placed upon the property by PNC Bank. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, damages, restitution or disgorgement of
profits improperly obtained, injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "In October 2013, the court ruled on our motion
to dismiss the complaint, granting our motion with respect to the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act claim and otherwise denying the
motion. We filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial as
to the fiduciary duty claim, which motion was denied in November
2013. In January 2014, the court granted ASIC's motion to dismiss
the nationwide class action allegations with respect to the state
common law claim of unjust enrichment pending against ASIC. Later
in January 2014, PNC Bank filed a similar motion to dismiss the
nationwide class action allegations, on the same grounds as
asserted in ASIC's motion to dismiss, with respect to the state
common law claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary
duty pending against PNC Bank. The plaintiff thereafter agreed to
withdraw those allegations. In February 2014, the court entered an
order dismissing the plaintiff's nationwide class action
allegations with regard to all remaining claims against PNC,
thereby leaving an Ohio-only class sought by plaintiff as to those
claims. Also in February 2014, the court on its own motion
transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, and the plaintiff moved to amend her
complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO claim
on behalf of the class. In May 2014, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint, with the understanding
that defendants may pursue their arguments against the viability
of this claim by way of a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is
pending.


PNC FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Filed in Montoya Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification in the case
Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al.

In February and March 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed.
One of them (Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-20474-JEM) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against PNC Bank, ASIC and
its parent, Assurant, Inc. The other case (Tighe v. PNC Bank,
N.A., et al., Case No. 14-CV-2017) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against these
same parties as well as Alpine Indemnity Limited, a reinsurance
subsidiary of PNC. The allegations of these complaints are similar
to those found in the Lauren complaint. In May 2014, the Tighe
lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. In June 2014, the Tighe plaintiff
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby
terminating that action.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs in Montoya assert breach of
contract by PNC, breach of its duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of a fiduciary duty, and
violations of Florida and New Jersey statutes pertaining to
deceptive and unfair trade practices. These plaintiffs also assert
claims under the federal TILA and RICO statutes. The plaintiffs
seek a nationwide class on all claims except the state law
statutory claims, for which they seek to certify subclasses of
Florida and New Jersey residents, respectively. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, damages (including treble damages),
disgorgement of "unjust benefits," injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.

PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in Montoya in May
2014. In August 2014, the court in Montoya granted in part and
denied in part PNC's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court
dismissed the breach of contract, Florida deceptive and unfair
trade practices, and federal TILA and RICO claims, although it
allowed the RICO claims to be re-pled. The remaining claims are
state claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, unjust
enrichment, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of
fiduciary duty. Thereafter, in September 2014, on plaintiffs'
uncontested motions, the Lauren lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
and a third amended complaint in Montoya was filed adding Lauren
as a plaintiff there.

In October 2014, PNC moved to partially dismiss the third amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the re-pleaded
RICO claims and plaintiff Lauren's state law claims for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of
fiduciary duty. At the same time, PNC also moved to strike
nationwide class allegations with respect to the state law claims.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs stipulated to this relief, as a
result of which the plaintiffs' state law claims are now being
brought solely as statewide class action claims in the three
states in which the plaintiffs reside. In January 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Wyoming, Minnesota, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Professional Disposables
International, Inc., Tufco Technologies Inc., and Rockline
Industries, Case No. 0:15-cv-02101-JRT-FLN (D. Minn., April 23,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' false representation of their
flushable bathroom wipes as suitable or able to be flushed down a
toilet without causing harm to plumbing, sewer, and septic
systems. However, the flushable wipes do not degrade after
flushing, rather, they remain intact long enough to pass through
private wastewater drain pipes into the municipal sewer line
causing clogs and other issues for municipal and county sewer
systems and wastewater treatment plants, resulting in thousands,
if not millions, of dollars in damages.

Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio corporation that manufactures,
distributes, markets, and sells a variety of flushable wipes
worldwide.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells a variety of
flushable wipes worldwide.

Nice-Pak Products, Inc. is a New York Corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes branded and private label
wet wipe products.

Professional Disposables International, Inc. is a New York
Corporation that develops, manufactures, and distributes brand and
retailer brand wet wipes across consumer, healthcare and
foodservice business channels.

Tufco Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers its
private label customers manufacturing and packaging services.

