CAR_Public/150406.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 68


                             Headlines

ALL CREATURES: Faces "Jelus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
ALGONQUIN: Judge Hears Arguments in Water Supply Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaiting Final Approval of Marcus Case Accord
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denied Approval of Kaufman Case Deal

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff in "Ross" Case Takes Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parties in "Lopez" Case Responds to Questions
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Adams Judgment Subject to Claims Admin. Process
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Court Restored Award v. Amex Bank
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Class Actions in Quebec Withdrawn in Jan.

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Authorized Class Action Against Amex Bank
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Krueger Case to Begin Trial on April 13
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Jeffers Case
BAJA MINING: June 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer's Class Suit Remanded

BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action
BARCLAYS: Faces Euribor Probe; Class Actions Stayed
BERGEN DISCOUNT: Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Faces Galactic Funk Suit Over Allocation Agreement
BP: June 8 Deadline Set for Economic & Property Damages Claims

CANADA: Court Tosses Appeal by Residential School Abuse Claimants
CANADA: Fire Chief Has Cultural Bias Against Marijuana Growers
CARY GOLF: Sued in E.D.N.C. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CELGENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Cancer Drugs
CITGO: Agrees to Settle Gasoline Retailers' "Hot Fuel" Suit

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against "Warren" Class Action
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for May 25
COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Lenses Retail Prices
DRILLING FLUIDS: Faces "Kaiduk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DUPONT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefits

EDEN MEMORIAL: Sued for Throwing Out Human Bones in Pile
EL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mori" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ESKOM: Businesses Can Sue Over Load Shedding Losses
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sex Offender Comments
FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Defending Against Overdraft Fees Class Suit

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Suspends Red Light Camera Program
FRESHDIRECT: Employees Mull Suit Over Disciplinary Actions
GAWKER MEDIA: Interns Can't Notify Class Via Social Media
GENERAL MILLS: TCE Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
GORDON CHEN'S: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Fact Discovery Stayed in Class Action
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued in D. Conn. Over Excessive Plan Premiums
HEWLETT-PACKARD: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOME CONSIGNMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura TLX Transmission Problems

HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Court Dismisses Aluminium Price-Fixing Suit
J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
JAMES HARDIE: NZ Law Firm Urges Building Owners to Join Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11,200 Plaintiffs With ASR Direct Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Reached 2nd Deal With ASR Hip Patients

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover PINNACLE(R) Defense Costs
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover Ethicon Mesh Defense Cost
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover RISPERDAL(R) Defense Cost
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Commonwealth Court Nixed AWP Monetary Awards
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retains Liability for OCD Unit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face CIO Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss CDS Case Claims Granted in Part
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settled US Class Action on WM/Reuters Service

JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Merchants Suits Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Suit on Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR Stayed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Filed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Plaintiffs Seek Writ of Certiorari

JPMORGAN CHASE: Moved to Transfer Florida Cases to New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Actions Pending v. JPMC and Bear Stearns
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Suit Over Filing of Affidavits Approved
JUST ENERGY: "Flood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Late April 2015
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Defendant in Israel Consumer Class Action
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: 9th Cir. Declined Bid to Appeal Cert. Denial
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Decision Pending in British Columbia Case
LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D.N.C. Over Harmful Spyware

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Del Braccio" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Deutsch" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Levy" in Cal. Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MASTERCARD INT'L: Attorney E-mails Spark Settlement Questions
MEDCO HEALTH: Workers Lose Bid for OT Collective Action

MERCK & CO: Judge Approves Vioxx Class Action Settlement
MERCHANTS CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says
MERRILL LYNCH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mutual Fund Fees
NEVADA: Attorney Attempts to Revive Constable Class Action
NEW CHINA EXPRESS: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

NEW YORK, NY: Judge Dismisses Officers' Discrimination Case
NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued Over Illegal Market Allocation Agreement
NORTHERN TRUST: Cuts Securities Lending Profits
NOVA SCOTIA: Reference Terms for Public Inquiry Nearly Complete
NOVARTIS CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination

NZR RETAIL: "Neitzke" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OCAMPO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paredes" Suit Says
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Actions After Staples Merger Agreement
OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Heitzenrater" Lawsuit
OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Rivet" Lawsuit

OMNICARE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
PACIFIC MARITIME: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Health Claims
PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Tanning Room Cameras
PRICELINE: York County Gets $20,000 From Tax Suit Settlement
QUALITY ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

QUANEX BUILDING: Manipulates Window Spacers Market, Suit Says
RESONANT INC: Faces "Paggos" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak Suits Likely to Increase
SWEDBANK ROBUR: Attempts to Block Closet Tracking Class Action
SYNGENTA: Debate Arises Over Seed Traits Commercialization

TCP: Minority Shareholders Seek to Oust CEO Ellis Yan
TIFFANY'S CABARET: Trial Begins in Strippers' Wage Class Action
UNIT CORP: Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Certification Issues
UNITED STATES: Federal Employees to Get Shutdown Lawsuit Notice
UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches for Deportees for Class Action

UNITED STATES: 7,000+ Immigrant Children Face Deportation
VOCE COLUMBUS: "Mahbub" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WAGNER BROTHERS: Grantham Residents Mull Quarry Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Product Misbranding

* D&O Liability Insurance Vital for Independent Directors
* Securities Settlement Values Hit 16-Year Low in 2014
* Supreme Court Limits Suits That Challenge Company Opinions


                            *********


ALL CREATURES: Faces "Jelus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keri Jelus, for herself and others similarly situated v.
All Creatures Animal Hospital, Inc., Linda Meakin, DVM, and
Daniel Meakin, DVM, Case No. 1:15-cv-00184 (S.D. Ohio, March 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

All Creatures Animal Hospital, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that is
engaged in the business of providing veterinary medicine, pet
grooming, pet training, and pet boarding.

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


ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliance Security Inc. d/b/a Alliance Guard Services,
Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00421 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Alliance Security Inc. is engaged in the business of home
protection and installing home-protection devices.

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


ALGONQUIN: Judge Hears Arguments in Water Supply Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Olson, writing for KECI 13 Missoula, reports that in a
March 6 hearing, a judge heard arguments in a series of final
motions involving Mountain Water and the City of Missoula at the
courthouse.  It had to happen before the condemnation trial for
Missoula's water supply set to begin on March 18.

A city attorney tells us that lawyers in London, Ontario,
announced an investigation into the accounting and other practices
of Algonquin.  Algonquin is a company based out of Canada that
plans to purchase Park Water which operates Mountain Water.

The lawyers in Ontario are evaluating a possible class action suit
on behalf of those who purchased shares or other securities of
Algonquin.  There's not too much information on the investigation
yet and the city expects more to unfold.

In court on March 6, the judge did not issue any rulings from the
hearings.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaiting Final Approval of Marcus Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting final approval of a
settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class actions
challenging the Company's "anti-steering" or non-discrimination
provisions, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in a putative class
action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express
Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards
and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.
The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages," the Company said.

"In December 2013, we announced a proposed settlement of the
Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging our "anti-
steering" or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement, which
provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes,
received preliminary approval in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing
was held on September 17, 2014 and we are awaiting decision."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denied Approval of Kaufman Case Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court denied
final approval of the settlement in the Kaufman case pending
further proceedings.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that our gift cards violate consumer
protection statutes because consumers allegedly have difficulty
spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the
imposition of monthly service fees. The Court preliminarily
certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions)
"all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued
by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement."

"We are also a defendant in Goodman v. American Express Travel
Related Services, a putative class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that
involves allegations similar to those made in Kaufman. Plaintiffs
in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings and will be
subject to any final settlement in Kaufman that may be approved
over their objections. On December 18, 2014, the Court denied
final approval pending further proceedings."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff in "Ross" Case Takes Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American
Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and
American Express Centurion Bank have taken an appeal, American
Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that we conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club
in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the
inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder
agreements," the Company said.  "The suit seeks injunctive relief
and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express
Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the
claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign
currency conversion rates was approved in 2012."

"On April 10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by
the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses,
the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in
favor of us. Plaintiffs have appealed."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Parties in "Lopez" Case Responds to Questions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank,
FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, are responding to the
Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes,
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that
complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class
members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. On
September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied
without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the
Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes
and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed," the
Company said.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Adams Judgment Subject to Claims Admin. Process
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a class action
captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2004, plaintiffs
allege that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a
foreign currency conversion commission on transactions to purchase
goods and services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and
failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements
or solicitations directed to prospective Card Members. The action
further alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign
currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer
Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-
day grace period under the QCPA. The class, consisting of all
personal and small business Card Members residing in Quebec that
purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to
December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversion commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs. On June 11, 2009, following
trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded damages in the
amount of approximately CDN$13.1 million plus interest on the non-
disclosure claims, and punitive damages in the amount of CDN$2.5
million. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in part, with
regard to the award of punitive damages. Amex Bank of Canada
further appealed and that appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of
Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme
Court of Canada denied the appeal. The judgment will be subject to
a Court ordered claims administration process.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Court Restored Award v. Amex Bank
----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a class action
captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in 2003, against
Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank,
Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian Bank of Canada and
Citibank Canada, plaintiffs allege that conversion commissions
made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and cannot be charged
prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA. The class
includes all persons residing in Quebec holding a credit card
issued by one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since
April 17, 2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before
expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of
account. The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience
and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs. On June 11,
2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded
damages in the amount of approximately CDN$8.3 million plus
interest on the QCPA and non-disclosure claims and punitive
damages in the amount of CDN$25 per Card Member. The Court of
Appeal overturned the decision against Amex Bank of Canada and
certain of the other co-defendants. The remaining co-defendants
and the plaintiffs appealed and that appeal was heard by the
Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19,
2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the co-defendants' appeal
but granted plaintiffs' appeal in part, partially restoring the
trial court's award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the
punitive damages award against all defendants. The judgment will
be subject to a Court ordered claims administration process.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Class Actions in Quebec Withdrawn in Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two purported class
actions raising allegations similar to those in Marcotte and Adams
have been filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal and the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City
against Amex Bank of Canada. These cases cover foreign currency
conversion commissions for the time frame starting as of January
1, 2008. These cases were withdrawn on January 28, 2015.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Authorized Class Action Against Amex Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a matter
captioned Option Consommateurs and Benoit Fortin v. Amex Bank of
Canada filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal
(originally filed in July 2003), the Court authorized a class
action against Amex Bank of Canada. The plaintiff alleges Amex
Bank of Canada violated the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the
"QCPA") by imposing finance charges on credit card transactions
prior to 21 days following the receipt of the statement containing
the charge. The class seeks reimbursement of all such finance
charges, punitive damages, interest, fees and costs.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Krueger Case to Begin Trial on April 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case entitled
Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. is
scheduled to begin trial on April 13, 2015.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the
present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance
histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options
and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its
subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA because it paid excessive record-
keeping fees, used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the
Plan trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from
the sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2012. On
April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 20, 2012. On July
3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds. On March 20, 2014, the Court filed its
decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion.

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class
Action, and by order dated May 23, 2014, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion. The case is scheduled to begin trial on April
13, 2015.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of
the case, the difficulty of predicting the likelihood of success
on the merits of any of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs'
failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Jeffers Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is awaiting the Court's ruling on the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case entitled
Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al., the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board. The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December 2012,
and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint.

On June 10, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss. On July 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, naming only Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant. On August 11, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing is complete. The Company is awaiting
the Court's ruling.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter due to the early procedural
status of the case, the absence of class certification, the lack
of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.


BAJA MINING: June 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------

To: Baja Mining Corp. Shareholders

NOTICE OF LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH STATUTORY MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM
AND NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

Read this notice carefully as your legal rights may be affected.

WHO SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE?
This notice is directed to all persons and entities, wherever they
reside or be domiciled, who acquired Baja Mining Corp.
securities between November 1, 2010 and April 23, 2012 (the
"Class Period") and who held some or all of those securities as of
April 23, 2012.

WHAT IS THIS ACTION ABOUT?
The Plaintiff, John Donohue, has commenced an action in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") against Baja
Mining Corp. ("Baja"), John Greenslade, Rowland L. Wallenius,
Michael Shaw, Adam Wright and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(collectively the "Defendants").

The Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Defendants
made misrepresentations and/or failed to make timely disclosure
of significant cost overruns and project delays related to Baja's
Boleo Project located in Baja California Sur, Mexico.

The action was also commenced against Graham Thody, C.
Thomas Ogryzlo, Wolf Seidler, Francois Marland, Giles
Baynham, Gerald Prosalendis and Kendra Low (the "Dismissed
Defendants").  On consent, the claims against the Dismissed
Defendants have been dismissed by the Court.

LEAVE TO PROCEED
On April 22, 2014, the Court granted permission (known as
"leave to proceed") to the Plaintiff to assert as against the
Defendants, the statutory cause of action for secondary market
misrepresentations in certain of Baja's public filings during the
Class Period.  Obtaining leave is a requirement under the Ontario
Securities Act and is a preliminary procedural matter.

CLASS CERTIFICATION
On April 22, 2014, the Court also certified the action as a class
proceeding (the "Class Action").  Certification is also a
procedural matter.  In granting certification, Harrison Pensa LLP
was appointed Class Counsel and Mr. John Donohue was appointed
as the Representative Plaintiff of the following class:
All persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be
domiciled, who acquired Baja securities between November
1, 2010 and April 23, 2012 and who held some or all of those
securities as of April 23, 2012. ("Class" or "Class Members")
The Class excludes the Defendants, the Dismissed Defendants
and any of their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
senior employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors or assigns.

WHAT DOES THE ORDER MEAN?
The leave to proceed and certification Order (the "Order") means
that the Court has permitted the action to proceed to trial as a
class proceeding and has granted permission to the Plaintiff to
pursue the statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act on
behalf of the Class.

The Plaintiff is only pursuing the statutory claims described
above against the Defendants.  He will not be pursuing any other
statutory or common law claims, including the claims in
conspiracy, negligence and negligent misrepresentation originally
asserted in the action.  The dismissal of those claims has been
approved by the Court.

If you wish to pursue any claims under the Ontario Securities Act
or any other claims independently against the Defendants or the
Dismissed Defendants, you should immediately seek
independent legal advice.  To bring your own claims you must
exclude yourself (a process known as "opting-out") from the
Class Action.  Please see further details below.

TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS - DO NOTHING
If you want to participate in the Class Action, you do not need to
do anything to continue to be included as a Class Member.  As a
Class Member, you will be entitled to participate in any
settlement and/or judgment and you will be legally bound by the
result of the Class Action.  You will also be bound by the terms
of any judgment or settlement, whether favorable or not, and you
may not opt-out of this action in the future.

OPTING-OUT
If you do not want to be a Class Member, you must exclude
yourself by "opting-out" of the Class Action by June 1, 2015.
Persons who opt-out will not be bound by the result of the Class
Action and will not be entitled to participate in any settlement
or judgment that may be obtained in the Class Action. You may be
able to bring your own lawsuit at your own expense.

To learn how to exclude yourself, please visit
www.bajaminingclassaction.ca or contact:

          Harrison Pensa LLP
          Attention: Jonathan J. Foreman
          450 Talbot Street, London, ON N6A 4K3
          Tel: 1-800-263-0489 ext. 759
          Fax: 1-519-667-3362
          E-mail: bajaminingclassaction@harrisonpensa.com

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES
The Class is represented by Harrison Pensa LLP.  Class Counsel
is acting on a contingency basis, meaning that they are not being
paid fees or disbursements as the Class Action proceeds.  In the
event that a recovery is obtained in the Class Action, Class
Counsel's fees and expenses will be paid out of any settlement
or judgment obtained, after a motion to the Court for approval of
such fees and expenses.  Class Members will not otherwise be
asked to pay Class Counsel's fees, disbursements and related
taxes.

MORE INFORMATION
This Notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.  The Statement of Claim, Orders of the Court and other
information is available at www.bajaminingclassaction.ca
Questions relating to this notice or this action should be
directed by email or telephone to Harrison Pensa LLP.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer's Class Suit Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that BancorpSouth Bank was
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed on
May 18, 2010, by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was
transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an
order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.

"There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to predict
the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to
this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations. However, there can be no assurance that an adverse
outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given
fiscal period," the Company said.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action
--------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no class has been
certified in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint has subsequently been amended to add
the former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and process
related to certain of its compliance programs.  The plaintiff
seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and
awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  No class has been
certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.  Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate
resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation,
management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


BARCLAYS: Faces Euribor Probe; Class Actions Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Caroline Binham, writing for the Financial Times, reports that UK
fraud investigators have called in former traders from Barclays
and Deutsche Bank for interview as suspects in their long-running
criminal probe into whether a key borrowing benchmark was rigged.
The move raises the prospect for the banks that investigations
into alleged manipulation of interbank rates will drag on for
several more years.

The Serious Fraud Office, with special government funding, is
scrutinizing whether Euribor -- a Brussels equivalent of Libor,
the London interbank offered rate -- was rigged to benefit
individuals' trading books.

While the agency has charged 13 defendants as part of its parallel
inquiries into whether the yen Libor and dollar Libor rates were
rigged, little has emerged about the SFO's progress on Euribor
since it began its official investigation back in 2012.

Former traders of Barclays and Deutsche are being called for
interviews under caution by the SFO, according to people familiar
with the probe.  However traders from other banks are also part of
the SFO's inquiries, these people said.

Interviews under caution can only take place when investigating
authorities have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.  They
precede any decisions on charging and involve individuals being
read their legal rights.

The SFO, Barclays and Deutsche declined to comment.

The SFO first announced its investigation in "relation to the
alleged manipulation of Libor and related interest rates" in July
2012, following a GBP290m fine paid by Barclays to settle US and
UK authorities' investigations, including probes into alleged
attempts to manipulate Euribor.  It quickly received special
government funding from the Treasury to pursue its sprawling Libor
investigation, which has yielded one guilty plea so far.

After the SFO started investigating Barclays, the first bank to
settle in the probe, it pursued the dual strands of Euribor and
dollar Libor, according to people familiar with the situation.
Euribor, or the Euro interbank offered rate, is calculated from
submissions made by a panel of 25 banks -- a panel that has been
trimmed from as many as 44 banks following an exodus of banks from
the rate-setting process in the wake of the wider Libor scandal.

The European Commission has so far charged seven banks over
alleged Euribor manipulation.  Barclays escaped a EUR690 million
fine from the commission in exchange for blowing the whistle on
the alleged cartel, while Deutsche paid EUR725 million to settle
allegations that it rigged both yen Libor and Euribor.

Both banks are also among defendants in class-action lawsuits
filed in the US that turn on allegations the lenders rigged
Euribor. Those lawsuits have been stayed until May.

The two banks also have unfinished business with alleged benchmark
rigging.  Deutsche has not yet paid its fines to US and UK
regulators over Libor, while neither bank was part of a global
deal with US, UK and Swiss authorities in November when six other
banks agreed to pay $4.3 billion to settle allegations over
rigging of the foreign-exchange market.

Barclays said it had set aside GBP750 million in the fourth
quarter of last year to cover the cost of investigations into
suspected forex manipulation, taking total provisions for the
issue to GBP1.25 billion.

The timing of Barclays' forex settlement is still uncertain
because of New York's Department of Financial Services.  It is
holding up a deal between the bank and the UK Financial Conduct
Authority, the US Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission that is otherwise near to being signed off.


BERGEN DISCOUNT: Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Keldy Ortiz and Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily
News, report that the discounts at a chain of dollar stores also
appeared on the company payroll, a lawsuit charges.

Fifteen workers -- most of them undocumented -- at the stores in
the Bronx and Queens say they were paid as little as $2.27 an hour
for 11-hour days, six days a week, with no overtime.  If they got
any lunch break at all, it was only 15 minutes, documents filed in
Manhattan Federal Court charge.

"They treated us like trash," said Carlos Laguna, 45, who worked
three years at Bergen Discount on Willis Ave. in the Bronx.

"How do you have so many stores and not pay?"

By the time he quit his job stocking shelves and unloading
deliveries last year, he was earning a mere $5.45 an hour, he
said. The current minimum wage in New York is $8.75.

The suit alleges that the chain of 10 stores, with names like
Dollar Rite Discount Warehouse and Barato Discount Store, has
prospered on the backs of underpaid undocumented workers.

"Upon protesting their sweatshop wages and conditions, plaintiffs
were repeatedly advised . . . that plaintiffs would not receive a
job elsewhere without documentation, and that defendants would
report the plaintiffs to immigration authorities if they said
anything," court papers said, alleging the abuses have been in
place since 1986.

Laguna and his fellow workers seek $2 million in unpaid wages,
overtime and damages for their work at the stores, which sell
cheap fabrics, kitchenware, cleaning supplies and other sundries.

That sum could grow immensely if Federal Judge Robert Sweet
approves the suit as a class action, granting Adam Slater, the
lawyer for the plaintiffs, access to the company's payroll since
2008.  That could expand the potential number of plaintiffs and
damages.

"These guys need that pay.  They rely on it," Mr. Slater said.

Michael Menon, 70, the co-owner of Bergen Discount, which serves
as the chain's headquarters, would not talk about the lawsuit.
But he couldn't hide his disdain for Laguna, who is a leader of
the plaintiffs.

"He's a criminal," Mr. Menon said.

Mr. Menon's attorney, Michael Chong, said many of the plaintiffs
never even worked at the stores and were just "jumping on the
bandwagon."

Workers not involved in the suit didn't dispute the allegations of
brutal shifts with minimal breaks.

Jorge Pena, 54, said he works 10-hour shifts for $6 an hour as a
security guard.

"They think about themselves and treat others like slaves,"
Mr. Pena said about his bosses.  "I took a half-hour break, they
got upset.  This is off-the-boat money!"


BLUE CROSS: Faces Galactic Funk Suit Over Allocation Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Kansas, Case No. 2:15-cv-02662 (D. Kan., March 16, 2015), arises
out of the illegal market allocation agreements that limit or
prohibit competition between each of the Individual Blue Plans
(including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas) and Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association (BCBSA).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas is a health insurance plan
operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and
trade names in Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg Wright, Esq.
      Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
      WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC
      6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 534-8534
      Facsimile: (913) 534-8536
      E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com
              chuck@wrightschimmel.com

         - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8200
      Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
      E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

          - and -

      Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
      PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
      2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 322-8880
      Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
      E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

         - and -

      William A. Isaacson, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 237-2727
      Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
      E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Gregory Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
      7031 Halcyon Park Drive
      Montgomery, AL 36117
      Telephone: (334) 832-9080
      Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
      E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

         - and -

      Megan Jones, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 744-1970
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
      10 West State Street, Suite 200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 797-3339
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
      E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com 0

         - and -

      Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
      100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
      Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
      Telephone: (410) 949-1145
      Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
      E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com


BP: June 8 Deadline Set for Economic & Property Damages Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
June 8, 2015 has been established as the deadline to submit a
claim in the Economic and Property Damages ("E&PD") Settlement
with BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production
Company ("BP") related to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.  All
eligible Class Members must act soon.

The E&PD Settlement Class includes people, businesses, other
entities, and properties in the states of Louisiana, Alabama and
Mississippi, and certain counties in Texas and Florida, that were
harmed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April
20, 2010.  The website www.DeepwaterHorizonSettlements.com has
detailed descriptions and maps of the included geographic
locations to help Class Members determine whether they are a part
of the E&PD Settlement Class.  Additionally, Class Members can
call 1-866-992-6174 or e-mail
questions@DeepwaterHorizonEconomicSettlement.com to find out if a
geographic location is included.

The settlement provides payments for economic loss or property
damage because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  By submitting
a claim, Class Members can request a payment in one or more of the
following seven categories:

   -- Economic Damage
   -- Loss of Subsistence
   -- Vessel Physical Damage
   -- Real Property Sales Damage
   -- Vessels of Opportunity Charter Payment
   -- Coastal Real Property Damage
   -- Wetlands Real Property Damage

Economic Damage payments are available for Individuals and
Entities that lost profits or earnings as a result of the
Deepwater Horizon Incident.  Coastal Real Property payments are
available for property that was physically damaged in connection
with the Deepwater Horizon Incident.  Detailed descriptions of all
seven categories are available at the website.

There is no limit on the total dollar amount of the E&PD
Settlement.  All qualified and timely claims will be paid in full
once they are approved.  The Settlement also allowed for Seafood
Compensation claims, but the deadline for those claims has passed.

Class Members must submit a Claim Form to request a payment.
Class Members can get a copy of the various Claim Forms by
visiting the website or by calling 1-866-992-6174.  Claims can be
submitted online or by mail.  The claims deadline is June 8, 2015.


CANADA: Court Tosses Appeal by Residential School Abuse Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that the B.C.
Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeals of four aboriginal
people who missed a deadline to claim compensation for alleged
sexual or physical abuse at Indian residential schools.

Ivor Deneway Myers, John Douglas Blackbird, Louise Pierre and
Ronald George Martin claimed that their former lawyers were to
blame for them missing the September 2012 deadline.

Their lawyers on the appeal argued that B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Brenda Brown erred when she refused to extend the deadline, which
was imposed under an agreement in a national class-action lawsuit
involving claims by thousands of victims of residential schools.

But in a ruling released on March 6, a three-judge panel of B.C.'s
highest court found that while all sympathies favored the
appellants, the deadline was intended to be absolute.

"The residential schools system is one of the darkest chapters of
our history and its pernicious effects continue to be felt even to
this day," Chief Justice Robert Bauman said in his reasons for
judgment.

"However, in my respectful view, much as our sympathies might
encourage us to be expansive in our interpretation of the
(agreement) to permit the appellants to benefit from the
(process), we must not do so."

To make an exception of the claimants could open the door to many
more claimants and would amount to "bad law," said Justice Bauman.

The four appellants were seeking compensation under one of two
components -- the one dealing with specific claims of alleged
sexual or serious physical abuse -- established by the class-
action agreement.

The other component, dealing with common experiences for all
eligible former students of residential schools, had a deadline of
September 2011, or September 2012 in special cases.  Courts were
given powers to extend that deadline to access $1.9 billion that
the federal government placed in trust for claimants.

But for specific abuse claims, which had no pre-set limit on
compensation, the agreement stipulated that if applications for
compensation were not made by the deadline, those claims were
"forever extinguished."

Justice Bauman's ruling was agreed to by Justices Daphne Smith and
Peter Willcock.

Colin Flannigan, a Kelowna lawyer representing Myers on the
appeal, said his client was "obviously very disappointed" by the
ruling.

"This whole experience has been very difficult for him."

Mr. Flannigan said no decision has been made on whether to seek
leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, the
country's highest court.


CANADA: Fire Chief Has Cultural Bias Against Marijuana Growers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Hall, writing for Metro News, reports that Surrey's fire
chief has a "cultural bias" against licensed marijuana grow-ops,
which is why he wrongly concludes they are more dangerous than
regular residences, an expert witness is expected to testify at a
Vancouver court case.

Surrey Fire Chief Len Garis, an adjunct criminology professor at
the University of the Fraser Valley and an expert witness for the
federal government in a constitutional challenge of Canada's
medical marijuana laws, concluded there was a higher incidence of
fires at homes with both illicit and legal marijuana grow-ops.

Mr. Garis was set to be called as a witness on March 9 when the
case resumes in Federal Court in Vancouver.

John Conroy, the lawyer representing four people who have licenses
to grow medical marijuana, plans to call another fire expert to
rebut Garis' evidence.

In an affidavit filed in court, Tim Moen, who has a Masters degree
from Royal Roads University and is the fire captain and battalion
chief of Fort McMurray, Alberta, states that Mr. Garis has a
"cultural confirmation bias" against marijuana grow-ops so only
sees evidence to confirm that homes with grow-ops have a higher
incidence of fire.

A fire might have started as a result of low-income residents
doing renovations that don't comply with fire or building codes,
or because a house is old, but Mr. Garis "is likely never exposed
to any information other than marijuana grow operations are the
cause of a fire in question," Moen said.

"I have reviewed the statistics provided in Mr. Garis' report
. . . and I disagree with his conclusion that licensed grow
operations at residential properties have a higher incidence of
fires than other residential properties," Mr. Moen's affidavit
said.

Mr. Moen maintains homes with authorized medical marijuana grow
sites have the same level of fire risk as other residences -- 0.24
per cent.

"In other words," Mr. Moen added, "as of the end of 2013, 99.97
percent of licensed marijuana grow sites in B.C. had not
experienced a fire since they had been set up."

The Surrey fire chief has concluded that homes with marijuana
grow-ops pose fire, electrical and mould hazards for residents, as
well as for first responders and others visiting the residence.

Until last year, the federal government allowed medical marijuana
users to grow their own pot or have a designated person to grow it
for them.  But under Canada's new Marijuana for Medical Purposes
Regulations (MMPR), the government requires patients obtain their
marijuana from federally approved commercial growers.

The judge, however, granted an injunction last year to allow the
plaintiffs to continue growing their own until the case is
decided.

The plaintiffs filed the proposed class-action lawsuit, claiming
the new law unreasonably limits their Section 7 Charter rights, so
patients should be allowed to continue growing their own strains
of pot.

The case was expected to start hearing international marijuana law
experts from the U.S., Israel and Amsterdam on March 4.


CARY GOLF: Sued in E.D.N.C. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah C., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Carl Jerry Reid, Jr., Cary Golf And Travel, Inc. f/k/a Pure
Gold, Inc., Wilmington Golf and Travel, Inc., RJ Foods Wilmington,
LLC and Does 1-10, Case No. 7:15-cv-00055 (E.D.N.C., March 17,
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 five adult entertainment facilities
in Nashville, Tennessee, Cary, Wilmington and Southern Pines,
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
      PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
      100 Europa Dr., Suite 250
      Chapel Hill, NC 27517
      Telephone: (919) 942-5200
      Facsimile: (919) 942-5256
      E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com


CELGENE CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Cancer Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that there's the $65 million
dollar question facing Celgene Corp.  They were hit with an
antitrust class action lawsuit filed by The City of Providence in
New Jersey, alleging the pharmaceutical company monopolized the
market for two of its blockbuster cancer drugs by blocking its
competitors' access to samples necessary to bring generic versions
to market.

According to the potential class action, Celgene is using risk
evaluation and mitigation strategies, a federal drug safety
measure, to prevent competitors such as Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
from gaining access to samples for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those
samples are necessary for the Food and Drug Administration test
for generic equivalency.

According to the lawsuit, "Due to Celgene's monopolistic and
anticompetitive conduct, plaintiff, and all other consumers and
third-party payors, paid higher prices to treat leprosy and
multiple myeloma than they otherwise would have absent Celgene's
conduct."  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges those prices have
risen upwards of 3,400 percent since the initial approval of the
treatments by the FDA in 1998. The lawsuit contends that one
Revlimid pill sells for approximately $500.

The suit is City of Providence v. Celgene Corporation, case number
2:15-cv-01605, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


CITGO: Agrees to Settle Gasoline Retailers' "Hot Fuel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that the country's
largest oil companies have agreed to shell out millions to resolve
allegations that they failed to disclose the impact of hot weather
on the price of fuel.  But when a Kansas federal judge considers a
slew of proposed settlements later this year, at least two groups
will be sounding alarm bells.

In separate filings on March 23, Theodore Frank of the Center for
Class Action Fairness and a group of gasoline retailers --
including 7-Eleven Inc., Flying J Inc., Sheetz Inc. and Wawa Inc.
-- lodged objections to deals meant to end the 7-year-old "hot
fuel" litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Kathryn H.
Vratil in Kansas City, Kansas.

Plaintiffs in the case, represented by lawyers at Korein Tillery
and Horn Aylward & Bandy, alleged that oil companies and gas
retailers failed to adjust prices to account for hot temperatures
expanding the volume of gas and, in turn, diluting the energy
content of fuel sold by the gallon.  Though some defendants,
including objector 7-Eleven, went to trial and won, most opted to
settle.

Judge Vratil is now considering 28 proposed settlements that fall
roughly into two categories.  One encompasses 24 settlements with
Citgo, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and other oil companies, which
agreed to pay a total of $24.5 million to help offset the costs of
installing automatic temperature compensation gas pumps in states
where summers tend to be warmer.  Some of the settlement funds
would go directly to retail gas stations, while the remainder
would go to state weights and measures agencies to reduce their
costs in making sure ATC conversion takes place legally, according
to court filings.  None of the money would go directly to
consumers.

In a second category, four defendants -- Casey's General Stores
Inc., Dansk Investment Group Inc., Sam's Club and Valero Energy
Group -- won't pay any money, but agreed to eventually install ATC
gas pumps at their stations.

Mr. Frank's CCAF and the gasoline retailers argue in the March 23
filings that the various settlement agreements are plagued with
problems.  Because none of the money would go directly to
consumers, Frank wrote in his objection, the only real benefits
are for the proposed class representatives and plaintiffs lawyers,
who could rake in as much as $15 million.

Both groups of objectors also noted that the potential adoption of
ATC pumps at gas stations is subject to political debate, with
critics arguing that the conversion may actually raise prices.
Since much of the settlement money is intended to defray state
agencies' costs in overseeing a switch to ATC pumps, the
settlements are effectively compelling political speech in
violation of the First Amendment, the objectors argue.

"This feels uncomfortably close to political bribery," Mr. Frank
wrote in his objection.  He reiterated his opposition to the deals
when we caught up with him on March 31.

"It's a zero dollar settlement," Mr. Frank said.  "The lawyers are
the only people getting paid, and the relief is to require
lobbying for a means of selling gasoline that would make consumers
worse off."

Law.com also reached out to Robert Horn, one of the lead
plaintiffs lawyers, but didn't hear back on March 31.  Jonathan
Massey of Massey & Gail serves as lead counsel for the objecting
gas retailers.  He didn't respond to a request for comment.

Among other firms, the defense lineup includes Arnold & Porter
(for BP plc); Latham & Watkins (for Chevron Corp.); Eimer Stahl
(for Citgo); Weil, Gotshal & Manges (for ExxonMobil); Davis Wright
Tremain (for Shell); Dechert (for Sunoco); and Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld (for Valero).


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against "Warren" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a customer filed on
August 15, 2014, a purported class action complaint against
Commerce Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.  The
case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No. 1416-
CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The case seeks class-action status
for Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been similarly
affected.  The Company believes the complaint lacks merit and will
defend itself vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure
cannot be determined with certainty at this time.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for May 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class
certification hearing is currently scheduled for May 25, 2015.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

The class has not been certified. The class certification hearing
is currently scheduled for May 25, 2015. Plaintiffs have indicated
that if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of
$165 million which may increase with the passage of time, a
majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company
disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the
requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the
case.


COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Lenses Retail Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cora Beth Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coopervision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No.
1:15-cv-21069 (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      City National Bank Building
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: rjosefsberg@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Volin, Esq.
      Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
      REZVANI VOLIN, P.C.
      1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., 10th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 350-4270
      Facsimile: (202) 351-0544
      E-mail: rvolin@rezvanivolin.com
              trezvani@rezvanivolin.com


DRILLING FLUIDS: Faces "Kaiduk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Kaiduk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Drilling Fluids Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00084 (N.D. Tex., March 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Drilling Fluids Technology, Inc. is a Texas-based company that
offers specialty oilfield chemicals the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay Rae Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77000
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


DUPONT: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for The News Journal, reports that retirees
are planning to file a class action against DuPont.

A few years ago the wife of DuPont retiree Dick Cornelia needed a
$45,000 operation to replace her right knee.  A combination of
Medicare and the supplemental health insurance he receives from
his former company reduced the surgery's cost to only $300.  With
just Medicare alone, the surgery would have cost $8,000, he said.

Mr. Cornelia, 77, is one of an estimated 81,000 DuPont retirees,
including 10,000 in Delaware, who count upon supplemental health
insurance from the company.  In 2012, the company adopted a health
reimbursement account paying $1,400 to single retirees and $2,800
to married retirees for the purchase of health benefits from
insurers.  Mr. Cornelia said he is extremely concerned about
Nelson Peltz's plans for the company, fearing the account will be
eliminated in an effort to cut costs.

Mr. Peltz owns roughly $1.9 billion of DuPont stock through his
hedge fund, Trian Fund Management.  He has initiated a proxy war
to place four candidates, including himself, on the company's
board.  If Mr. Peltz is successful, his board members will lobby
DuPont to spin off its nutrition and health and agriculture units.

Although Mr. Peltz has not threatened to cut DuPont retiree health
benefits, his actions at ketchup maker Heniz have Cornelia and his
fellow retirees worried.  Trian initiated a proxy war at Heinz in
2006 that resulted in Mr. Peltz and Micheal Weinstein joining the
company's board.  In 2010, while both were active directors, Heinz
stopped providing retirees with health insurance and created a
reimbursement account.  The company started with a $7,000
contribution the first year, but eventually lowered it to $3,500,
according to media reports.

Mr. Peltz has vowed to reduce between $2 billion and $4 billion of
excess corporate costs he claims the company has incurred.  At an
average of roughly $2,800 a year per couple, cutting retiree
health benefits could save DuPont as much as $227 million a year.

Mr. Cornelia, a 30-year DuPont employee who retired 16 years ago,
is facing an eye operation.  He is not sure how much the procedure
will cost, but added the DuPont supplemental health insurance will
pay for at least a portion of it.

"A lot of retirees are on limited incomes," he said.  "They rely
on it a lot."

A Trian spokesperson said the fund is aware of retiree concerns.

"As one of DuPont's largest stockholders, Trian has a clear
interest in the long-term success of the company." the
spokesperson said.  "Our interests are fully aligned with those of
DuPont's current and former employees, customers, stockholders and
the Wilmington community. If elected, Trian's nominees will strive
to help DuPont to always be in a position to honor its obligations
to current and retired employees."

Mr. Cornelia and three other DuPont employees have discussed the
possibility of filing a class action lawsuit if the company
reduces or eliminates retiree health benefits.  They have not yet
spoken with attorney about a potential case.

Dan Turner, a DuPont spokesperson, said the company had no comment
on the retiree's concerns.

"If we make Peltz and others aware we are willing to file a class
action suit if they take this kind of action, it might be enough
to prevent him from doing that," Mr. Cornelia continued.  "He may
not want the bad press."

Unfortunately for Mr. Cornelia, there are no federal or state
regulations prohibiting companies from eliminating or reducing
retiree health care benefits.  The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, or ERISA, does not protect retiree health benefits.
Under ERISA, a 1974 federal statute, retirees can only challenge a
reduction in health benefits under breach of contract claims.

Norman P. Stein teaches pension and employee benefits law at
Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law.  He said there
are very few options available to retirees fighting a reduction in
health benefits.

"It is very difficult to prevail when a company wants to cut
retiree health benefits," he said.  "If you don't have a pretty
clear contractual right, there is very little you can do. Courts
are not very sympathetic to these cases."

The retirees said they are unsure if DuPont made an explicit
guarantee for health benefits.  Mr. Corneila recalled his boss
promising him full healthcare upon retirement when he signed an
employment contract 46 years ago. However, he conceded he didn't
know the contract's specific language.

"Part of my contract is for lifetime healthcare, but what exactly
was written in the contract, I don't know," he said.

Carl Vorhees, 68, worked in DuPont's engineering department for 40
years, retiring in 2010.  He is concerned about his health
benefits and would join Cornelia in a class-action suit, if
necessary.

"Retirees don't bring any value to the company," he said.
"Anything DuPont can get back from the retirees in terms of money
they will and health care is an easy target."

With no legal protections, the DuPont retirees' best option might
be making the public.  But Mr. Stein said such efforts are
unlikely sway an activist investor like Mr. Peltz.

"They strongest weapon they have is the court of public opinion,"
Mr. Stein added.  "They can persuade the public, but someone is
not going spend $243million because he wants the public to like
them."