Rockline Industries is a Wisconsin corporation that designs and
manufactures a wide variety of consumer products that are
distributed and sold worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Sara J. Payne, Esq.
      Lucy G. Massopust, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
              spayne@gustafsongluek.com
              lmassopust@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Simon B. Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-8282
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com

         - and -

      Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq
      REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E 1250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
              g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
              r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Mark R. Miller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              mrm@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Steven N. Williams,Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com


RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Funds Named as Lead Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court appointed the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiffs in the class
action case.

The Company said, "Following our November 10, 2014 announcement
that we intended to file restated interim financial statements for
the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and four of its
current and former officers and directors (together, the
"Defendants") arising from circumstances described in the November
2014 Announcement, entitled respectively:

* Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395;
filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398,
filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et
al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

* Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429,
filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida; and

* Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986,
initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474."

On January 9, 2015, the five Securities Actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-1395-TJC-JBT in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The
plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015. In that motion, the lead plaintiff movants
asserted that the class period should be July 22, 2013 to November
7, 2014. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine
whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been
incurred nor can it estimate the range of any potential loss. On
February 25, 2015, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund as lead plaintiffs in the case.


RENASANT CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Stein" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an amended complaint was
filed in the stockholder class action lawsuit, Stein v. Heritage
Financial Group, Inc. et al.

On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division,
against Heritage, the members of its board of directors,
HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was
amended on February 18, 2015, asserts that the Heritage directors
breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement and that Heritage, HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant
Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin Heritage and
Renasant stockholders from voting on to approve the merger at
their respective special meetings of stockholders and to otherwise
enjoin the merger.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Court Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company expects the final court approval hearing to take place in
April 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Burger King Corporation ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court
of Maryland. The complaint alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent
unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in
Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to promote its home
delivery program in violation of the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and
injunctive relief. On August 19, 2014, BKC agreed to pay $8.5
million to settle the lawsuit. On December 2, 2014, the parties
finalized a settlement agreement which received preliminary court
approval on December 2, 2014.

"We expect the final court approval hearing to take place in April
2015," the Company said.


REX ENERGY: Conducting Class Discovery for Cardinale Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation is in the process of conducting class
discovery for the Cardinale class action case, and expects to
progress to class certification proceedings during the second or
third quarter of 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In October 2011, we were named as defendants in a proposed class
action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The named plaintiffs
are two individuals who have sued on behalf of themselves and all
persons who are alleged to be similarly situated," the Company
said.  "The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts that
a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of
Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them. The
plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties
with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and
other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial,
together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. We
filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the
plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive
filings throughout the first quarter of 2012."

"In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between
us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
during the second half of 2012. On May 3, 2013, the Superior Court
reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte
case contains the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale
case. We have not yet been served with a complaint in the Meeker
case, but we believe the claims will also mirror those made in the
Cardinale and Billotte cases.

"It is our understanding that these two additional lawsuits were
filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the
Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal. Proceedings in both
the Billotte and Meeker cases were stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal in the Cardinale case. As the Cardinale case is
proceeding, we are consolidating the Billotte and Cardinale cases.
We expect to make a determination as to the consolidation of the
Meeker case as the Cardinale case proceeds.

"We are vigorously defending against each of these claims. We are
currently in the process of conducting class discovery for the
Cardinale case, and we expect to progress to class certification
proceedings during the second or third quarter of 2015. At this
time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses."


S & S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Olson" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Olson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. S & S Restaurants LLC a/k/a S and S Restaurant LLC
d/b/a Papa John's, Case No. 1:15-cv-00136-REB (D. Idaho, April 23,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's reimbursement policy  that
reimburses much less than a reasonable approximation of its
drivers' automobile expenses.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 11 Papa John's pizza
franchise restaurants in Idaho.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Robert Kormanik, Esq.
      KORMANIK HALLAM & SNEED LLP
      206 W Jefferson St
      Boise, ID 83702
      Telephone: (208) 288-1888
      Facsimile: (866) 821-9543
      E-mail: jrk@khsidaholaw.com

         - and -

      Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
      CRIMMINS LAW FIRM
      214 S. Spring St.
      Independence, MO 64050
      Telephone: (816) 974-7220
      E-mail: v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
purported class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas, has been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in the initial public offering. Each
lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company
seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities pursuant and/or traceable to
SCUSA's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the initial public offering. Each complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus contained misleading
statements concerning the Company's auto lending business and
underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages
and other relief.  On February 17, 2015, the purported class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Parties Settle All Legal Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties entered into
a settlement to resolve all legal proceedings, including Cases 1,
2, 3 and 4, the National Union action; the Fireman's Fund action;
and the San Francisco coverage action.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.