Another retiree, Joe Samluck, left DuPont after 37 years in
textiles.  He still owns shares of DuPont stock, something the
other retirees said they sold to fund college educations.
Mr. Samluck is aware of Mr. Peltz's track record of increasing
stock value, but said the gains won't offset the loss of his
health coverage.

"I'd rather have my healthcare than anything I would get for my
shares," he said.


EDEN MEMORIAL: Sued for Throwing Out Human Bones in Pile
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Abram, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reports that one
of the nation's largest Jewish cemeteries and the resting place of
such notables as Groucho Marx has been sued for a second time,
accused of breaking vaults to make way for new graves and throwing
out human bones in a pile.

In a civil lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, more than
60 people accuse Eden Memorial Park in Mission Hills of
negligence, tortuous interference with the dispose of remains,
fraud and causing emotional distress for destroying graves and
discarding human remains to make room for new burials.  The suit
seeks millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit comes about a year after Eden Memorial's parent
company, Service Corporation International, settled with families
in a previous case for $80.5 million for similar complaints at the
same cemetery. In the latest lawsuit, family members allege that
they were not told when they bought plots in areas of the cemetery
where groundskeepers were instructed to make new graves fit even
if it required breaking outer burial containers in adjacent
graves.  The work caused remains to be disturbed or disposed in a
pile on the cemetery grounds, according to the lawsuit.

"Current and former groundskeepers at the cemetery have admitted
that breaking burial vaults will often cause human remains to
spill out of the broken vaults," according to the latest
complaint.  "In such situations, the groundskeepers were
instructed by their supervisors to throw away the bones and other
remains in the Cemetery Dump located on the cemetery premises."

Service Corporation International, which owns Eden Memorial Park,
did not return calls or emails requesting a response.

Attorney Gary Praglin, whose firm is representing the plaintiffs,
said this lawsuit is a follow-up to the last one.  The first
lawsuit was filed in 2009 and covered complaints from 1985 until
then. This second one includes families who bought plots or buried
loved ones before or after that time, or else who were not part of
the last class-action lawsuit, Mr. Praglin said.

Mr. Praglin said the cemetery should have told customers about the
plots they bought, where they were located and what was happening
there.

"It was concealed from them," Mr. Praglin said.  "None of this was
disclosed. It's a horrible violation of trust."


EL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mori" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Percy Mori, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. El Asset Management, Inc., Sonny Shaikh, and Michael
Schivone, Case No. 1:15-cv-01991 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

El Asset Management, Inc. is a New York corporation that provides
financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Liane Fisher, Esq.
      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
      E-mail: liane@serrinsfisher.com
              michael@serrinsfisher.com


ESKOM: Businesses Can Sue Over Load Shedding Losses
---------------------------------------------------
Fatima Schroeder, writing for iOL, reports that businesses that
have suffered major losses as a result of load shedding should not
rule out damages claims against Eskom, an attorney has said.

However, consumers who suffer smaller losses because of damage to
appliances and electronic devices, will have to turn to insurers
for protection.

"The big question is whether a claim could be brought against
Eskom for its persistent failure to attend to the necessary
maintenance," Tzvi Brivik of attorneys, Malcolm Lyons & Brivik
said.

The answer is that individual consumers will have a difficult time
lodging such applications because of the value of their claims.
However, businesses that suffer major losses could take the issue
to court, as well as consumers who come together in a class
action.

He suggested consumers scrutinize their insurance policies to make
sure their expensive appliances and electronic devices are covered
or shop around for policies that fit their needs.

"Whereas in the past insurers may have considered claims for
damage to electrical appliances or loss of production, depending
on whether in the home or work environment, it seems now that
insurers are turning these claims away as the outages have become
de rigeur.

"Consumers of electricity are now expected to foresee the harm
which is likely to be caused and to take action to prevent such
harm.  Failure to do so would preclude a claim both in terms of
the insurance agreement and possibly against Eskom," Mr. Brivik
said.  However, he said this had not yet been tested in court.

Samantha Solomons -- samantha@mindes.co.za -- of Minde Shapiro and
Smith Attorneys agreed that consumers' options depend largely on
what their insurance policies stated.

However, she pointed out that for those who work, it was not
always possible to switch off appliances in the event that there
was a planned power outage.

Loadshedding might be suspended, she said.

"The risk is not worthwhile."

As far as damages claims were concerned, Ms. Solomons pointed out
that businesses which suffered massive losses could lodge claims
against Eskom or the connectivity providers in their
municipalities.

A business representative body could even consider a class action
against the government, which is ultimately responsible for the
supply of electricity, she said.

Shaheid Schrueder of Schrueder Attorneys raised a further matter:
"The lack of electricity also causes security concerns with risks
of higher burglaries and robberies during load shedding."

He said insurers could refuse claims on the grounds that consumers
failed to prevent damage and unnecessary losses.

However, he said loadshedding had led to a situation in which
consumers' rights to basic services were no longer guaranteed, as
in the constitution.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sex Offender Comments
-----------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that Facebook has been included in a class action
against a convicted pedophile who allegedly posted comments on
social media gloating about his sex crimes against a girl.

The Tasmanian Sexual Assault Support Service on March 9 revealed
plans to launch a class action against the man, as well as
indirect parties Facebook, the parole board and the sex offenders
register, claiming breach of the anti-discrimination act.

Service chief Liz Little said the man's comments were demeaning
and vilified the girl.

"He has also justified his behavior, that it wasn't in fact
pedophilia or engaging in any form of sex that was harmful," she
told ABC radio.

"The Act prohibits people doing things that we know would create
hurt and shame for a victim of sexual abuse, but it also could
amount to victimization under the anti-discrimination act."

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was 58 when
sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail by Tasmania's Supreme
Court for having sex with a girl aged under 17, the age of consent
in the state.  He was released in March 2013 and remains on the
child sex offender register.

Since his release, the man has posted a series of online comments,
including that he is the envy of many men across Australia, The
Mercury reported.  Facebook said the account has been deactivated
and that convicted sex offenders are not allowed to join the
social media service.  But Ms Little said Facebook has a case to
answer as an indirect respondent in the class action, for enabling
distribution of the man's comments.

"Facebook have a consent form, when people sign up to it, where
they do ask people if they're sex offenders," she said.

"If you write 'no' then you go through.

"What are the duties of Facebook to check they are telling the
truth?"

In a brief statement, Facebook said it works closely with law
enforcement agencies and removes the profiles of convicted sex
offenders when they are reported.

Tasmanian police Assistant Commissioner Donna Adams said
detectives will "examine the circumstances surrounding the
matter".

Ms Little's class action is due to be lodged with the state's
Anti-Discrimination Commissioner later this week.

"The end point of this is to start trying to get the sorts of
legislative changes and ongoing protections that we need for
victims of sexual abuse, particularly children victims of sexual
abuse," she said.

Tasmanian police minister Rene Hidding is aware of the class
action and said the government is already looking at a review of
the community protection act to determine if legislative changes
are necessary.


FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Defending Against Overdraft Fees Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA"), a
subsidiary of FHN, is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in connection with debit
card transactions. A key claim is that the method used to order or
sequence the transactions posted each day was improper. The case
is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association,
before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No.
CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5
million, unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified
punitive damages, among other things.

"FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is
subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class
will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims
as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies
that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of
potentially significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or for
summary judgment; and the incomplete status of the discovery
process," the Company said.


FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Suspends Red Light Camera Program
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Schuler, writing for NBC6, reports that the City of Fort
Lauderdale is temporarily suspending its red light camera program,
officials said on March 6.

The move comes a week after a Broward County judge ruled the
program violates state statute.

"I'm surprised that the legal counsel for all of these
jurisdictions didn't realize there was an alternative to do this,
back when the appellate court first made its decision," attorney
Gary Kollin said.

Mr. Kollin represents ticketed drivers from five local cities who
are pursuing a class action lawsuit to get their money back.  He
said the private company hired by Fort Lauderdale and others,
American Traffic Solutions, actually issued the citations without
having the law enforcement power to do so.

"My particular clients, they're happy they're in suit, they're
going to get their monies back, they thought they were improper or
illegal to begin with," Mr. Kollin said.

In addition to those who have already paid citations, Mr. Kollin
said the city's decision should clear the way for drivers who
still owe payment on red light tickets.

"It appears that all of those tickets are going to be thrown out,"
Mr. Kollin said.  "As far as I'm concerned, we're still processing
these five suits and there could be hundreds more throughout the
state."

Drivers who have received or paid for a red light ticket are
advised by Mr. Kollin to hold on to the paperwork for now.

City officials said the city manager plans to discuss the issue
with the mayor and city commissioners at a March 17 meeting.


FRESHDIRECT: Employees Mull Suit Over Disciplinary Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
The Grio's Blue Telusma reports that according to the NY Daily
News, on March 9, the union representing more than 900 FreshDirect
workers was planning to file a suit against the company for firing
and disciplining employees who couldn't show up to work -- during
what could have arguably been considered snow days.

The conflict originates back to a storm that hit New York City on
Jan. 4, 2014.

According to the Daily News, at the time, Mayor de Blasio and
Gov. Cuomo declared a state of emergency and said only essential
service workers should be on the roads.  At FreshDirect, workers
were expected to show up despite the weather.

But many employees could not make it in.   According to UFCW Local
2013, which represents the workers, 75 employees received written
warnings, two were suspended and one was discharged because of
their absences.

Those penalized included Juan Altreche, 44, a depot driver earning
$20.50 an hour.

"I had slipped trying to take the subway to work," Mr. Altreche
recalled.  "I messed up my back a little bit, and I said, 'You
know what? I'm going back home.  This is ridiculous.'  The next
day they gave me the write-up."

That move put Mr. Altreche -- who has worked for the company for
11 years -- one step closer to termination.

Last June, an arbitrator ruled that FreshDirect should reverse the
disciplinary actions. Instead of heeding this verdict, they went
to federal court on Dec. 30 to contest the ruling.

"That's denying them justice under the terms agreed to under the
collective bargaining agreement," said union president Louis
Mark Carotenuto.  "They shouldn't use tactics like this to delay
justice for the workers."

Recently, Mr. Altreche had to take a day off for a family
emergency and was shocked when the company went as far as to
suspend him for a week without pay.  Adding that disciplinary
action to the one from last year means that if he misses even a
single day of work again, he's out of a job.


GAWKER MEDIA: Interns Can't Notify Class Via Social Media
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that a
New York federal judge Thursday denied a bid by a group of Gawker
interns to disseminate notice of their class action settlement
through social media, saying their proposal lacks any realistic
notion of specifically targeting its potential opt-in plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan said the plaintiffs' proposed
plan to post notices on Tumblr and on Reddit pages such as
"r/OccupyWallStreet" and "r/Progressive" would call the attention
of individuals not connected to the Fair Labor Standards Act suit
rather than individuals with opt-in rights, adding that the
purpose of FLSA notice is to inform eligible plaintiffs to opt in
to the collective action, not to advertise the defendants' alleged
violations.

She also said the plaintiffs' proposed use of Twitter, LinkedIn
and Facebook was overbroad, saying the court had approved use of
social media notice with the understanding that it would contain
private, personalized notifications sent to identified potential
plaintiffs who may not be reachable otherwise and not public-
facing notices such as general tweets or publicly accessible
groups.

"The proposals are substantially overbroad for the purposes of
providing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and much of
plaintiffs' plan appears calculated to punish defendants rather
than provide notice of opt-in rights," the judge said.

The judge denied the motion without prejudice, but added that she
would under no circumstance extend the 60-day notice period that
has already started for plaintiffs to revise the plan.

In November, named plaintiffs Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson --
former unpaid interns for blogs run by Gawker and its founder and
co-defendant Nick Denton 00 got a green light to use social media
to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs about their right to join
the FLSA collective action, Gawker took aim last month at the
plaintiffs' "social media plan" in a letter filed with the court.

Notice of a collective action is usual a "one-time event," but the
ex-interns want repeated contact and "ongoing dialogue" with
potential plaintiffs instead of limiting their interaction to a
court-approved notice, the company said.

Gawker is just one of many targets in a string of recent lawsuits
brought by interns over wages.  The Gawker suit, filed in June
2013, said the company hired unpaid or underpaid interns to do
work central to its business model, and leveled minimum-wage and
record-keeping claims at it.

The proper standard for determining whether an individual is an
intern or an employee covered by wage law is currently before the
Second Circuit in appeals involving the Hearst Corp. and Fox
Entertainment Group Inc.

In light of the prior ruling allowing social media notice, Gawker
said in February that it was OK with the creation of a Facebook
page called "GawkerInternLawsuit," but said it should be a "page"
rather than a "group."  It also took issue with a proposal to have
plaintiffs counsel add would-be plaintiffs as Facebook friends.

As for Twitter, Gawker objected to proposed hashtags, arguing that
"#fairpay" and "#livingwage" are "inflammatory," and if approved,
would indicate that the court has a position on the lawsuit's
merits. Instead, it argued that if any hashtag is allowed to be
used, it should be "#gawkerinternlawsuit."

The company didn't object to the creation of a LinkedIn group but
proposed some amendments to the plaintiffs' plan.  However, it
urged the court to decline to permit notice posting on Tumblr and
said there was "little to be gained" from posting case information
on Reddit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andrea Maria Paparella --
apaparella@liddlerobinson.com -- and Robert Adler --
radler@liddlerobinson.com -- of Liddle & Robinson LLP.

Gawker is represented by Mark W. Batten -- mbatten@proskauer.com
-- of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is Mark et al v. Gawker Media LLC et al., case number
1:13-cv-04347, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


GENERAL MILLS: TCE Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------
Alida Tieberg, writing for Minnesota Daily, reports that residents
of the Southeast Como neighborhood were granted a class-action
lawsuit against General Mills, attorneys announced on March 4,
following their concerns of a potentially harmful vapor seeping
into neighborhood homes.

Three residents were looking to sue the company last fall,
claiming a former General Mills facility on Hennepin Avenue dumped
TCE, also known as trichloroethylene, and put their health and
homes' value at risk.  The claims were given class-action status,
uniting the property owners and their claims against the company,
according to a court order by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on
Feb. 27.

Jackie Milbrandt, one of the three residents, said receiving the
class-action certification was a good step toward resolving their
concerns.

"This gives me a huge amount of hope that actual cleanup that
needs to happen is actually going to move into action," she said.

However, attorneys told residents at a Southeast Como neighborhood
meeting on Wednesday that General Mills will likely appeal the
court decision for a class-action lawsuit, forcing the residents
to carry their claims forward individually.

According to a complaint filed by the residents in U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota last year, General Mills
dumped 15,000 gallons of TCE near its former Hennepin Avenue
property over the course of nearly two decades.

If they wouldn't have been granted class-action status, the
residents would have had to proceed with their claims against
General Mills individually -- a more expensive option.

Now, the owners of nearly 400 area residential properties are
automatically entered into the lawsuit, but they can opt out once
court-ordered letters are sent from attorneys in the upcoming
months.

Prolonged exposure to TCE can lead to birth defects and kidney and
liver cancers.

A study from the Minnesota Department of Health found the number
of birth defects in the neighborhood was normal compared to the
rest of the state.

A different report from the health department released about a
year ago showed cancer rates in the area are also normal.

Though vapor mitigation systems were installed on some of the
affected properties, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Ms. Milbrandt thinks there should be more aggressive
cleanup actions.

"I have, what I consider, a Band-Aid on my house," Ms. Milbrandt
said. "But we have no idea if it's effective or not."

The trial is set to take place in two parts.  The first will
decide if General Mills did something wrong and whether more
cleanup is necessary.  The second will decide whether residents
are awarded for alleged damages.

If damages are awarded, residents will receive them individually
based on how TCE affected their properties, said Shawn Collins,
one of the lawyers prosecuting the suit.

Dates have not been set for starting either part of the trial,
lawyers said, but the first phase will probably happen in early
2016.


GORDON CHEN'S: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Valle and Edgar Cid a/k/a Daniel Lopez, individually and
on behalf of others similarly' situated v. Gordon Chen's Kitchen
LLC d/b/a Hakata Grill, Mac-War Rest. Corp. d/b/a Hakata Grill,
Sol Orbuch, Kazutoshi Gaeda and Allan W. Artski, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02005 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at
231 E. 53rd Street, New York, New York 10022.

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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Fact Discovery Stayed in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that fact discovery has been
stayed in a class action lawsuit except as it relates to class
certification and the court has not yet issued a ruling on class
certification.

"In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in
federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws
after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an
investigation in connection with our change in accounting for
revenue on long-term construction projects and related
disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty
similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former
officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004," the
Company said.

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed
a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in
March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and
us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order
in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The
Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

"In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari
and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April
2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth
Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in
order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was
limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the
case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration
of our other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth
Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January
2012 the court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a
Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was
granted.

"In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the
District Court's order certifying the class.

"We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November
2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held
before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued
its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class
member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but
holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by
presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price
from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and
the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court
vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. Fact discovery has been stayed except as it
relates to class certification. The court has not yet issued a
ruling on class certification. We cannot predict the outcome or
consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued in D. Conn. Over Excessive Plan Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hannan, Dawn Lemieux, Nicole Groomes, and Peggy Horn, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. The Hartford
Financial Services, Inc., Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Family
Dollar Stores Inc. Group Insurance Plan & Plan Administrators,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00395 (D. Conn., March 17, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants are engaged in a cross-subsidization scheme to
overcharge plan participants' premiums for supplemental life
insurance that were higher than called for by the underwriting and
actuarial pricing experience.

The Hartford Financial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that maintains its principal place of business at One Hartford
Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06105. It is in the business of
providing basic group life insurance coverage.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
maintains its principal place of business at 10401 Monroe Road,
Matthews, North Carolina 28105. It owns and operates discount
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      E-mail: Slesser@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 763-9800
      Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
      E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com

         - and -

      Raymond C. Fay, Esq.
      FAY LAW GROUP PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 263-4604
      Facsimile: (202) 261-3508
      E-mail: rfay@faylawdc.com

         - and -

      Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
      321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1250
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 263-0272
      Facsimile: (312) 263-2942
      E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com

         - and -

      Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
      E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Case No. C-12-6003-CRB

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND
OF HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, COMMON STOCK OR SECURITIES OF HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY AS OF MARCH 13, 2015.

This notice concerns a proposed settlement of the above-captioned
shareholder derivative action and contains important information
about your rights concerning the lawsuit.  This notice is not an
expression of any opinion by the court as to the merits of any
claims or defenses in the lawsuit.  The statements in this notice
are not findings of the court.

All Hewlett-Packard Company securities holders are hereby notified
that a settlement has been reached as to claims asserted in a
shareholder derivative action pending in a California federal
court against certain current and former officers and directors of
HP.  If approved, the settlement will also release certain claims
asserted in related, consolidated suits pending in California
state court, Santa Clara County.  The federal case is titled In re
Hewlett-Packard Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
Case No. C-12-6003-CB (N.D. Cal.).  The state cases are captioned
Gould v. Whitman, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-250220 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), and Noel v. Whitman, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-251346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.).

A hearing on the settlement of the federal case will be held on
July 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. PDT before U.S. district Judge
Charles R. Breyer, in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building
and United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, California 94102.

At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether to
approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate
and in the best of interest of HP and its shareholders and (ii)
whether to enter a final judgment dismissing the Federal Lawsuit
as to the settling defendants on the merits and with prejudice,
barring and enjoining the prosecution of certain claims, and
releasing the settling defendants and other individual and
entities.

The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of
the Fairness Hearing without further notice to you.  If you intend
to attend the Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and
time of the hearing with the Court.

The Federal Lawsuit was brought by plaintiff Stanley Morrical on
behalf of HP.  The State Lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs James
R. Gould, Jr., and Leroy Noel, respectively.  Other than any
service award that may be paid to Federal Plaintiff, no payments
will be made to any HP securities holders in connection with the
proposed settlement.

This Notice is not an expression by the Court as to the merits of
any claim or defense asserted in the Federal Lawsuit or in the
State of Lawsuits.

Any objection to the proposed settlement must be served and filed
with the Court (and received by all the below counsel) no later
than July 4, 2015.

Submissions objection to the proposed settlement should be sent to
the counsel as follows:

Counsel for Plaintiff Morrical:

Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
        mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com

Counsel for State Plaintiffs Noel and Gould:

Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: DarrenR@rgrdlaw.com
        BennyG@rgrdlaw.com


Counsel for HP:

Marc Wolinsky, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 403-1226
Fax: (212) 403-2226
E-mail: mwolinsky@wlrk.com

A detailed copy of the notice is available at http://is.gd/eEGhkP


HOME CONSIGNMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy A. Haakstad and Suzanne Goldstyn, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Home Consignment Center, LLC,
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01245 (N.D. Cal., March
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
proper overtime hour rate, failure to pay all wages owing upon the
termination of employment, and failure to provide lawful itemized
wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Home Consignment Center, LLC owns and operates an accessories,
furniture & fine jewelry shop with its principal place of business
located at 1901-F Camino Ramon, Danville, CA 94526.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Roald Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

         - and -

      Lonnie Clifford Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura TLX Transmission Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a model
year 2015 Acura TLX transmission lawsuit has been filed in
California federal court that alleges the transmission is
dangerous and a hazard to driving.  Plaintiff Roger Kornfein filed
the lawsuit against Honda, the parent company of Acura, claiming
the TLX transmission can cause problems with controlling the car.

Mr. Kornfein claims his new 2015 Acura TLX started experiencing
problems just a few weeks after buying the car.  The plaintiff
says while making a turn at an intersection, the transmission felt
like it shifted into neutral while the engine RPM increased.

The complaint also alleges the transmission downshifts suddenly
when the car is traveling under 20 mph.  Mr. Kornfein says taking
off from a stop light can be an adventure because the Acura TLX
takes a few seconds to shift between gears with a feeling the car
is jerking forward.

The lawsuit alleges Acura mechanics couldn't replicate the problem
of the TLX feeling like it was going into neutral and the car
showed no diagnostic error codes.

Mr. Kornfein says he has made numerous trips to the dealer and all
he received was a response from Honda's corporate office denying
the car has transmission problems.

While Honda might be denying transmission problems in the 2015
Acura TLX, owners have told CarComplaints.com of similar problems
as mentioned in the TLX lawsuit.

"I am also an unhappy owner of a 2015 Acura TLX.  When I first
start driving the car when cold and I am in traffic, I will start
going and then come to a complete stop the car will suddenly lurch
forward (almost like someone has hit you in the rear end).  I
thought I was going to rear end the person in front of me! This is
the fourth time this has happened to me, completely unacceptable
for a premium luxury brand that costs $35,000!" - 2015 Acura TLX
Owner / Alexandria, Virginia

"When moving from a stopped position, the car will sometimes make
a loud sound like the transmission is trying to shift into a gear
that it is not supposed too.  Rpm's do jot increase and the car
will not move forward for a couple of seconds. This happens as I
am pulling out.  Has happened when the vehicle has been cold or
warmed up." - 2015 Acura TLX Owner / University Place, Washington

The proposed class-action lawsuit accuses Honda of violating the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act and breaches
of warranty.

The Acura TLX transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California -- Roger Kornfein v.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Plaintiff Roger Kornfein is represented by Gibbs Law Group LLP.

In December 2014, the 2015 Acura TLX was recalled to replace the
transmissions, but Acura says that recall was to fix problems with
the cars not shifting into park.


HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Court Dismisses Aluminium Price-Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that a US judge dismissed antitrust litigation
accusing Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited as well as Wall
Street banks and commodity merchants of conspiring to drive up
aluminium prices by reducing supply, in part because she lacked
jurisdiction.  The plaintiffs had accused Wall Street banks and
commodity merchants of having colluded since May 2009 to hoard
aluminium in warehouses.  They said this led to higher storage
costs, delays of up to 16 months to fill orders, and increases in
prices of industrial products from soft drink cans to airplanes.


J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is awaiting the appointment of
a panel of judges in the appeal related to the California-based
drivers' class action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.

"During the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action
granted Judgment in our favor with regard to all claims. The
plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and we are currently awaiting the appointment of a panel
of judges. The overlapping claims in the remaining two actions
have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-action case.
We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits," the
Company said.


JAMES HARDIE: NZ Law Firm Urges Building Owners to Join Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that leaky-building
owners are being asked to join a proposed class-action civil
lawsuit against cladding manufacturers, seeking damages of more
than $100 million.

Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn -- adina@adinathorn.co.nz -- says
since the goodcladding.co.nz website went live on March 9, there
have been registrations from all over New Zealand, and even from
Australian owners of New Zealand buildings.

The leaky building scandal is estimated to have resulted in costs
of more than $11 billion to repair, or replace leaky buildings
constructed between 1994 and 2005, with the majority of the costs
being shouldered by the buildings' owners.

But Thorn believes there is hope many leaky-buildings owners could
get back some of the money they have lost with a class action law
suit funded on a "no fee, no win" basis by international
litigation funders.

The funders, who Ms. Thorn cannot name, will only commit if
interest is high enough, however.

Ms. Thorn said: "This is all about buildings with plaster
cladding.  It's not only about homes, it's all buildings -- homes,
commercial buildings [and] hospitals. All buildings need to have
proper and safe cladding."

She said the claim was being prepared in response to approaches
she had received from owners of buildings constructed with
claddings such as James Hardie's Harditex and Titan Board.

"The owners of plaster-clad buildings should now register their
interest in being part of this action," said Ms. Thorn, who has
represented the owners of many leaky buildings in the Weathertight
Homes Tribunal.

"There's no cost involved in registering and all the legal costs
during the legal process will be covered by a litigation funder.

"There's no time limit for joining the action, so a building of
any age can join the action.  Owners previously believed there was
a 10-year time limit, but that is no longer the case, anyone can
join this action."

Ms. Thorn says the claim will not be covered by the 10-year
limitation in the Building Act, which covers defective building
work.

Instead the action would seek to prove that products like Harditex
and Titan Board were defective.  For that, said Ms. Thorn, there
was a limitation of six years from the point at which the owner of
a leaky building knew, or ought to have known, that the product
itself was leaky.  But Ms. Thorn said most owners would still not
know whether or not the cladding products themselves were
defective, as she alleges.  She said "99.9 per cent of the
population will never know whether or not these claddings work or
don't work".

Ms. Thorn said she expected to be seeking damages of at least
$100m, if the case goes ahead.  Those registering interest include
body corporates as well as individual owners.

James Hardie would not be drawn on the launch of registrations, or
the allegations Thorn hopes to prove in court.

"At this point we are not making any comment about it," a James
Hardie spokesperson said.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11,200 Plaintiffs With ASR Direct Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that as of December 28, 2014,
in the U.S. there were approximately:

* 11,200 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits
regarding injuries allegedly due to the ASR(TM) XL Acetabular
System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System,

* 7,300 with respect to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System,

* 36,600 with respect to pelvic meshes, and

* 1,200 with respect to RISPERDAL(R).


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Reached 2nd Deal With ASR Hip Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected
to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and
additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in Federal courts in
the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Canada and Australia.

In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-
appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR(TM) Hip System
plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible
ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace
their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013.
This settlement covered approximately 8,000 patients.

In February 2015, DePuy reached an additional agreement, subject
to final documentation, which would effectively extend the
existing settlement program to ASR Hip patients who had revision
surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 1, 2015,
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014.  This second agreement is
estimated to cover approximately 1,400 additional patients.

The estimated cost of these agreements is covered by existing
accruals. This settlement program is expected to bring to a close
significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the U.S. However, many
lawsuits in the U.S. will remain, and the settlement program does
not address litigation outside of the U.S. The Company continues
to receive information with respect to potential costs associated
with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established
accruals for the costs associated with the DePuy ASR(TM) Hip
program and related product liability litigation.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover PINNACLE(R) Defense Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's
PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
Cases filed in Federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has
also been filed in countries outside of the United States,
primarily in the United Kingdom. The Company has established an
accrual to cover defense costs in connection with product
liability litigation associated with DePuy's PINNACLE(R)
Acetabular Cup System, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover Ethicon Mesh Defense Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal
injury cases or claims have been commenced in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, England, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and
Venezuela, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an
accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products, Johnson & Johnson said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Has Accrual to Cover RISPERDAL(R) Defense Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia,
acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder
and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in
connection with product liability litigation associated with
RISPERDAL(R), Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Commonwealth Court Nixed AWP Monetary Awards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Commonwealth Court
has dismissed monetary awards against the Defendants in the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, which may be appealed.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and
federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to
fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other
things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that
they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels.
Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions
removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes
in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private
persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of
the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities
that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.
In June 2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed
the claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP
Defendants. In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the
third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice.
AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers. Several state cases against
certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have been settled,
including the case in Alaska, which settled in April 2014, and
cases are still pending in Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Utah
and Pennsylvania. The cases in Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin
have not yet proceeded to trial. In Utah, the claims brought by
the Attorney General were dismissed by the Court in 2013, but the
State may appeal the dismissal after the conclusion of similar
pending matters against other defendants.

The AWP case against the J&J AWP Defendants brought by the
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was tried in
Commonwealth Court in 2010. The Court found in the Commonwealth's
favor with regard to certain of its claims under the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPL"),
entered an injunction, and awarded $45 million in restitution and
$6.5 million in civil penalties. The Court found in the J&J AWP
Defendants' favor on the Commonwealth's claims of unjust
enrichment, misrepresentation/fraud, civil conspiracy, and on
certain of the Commonwealth's claims under the UTPL. The J&J AWP
Defendants appealed the Commonwealth Court's UTPL ruling, and in
June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the judgment
entered by the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On remand, in January 2015, the Commonwealth
Court dismissed the monetary awards against the J&J AWP
Defendants, which may be appealed.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Retains Liability for OCD Unit
-------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that Johnson & Johnson
retains any liability that may result from cases following the
divestiture of Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD).

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the
District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class
certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory
review of the class certification ruling. Oral argument on the
appeal was held in February 2014 and the parties are awaiting a
decision. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson
retains any liability that may result from these cases.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit has dismissed the appeal in the
case filed by Ronald Monk.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his
alleged economic losses. In December 2011, a motion by Johnson &
Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In
September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and
Johnson & Johnson and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in part. Following mediation,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case,
and in July 2013, filed for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement. In November 2013, the Court approved the settlement.
Three parties that had objected to the settlement appealed the
Court's approval orders. Prior to the mediation for the appeal,
the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and
without costs against any party. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the case in April 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015 in the case filed by Nick
Field.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face CIO Litigation
------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm has been sued
in a consolidated shareholder putative class action, a
consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and seven shareholder
derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York
federal and state courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic
credit portfolio managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office
("CIO"). Four of the shareholder derivative actions have been
dismissed, and plaintiffs in three of those actions have appealed
those dismissals. Motions to dismiss have also been filed in two
other shareholder derivative actions.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss CDS Case Claims Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm and other
industry members are defendants in a consolidated putative class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of credit
default swap ("CDS"). The complaint refers to the ongoing
investigations by the European Commission (the "EC") and the
Department of Justice into the CDS market, and alleges that the
defendant investment banks and dealers, including the Firm, as
well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new entrants
into the market for exchange-traded CDS products. Defendants moved
to dismiss this action, and in September 2014, the Court granted
defendants' motion in part, dismissing claims for damages based on
transactions effected before the Autumn of 2008, as well as
certain other claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settled US Class Action on WM/Reuters Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that since November 2013, a
number of class actions have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
number of foreign exchange dealers, including the Firm, for
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and unjust
enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters service. In March 2014,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended U.S. class action
complaint; two other class actions were brought by non-U.S.-based
plaintiffs. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
U.S. class action and granted the motion to dismiss the two non-
U.S. class actions. In January 2015, the Firm settled the U.S.
class action, and this settlement is subject to court approval.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Merchants Suits Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss the actions by certain merchants that opted out of the
class settlement was denied in July 2014.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle the
cases for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs
(of which the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount
equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period
of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the
end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for
modifications to each credit card network's rules, including those
that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions.

In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final
approval of the settlement. A number of merchants have appealed.
Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have
filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the
Firm and other banks. Defendants' motion to dismiss the actions
was denied in July 2014.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm has been named
as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual
and class actions filed in various United States District Courts,
in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various
periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually
or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR,
Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs
allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other
financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S.
dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or
EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims
seeking treble damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court stayed all
related cases while motions to dismiss the three lead class
actions were pending. In March 2013, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims in
the three lead class actions, including dismissal with prejudice
of the antitrust claims. In relation to the Firm, the Court has
permitted certain claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and
common law claims to proceed.

In September 2013, class plaintiffs in two of the three lead class
actions filed amended complaints, which defendants moved to
dismiss. Plaintiffs in the third class action appealed the
dismissal of the antitrust claims and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that
plaintiffs have the jurisdictional right to appeal and remanding
the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. In
February 2015, the District Court entered a judgment on certain
other plaintiffs' antitrust claims so that those plaintiffs could
also participate in the appeal. Motions to dismiss are pending in
the remaining previously stayed individual actions and class
actions.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Suit on Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm is one of the
defendants in a putative class action alleging manipulation of
Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
plaintiffs who purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures
and options contracts. In March 2014, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, including
dismissal of plaintiff's antitrust and unjust enrichment claims.
The Firm is one of the defendants in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York relating to the interest rate benchmark EURIBOR. The case
is currently stayed.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm is one of the
defendants in a number of putative class actions alleging that
defendant banks and ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar
ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the
federal antitrust laws and Commodities Exchange Act. In December
2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Plaintiffs Seek Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan
Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class
plaintiffs to add claims against the Firm and certain subsidiaries
to an already pending putative class action in the same court. The
allegations in these complaints largely track those previously
raised by the court-appointed trustee for Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC. The District Court dismissed these
complaints and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Plaintiffs have
petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Moved to Transfer Florida Cases to New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e.,
Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts
than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme and were not
included in the previous class action settlement. These plaintiffs
allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state
racketeering statutes and multiple common law and statutory claims
including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement,
unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. A similar
action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, although it is not styled as a class
action, and includes a claim pursuant to a Florida statute. The
Firm has moved to transfer these cases to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Actions Pending v. JPMC and Bear Stearns
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two class actions remain
pending against JPMC and Bear Stearns as MBS issuers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
the action concerning JPMC, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification has been granted with respect to liability but
denied without prejudice as to damages. In the action concerning
Bear Stearns, the parties have reached a settlement in principle,
which is subject to court approval. The Firm is also defending a
class action brought against Bear Stearns in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which the
court's decision on defendants' motion to dismiss is pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Suit Over Filing of Affidavits Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Firm entered into a
settlement resolving a putative class action lawsuit relating to
its filing of affidavits or other documents in connection with
mortgage foreclosure proceedings, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement in January 2015.


JUST ENERGY: "Flood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Flood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., Just Energy New York
Corp., and Just Energy Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02012
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in marketing and sale of natural gas
and electricity supply to residential and commercial customers
under long term fixed price, price protected or variable-priced
contracts and green energy products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
      11 Broadway, Suite 2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 847-8315
      E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015
------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2007, Koninklijke Philips N.V. announced that
competition law authorities in several jurisdictions had commenced
investigations into possible anticompetitive activities in the
Cathode-Ray Tubes, or CRT industry. On December 5, 2012, the
European Commission issued a decision imposing fines on (former)
CRT manufacturers including the Company. The European Commission
imposed a fine of EUR 313 million on the Company and a fine of EUR
392 million jointly and severally on the Company and LG
Electronics, Inc. In total a payable of EUR 509 million was
recognized in 2012 and the fine was paid in the first quarter of
2013. The Company appealed the decision of the European Commission
and in November 2014 the Company presented its defense at a
Hearing with the General Court.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in
2007, certain Philips Group companies were named as defendants in
class action antitrust complaints by direct and indirect
purchasers of CRTs filed in various federal district courts in the
United States. These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by
manufacturers of CRTs and seek treble damages on a joint and
several liability basis under federal antitrust law, as well as
various state antitrust and unfair competition laws. These actions
have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

In addition, sixteen individual plaintiffs, principally large
retailers of CRT products who opted-out of the direct purchaser
class, filed separate complaints against the Company and other
defendants based on the same substantive allegations as the
putative class plaintiff complaints. These cases also are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the putative class
actions in the Northern District of California.

In 2012 a settlement agreement was approved between the Company
and counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs fully resolving all
claims of the direct purchaser class. Also, the Company recently
reached a settlement with the indirect purchaser class, subject to
court approval, that would fully resolve all claims of the
indirect purchaser class and release all claims of the indirect
purchaser class. The Company reached in the past year settlements
with a number of the individual plaintiffs resolving all claims by
those retailers on a global basis. The settlements reached to date
represent the majority of CRT sales attributed to the Company by
the individual plaintiffs.

Several of the remaining individual plaintiff cases are scheduled
for trial in 2015, with the remainder expected to be transferred
back to their original venues for further proceedings, Koninklijke
Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.  Trial dates in these other
cases have not yet been set.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Late April 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, certain Philips Group companies were been named as
defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia, Canada, along with numerous other participants
in the Cathode-Ray Tubes, or CRT industry.  After years of
inactivity, in 2014, plaintiffs in the Ontario action initiated
the class certification proceedings with class certification
hearings scheduled for late April 2015, Koninklijke Philips N.V.
said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Defendant in Israel Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was
named as a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit filed in
2014 in Israel in which damages are claimed against several
defendants based on alleged anticompetitive activities in the CRT
industry. In addition, an electronics manufacturer filed a claim
against the Company and several co-defendants with a court in the
Netherlands, also seeking compensation for the alleged damage
sustained as a result from the alleged anticompetitive activities
in the CRT industry. The Company has received indications that
more civil claims may be filed in other jurisdictions in due
course.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: 9th Cir. Declined Bid to Appeal Cert. Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined a request to
appeal the denial of class certification related to Optical Disc
Drive (ODD).

On October 27, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice confirmed that it had initiated an
investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the
Optical Disc Drive (ODD) industry. Philips Lite-On Digital
Solutions Corp. (PLDS), a joint venture owned by the Company and
Lite-On IT Corporation, as an ODD market participant, is included
in this investigation. PLDS and the Company have been accepted
under the Corporate Leniency program of the US Department of
Justice and have continued to cooperate with the authorities in
these investigations. On this basis, the Company expects to be
immune from governmental fines.

In July 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of
Objections addressed to (former) ODD suppliers including the
Company and PLDS. The European Commission granted the Company and
PLDS immunity from fines, conditional upon the Company's continued
cooperation. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections
both in writing and at an oral hearing. The Company and PLDS are
also subject to similar investigations outside the US and Europe
relating to the ODD market. Where relevant, they are cooperating
with the authorities.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in
2009, the Company, PLDS and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions
USA, Inc. (PLDS USA), among other industry participants, were
named as defendants in numerous class action antitrust complaints
filed in various federal district courts in the United States.
These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of
ODDs and seek treble damages on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of ODDs and products incorporating ODDs. These
complaints assert claims under federal antitrust law, as well as
various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and may
involve joint and several liability among the named defendants.
These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The plaintiffs' applications for certification of both
the direct and indirect purchaser classes were denied on October
3, 2014. The representatives of these putative classes tried
appealing the denial of class certification to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit
declined this request to appeal.

Various individual entities have filed separate actions against
the Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants. The allegations
contained in these individual complaints are substantially
identical to the allegations in the direct purchaser class
complaints. All of these matters have been consolidated into the
action in the Northern District of California for pre-trial
purposes and discovery is being coordinated. The Company intends
to vigorously defend all of the civil actions in the US courts.