The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a putative class
action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe
houses.  Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then
re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action
by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the
Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the
Ocean Pointe development, brought a third party complaint against
the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be
liable are actually the fault of the Company.

Similarly, Haseko's sub-contractors on the Ocean Pointe
development brought cross-claims against the Company seeking
indemnity and contribution for any amounts for which they may
ultimately be found liable. None of the Cases alleges a specific
amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases seeks
compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages.  Cases 1
and 4 have been consolidated.  In December 2012, the Court granted
the Company summary judgment on the claims asserted by the
plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and 4, and on the third party
complaint and cross-claims asserted by Haseko and the sub-
contractors, respectively, in Case 4. In April 2013, the Court
granted Haseko and the sub-contractors' motion for leave to amend
their cross-claims to allege a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.

The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the
cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown
to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the
general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.  At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable under
any legal theory and the extent of such liability, if any, are
unknown.  Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an
extended period should the written agreement reached to settle the
Cases and other related legal proceedings (the "Settlement") not
receive final approval by the Court and become effective in
accordance with its terms. The Company is defending itself
vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies.  On April 19, 2011, an
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al.,
Civil No. 11-00254 ACK (the "National Union Action").  In this
National Union Action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"), which
issued certain Commercial General Liability insurance policies to
the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to
its obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie
holdown products.  By Order dated November 7, 2011, all
proceedings in the National Union action have been stayed.  If the
stay is lifted, in the absence of an agreement to settle the Cases
and the National Union action, the Company intends vigorously to
defend all claims advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's
Fund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, sued
Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurance
company from whom the Company purchased general liability
insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund action").  The Company has intervened in the
Fireman's Fund action. By Order dated September 29, 2014, the
Court formally stayed proceedings in the Fireman's Fund Action,
and ordered the action administratively closed. The Fireman's Fund
Action is subject to motion to reopen in the absence of an
agreement to settle the Cases and the Fireman's Fund Action.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against
National Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and
County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action").  In
the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally
that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the
Fireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent
adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has
jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise
jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all
disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the
Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco
coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the
underlying Ocean Pointe Cases. The San Francisco coverage action
has been ordered stayed pending resolution of the Cases.

Through mediation, the parties entered into the Settlement to
resolve all of these legal proceedings, including Cases 1, 2, 3
and 4, the National Union action; the Fireman's Fund action; and
the San Francisco coverage action. All parties to the Cases have
executed the Settlement and the Court has given its preliminary
approval. If the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, and
if the conditions are satisfied such that the Settlement becomes
Effective as defined therein, the Company will incur no uninsured
liability in any of these legal proceedings. The Company cannot
predict when, if ever, the Settlement will be approved and its
conditions satisfied such that it becomes Effective, and an
unfavorable outcome could result in liability that substantially
exceeds the amount of the Settlement. It is not possible to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of any such possible
excess.


SOUTHERN RESTAURANT: "Guta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Remus Guta and Cristian M. Vaduva v. The Southern Restaurant
Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00187-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., April 23,
2015, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Southern Restaurant Group, LLC owns and operates 8 waterfront
restaurants in Florida and Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Robert Gale, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS QUIN ET AL
      101 N Woodland Blvd, Ste 600
      Deland, FL 32720
      Telephone: (386) 675-6946
      Facsimile: (386) 675-6947
      E-mail: jgale@wcqp.com


SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: MOU Reached in OmniAmerican Merger Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southside Bancshares, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2015, that defendants and the plaintiff in
the merger litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in
exchange for defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental
disclosures.

On April 28, 2014, OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc. entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Southside Bancshares, Inc. ("Southside"), and Omega Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Southside ("Merger Sub"),
whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company with the
Company as the surviving corporation (the "First Merger").
Immediately after the First Merger, the Company will be merged
with and into Southside with Southside as the surviving
corporation and, subsequently, OmniAmerican Bank will be merged
into Southside's wholly owned bank subsidiary, Southside Bank,
with Southside Bank as the surviving bank. If the First Merger is
completed, shareholders of the Company will receive 0.4459 of a
share of Southside's common stock plus $13.125 in cash for each
outstanding share of OmniAmerican common stock. On October 14,
2014, OmniAmerican stockholders approved the First Merger. Also on
October 14, 2014, Southside shareholders approved the issuance of
Southside common stock to OmniAmerican stockholders in connection
with the First Merger. Completion of the mergers is subject to the
approval by the appropriate regulatory agencies and other
customary terms and conditions as described in the Merger
Agreement.