Also, in June 2013, the State of Florida filed a separate
complaint in the Northern District of California against the
Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants containing largely
the same allegations as the class and individual complaints.
Florida seeks to recover damages sustained in its capacity as a
buyer of ODDs and, in its parens patriae capacity, on behalf of
its citizens. The defendants' motion to dismiss has been denied
and Philips filed an answer to the complaint. This case has been
joined with the ODD class action cases in the Northern District of
California for pre-trial purposes.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Decision Pending in British Columbia Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and
certain Philips Group companies have been named as defendants, in
proposed class proceedings in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada along with numerous other
participants in the industry. These complaints assert claims
against various ODD manufacturers under federal competition laws
as well as tort laws and may involve joint and several liability
among the named defendants. Philips intends to vigorously defend
these lawsuits. Plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
proceeded with their application to certify that proceeding as a
class action. The hearing was held in January 2015 and the Court's
decision is pending.


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wu" Suit in E.D.N.C. Over Harmful Spyware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Wu, Patrick Johnson, Michael Reinert, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States),
Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00108 (E.D.N.C., March
17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new
computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and
malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
      Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
      THE WERNER LAW FIRM
      2142 Vista Dale Court
      Atlanta, GA 30084
      Telephone: (770) VERDICT
      E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com
              adam@wernerlaw.com

         - and -

      Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
      HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
      1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road Suite 175
      Norcross, GA 30093
      Telephone: (800) 994-9855
      E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Del Braccio" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Del Braccio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01249 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
      E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
              asafyan@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
      ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC
      7171 West Alaska Drive
      Lakewood, CO 80226
      Telephone: (720) 255-7623
      E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Deutsch" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Deutsch and Jamie Deutsch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01978 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
      Brian M. Schnarr, Esq.
      Joyce Chang, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: nfineman@cpmlegal.com
              medling@cpmlegal.com
              bscnahrr@cpmlegal.com
              jchang@cpmlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Levy" in Cal. Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herve Levy, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00596 (S.D. Cal.,
March 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled
and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and
applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and
off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized
as a known human carcinogen by the United States National
Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, CA State Bar No. 223484
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818) 340-5400
      Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              bhujwala@boucher.la

          - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
              rsoffin@forthepeople.com
              jcohen@forthepeople.com

          - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 772-9960
      Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


MASTERCARD INT'L: Attorney E-mails Spark Settlement Questions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Willkie Farr & Gallagher's revelation that a former partner
engaged in questionable communications with an opposing counsel
has given ammunition to retailers who object to massive
settlements in two antitrust cases involving credit card
companies.

After former Willkie partner Keila Ravelo was arrested in December
on charges of defrauding her employers, Willkie conducted an
internal review and uncovered communications between Ms. Ravelo
and plaintiff's attorney Gary B. Friedman, "which we believe raise
questions," the firm told parties in the antitrust litigation in
February.

Willkie represented Master Card International in one of the cases
and Friedman, of the Friedman Law Group, is among the plaintiff
counsel in both cases.

Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman's friendship extends back to the early
1990s when they were associates at Sidley Austin, and their
families have vacationed together over the years.

Now Willkie and possibly Hunton & Williams, where Ms. Ravelo was a
partner before joining Willkie in 2010, will produce a log of the
communications and transferred documents to parties in the
antitrust litigation to answer questions about what they discussed
and disclosed to one another.

Eastern District Magistrate Judge James Orenstein told the parties
at a recent hearing, "There's a legitimate area of concern here
where the court has to sign off on the independence of and on the
arm's length nature of the negotiations that produced the
settlement that's under review."

The matter directly affects two class actions in the Eastern
District over fees merchants pay for credit card transactions.
One suit was brought by retailers against Visa and MasterCard,
among other defendants, In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-MD-01720, and the other
by retailers against American Express, In re American Express
Anti-Steering Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-2221.

In Interchange, after eight years of litigation, Judge John
Gleeson in 2013 gave final approval to a $5.7 billion settlement
in what was called the largest antitrust class action settlement
in U.S. history.

In American Express, Judge Nicholas Garaufis gave preliminary
approval last year to a settlement that would allow merchants to
charge a fee to customers who use a credit card or charge card,
including American Express cards.  A motion for final approval is
pending.

In December, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey charged
Ms. Ravelo and her husband, Melvin Feliz, with conspiracy to
commit wire fraud.  Prosecutors said the couple used two vendors
to fraudulently obtain more than $5 million from Willkie, Hunton
and her client, MasterCard, by submitting fake invoices.

Prosecutors allege the couple funneled most of the money into
their joint bank account and used it to pay their personal
expenses and investments.  In February, in a separate case,
Mr. Feliz pleaded guilty to a narcotics offense.

MasterCard's lead attorney in Interchange is Kenneth Gallo --
kgallo@paulweiss.com -- a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, but Ms. Ravelo was also part of the defense
team.  She had represented MasterCard while at Hunton & Williams.

Ms. Ravelo resigned from Willkie on Nov. 14.

After the U.S. attorney's office subpoenaed Willkie for documents
and the firm conducted its own internal review, it found the
communications between Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman.

In particular, Willkie said in a Feb. 19 letter that it found
emails and attachments about the American Express litigation,
where Ms. Ravelo had no role.

Emails also appeared to show that Mr. Friedman sent Ms. Ravelo
documents with information potentially protected by the American
Express litigation protective order, according to Willkie.

The firm said it found communications between Ms. Ravelo and
Mr. Friedman that relate to the Interchange litigation and which
appear to convey information such as discussions among counsel.

"It also appears that in a few cases, Ms. Ravelo provided some
confidential information of MasterCard to Mr. Friedman," Willkie
said.

Willkie has filed a stipulation, now ordered by the court, on its
protocol for disclosing to the parties a log of the communications
as well as the communications.

Hunton & Williams and Mr. Friedman are also expected to submit
their own protocol for disclosure of communications.

Samuel Issacharoff, Friedman's attorney and a New York University
law professor, said in a March 5 letter to the court that
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo have been friends for more than 20
years.  They continued to socialize after each married, he said.
Mr. Feliz, Ravelo's husband, was a former pro bono client of
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo.

"Once they both had children, the families grew close and often
vacationed together.  The communications we will produce reflect
the scope of their relationship, including the fact that
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo often discussed their work and their
professional ambitions," Mr. Issacharoff said, adding that
Mr. Friedman had no knowledge of any alleged fraudulent activity
involving Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Feliz.

Retailer Concerns

Dozens of large retailers that objected to the settlements have
raised concerns about the attorneys' communications.

In American Express, the settlement objectors -- retailers
including Target, Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven and Macy's -- said they're
concerned the violations may implicate the pending motion for
settlement approval and that "the elements of procedural and
substantive fairness" may have been compromised.

In Interchange, objecting retailers told Orenstein in a Feb. 25
letter that they deserve a full disclosure of all communications
between Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo that bear on the adequacy of
the class representation and the procedural fairness of the
settlement.

They also said Mr. Friedman's work and the adequacy of his
representation are directly relevant to a pending appeal of the
settlement.

"There must be some reason why seasoned lawyers would share
documents over the course of years in apparent violation of
protective orders and duties they owed to others in the
litigation," said the retailers' lawyers, adding that retailers
are "entitled to find out whether there was any quid pro quo or a
personal relationship that introduced compromising influences and
loyalties to the representation they received."

The letter is signed by Jeffrey Shinder --
jshinder@constantinecannon.com -- a partner with Constantine
Cannon and Michael Canter -- mjcanter@vorys.com -- a partner with
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, both of whom represent large groups
of retailers, as well as Home Depot's lawyer, Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- a partner with Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan.

At a late February hearing, Mr. Olson said, "If there was a
compromising financial relationship, if there was a compromising
personal relationship that would impact the ability of Mr.
Friedman to independently represent [class members], that would be
an incredibly significant fact."

Mr. Issacharoff, Friedman's attorney, objected at the hearing to
any "promiscuous character insinuation."  He said, "It's not an
occasion, because there were some AmEx materials discovered, to
simply go into people's lives for the prurient interest of what
may be found there."

While noting concerns over "arm's length" negotiations for the
settlement, Orenstein questioned whether Friedman's role would
affect the Interchange litigation.

Meanwhile, Ms. Ravelo's attorney, Steven Sadow, special counsel at
Schulten, Ward & Turner in Atlanta, told the Law Journal, "We
believe we will be entitled to full disclosure from Willkie as to
all matters that relate to Ms. Ravelo."

Dechert partner Robert Jossen, who represents Willkie, did not
return a call for comment.  A Hunton & Williams spokeswoman
declined to comment.


MEDCO HEALTH: Workers Lose Bid for OT Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Newman, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that more
than 160 former employees of Medco Health Solutions Inc. in
Franklin Lakes have been dealt a legal, and perhaps financial,
setback because a federal judge in Newark denied a request to
allow a collective legal action that sought to recoup overtime
pay.

Former Medco employee Roberta Henry of Glen Rock in May filed a
lawsuit against Medco acquirer Express Scripts Holding Co.,
alleging the company owed her and other ex-Medco employees more
than $50 million because the prescription drug manager did not pay
overtime to certain workers prior to January 2014.  Ms. Henry's
most recent title at Express Scripts was senior security
administration analyst.

However, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler said in a Feb. 24
order that Henry, represented by Hackensack lawyer James W. Boyan
III, "failed to make the modest factual showing required" and
Judge Chesler denied their motion to certify the case as a
collective action.

A collective action is similar to a class action, in that
plaintiffs can sue on behalf of a larger group.

According to the lawsuit, prescription drug benefit manager Medco
had classified Ms. Henry, and certain other of its workers, as
managers, and did not pay them time and a half for overtime.

Exempt or not

The lawsuit alleged that St. Louis-based Express Scripts, which
bought Medco in April 2012, had different worker classifications
and did pay overtime to workers with job descriptions similar to
Henry's if they worked more than 40 hours in a week.  Up until
January of last year, Express Scripts continued to treat the
former Medco workers as if they were exempt from an overtime pay
requirement, the lawsuit said.

"Express Scripts has intentionally, willfully and repeatedly
engaged in a policy, pattern and/or practice of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act," the lawsuit said.

Court papers show Express Scripts has repeatedly denied that its
decisions amounted to willful violation of the fair labor law.
The company's lawyers did not respond Friday to a request for
comment.

Judge Chesler said in his Feb. 24 order that Henry must "produce
some evidence beyond pure speculation of a factual nexus between
the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and
the manner in which it affected other employees."

Ms. Henry could not be reached Friday to comment and her attorney
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


MERCK & CO: Judge Approves Vioxx Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Toby Biddle, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright reports that on
February 26, 2015, Justice Jessup of the Australian Federal Court
approved a settlement which brought to end the long-running
representative (class) action brought on behalf of consumers of
the arthritis drug, Vioxx.  The settlement approval follows an
earlier judgment of Justice Jessup in 2013, in which he had
refused to approve a settlement.

The case has had significant implications for product liability
class actions, especially actions involving pharmaceuticals and
medical devices. In particular, the Vioxx litigation has
highlighted the difficulties in prosecuting healthcare product
liability cases as class actions given the importance of varying
individual patient factors, notably on issue concerning causation
of damages.

This article looks at the key aspects of the decision and provides
commentary on the implications for life sciences companies and
insurers which cover product risks.

History of proceedings

Vioxx was alleged to have caused adverse cardiovascular side-
effects in several arthritis patients.

One such patient, Graeme Peterson, was the lead applicant in
Federal Court proceedings brought on behalf of Vioxx consumers.
In March 2010 Peterson was awarded damages against the supplier of
Vioxx by Jessup J on the basis of a finding that a myocardial
infarction (heart attack) suffered by Peterson was caused by
Vioxx.  Jessup J also made a number of findings on issues common
to the remainder of the class.

In October 2011 the Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an
appeal against the judgment for Mr. Peterson and in May 2012 the
High Court refused special leave.  This resolved the individual
claim of Mr. Peterson but did not resolve the claims of other
group members of the proceedings (being other patients who alleged
they had taken Vioxx and consequently suffered adverse
cardiovascular effects).

In April 2013 Mr. Peterson (through his lawyers, Slater & Gordon)
brought an application in the Federal Court for approval of a
settlement agreement to resolve the claims of the remaining group
members.  Under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, a
representative proceeding can only be settled with the approval of
the Court.

The proposed settlement agreement involved establishment of a
scheme by which group members needed to satisfy two sets of
criteria, the first being a diagnosis of myocardial infarction,
and the second being proof of use of Vioxx within a certain number
of days prior to the myocardial infarction taking place.

Satisfaction of the criteria would entitle group members to a
share of the settlement.  The settlement was capped at total
payments by the respondents for the entire class of living group
members of $497,500 and for the entire class of deceased group
members of $45,000.  A total of 1660 group members of
Mr. Peterson's proceedings had registered their intentions to
advance individual claims.  The settlement also involved the
respondents abandoning their claim for costs against Peterson
arising from the trial and the appeals.

On May 20, 2013 Jessup J declined to approve the settlement. Among
other things, Jessup J took issue with the fact that the
settlement made no discrimination between group members who had
risk factors for myocardial infarction other than Vioxx
consumption, and group members who might have had no other risk
factors (one of the issues in Mr. Peterson's case was that he had
risk factors other than Vioxx use).  Jessup J also expressed
misgivings concerning a potential conflict if the lead applicant's
lawyers, Slater & Gordon, would have an ongoing role in
determining whether group members satisfied eligibility criteria.

Modified settlement agreement and its approval

In November 2014 the parties put forward a modified version of the
settlement agreement for approval by the Court.

In his judgment on this application, Jessup J indicated that he
considered the amount of the settlement (which was unchanged from
the previous version) to be small -- he noted the maximum any
individual group member would receive would be $4,629.36.
However, he considered that the amendments had addressed his
concern about the lack of discrimination among patients with
different circumstances.  From the judgment, this appears to have
been done though the introduction into the settlement agreement of
a points system, recognizing different circumstances of different
group members and damages being allocated accordingly.

Jessup J was also satisfied on the issue of conflict of interest
of the lead applicant's lawyers having a role going forward in
determining which patients qualified.  This was because the
relevant determinations had now taken place and were part of the
settlement being submitted for approval.

Even with these issues addressed, Jessup J expressed ongoing
concern with the settlement and made a comment suggesting he had
anticipated that individual cases of group members other than
Peterson may have been brought forward to be tested against the
answers to the common issues (noting that Ms. Peterson's
individual claim had failed largely on individual causation
issues).

Despite these concerns, Jessup J noted the following
considerations which favored the approval of the settlement:

All group members had been informed of the terms of the proposed
settlement and there had been very few objections.  The objections
which were made were not sufficient to stand in the way of
approval of the settlement.

No group member had applied to step forward to replace Peterson as
the lead applicant.  Jessup J commented that he did not see why
Peterson, having run the case in the interests of other group
members but having failed in his individual claim, should continue
to be exposed to risk "in the interests of others who are content
to remain below the parapet".

The applicants could not be compelled to prosecute the case.  If
the proceedings were not resolved and were not prosecuted, the
result would be that sooner or later the proceedings would be
dismissed, meaning group members would get nothing and the lead
applicant would still be faced with substantial costs orders.


MERCHANTS CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
v. Merchants Capital Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-01951 (C.D. Cal.,
March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Merchants Capital Services is a merchant cash advance provider for
small to medium sized businesses.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mutual Fund Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig M. Walker, on behalf of the 401k Plan, himself and all
others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Bank Of
America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01959 (S.D.N.Y., March 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act, specifically by charging excessive mutual fund fees.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in New York City, which offers capital market services, investment
banking and advisory services, wealth management, asset management
and other services throughout the United States and world.

Bank Of America Corporation is a national bank with its
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina with operations in all
50 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Michael Walker, Esq.
      WALKER LAW LLP
      P.O. Box 19
      Pound Ridge, NY 10576
      Telephone: (917) 880-7686
      Facsimile: (203) 968-1005
      E-mail: WalkerLawLLP@aol.com


NEVADA: Attorney Attempts to Revive Constable Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that an attorney is attempting to revive a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of thousands of people he claims have been victims of an
"illegal shakedown" by deputy constables in Las Vegas.

Attorney Jeffrey Barr originally filed the lawsuit last year on
behalf of former Utah resident Nicole McMillen.  The case centers
on a $100 fee the constable's office charged when citing new
residents for not having Nevada license plates.

Mr. Barr had asked to add more than 14,000 people as plaintiffs in
the case, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled in January
that Ms. McMillen could not pursue her lawsuit as a class-action
case.  The attorney filed an amended complaint March 2 and added
two more plaintiffs to the case, for which he is again seeking
class-action status.

"The constable's office unjustly deprived at least 14,000 of their
constitutional rights," Mr. Barr said on March 5.  "This lawsuit
seeks to vindicate those rights."

The defendants' attorney has described the case as "frivolous."

After numerous controversies, the Clark County Commission voted in
2013 to abolish the constable's office.   That decision became
effective Jan. 4, when Constable John Bonaventura's term ended.
The Metropolitan Police Department since has taken over the
office.

Nevada law allows the constable's office to collect a $100 fee
from the owner or driver of a vehicle that is not properly
registered.  After Ms. McMillen was cited in March at the upscale
Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas, she obtained Nevada license plates
but refused to pay the $100 fee.

In her lawsuit, Ms. McMillen claimed Bonaventura and his office
violated her due process rights because she was given no
opportunity to challenge the collection process in state court.

Ms. McMillen received a letter informing her that she had been
issued a citation.  It also said she could avoid having charges
filed if she paid a $100 fee to the constable's office.  "You are
responsible for the $100 fee regardless of judicial adjudication,"
the letter noted.

In June, Judge Gordon granted a preliminary injunction that barred
the constable's office from collecting the $100 fee for improperly
registered vehicles.  His recent order lifted that injunction, and
Barr has appealed that aspect of his ruling to the 9th U.S. Court
of Appeals in San Francisco.

Judge Gordon's recent order also dismissed Ms. McMillen's due
process claim.  The judge ruled that her claim was moot because
the defendants have waived her fee and her citation has been
dismissed.

"There are some individuals who actually paid the fee in response
to receiving the letter from defendants, and those individuals
could challenge the statute's constitutionality and defendants'
means of enforcing it," Judge Gordon wrote.

The amended lawsuit adds two plaintiffs who paid the fee: Susan
Rymer, who lived in Wisconsin at the time, and Ruby Kendrick, who
lived in Arkansas.  It also revives Ms. McMillen's due process
claim and includes her claim that a deputy constable conducted an
illegal search and seizure.

In addition, the amended complaint adds Clark County and Metro as
defendants.


NEW CHINA EXPRESS: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Romero, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. New China
Express, Inc., New China Express - Oaklawn, Inc., Tim Cheong and
Raymond Auyeung, Case No. 1:15-cv-02305 (N.D. Ill., March 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide restaurant food services in the Chicagoland
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Dismisses Officers' Discrimination Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that current and
former New York City police officers who were referred to the
department's counseling services for alleged alcohol abuse could
not convince a federal judge they were victims of discrimination.

Eastern District Judge Roslynn Mauskopf granted the city's summary
judgment motion March 23 in MacShane v. City of New York, 05-cv-
06021, holding that the plaintiffs "have not made out an
actionable claim that defendants discriminated against them on the
basis of a perceived disability."

In the 11 consolidated cases, the plaintiffs were referred to the
police department's counseling services unit following alleged
instances of alcohol-related misconduct.  They denied the
misconduct allegations and said the treatment requirements were
pretextual, leading to stigmatization, suspension and termination.

They argued the counseling unit used faulty diagnostic methods
when evaluating them to inpatient and outpatient treatment.

The suits pressed a number of legal claims, one being a violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Judge Mauskopf said the city offered reasons for treatment
requirements and discipline for those who did not comply that were
"both non-discriminatory and responsive to legitimate concerns."

She said the discrimination claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act failed because the plaintiffs did not present
evidence "tending to demonstrate that the defendants' actions or
procedures were influenced by discriminatory animus or bad faith."