On June 25, 2014, a purported stockholder of OmniAmerican filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court") captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-C-14-003920 (the "Litigation"), naming OmniAmerican,
members of OmniAmerican's board of directors, Southside and Merger
Sub as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of
a putative class of OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a
declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action and
a certification of the plaintiff and her counsel as class
representative and class counsel. The lawsuit asserts direct and
derivative claims against OmniAmerican's directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican,
Southside and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches
by, among other things, (a) failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value for OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b)
failing to properly value OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest; (d) failing to disclose material
information necessary for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an
informed vote on the First Merger; and (e) agreeing to deal
protection devices that preclude a fair sales process. Among other
relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the mergers.

On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case
to Maryland's Business and Technology Case Management Program.
On July 29, 2014, OmniAmerican, OmniAmerican's board of directors
and Southside filed a motion to dismiss the case. On July 30,
2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to take expedited discovery.

After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain limited
discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to defendants' counsel
that they believed additional disclosures should be made available
to the stockholders of OmniAmerican. On September 12, 2014, the
defendants and the plaintiff in the Litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to
settle the Litigation in exchange for defendants' agreement to
make certain supplemental disclosures. The MOU contemplates that
the parties will prepare a definitive stipulation of settlement,
which will be subject to Court approval. If approved by the Court,
it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of
the defendants from any and all claims that were or could have
been asserted challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to
the mergers, the merger agreement or the disclosures made in
connection therewith, and that the Litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, OmniAmerican has agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures regarding the mergers in a
supplement to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The
supplemental disclosures are contained in a proxy supplement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2014,
which should be read in its entirety. In return, the plaintiff has
agreed to the dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice and to
withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all motions seeking to
enjoin the mergers. In addition, the MOU contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to agree upon an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses and that plaintiff's
counsel may petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which if granted by the Court, would be paid by
OmniAmerican or its insurers or successors. Should the parties
fail to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and expenses, the
defendants may oppose the petition for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately reach agreement on a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the proposed settlement,
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation of
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated. The proposed settlement will not
affect the consideration to be paid to stockholders of
OmniAmerican in connection with the proposed first merger.

The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and
claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the
Litigation, including that they have committed any violations of
law or breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations
of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way
or have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the
OmniAmerican directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the merger agreement with Southside and Merger Sub.
The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying the mergers, and
to provide additional information to the stockholders of
OmniAmerican at a time and in a manner that would not cause any
delay of the mergers, the defendants agreed to the settlement.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settlement Payment Fully Covered by Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment has been fully covered by insurance.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations were based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action sought damages in an unspecified
amount.

On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached
a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action.
Under the settlement in principle, the Defendants agreed to
pay$11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the "Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases,
dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other
material and customary terms and conditions.

On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment. The District Court granted preliminary
approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment on June
4, 2014, and the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment was
finally approved on November 18, 2014. The Securities Class Action
Settlement Payment was fully covered by insurance.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Hearing Held Over Posting Order Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing to finally
approve the Posting Order Settlement was scheduled for April 2,
2015.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named
as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to
the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to
customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et
al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by
plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft
charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller
machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post
payments to the plaintiffs' accounts.

On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-
district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs
amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22,
2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus
and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and
Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on
September 24, 2012.

On August 23, 2014, Synovus reached a settlement in principle with
plaintiffs' counsel to settle the Posting Order Litigation. Under
the settlement in principle, Synovus shall cause to be paid $3.75
million plus payment of $150,000 in settlement expenses (the
"Posting Order Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad
releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Posting Order Litigation
and other material and customary terms and conditions. The
District Court granted preliminary approval of the Posting Order
Settlement Payment on December 3, 2014. A hearing to finally
approve the Posting Order Settlement was scheduled for April 2,
2015. In the event the settlement in principle of the posting
Order Litigation is not finally approved by the District Court and
finally settled, Synovus intends to vigorously defend itself
against the Posting Order Litigation.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Preliminary in Nature
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the TelexFree Litigation are
preliminary in nature.

Synovus Bank has been named as one of a number of defendants in
each of the purported class action lawsuits relating to the
activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals
("TelexFree"): (i) Esam Abdelgadir, Rita Dos Santos and Joseph
Shikhman - Putative Class Members, and those similarly situated,
v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al. (Case Number 4:14-MD-02566-TSH)
filed on October 22, 2014, in the United States District Court
District of Massachusetts, and (ii) Esam Abdelgadir, Rita Dos
Santos and Joseph Shikhman - Putative Class Members, and those
similarly situated, v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al. (Case Number
14-CV-9857) filed on December 12, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. TelexFree
was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC "Base Commerce", an
independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored
by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuits generally
allege that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing
scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services
and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided
financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct
its business operations.

The proceedings and actions are preliminary in nature. To date,
Synovus Bank has not been served in either of the TelexFree cases,
and no specific claim for damages against Synovus Bank is
specified in the complaints. While Synovus and Synovus Bank intend
to vigorously defend matters arising out of the relationship
between Synovus Bank and Base Commerce and TelexFree and believe
Synovus Bank has substantial defenses related to these purported
claims, Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to these matters.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees to Pay $2.4-Bil. in Actos Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mari Yamaguchi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Japan's largest drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. said on
April 29 it has agreed to pay up to $2.4 billion to thousands of
patients and their families over its diabetes drug Actos which has
been linked to cancer.

Takeda has faced product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
about 9,000 people who say the company failed to inform them of
the drug's cancer risks.

The company said the settlement would resolve most of the lawsuits
though it does not admit liability.

The settlement will go into effect if 95 percent of the litigants
agree to the deal, and the company would pay $2.37 billion.  If
the number of participants rises to 97 or more, Takeda will pay
$2.4 billion.  The amount would be split among the plaintiffs.

Takeda said the settlement is aimed at resolving the lawsuits more
quickly and allowing the company to move on.

"Takeda's decision to settle does not change the company's
continued commitment to Actos," it said in a statement.  "The
settlement will reduce financial uncertainties for the company and
provides a significant degree of assurance toward resolving a high
percentage of the Actos product liability claims." Then Takeda can
focus on developing medicines, it said.

Takeda said it would set aside $2.7 billion against earnings in
the January-March quarter to cover the settlement and related
costs.  It would cause the company a group net loss of 145 billion
yen ($1.2 billion) for the business year ended March 31, sending
it into the red for the first time since its 1949 listing.

In one case, a jury in the U.S. District Court in western
Louisiana last year ordered Takeda and its partner Eli Lilly and
Co., which promoted the drug, to pay punitive damages, while
awarding a patient and his family compensation for his bladder
cancer linked to Actos, used to treat type-two diabetes. Following
the companies' challenge, a federal judge in October slashed the
amount of payment.  The companies have since appealed.

The settlement announced on April 29 does not involve Eli Lilly.

In a 2011 drug safety update on Actos, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration cited a 40 percent increase in bladder cancer risk
in people who used the drug for longer than a year.  It ordered
the cancer risk to be added to a warning label for the medicine,
sold since 1999.


TREAD INC: Faces "Agosto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor D. Agosto, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Tread, Inc. d/b/a Value Tire & Alignment, Vincent Bonura, Case No.
0:15-cv-60863-BB (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an auto supply store in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRULIA INC: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Stockholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trulia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding with the In re Trulia, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation plaintiffs regarding the settlement of that
action.

"Between August 7, 2014 and August 20, 2014, four plaintiffs filed
purported class action lawsuits against us and our directors,
Zillow and HoldCo in connection with the Zillow Merger," the
Company said. "Three of those purported class actions were brought
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Shue et al. v.
Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10020 (August 7, 2014), Sciabacucci
et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10022 (August 8, 2014),
and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., Case No. 10049
(August 20, 2014). The fourth of those purported class actions was
brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CGC 14-540985 (August 7, 2014)."

"Each of the lawsuits alleges that our directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price
and on unfair terms. The Collier complaint filed in Delaware and
the Sciabacucci complaint (as amended, as described below) also
allege that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted such breaches, with respect to the contents of HoldCo's
registration statement on Form S-4. All lawsuits seek, among other
things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the
Zillow Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions
also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has
already been implemented) or rescissory damages, and orders
directing the individual defendants to account for alleged damages
suffered by the plaintiff and the purported class as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

"On September 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action
filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially the same claims
and seeking substantially the same relief as in the original
complaint, and on September 24, 2014, the plaintiff filed (1) a
motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary
injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from
defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 7, 2014, the
plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10209 (October 7, 2014), alleging substantially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California. On October 8, 2014, the
plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of
the California case without prejudice. On October 13, 2014, the
Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of
the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re Trulia, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB and appointed a lead
counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the above-referenced motions
were refiled under the consolidated case number.