Linda Cronin of Cronin & Byczek in Lake Success appeared on the
plaintiffs' papers opposing summary judgment.  One of the
plaintiffs, Derek Miller, opposed summary judgment in a pro se
motion.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Eric Eichenholtz, chief of the law
department's labor and employment division, appeared for the city.
In a statement, he said: "We are pleased that the court agreed
that the NYPD acted appropriately and provides essential
counseling services to our police officers."


NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued Over Illegal Market Allocation Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Noridian Mutual Insurance
Company, d/b/a/ Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Case No.
3:15-cv-00025 (D.N.D., March 17, 2015), arises out of the illegal
market allocation agreements that limit or prohibit competition
between each of the Individual Blue Plans (including Blue Cross
Blue Shield of North Dakota) and Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA).

Noridian Mutual Insurance Company is a health insurance plan
operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and
trade names in North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg Wright, Esq.
      Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
      WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC
      6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 534-8534
      Facsimile: (913) 534-8536
      E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com
              chuck@wrightschimmel.com

         - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8200
      Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
      E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

          - and -

      Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
      PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
      2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 322-8880
      Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
      E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

         - and -

      William A. Isaacson, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 237-2727
      Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
      E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Gregory Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
      7031 Halcyon Park Drive
      Montgomery, AL 36117
      Telephone: (334) 832-9080
      Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
      E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

         - and -

      Megan Jones, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 744-1970
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
      10 West State Street, Suite 200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 797-3339
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
      E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

         - and -

      Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
      100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
      Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
      Telephone: (410) 949-1145
      Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
      E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com


NORTHERN TRUST: Cuts Securities Lending Profits
-----------------------------------------------
Randy Diamond, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Northern Trust Asset Management, BlackRock Inc. and State Street
Global Advisors are giving clients a bigger chunk of the profits
from securities that are being lent by their investment vehicles
such as collective trusts, mutual funds and ETFs.

The Securities and Exchange Commission began an industrywide sweep
in the fall of 2013, examining affiliate relationships in
securities lending, said Christopher Kemp, senior principal
consultant at ACA Compliance Group Holdings LLC in Boston.  The
SEC has been looking at the issue since at least 2004, sources
said.

All three firms hire another unit of their company to conduct
securities lending. Using affiliated entities also had been the
subject of lawsuits by institutional investors, who maintained the
amount of securities lending profits kept by the affiliates was
too high.

The latest manager to implement changes is Northern Trust.  It
changed the share of profits retained by its agent, Northern Trust
Bank, to 30% from 40% for securities lending in most of the funds
in the Northern Trust Global Investments Collective Fund Trust,
according to information provided by Northern Trust, Chicago.

"The fee changes were the result of an annual review of securities
lending practices, market dynamics, risk management and other
factors," spokesman John O'Connell said in a statement.

BlackRock spokeswoman Tara McDonnell said in a statement the firm
implemented its changes to more closely reflect each fund's
objectives and lending capacity. BlackRock, New York, twice cut
its share of the lending revenue it splits with investors in its
iShares exchange-traded funds and in mutual funds.  In the first
quarter of 2014, company officials dropped a "one-size-fits-all"
policy -- under which it kept a uniform 35% of the profits -- and
began keeping between 15% and 30%, depending on the fund.

In January of this year, BlackRock lowered its take to 28.5% on
some of its investment vehicles, said Ms. McDonnell.

The Laborers Local 265 Pension Fund, Cincinnati, and the Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local No. 572 Pension Fund, Nashville, sued
BlackRock in U.S. District Court in Nashville in January 2013,
alleging it charged excessive fees by taking 35% of the profits
from securities lending in its iShares ETFs and an additional 5%
of the revenue to cover administrative fees.

The case was dismissed that August on procedural grounds; last
week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

SSgA fee reductions

SSgA, another major player in what is called third-party
securities lending, began some fee reductions in 2010, cutting
State Street's share to 30% from 50%. SSgA fund documents for 2014
show SSGA fund investors now get 85% of the profit from securities
lending.

State Street spokeswoman Anne McNally did not reply to multiple
requests for information on when the reductions took place and
what prompted them.

State Street was the defendant in a class-action suit filed in
April 2010 by one small Massachusetts 401(k) plan on behalf of
hundreds of other retirement plans covered by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  The suit alleged State Street
took an "unreasonably large" -- 50% -- share of the net income
generated from lending securities owned by a collective trust that
the firm ran for the institutional investors.  State Street's
action amounted to "fiduciary self-dealing and enrichment in
violation of the defendants' fiduciary obligations," the suit
said.

State Street settled the lawsuit last year, paying plaintiffs $10
million and agreeing to inform fund investors about details of the
revenue split and other securities lending information.

Last month, Northern Trust agreed to pay $36 million to settle a
securities lending suit filed by 1,500 corporate pension plans.
The suit said, among other things, that keeping 40% of the profits
was unreasonable and the company violated ERISA's prohibitions
against self-dealing and from engaging in transactions with
parties in interest.

Northern Trust still faces another suit by the approximately $14
billion Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System over the
revenue split and losses incurred during the financial crisis.

Northern Trust had disclosed to shareholders in April 2014 that it
had received a subpoena from the SEC over its securities lending
practices.

Other publicly held third-party securities lenders -- including
BNY Mellon Corp. unit The Drefyus Family of Funds, which hired its
parents as its securities lending agent, and BMO Asset Management,
which hired an affiliate for securities lending  --  do not break
out their revenue split for investors.

Mike Dunn, a spokesman for BNY Mellon, in a statement cited other
information Dreyfus provides for investors, including the extent
to which funds can lend portfolio securities, information on cash
collateral and the risks of securities lending.  The statement did
not explain why the revenue split was not included in the publicly
disclosed information. Northern Trust, BlackRock and SSgA also are
disclosing some of the same information.

BMO financial group spokesman Nini Krishnappa said for
"competitive reasons we're not able to disclose our fee split."


NOVA SCOTIA: Reference Terms for Public Inquiry Nearly Complete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aly Thomson, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that with the
terms of reference for a public inquiry into alleged abuse at the
Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children nearly complete, a former
resident says they are another step closer to starting the healing
process.

People who used to live in the Halifax orphanage allege that they
were subjected to physical, psychological and sexual abuse over
several decades up until the 1980s.

Chad Lucas, a spokesman for the province, said on March 6 that a
group tasked with designing the terms of reference has been
meeting with interested parties and the terms should be finalized
in a few weeks.

Tony Smith, a former resident of the home who is part of the group
designing the terms of reference, said the inquiry will give
former residents the chance to tell their stories.

"And it would be the first time that they actually tell their
stories," said Mr. Smith, adding that former residents will be
able to do so publicly or anonymously. "I think once that's over,
then they can really, truly start the healing process."

Premier Stephen McNeil apologized in October for the abuse,
acknowledging that the pleas of former residents for help went
unanswered in what he described as a chapter in the province's
history of systemic racism. The formal apology came after years of
a struggle for recognition by the former residents.

40 complainants came forward

Mr. Lucas wouldn't reveal any details about the terms of reference
and he couldn't say when the inquiry process would begin, but he
said it would start sometime this year.

An array of people, including representatives from multiple
government departments, the board of the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children and former residents, were part of the group
designing the terms of reference, said Lucas.

"People seem quite responsive and receptive to the direction it's
been going," said Mr. Lucas.

In March 2012, the RCMP and Halifax police began urging people to
come forward with their allegations of abuse.

Investigators interviewed 40 complainants in Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, but by December of
that year police said the information collected didn't support the
laying of criminal charges because it could not be corroborated.

Class-action lawsuits were launched by the former residents
against the home and the provincial government, which eventually
ended in settlements totaling $34 million.


NOVARTIS CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Dickerson and Susan Orr, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Novartis Corporation and Alcon Laboratories, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015), arises out of
the Defendants' gender discrimination practices against female
workers.

Novartis Corporation, based in New York, is a multinational
corporation engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing,
marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical and healthcare products.

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is a subsidiary of Novartis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
      Alexandra Harwin, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, New York 10019
      Telephone: (646) 402-5656
      Facsimile: (646) 402-5650
      E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
              aharwin@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORDHEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 499-5201
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
      E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 795-2024
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com


NZR RETAIL: "Neitzke" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Neitzke, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. NZR Retail of Toledo, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00508 (N.D. Ohio, March 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

NZR Retail of Toledo, Inc. owns and operates gasoline convenience
stores and is headquartered in Toledo, Ohio

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
      WIDMAN & FRANKLIN
      Ste. 1550, 405 Madison Avenue
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Telephone: (419) 243-9005
      Facsimile: (419) 243-9404
      E-mail: kera@wflawfirm.com


OCAMPO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paredes" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Paredes, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Ocampo Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Supermercado
Tampico, and Jose Ocampo, Case No. 1:15-cv-02317 (N.D. Ill., March
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store located at 516 Main
St, West Chicago, IL 60185.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Actions After Staples Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2015, Staples Inc. and Office Depot Inc. entered
into the Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would
combine in a stock and cash transaction.

Office Depot said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on February 9, 2015, by purported Office Depot
shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
("Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the
defendant companies and individual members of Office Depot's Board
of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary
duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs in
David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among other things,
injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs.

Subsequently, seven other lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations,
namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller
v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot,
Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit
Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Office
Depot, Inc. et al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., and
Steve Renous v. Staples Inc. et al.

Two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, namely
Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman
v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. Other lawsuits may be filed with
similar allegations.


OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Heitzenrater" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Heitzenrater v.
OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York in
September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint
alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers
("ASMs") as exempt employees. The Company believes that adequate
provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are
not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and
the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in the matter.
OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.


OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against "Rivet" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Office Depot Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Kyle Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  The complaint alleges that Office
Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was
unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary
and failed to provide its assistant store managers ("ASMs") with a
clear and mutual understanding notification that they would
receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs
similarly seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees. The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions
have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not
material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in these matters.
Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these
lawsuits.


OMNICARE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for Law.com, reports that both sides got
something to celebrate -- and also plenty to complain about -- in
the March 24 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Omnicare v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund.

Securities class action defendants everywhere can thank Kannon
Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly for persuading the court that
Omnicare Inc. can't be held liable under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 just because it offered opinions in a
regulatory filing that later turned out to be incorrect.  The
justices unanimously rejected the position of plaintiffs counsel
Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, who argued that it didn't
matter whether Omnicare believed its own statements at the time,
as long as the statements were false. (Omnicare told investors in
2005 that it "believed" its contracts with drug suppliers were
lawful; two months later the company disclosed kickback
allegations that ultimately cost it nearly $200 million in
government settlements.)

The decision, however, was far from a total victory for Omnicare.
The ruling also offered a road map -- albeit not an easy one --
for class counsel at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to press ahead
with the underlying case in federal court in Kentucky.

The high court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, which had revived the class action in 2013 after finding
that the appropriate trigger for Section 11 liability was the
objective falsity of Omnicare's statements.  But the justices also
rejected Omnicare's position that all "subjective" statements of
opinion are immune from liability.

"If a registration statement omits material facts about the
issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of
opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable
investor would take from the statement itself, then Section 11's
omissions clause creates liability," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for
the unanimous court.  "Omnicare would nullify that statutory
requirement for all sentences starting with the phrases 'we
believe' or 'we think.' But those magic words can preface nearly
any conclusion, and the resulting statements, as we have shown,
remain perfectly capable of misleading investors."

The court remanded the case back to the district court, where
Robbins Geller can attempt to show that Omnicare omitted important
details from its regulatory filing.  To succeed, however, the
plaintiffs will need to establish that any omitted facts were
enough to contradict Omnicare's subjective statement that its
pharma contracts were kosher.

"The investor must identify particular (and material) facts going
to the basis for the issuer's opinion -- facts about the inquiry
the issuer did or did not conduct or the knowledge it did or did
not have -- whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue
misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and
in context," the court concluded.

Predictions about the March 24 ruling were all over the map
following oral arguments in November, with some observers
expecting a clean win for Omnicare and others betting that the
justices would easily uphold the Sixth Circuit.  In the end, as a
lawyer for the U.S. Solicitor General's Office had urged in
November, the court came out somewhere in the middle.

Defendants, as Justice Kagan wrote, can't invoke "magic words" to
shield outright misstatements from Section 11 liability under the
guise of opinion.  But they also won reassurance that they can't
be easily sued for events beyond their knowledge and control.

Securities plaintiffs, meanwhile, have the burden of proving that
a defendant used opinion to obscure the truth.  But if they're
able to do that, they can still win.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Health Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Robes Meeks, writing for The Pasadena Star-News, reports
that port dockworkers are suing terminal operators and ocean
carriers along the West Coast for what they say are tens of
millions of dollars in unreimbursed health claims.

The Pacific Maritime Association, along with Zenith American
Solutions and Cigna Inc., the current and former third-party
administrators of the employee health plan for International
Longshore and Warehouse Union workers, are named in a class-action
lawsuit filed in federal district court in Los Angeles.

The suit also names Pacific Maritime Association trustees who
manage the plan, saying that they are not acting in the best
interest of employees.

Officials with PMA declined to comment, and Zenith and Cigna did
not return calls or emails seeking comment on March 4.  The union
declined to comment, referring media calls to the office that
manages the PMA health plan, which did not immediately respond.

The plaintiffs, Lorena Armijo and Kristen Andrich, who are married
to ILWU Local 13 members covered by the PMA Plan, and Dr. Ralph
Mayer, a Los Angeles surgeon who specializes in obstetrics and
gynecology, are among the thousands whose claims have not been
repaid even though care and treatment was deemed necessary and
covered by the plan, the claim alleges.

The plan covers longshore workers along West Coast ports,
including the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and their
families.

"I got involved because the PMA plan denied payment after I
devoted my time and expertise. I saved patients' health, dignity
and often lives and was never compensated," Dr. Mayer said.  "The
PMA plan promises their employees medical care, promises doctors
payment and then denies both."

Michael McClelland, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case,
would not disclose what medical procedures Armijo and Andrich
needed to be reimbursed for, citing health privacy law.

If PMA's health benefit plan violated federal law, the port
employers could be on the hook for as much as $100 million in
unpaid expenses, Mr. McClelland said.  Some 300,000 claims range
from surgical procedures to steroid injections.  Hospitals and
surgical centers are owed millions of dollars, he said.

"The PMA health benefit plan agreed in past contracts with the
ILWU to provide specific health care benefits to ILWU members and
their beneficiaries," Mr. McClelland said.  "This case is about
the PMA's undeniable failure to honor its requirements under
federal law to pay those benefits, which have resulted in
devastating harm."

The unpaid claims have forced doctors to drop patients while other
patients opt not to seek necessary care, he said.

"People are not getting care to avoid paying for a bill they are
not responsible for," Mr. McClelland said.

PMA and the other defendants named in the lawsuit have 20 days to
respond.


PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Tanning Room Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------
Breitbart reports that Planet Fitness has over 900 clubs
nationwide, one of which, in Moline, Illinois, precipitated a
class action lawsuit charging it with negligence from members
using their tanning salon who were videotaped by hidden cameras
while they were undressed.

Attorney Thomas Zimmerman told the Quad-City Times, "We do know
the first camera was discovered Nov. 5 in the tanning room, and
the company did not notify any of the members of this camera and
simply allowed them to continue in the tanning rooms.  The second
camera was discovered Nov. 6, and then after that, Nov. 7, was
when they actually notified members that there were cameras."


PRICELINE: York County Gets $20,000 From Tax Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Marchant, writing for The Herald, reports that if you've
reserved a hotel stay in South Carolina through an online booking
site, you may have inadvertently skipped out on paying taxes.

Several local governments in South Carolina recently brought suit
against a number of hotel sites, claiming the companies that
manage web surfers' travel destinations had failed to pay the
state's accommodations tax when they booked those trips.  Now, a
settlement is being offered that could give those governments a
financial boost.  Because the suit was brought as a class action
-- meaning the cities and counties that sought back taxes were
acting as representatives of all local entities in the state owed
accommodations taxes -- every government in the state could
benefit.

On March 2, York County Council voted to accept its portion of the
settlement, an estimated contribution to the county budget of
$20,206.19.  The money will benefit counties based on the
proportion of accommodations tax they could have expected to
receive if they had been paid all along.  Initially, the suit was
brought by areas with large concentrations of hotels: the cities
of Columbia and North Charleston and Aiken and Charleston
counties.

Filed in July 2013, the suit targeted a dozen of the web's top
hotel sites, including Priceline, Hotwire, Expedia and Orbitz.
The companies eventually offered a settlement, which must still go
before a judge to be approved, setting aside cash for each local
government in proportion to what it would have collected prior to
Aug. 1, 2014.

York County was not a party to the original lawsuit, and most
local governments contacted for this story said they were unaware
of the lawsuit until informed they were eligible to receive the
money.

"We received a proposal of the settlement, and we could either opt
out or take a proportionate settlement," said Michael Kendree, the
York County attorney.

As a member of the class covered by the suit, York County didn't
need to take any action to collect the money, but Mr. Kendree
still took the issue to county council for approval because
council members had the option to either decline the money or opt-
out in favor of launching their own suit against the hotel sites.
But the council ultimately decided to accept the proposal.

"It's seemingly a fair settlement," Mr. Kendree said.

Other area governments also could collect their piece of the pie.
Lancaster County Administrator Steve Willis has scheduled
discussion of the settlement for a county council meeting later in
the month, although he doesn't expect the county to receive much.

"There are only two hotels in the county," he said. "It's not
going to be millions of bucks."

Likewise, Chester County Attorney Joan Winters said Chester County
Council will likely take up the matter as well, although she
estimates the rural county's share of the settlement could be
"less than $1,000."  Cities are also eligible to receive a
settlement, but Rock Hill spokeswoman Katie Quinn said the city's
attorney has not made a recommendation to pursue a piece of the
settlement.


QUALITY ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Asaf Agazanof, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quality Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01952 (C.D.
Cal., March 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
contacting consumer on the cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Quality Acceptance, LLC is a privately owned company that
purchases retail installment sales contracts from various types of
dealers and provides consumers with secured and unsecured
financing structures for the purchase of vehicles, furniture,
water systems, jewelry, appliances, and home electronics.

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


QUANEX BUILDING: Manipulates Window Spacers Market, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ATN Holding, Inc., a California corporation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quanex Building
Products Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:15-cv-00516 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), arise out of the
Defendants' anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the wholesale and
retail market for flexible window spacers used in the manufacture
of insulated residential windows.

Quanex Building Products Corporation is a Texas corporation that
manufactures and produces flexible window spacers that are used in
the assembly and manufacture of residential windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Buus, Esq.
      Eric M. Schiffer, Esq.
      SCHIFFER & BUUS APC
      3070 Bristol Street, Suite 530
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949)825-6140
      Facsimile: (949)825-6141
      E-mail: wbuus@schifferbuus.com
              eschiffer@schifferbuus.com


RESONANT INC: Faces "Paggos" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Paggos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Resonant Inc., Terry Lingren, and John Philpott, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01970 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Resonant Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
principal executive offices at 110 Castilian Drive, Suite 100,
Santa Barbara, California 93117. It is a development-stage
company, which focuses on creating innovative filter designs for
RF front-ends -- the circuitry in a mobile device responsible for
analog signal processing -- for the mobile device industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak Suits Likely to Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Brunkhorst, Esq., in an article for The National Law
Review, reports that on February 18, 2015, the Ronald Reagan UCLA
Medical Center reported two patients had died after being infected
with a "superbug," known as carbapenem-resistant
Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), during endoscopic procedures performed
at its hospital.  UCLA also reported that five additional patients
were infected and up to 179 were exposed to CRE from October 2014
to January 2015. UCLA professed that the source of the CRE
outbreak stems from contaminated Endoscopic Retrograde
Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes used during
endoscopic procedures to diagnose and treat diseases of the liver,
bile ducts and pancreas.  Despite UCLA's decontamination and
sterilization efforts, which it claims exceeds the manufacturer's
(Olympus Medical Systems Group) standards and national guidelines,
these reusable scopes reportedly had residual body fluids and
organic debris from prior procedures within the device's crevices.
The presence of such material exposed subsequent patients to
serious CRE infections.  In response to the contaminated scopes,
UCLA averred that the manufacturer's cleaning standards did not
completely eradicate CRE and that either additional cleaning
techniques are required or a significant redesign of the product
is necessary.