"On November 19, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of that action. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, with the defendants expressly denying that any of
the claims has any merit, Trulia agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, which disclosures
Trulia made in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 19, 2014.
The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement.

"The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to the
Trulia stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may not be
consummated."


TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yet
ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss the OSIC's claims.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group. The first is a purported class action complaint
that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine
Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan
C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions
unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to
recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the
defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each
defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford
(collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages
allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of
the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud
and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants
knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was
conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have
demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all
defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit,
and the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed by all parties.
The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss. In August
2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an
Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to
a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In
February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor Complaint
that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant
financial institutions.

The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. The court has not yet ruled on TNB's
motion to dismiss the OSIC's claims.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009
in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually
by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine
Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as
Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not
affiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to
recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result
of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to
other damages) under various theories and causes of action,
including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance,
conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary,
securities, and racketeering laws. The complaint does not quantify
the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case. TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012. In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.


XOOM CORPORATION: To Defend Against Alexander Liu Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the company intends to
defend against the action filed by Alexander Liu.

"On January 6, 2015, we, John Kunze and Ryno Blignaut were sued in
a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Alexander Liu v. Xoom
Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-15-543531, filed in San
Francisco Superior Court by purported stockholders of the Company,
in connection with our January 5, 2015 announcement that we were
the victim of criminal fraud resulting in the transfer of $30.8
million in corporate cash to overseas accounts," the Company said.
"On February 6, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal court in
the Northern District of California, and assigned the case number
5:15-cv-00602-LHK. The lawsuit alleges that we and Messrs. Kunze
and Blignaut violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting
and/or omitting information in the offering materials distributed
in connection with our February 2013 initial public offering.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs."

"Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, we believe that this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend against the action vigorously. We believe that
any liability resulting from this lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations."


* Judges Can Review EEOC Job Bias Settlement Efforts
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a unanimous Supreme Court ruled
on April 29 that federal judges have authority to make sure the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying hard enough to
settle charges of job discrimination before filing lawsuits
against employers.

The justices said that lower courts can review whether government
lawyers were being reasonable during settlement negotiations with
companies accused of bias.

Employers have been closely watching the case.  Many companies
have complained that the EEOC has been overly aggressive in recent
years, rushing to file costly lawsuits without trying to resolve
disputes informally.

The EEOC has a legal duty to try settling cases first, but the
question was how much a court could peer into those negotiations
to make sure the EEOC was acting in good faith.

The Obama administration argued that courts should have no role in
probing confidential settlement talks.  But business groups called
for expansive review.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan adopted a middle
ground.  She said the scope of judicial review is limited and
respects the "expansive discretion" the law gives to the EEOC over
settlement talks, known as conciliation.

Justice Kagan said the EEOC must inform an employer about specific
charges of discrimination and which employees have suffered.  And
the EEOC must try to engage the employer in a discussion to give
the company a chance to stop practices that may discriminate
against racial minorities, women or other protected groups.

Justice Kagan said the commission can simply present a sworn
affidavit saying it has met these requirements.  If a lower court
finds the EEOC has fallen short, it can require the commission to
resume settlement talks.

The case involves an appeal from an Illinois mining company sued
by the EEOC for failing to hire qualified female job applicants.
The government alleges that Mach Mining has never hired any female
miners since it began operations in 2006, despite getting
applications from many qualified women.

The company wanted the lawsuit thrown out because it claims EEOC
officials didn't try hard enough to negotiate a settlement before
going to court.  The Obama administration argued that it is solely
up to the EEOC -- not the courts -- to decide whether terms of a
settlement are acceptable.

Federal law requires the EEOC initially to try to stop illegal
employment practices by "informal methods of conference,
conciliation and persuasion."  But the law allows the EEOC to go
ahead with a lawsuit if it has been unable to reach a conciliation
agreement "acceptable to the commission."

A federal judge agreed to review whether the EEOC's attempt to
settle the case against Mach Mining was "sincere and reasonable,"
but the government objected.  The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed, saying a company could not raise ineffective
settlement effort as a defense.

The Supreme Court's ruling settles a split among appeals courts as
to how deeply judges can probe the EEOC's settlement efforts.
Some courts have required a minimal level of "good faith," while
others have performed a more thorough analysis.  The 7th Circuit
was the first appeals court to rule that employers cannot try to
dismiss EEOC lawsuits by claiming conciliation efforts were
lacking.


                             *********

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  * * *