In addition to UCLA's announcements, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on February 19, 2015, released an alert to
health care professionals, including those working in reprocessing
units in health care facilities, explaining the particular
challenge of effectively cleaning ERCP duodenoscopes.  According
to the FDA, the process of cleaning and disinfecting or
sterilizing reusable duodenoscopes, known as "reprocessing," may
be challenging due to its design and unique mechanisms.  To
prevent CRE transmissions, the FDA recommended device users to
adhere to the manufacturer's cleaning instructions despite the
devices inherent reprocessing difficulties.

On February 20, 2015, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also
released a featured article reporting the rise of lethal CRE
infections.  According to the CDC, it has warned about CRE for
more than a decade but the number of CRE infections has only
substantially increased in recent years.  In fact, the CDC
reported a "seven-fold increase in the spread of the most common
type of CRE during the past 10 years." The CDC also reported that
CRE has been detected in at least one medical facility in 42
states. This considerable increase is alarming because of the
antibiotic resistant nature of CRE and the fact that nearly half
of those with a CRE infection die.

As a result of the UCLA outbreak, product liability lawsuits were
quickly filed by infected UCLA patients or their family against
Olympus Corporation. See Young v. Olympus Am. Inc., No. BC573399
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, filed February 23, 2015);
The Estate of Antonia Torres Cerda v. Olympus Am. Inc., No.
BC573665 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County filed February 25,
2015).  These recent cases, however, are not the first time the
issue of contaminated endoscopes were the subject of a lawsuit.
See Alwine v. South Hills Endoscopy Ctr., No. GD-12-017815 (Pa.
Ct. of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, filed September 24, 2012).
In Alwine, plaintiff asserted a class action lawsuit against a
medical center alleging its failure to properly clean, sterilize
and disinfect endoscopes and thereby increasing the risk of
contracting a viral or bacterial infection.

In light of the escalating number of CRE infections and heightened
public awareness of the UCLA CRE outbreak, additional lawsuits are
likely to increase nationwide.  With this in mind, it is
imperative for manufacturers and device users to comply with
federal and state regulations, particularly the mandatory
reporting requirements for when an adverse event involving a
medical device is discovered. See 21 C.F.R. Sec. 803.
Manufacturers should also review their product's warnings, labels,
and instructions to reduce CRE transmissions and limit potential
liability.  In addition, health care personnel should continue to
strictly comply with manufacturer instructions and thoroughly
explain associated risks to patients when using reprocessed
endoscopic devices.


SWEDBANK ROBUR: Attempts to Block Closet Tracking Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Marriage, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Swedbank Robur, the asset management arm of Sweden's largest bank,
has been accused of bullying its own clients in an attempt to
block a class-action claim filed against the lender in December.

The Swedish Shareholders' Association, which filed the claim on
behalf of Swedbank investors, has accused the bank of mis-selling
funds that charge high fees for active management but do little
more than mimic an index.

The practice, known as "closet tracking", has been widely
condemned by academics, consumer groups and senior industry
figures.  Swedbank, which is being sued for SKr7 billion ($840
million), has denied its funds are closet trackers.

More than 3,000 Swedbank Robur clients have signed up to the
lawsuit, which is being closely watched across Europe as a test
case for legal action against closet tracking funds.

The claim was filed with Sweden's National Board for Consumer
Disputes, known as ARN, but Swedbank has said ARN is not the
appropriate authority to try this case.

Swedbank added that if the authority tries the case and the bank
is ordered to repay its investors, it might be forced to sue those
clients in court.  This would set a legal precedent in Sweden,
where ARN decisions are rarely challenged by financial
institutions in court.

Carl Rosen, CEO of the Swedish Shareholders' Association, has
accused the bank of pursuing "mafia" like tactics to intimidate
the class action participants into dropping the case, comments
that have been picked up in the Swedish media.

Mr. Rosen told FTfm: "The fact that Swedbank says it is prepared
to sue individuals in the class action and that this will mean
considerable costs for them is extremely disturbing.  This is not
America in the 1930s, this is Sweden in 2015.  We see this as an
empty threat, but it is very aggressive behavior."

Cecilia Hernqvist, communications director at Swedbank, described
the accusations as "absurd". "To have this issue tested in court
is completely normal," she said in a statement.

Ms. Hernqvist told FTfm the bank is unhappy with ARN judging the
case as the authority only accepts written evidence and it is not
possible to appeal its decisions.

"We think ARN is a very good authority for consumer disputes, but
not for a group class action which comprises SKr7 billion and
concerns an industry-wide issue," she said.

"If this unfortunate situation leads to ARN choosing to try this
matter, the consequences might be that we have to bring this to
court.  We do not want this to happen, however, we think it is
important to understand that this could be the result."

Maria Johannson, a lawyer at ARN, said the authority "is the right
body to try this dispute", although it has not yet decided whether
it will handle the claim.

An executive at a rival Swedish bank described the legal dispute
as "very damaging" for Swedbank's reputation as it is "extremely
well followed" by the Swedish public.

Ms. Hernqvist said: "So far 3,000 people have signed up [to the
claim], which is not that many.  Whether or not this has damaged
our brand is too early to say."


SYNGENTA: Debate Arises Over Seed Traits Commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------
According to High Plains Journal's Sara Wyant, ask just about any
farmer leader if he supports science and innovation in agriculture
and the answer will usually be a resounding "yes."  But ask him
about how to commercialize new seed traits and avoid sending those
products to unapproved international markets, and there's little
consensus.

It's a debate that's been playing out in farm groups, federal
agencies, in Congress, international markets and most recently in
the courts.  Flocks of lawyers are buying ads on the Internet and
attending farm meetings across the U.S. in an attempt to recruit
farmers to sue Syngenta, a seed and crop protection company based
in Switzerland with U.S. headquarters in Minnesota.  More than 750
lawsuits were filed. The global company sold over $15 billion in
products last year.

In the lawsuits, which are being consolidated in the U.S. District
Court in Kansas, plaintiffs allege that they suffered financial
losses in 2013 after China started to reject shipments of U.S.
corn and distilled dried grains containing Syngenta's Agrisure
Viptera (event MIR162).

Of the 762 lawsuits, 696 were filed by individual plaintiffs
(growers of non-MIR162 corn and exporters such as Cargill and
Archer Daniels Midland), and 66 by putative classes of both
growers of non-MIR162 corn and of exporters and others affected,
Syngenta noted in a report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Syngenta's corn, which has been engineered to protect against
damage from insects such as corn borers and rootworms, was
approved for use in the U.S. in 2010; Argentina and Brazil gave
their blessing shortly afterward.  After almost four years of
trying to persuade the Chinese to approve the trait, Syngenta
finally won approval last December.  During the lengthy approval
process, while China's demand for corn soared from under 1 million
metric tons a year to over 5 million tons, the Asian giant
originally approved imports containing the corn trait.  However,
in 2013, China stopped taking corn and DDGs -- rejecting entire
shiploads and causing huge disruptions in the supply chain.

Syngenta believes the lawsuits are without merit and "strongly
upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new
technologies that can increase both their productivity and crop
yields," said Chuck Lee, who heads Syngenta's North American corn
marketing, in a written response to Agri-Pulse. "The right to
market a safe and effective grain that benefits farmers and
consumers must be defended," he said.

"Syngenta has done what a good company should do.  We developed a
superior product that helps farmers, we applied for and received
government approvals from the U.S. and major export markets at the
time and we submitted an import application to the Chinese
government that was timely, accurate and complete," Mr. Lee added.

Yet, the National Grain and Feed Association, which also says it
"strongly supports agricultural biotechnology and other scientific
and technological innovations," along with the North American
Export Grain Association sent a letter to Syngenta in January 2014
asking the company to immediately halt commercialization of both
its Agrisure Viptera corn and Agrisure Duracade "until such time
as China and certain other U.S. export markets have granted
required regulatory approvals/authorizations."

NGFA also conducted studies that estimated up to $2.9 billion in
economic losses have been sustained by the U.S. corn, distillers
grains and soy sectors in the aftermath of the China's enforcement
of a zero-tolerance policy on Syngenta's Agrisure Viptera MIR 162
corn technology in U.S. export shipments. Its analysis suggests
actual losses could be much higher.

The debate over commercialization and stewardship is sometimes
pitting farmer against farmer -- even within associations like the
National Corn Growers Association which has a long-standing policy
in support of biotechnology.

Take the case of former NCGA President Wallie Hardie, one of the
plaintiffs suing Syngenta. While the North Dakota farmer would not
provide specifics, he told Agri-Pulse he believes legal action is
necessary because "what happened was significant in the corn and
DDGs markets."

Yet, another former NCGA president, Kansas Farmer Ken McCauley,
has been encouraging farmers who are being recruited by lawyers to
join the Syngenta lawsuits to "just say no, no, no."  Farmers are
"sending the wrong signal by joining the lawsuits, by basically
"selling biotechnology providers down the river," McCauley said --
even describing some of his fellow farmers who joining in the
lawsuits as "ambulance chasers."

"China accepted the corn for two years before rejecting shipments
and everyone knew the risks involved," he emphasized.
Even lawyers don't always see eye to eye on the topic.  While
several legal firms are encouraging farmers to sign up for the
class action lawsuit against Syngenta, San Antonio, Texas,
attorney Martin Phipps has been advising his farmer clients to
avoid being part of any class, where he says plaintiffs could end
up getting "pennies on their dollar," versus an individual filing
where he will provide expert witnesses to prove up individual
losses.

"If a farmer believes he has a case, it behooves him to sign up as
an individual or else he will be lumped into a much larger class
of plaintiffs," he argued. Phipps started working with farmers in
2006, after Bayer's GM LibertyLink trait had been found in U.S.
rice supplies.

Bigger questions surface

While the legal challenges are ongoing, so is a much broader
debate over how to handle the rejection of biotech traits in
international markets.

Val Giddings, a senior fellow with the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, said it is "completely understandable that
farmers would get their noses out of joint and seek to recoup
damages from the responsible party. But in my opinion, they are
making a grave, strategic mistake going after Syngenta.

"You could make the argument that Syngenta should not to have sold
the seed to American farmers until the approvals were in hand in
all of the appropriate big export markets.  But to make that
argument presupposes that those countries that are the export
markets are honoring their commitments under the WTO (World Trade
Organization) to make sure that they don't have protectionist
trade barriers disguised as phytosanitary or other requirements.

"The primary offender is not Syngenta, it's China," emphasized
Mr. Giddings.  "There is a severe disconnect between China's
international treaty obligations and the way they are
administering their system for the approval of new crop varieties.
"These folks who sued Syngenta to recoup their losses would have
been far wiser if they would have grabbed their pitchforks and
torches and headed to the offices of the U.S. Trade Representative
to demand that they initiate conversations in Geneva with China
about the unacceptable deviations between their practices and
their treaty obligations," Mr. Giddings added.  "I don't
understand why these plaintiffs have taken a shortsighted and
long-shot approach when a more enduring fix is not difficult to
imagine."

Focus on USBCA

Outside of the courts, representatives of several farm, grain
trade and biotech companies have been meeting on a regular basis
to try to develop better "rules of the road" for new product
introduction.  The U.S. Biotech Crops Alliance aims to find common
ground on the introduction, stewardship and distribution of
commodities and processed products containing or derived from
modern biotechnology.

The group has been working to communicate up and down the value
chain about the risks associated with the introduction of a new
biotech product and how to manage those risks.  On the
international front, participants are still grinding out how to
establish protocols in international markets for low-level
presence, ensuring that small amounts of unapproved seed varieties
don't lead to another full-scale rejection of a grain shipment.

But the effort to is still very complicated and may take many more
years to resolve.  And the longer it takes, the more reluctant
some companies may be to bring new products to the market --
especially when you consider it takes about 13 years and $136
million to take a new biotechnology trait from the point of
discovery through the domestic and international approval process,
according to Syngenta.  And that same trait may only enjoy a
patent life of 20 years.


TCP: Minority Shareholders Seek to Oust CEO Ellis Yan
-----------------------------------------------------
Chuck Soder, writing for, Crain's Cleveland Business, reports that
a lawsuit against TCP CEO Ellis Yan portrays him as a guy who runs
roughshod over his management team and, in the process, minority
shareholders. As a guy who acts like he owns the place.

Technically, he does not own the place. Technically.  But he still
has a huge amount of control over the Aurora-based company -- a
major player in the lighting products industry.

So if you're a minority shareholder who agrees with the claims
made in the lawsuit, know this: You have options, but it might be
hard to replace Yan as CEO or make other big changes at the
company.

TCP general counsel Laura Hauser filed a lawsuit against Yan and
the company itself.  The suit alleges that Yan "physically
assaulted" her, threatened her and pressured managers to release
mislabeled products.  It also claims that Yan barks orders,
ignores company policies and makes big decisions without
consulting other managers.

Yan issued a statement saying the lawsuit is "meritless," but he
argues that his "results-oriented leadership style" is the reason
why TCP now has 7,000 employees worldwide and $400 million in
sales.

And to some degree, he can do things his way: He and his family
own 70% of TCP's shares, and the family has agreed to let Yan
choose who gets elected to the company's board.

Some board members apparently do want Mr. Yan to make changes: The
lawsuit states that TCP's audit committee told Mr. Yan he needs to
"promptly and substantially" change the way he runs the company.
But it's unclear if the entire board will force Yan to do so,
given that he sits on the board and decides who sits next to him.

Even so, minority shareholders who want a company to make changes
do have some options, according to local lawyers who aren't
affiliated with TCP.

For instance, they could file more lawsuits.  That's already
happening in TCP's case, though the shareholders aren't leading
the charge: Law firms have filed at least seven class action
lawsuits claiming that TCP misled investors about its product
certifications and other issues.  None of them had announced a
lead plaintiff as of last Thursday, March 5.

Or they could file a shareholder derivative lawsuit -- a tool
shareholders can use to sue third parties on behalf of the company
itself.  Those third parties can be company executives and
directors believed to be harming the company.

Getting religion

Before they can file a derivative action, however, they have to
petition the board to make changes. And sometimes that alone will
prompt a board to make changes, according to attorney Christopher
Hubbard, who leads the corporate securities group at Kohrman
Jackson & Krantz of Cleveland.

"Sometimes the threat of a derivative action can give the board
more religion than they had," Mr. Hubbard said.

Lawsuits also can be good tools for larger minority shareholders
who want to change the makeup of a company's board.  Maybe they
don't control enough shares to sway who gets elected, but they can
use lawsuits to put pressure on board members who may not want to
go to court -- or give a deposition under oath, according to a
local securities lawyer who did not wish to be named.

Even so, lawsuits against board members sometimes don't inflict as
much pain as one might think: They typically are provided with
insurance that will compensate them if they lose a lawsuit.

However, even small minority investors who can't afford to duke it
out in court have other tools at their disposal.  Like free
speech.

Shareholders can sometimes effect change by going public with
their complaints, according to Scott Lewis --
slewis@meyersroman.com -- administrative partner at Meyers, Roman,
Friedberg & Lewis.

Sure, a good argument might sway company leaders to make changes.
But "the power to embarrass is another potential weapon,"
Mr. Lewis said.

But what if shareholders at a company like TCP wanted to replace
the CEO, who happens to own a supermajority of the company's
stock? How could they do that if he alone has the power to elect
board members?

Two lawyers who asked not to be named said that would be
particularly hard.

He's the man

And in TCP's case, removing Mr. Yan would come with additional
complications.  The company is "particularly dependent" on
Mr. Yan, according to the registration statement TCP filed with
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission last year, when it was
preparing to go public.

"Ellis Yan has major responsibilities with respect to sales,
product development and overall corporate administration.  We do
not have a formal succession plan in place for Ellis Yan," the
document stated.

Plus, Mr. Yan, who grew up in China, is a key link to the
company's multiple manufacturing plants in that country.  His
brother Solomon has been president of the company's Chinese
subsidiaries since 1995.  Of course, no matter how much control a
large shareholder has, they do have at least one incentive to
please smaller ones.

If minority shareholders don't like a stock, they will sell it,
which drives down the value of everyone's shares.  And that's what
TCP shareholders have been doing.  When the company went public in
June of last year, its stock initially sold for $11 per share, but
the price dropped several times over the next two months and
hovered in the $6 to $7 range in the months before Hauser filed
her lawsuit. The suit caused the price to drop by more than 50%;
it was trading at $2.72 on the afternoon of Thursday, March 5.

In TCP's case, the board still might make changes.  The company --
which technically is called TCP International Holdings Ltd. --
said in a statement that the claims against the business are
"without merit."  However, it did not comment on the claims
against Mr. Yan.  The statement said the audit committee is still
investigating Hauser's claims.

And according to the lawsuit, the committee had scolded Yan before
the suit was filed.  According to Mr. Hubbard, "that may be
indicative that the board is trying to do the right thing."


TIFFANY'S CABARET: Trial Begins in Strippers' Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Contreras, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports
that a federal trial was scheduled to begin on March 9 in a
lawsuit filed by a pair of strippers who allege Tiffany's Cabaret
shorted them on pay.

Alexis Alex, 27, and Nicolette Prieto, 31, sued KHG of San Antonio
LLC (which does business as Tiffany's) in 2013, alleging the club
committed several violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
women worked at the Northwest Side club for four to five years
before they filed suit.

"Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the
plaintiffs for all hours worked," the suit said.  "That is,
plaintiffs work more than forty hours a week on average.  However,
defendant pays plaintiffs for well below half of their hours
worked and no pay at the premium hourly rate for overtime hours
worked over forty in a work week.  Consequently, plaintiffs were
wrongfully denied their minimum wage and overtime due to 'off the
clock' work required by defendant."

The suit also said dancers were paid tips by customers for table
dances, and that the club does not take a tip credit against the
women's hourly rate. Yet, the suit alleges, Tiffany's violated the
FLSA by requiring its dancers to split their tips with other
workers who don't normally get tips, such as the "house mom, "
bouncers and disc jockey, and are forced to pay a "house fee" to
dance there.  The tip pool, the suit said, is invalid.

The suit seeks the wages the women claim they were shorted, plus
attorney costs and fees.

In a court-filed response, the club and its operators deny the
allegations, said Ms. Prieto and Ms. Alex never worked more than
40 hours a week, made the "applicable" minimum wage for each hour
they worked, and that they waited too long to sue beyond the two-
year statute of limitations.

"At all relevant times . . . defendant acted in good faith and had
reasonable grounds to believe its actions were not in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act," the club said.

Lawyers for the women claim that as a result of the suit,
Tiffany's told employees to sign arbitration agreements, and that
they must use that out-of-court process for any labor disputes.
The trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth could
last much of this week.

A separate class-action lawsuit filed against Tiffany's by other
strippers with similar wage dispute claims is pending before
another federal judge.


UNIT CORP: Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Certification Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs' claims will
remain stayed while class certification issues are pending in the
case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit
Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer
County, Oklahoma.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees.

"Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf
of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma
production. We have asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted
that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the
materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease," the Company said.

On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the
trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs
petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8,
2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
in addition to the defenses described above, we argued that the
amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no
timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of
Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification
issues are pending.


UNITED STATES: Federal Employees to Get Shutdown Lawsuit Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leada Gore, writing for al.com, reports that as many as a million
federal employees will soon be notified they are eligible to
participate in a lawsuit that arose from the 2013 government
shutdown.  Government employees will receive notification from the
Justice Department through their federal email accounts,
Government Executive reports.  The notice will advise them of
their rights to join the suit and the possibility there may be
compensation from it.

The original suit was filed last year by a small group of Bureau
of Prison employees and later expanded to class-action status.  It
covers all federal employees who worked during the 2013 government
shutdown but saw their paychecks delayed.  The suit alleges the
government violated the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act delaying pay
for employees who remained on the job during the 16-day shutdown.

The suit asks for exempted employees to be reimbursed at a rate of
$7.25 per hour times the number of hours they worked for the pay
period between Sept. 22 and Oct. 5, 2013 as well as any overtime.
The act requires the government to pay workers at least minimum
wage, as well as any overtime pay, on their scheduled payday.  By
delaying pay during the shutdown, the workers technically received
pay below the minimum wage, the suit contends.

Federal employees must join the lawsuit to recover any damages.
The email will tell eligible employees they have 105 days from
today to sign on to the suit.

As many as 800,000 federal workers, including 400,000 from the
Department of Defense, were furloughed at the start of the
shutdown on Oct. 1.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches for Deportees for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean Guerrero, writing for KPBS, reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union has started searching for deportees in Mexico who
may be eligible to return to the United States as part of a class-
action lawsuit against the federal government.  The campaign was
launched after U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt gave the ACLU
a green light to broaden its class of plaintiffs.

Eleven plaintiffs and three Southern California immigrant-rights
groups accused the federal government of coercing the plaintiffs,
all Mexican immigrants, into signing voluntary return forms.  By
signing the forms, the plaintiffs forfeited their rights to an
immigration hearing and, in some cases, were subject to a 10-year
prohibition of legal re-entry.

The lawsuit was brought against the U.S. Border Patrol and
Immigration Customs and Enforcement in 2013.

The lawsuit was settled last year, allowing plaintiffs like
Isidora Lopez-Venegas to return to the U.S. A single mother and
elementary school teacher, Lopez-Venegas spent three years exiled
in Mexico with her U.S.-citizen son.

"I felt paralyzed," she said in an interview.

Ms. Lopez-Venegas said she signed a voluntary return form because
immigration officials threatened to take away her son if she
didn't.

"I became afraid. I became so nervous," said Ms. Lopez-Venegas,
who now lives in San Diego.  "They were intimidating me,
threatening me, and that's why I got scared and said, 'OK, I'll
sign it.'"

Deportees qualify to join the ACLU's class-action lawsuit if they
signed the voluntary return form between June 1, 2009, and
August 28, 2014.  They must have been deported to Mexico from the
San Diego or Los Angeles field offices, and they had to have
reasonable claims to reside in the U.S. at the time of signing.

Reasonable claims include having qualified for the 2012 Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals or having paperwork in process for
an immigration status change.  They could additionally claim that
they had a citizen spouse, that they had lived in the U.S. for
more than 10 years or had family members with citizenship or green
cards.

"We are working with a lot of different organizations across
California and throughout Mexico in order to diffuse this
information as widely as possible," said Gabriela Rivera, a staff
attorney for ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.

As part of the 2014 settlement, the federal government agreed to
provide immigrants with detailed information about the
consequences of signing a voluntary return form in the future.
Immigration officials will also allow ACLU attorneys to monitor
their compliance with the settlement for a period of three years.

The ACLU has four months to find possible additional plaintiffs
for its class-action lawsuit.  It will then file applications on
their behalf through Dec. 22.


UNITED STATES: 7,000+ Immigrant Children Face Deportation
---------------------------------------------------------
Kate Linthicum, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that more
than 7,000 immigrant children have been ordered deported without
appearing in court since large numbers of minors from Central
America began illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2013, federal
statistics show.

Flawed legal system

The high number of deportation orders has raised alarm among
immigrant advocates, who say many of those children were never
notified of their hearing date because of problems with the
immigration court system.

In interviews and court documents, attorneys said notices
sometimes arrived late, at the wrong address or not at all.  In
some cases, children were ordered to appear in a court near where
they were initially detained, rather than where they were living,
attorneys said.

"What was a border crisis has now become a due process crisis,"
said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, an
advocacy group.

Immigration activism

In February, dozens of advocacy groups asked the government to
temporarily stop issuing removal orders when a child fails to
appear in court, and to reopen cases in which deportations were
ordered.

Unprecedented numbers of immigrant children started showing up at
the southern U.S. border in the fall of 2013. Many traveled
without an adult and said they were fleeing rising gang violence
in Honduras and El Salvador.

Heavy caseload

The government filed deportation cases against 62,363 minors
between October 2013 and January of this year, according to
federal data compiled by the Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

At least 7,706 of them were ordered removed after they failed to
show up in court.

It is not known how many of those children were aware of their
hearings and chose not to appear.  It is also not known how many
have actually been sent home.

According to the most recent data available from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, the agency that carries out deportations,
1,901 unaccompanied immigrant children were deported from the
United States in fiscal year 2014, but some of those cases may
have predated the recent surge.

Reports of notification errors come as the Obama administration
has sped up deportation hearings for arriving youth -- in part to
dissuade others back home from making the journey north.

Last summer, Obama instructed courts to realign their dockets so
underage immigrants would appear before a judge within 21 days of
ICE officials filing a deportation case against them.  Previously
they would wait months or more than a year for their initial
hearing.

Immigrant advocates say the crush of fast-tracked cases may have
overwhelmed the courts.

Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, which administers the courts, said immigrants
who don't appear are ordered removed "when the immigration judge
is satisfied that notice of the time and place of the proceeding
was provided to the respondent at the address the respondent
provided."

Ms. Mattingly said she could not comment on alleged notification
errors because her agency is fighting a class-action lawsuit
demanding that the government provide attorneys to immigrant
children.  The case includes several plaintiffs who say they did
not receive proper notice to appear in court.

A federal judge in Washington state was to hear arguments on
March 6 on the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which
was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

In an indication that the government is aware of some problems,
immigration officials recently reopened the case of one of the
plaintiffs, a 17-year-old from El Salvador who was ordered
deported in September for failing to appear at his hearing.
In court documents, government attorneys said officials had
"uncovered some discrepancies" that called into question whether
he had received notification of his court date.
Immigrant advocates say they have heard of hundreds of similar
problems, some of which were detailed in last month's letter
demanding that judges stop ordering deportations when children
fail to show up.

The letter cites a Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
attorney who said that at one point last year, only one of her 13
clients had received a notice to appear before their first
hearings.

Another advocate said a child was ordered to appear in court in
New Orleans while still in government custody in Virginia.

The head of the union that represents immigration judges said she
had seen notification problems in her own San Francisco courtroom.
In one case, a notice was sent to a rural address where the child
lived, instead of the P.O. box where the child's family received
mail, said Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association
of Immigration Judges.

"Our system is far from foolproof," Ms. Marks said.  "It's a
difficult situation to try to know what percentage of those cases
are innocent errors and lack of understanding, and which
percentage of people who do not appear are consciously trying to
avoid the process."

Ms. Marks said she often gives immigrants a second chance to
appear before ordering them deported.  But she said other judges
do not, perhaps because of their interpretation of a 1996 law that
stiffened the consequences for immigrants who fail to show up.
Advocates for stricter enforcement of immigration laws said they
were also concerned by reports that the government has failed to
notify children of their court dates.

"They're supposed to know where these kids are going when they
release them," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation
for American Immigration Reform.  He said he also suspects some
people may receive notices but choose not to go to court because
they believe they can live in the country undetected.

"They know that nobody is coming out looking for them,"
Ms. Mehlman said.  "The reason we had this surge is that people
understood that these laws weren't being enforced."


VOCE COLUMBUS: "Mahbub" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Malik Mahbub, Mohammad Anwarul Islam, and Nizam Uddin, on behalf
of themselves and all those similarly-situated v. A Voce Columbus
LLC, Marc Ltd., and Marlon Abela, in his individual and 15
professional capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-01990 (S.D.N.Y., March 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at 10
Columbus Circle, Third Floor New York, NY I 00 I9.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
      MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3403 Broadway
      Astoria, NY 10006
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com


WAGNER BROTHERS: Grantham Residents Mull Quarry Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that Grantham residents in the Lockyer
Valley, inland from Brisbane, are considering launching a class
action against the former owners of a nearby quarry following a
new investigation that suggests the quarry contributed to the
severity of the 2011 flooding of the town.

The Queensland government has also left the door open for another
inquiry into the flood that killed 12 people and was the most
traumatic event of the flooding throughout much of Queensland in
early 2011.

An original government inquiry into the January flood -- under
first the ALP administration of Anna Bligh and then the Liberal
National Party administration of Campbell Newman -- found that the
presence of the quarry had helped to slow the rapid progress of
water towards the town.

But an investigation by hydraulic engineers DHI, commissioned by
The Australian, concluded that the original inquiry had
underestimated the extent of the collapse of an embankment wall at
the quarry.  The original inquiry, which used the technical
expertise of SKM and its expert hydrologist Phillip Jordan, found
that only 55m of the embankment wall had collapsed, but the DHI
inquiry found that 260m of the wall had collapsed.

The DHI report found that the flooding of Grantham was inevitable
after rainfall of up to 600mm in an hour had been recorded in the
area in the hours before the flood.

However, it found the larger collapse of the wall than that
claimed in the previous inquiry meant the flood had occurred
quicker and there was less time for evacuations.

The quarry owner at the time of the flood, Toowoomba-based Wagner
Brothers, has always said the embankment was part of the natural
landscape, but many locals claim it was man-made.

A spokesman for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said
yesterday the government would "seek advice" about the findings of
the report commissioned by The Australian.

Victoria-based law firm Maddens has undertaken several site visits
to Grantham and spoken to residents.  The firm says that in many
instances its observations are at odds with the account of events
in the SKM report.

Maddens has made a formal demand on Wagner Brothers requesting an
admission of liability or voluntary mediation. No admission has
been forthcoming and no voluntary mediation has taken place, and
Maddens is considering launching legal action.

Maddens lawyers will soon hold a meeting of affected property
owners and flood victims.

Maddens lawyers class action principal Brendan Pendergast, who has
led the investigation on behalf of residents, said the original
SKM report had been based on incorrect assumptions, and that the
direct evidence of witnesses should be preferred over modelling
outcomes when the two were at odds.

"While it is accepted that the flood levels in the Lockyer Valley
on 10 January 2011 were very high, that fact alone does not
explain the inland tsunami which caused the tragic loss of life
and the unprecedented property damage which occurred in Grantham,"
Mr. Pendergast said.

"Our investigations point to the intervening influence of a
man-made quarry wall which distorted the flood flow . . . This was
not an act of God.  This devastation was brought about by human
intervention.  It could have been avoided."

The Wagner family strongly believes in the original expert
finding, supported by the floods inquiry, that the quarry gave the
townsfolk more time and slightly reduced the Grantham flooding.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
John Burns, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00157 (E.D. Ark., March 17, 2015), arises out of false and
misleading statements in connection with the sale of its Spring
Valley(TM) brand supplements that it contain major ingredients
listed on the product label, when in fact it failed to contain the
medical herbs represented on the label but rather contain various
filler ingredients that were not listed on the label.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. It is the world's
largest retailer, and operates more than 4, 100 retail stores in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
      Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates III, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
      2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
              Hbates@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com


* D&O Liability Insurance Vital for Independent Directors
---------------------------------------------------------
Priya Nair, writing for Business Standard, reports that top
officials of three brokerages were recently arrest ed for their
alleged involvement in the NSEL commodities scam. They have been
charged with cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery of documents
and inducement for cheating and will be tried in court.  In such
circumstances, while there are legal implications, there is a
financial side, too, for the company and individual. Will the
expenses incurred in fighting such cases be paid for under the
Directors & Officers Liability Insurance (D&O)?

D&O insurance, offered by general insurance companies, will cover
for legal cases filed against directors and officials in
managerial positions until proved guilty.  If the officials are
proved guilty, the cover will cease.  The insurance company has
the right to recover the expenses (paid by it if individuals are
proved guilty) from the company, says Sanjay Datta, chief-
underwriting & claims, ICICI Lombard General Insurance.

D&O, taken by a company for individual directors, was envisaged as
a cover to protect directors from the financial perspective if any
case was filed against them, by any shareholder, customer, vendor
or other third party.  This is because even if the case is against
the company, it is the director who is the face.

Its importance increases especially in the event of death of the
director or if the director leaves the company.  There could be
cases pending against him/her or a case could be filed against
some decision taken by the director, after he/she has left the
company.  In such a case too, the policy taken by the previous
company will cover the case because the D&O policy pays for
current directors and also past directors, for a certain period.
Typically, the policy covers the director up to three to six years
after the individual has left the company.  If the company does
not take a D&O policy, then the official is liable to pay the
legal costs from his pocket.

The premium for a D&O policy works out to 0.5 per cent of the
limit of the cover or sum assured.  For a Rs 100-crore cover, the
annual premium works out to Rs 50 lakh.

Among instances where a director of the company could be liable to
face legal action include regulatory investigations, accounting
irregularities, exposures relating to mergers and acquisitions,
corporate governance requirements, shareholder/stakeholder
complaints, complaints related to mismanagement of funds, unfair
allotment of shares, using insider information, unwarranted
dividend, salary, compensation, unfair dismissal of an employee,
etc.  Initially, only directors were covered under the policy.
Later on it was extended to officers too.  This includes all
officers who take managerial decisions, that is, officials ranked
lower than the CEO, says Datta.

"Today, with so much importance on corporate governance under the
new Companies Act, any stakeholder can file a case against the
company's director or official.  While it is important even for
proprietary firms to take D&O insurance, in India only listed
companies take it, since it is not mandatory.  But if you want to
list on the New York Stock Exchange, for instance, taking a D&O
cover is mandatory," he says.

According to K K Mishra, CEO, Tata AIG General Insurance, D&O
cover is particularly useful for independent directors.  "The new
Companies Act has the provision for class action suit.  So, there
could be cases filed against the independent companies, even if
they are not involved in any wrongdoing.  In such cases, it is
important for companies to take D&O cover," he says.

For instance, in the Satyam scam, the D&O cover paid for defense
costs of independent directors, but not the directors who were
found guilty of perpetuating the fraud.

If the court awards compensation to the complainant, then the
cover will pay for it only if it is proved that there is no breach
of law, says the CEO of Vantage Insurance Brokers & Vantage Wealth
Management Service.  "It varies on a case-to-case basis.  If there
is no negligence on part of the director or if the wrong doing is
due to an oversight, but the court asks the company to pay
compensation, then that would be typically covered by the
insurance," he says.

Instances of insurance companies recovering the defense costs from
the corporation if fraud is established, however, are very rare,
says Datta.  It can only be done by filing a counter case against
the corporation.  "It is like trying to recover a bad loan," he
says.  Nevertheless, why take chances, when the stakes are so
high.


* Securities Settlement Values Hit 16-Year Low in 2014
------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that securities
class action litigation has been lucrative for plaintiffs
attorneys in the years following the financial crisis.
Shareholders squeezed during the Great Recession have gotten some
blockbuster settlements after 2008, but it looks like 2014 may
signal the end of big paydays for these plaintiffs.

The latest iteration of an annual report by legal and regulatory
consulting firm Cornerstone Research shows that in 2014 total
settlement dollars paid out in these cases have reached a 16-year
low.  "It's been a very unusual year," Laura Simmons, a senior
adviser at Cornerstone and one of the report's authors, told
CorpCounsel.com.

The numbers are striking. According to the report, total
settlement dollars paid out in securities class actions in 2014
declined 78 percent compared with the previous year.  This was 80
percent lower than the average for the nine years leading up to
2014.

The average settlement size dropped drastically as well -- from
$73.5 million in 2013 to $17 million in 2014.  However, there was
almost the same number of settlements in 2014 as the year before
-- 63 and 66, respectively.  The median settlement values, which
represent the typical case in a given year, remained relatively
close too.  In 2014 the median suit settled for $6 million, down
only $600,000 from the previous year's.

The dramatic decrease in the average settlement value versus the
much smaller decrease in median value seems to indicate that what
made 2014 different was that it lacked some of the big-ticket
settlements of recent years, for example, the nearly $2.5 billion
securities class action settlement Bank of America agreed to in
2013.  Indeed, according to the report, there was only one mega-
settlement (categorized by Cornerstone as being equal to or above
$100 million) in 2014, a $265 million settlement with Massey
Energy Co. that came on the heels of a massive coal mine disaster.
In contrast, 2013 had six mega-settlement payouts.

Many of these huge settlements were negotiated in cases involving
financial firms in the aftermath of the financial crisis.  "What's
changed this year is that we have a much smaller proportion in the
financial industry, because we've really gotten through the
resolution of the credit crisis cases," said Simmons.  Only 11
percent of cases settled in 2014 were brought against entities in
the financial sector.

The lower number of credit crisis and finance cases, the report
explained, also likely influenced the lower average of "estimated
damages" awarded to plaintiffs in 2014.  Estimated damages are
Cornerstone's simplified calculation of potential shareholder
losses, and are used to predict settlement amounts.  The average
value of estimated damages for securities class actions in 2014
was lower than it has been in 12 years.

The lower calculation of average estimated damages this past year
also might be because of an overall lessening of market
volatility.  According to the report, increased estimated damages
are correlated with increased market volatility around the time of
case filing, which is often between two to four years before a
case settles.  So it appears that the lower estimated damages have
finally caught up to the less volatile market in 2014, unlike the
past few years where the cases settling were initiated at a time
when the markets were less stable.


* Supreme Court Limits Suits That Challenge Company Opinions
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 24 limited, but did not erase, the liability that
companies face when they offer opinions or predictions in
securities filings that turn out to be wrong.

"A statement of opinion is not misleading just because external
facts show the opinion to be incorrect.  Reasonable investors do
not understand such statements as guarantees," Justice Elena Kagan
wrote in the March 24 decision in Omnicare Inc., et al. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund.

But she went on to say that if a company's filing omits material
facts about the statement of opinion that would conflict with what
a "reasonable investor" might take from the statement, the company
could be liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which bars
"untrue statement[s] of material fact."

Investors had sued the pharmaceutical company for what they
alleged were false statements made in its initial public offering
in 2005, including: "We believe our contract arrangements with
other healthcare providers, our pharmaceutical suppliers and our
pharmacy practices are in compliance with applicable federal and
state laws."  The statement hid the fact that the company was
involved in illegal kickback arrangements, the lawsuit alleged.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the
investors, ruling that the case could go forward with the mere
allegation that the company's statement of opinion was
"objectively false," even if company officials believed the
statement at the time it was made.

That strict standard alarmed business advocates, and the high
court rejected it on March 24.  Justice Kagan said the Sixth
Circuit wrongly viewed the securities laws as "an invitation to
Monday morning quarterback an issuer's opinions."

The court sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for review in
light of the new ruling.  A statement from Omnicare applauded the
decision: "Under the legal standard the Supreme Court announced on
March 24, plaintiffs' case against Omnicare is without merit and
should be dismissed."

The ruling is something of a compromise between the positions of
both sides, but it appeared to give companies more ammunition in
combatting so-called "opinion litigation" in securities cases.
Mere proof that the opinions were wrong won't be enough to make a
claim, the court said.  But Justice Kagan also told companies that
merely adding the "magic words" "We think" or "We believe," won't
immunize companies from liability.

"If a statement is sincerely held and a pure opinion, the court
clearly holds that there is no liability . . . regardless whether
an investor can ultimately prove the belief wrong," said Matthew
Matule -- matthew.matule@skadden.com -- a partner at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

"Overall, the Omnicare decision helpfully restricts the kind of
unrestrained opinion litigation that the court of appeals decision
below would have fostered," Mayer Brown partner Joshua Yount --
jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- said.

Scott Nelson of Public Citizen, which filed a brief supporting the
investors in the case, said the decision may make it harder for
plaintiffs to challenge misleading statements by corporations.
"The opinion may go too far in limiting the circumstances in which
statements in the form of opinion can actually be construed as
statements of fact," Mr. Nelson said.

The decision was unanimous in its basic holding, though Justices
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas quarreled with some of the
reasoning.


                             *********

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  * * *