CAR_Public/150408.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 70


                             Headlines

ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
AMY'S KITCHEN: Recalls Various Products With Organic Spinach
ANGIE'S LIST: Settlement Liability Is $2.1MM in Fritzinger Case
ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Local 464A Suit
AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella

AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Deregistration of Sacred Sites
BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline to File Supreme Court Petition Elapsed
BANK OF AMERICA: Sherman Act Claim in Cardholder Complaint Nixed
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Considering Motions in Libor Litigation

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss U.S. FX Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal in Montgomery Class Action Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing Held in Annuity Case
BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goalie Masks and Replacement Wire Cages
BEAR STERNS: May 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BEST FOODS: Recalls Deer Brand Raisin Golden Due to Sulfites
BLINDS TO GO: Recalls Window Shades Due to Strangulation Hazard
BLUE BELL: Recalls Three Flavors Ice Cream Cups Due to Listeria
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Facing Under 10 Lawsuits Over Defibrillators
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 25,000+ Cases Related to Surgical Mesh

CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Frozen Ravioli Due to Listeria
CASHFORIPHONES.COM: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Return Policies
CAVIAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Non-Payment of Business Expenses
CENTERPLATE INC: Illegally Retains Workers Tip, Suit Claims
CIS GROUP: "Neff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss FX Benchmark Rates Suit Denied
CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in "Taylor v. Bank of America" Action
CITIGROUP INC: Named as Defendant in Libor-Based Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Discovery in "Sullivan" Stayed Until May 12
CITIGROUP INC: Interchange MDL Transferred to Judge Brodie

CITIGROUP INC: ISDAFIX Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Petition Waiting LRC Review
CLIFFS NATURAL: Referred Treasury Class Suit to Insurers
CLIFFS NATURAL: Referred Rosenberg Class Suit to Insurers

CLYBOURN EXPRESS: Faces ""Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Defending Two Purported Class Actions
COOPER VISION: Faces "Hawkins" Suit Over Resale-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Ohmes" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing

CRANE CO: Completed Obligations Under Roseland Lawsuit Settlement
CREATIVE HEALTH: Sued Over Sexual Discrimination Policies
DOG GONE: Faces "Alvarez-Castor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DYNAMEX INC: "Borden" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Reyes" Suit Says

EQUIFAX INC: Ninth Circuit Granted Petition to Appeal
EXELIS INC: Sued in S.D. Ind. Over Misleading Merger Reports
FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Trust Funds
FIFTH THIRD: Several Opt-Out Lawsuits Have Been Resolved
FIFTH THIRD: No Further Proceedings in Dudenhoeffer Class Action

FREEDOM DEBT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Little Italy Paninis Due to Undeclared Egg
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy
GIANT FACTORIES: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk
GOLDMAN PHIPPS: MDL Atty Urge Court Not to Dismiss Class Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Says Class Certification Not Justified
GREAT WESTERN: Faces "Matters" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HANNAFORD SUPERMARKET: Recalls Mixed Nuts & Cranberry Mix
HAWAII: Court Approves Public Housing Class Action Settlement
HOMEJOY INC: Faces "Iglesias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HUMANA PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Milburn" Suit Says
KEY ENERGY: Faces Four Class Actions Over Wage and Hour Laws
KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Case Filed Amended Suit
LA TERRA: Recalls Organic Spinach Dip Due to Listeria
LANDS' END: Recalls Children's Pajamas & Robes Due to Burn Risk

LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Fla. Over Harmful Spyware
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Recalls Chocolate Covered Raisin & Almond Bags
LINON HOME: Recalls Outdoor Wood Bistro Sets Due to Fall Hazard
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pesce" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Prasad" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Settles Kids-for-Cash Class Suit for $4.75MM
MAGGIANO'S HOLDING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Construction Defects Suits in Discovery
NABORS DRILLING: Faces "Garstka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

NESTLE PURINA: Family Blames Beneful Product for Pet's Illness
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mortgage Class Action
OLD NATIONAL: Expects Decision on Appeal in 2015 First Half
OMNICARE INC: Court Dismissed Charles Lee Lawsuit
OMNICARE INC: Oral Argument Held at Supreme Court

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
OUTRIGGERS FLAME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
PAUL E. WALSH: "Gunter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Facing "Fernando" and "Zepeda" Class Actions
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Recently Settled Murray v. Bill Me Later Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: "Light" Cigarettes Class Action Can Proceed
POSTMATES INC: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Blackwolfe" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS: Caddies File Class Action in California
RDS DELIVERY: "McBride" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

SASKATCHEWAN MEDICAL: Can't Appeal Surgical Assistant Class Suit
SILVER LAKE: Recalls Easter Egg Cookies Due to Egg Allergen
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Aerobars Bicycle Handlebars
ST. GEORGE, UT: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Searches
SUPERIOR FOODS: Recalls Organic Frozen Spinach Due to Listeria

TEXAS BRINE: Watchdog Balks at Exorbitant Sinkhole Suit Atty Fees
TINDER: Faces Class Action Over New Subscription Fee
TOKYO ELECTRIC: US Insists Navy Sailors Not Exposed to Radiation
TOYOTA MOTOR: Marc Stanley Files Class Action Over Hacking Issues
TRI-STATE WIRELINE: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retiree's Class Action
TWIN CITY FOODS: Recalls Organic Spinach Products Due to Listeria
U.S. SILICA: 86 Active Silica Products Liability Claims at Feb 25
UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit in Memphis Over Ride Sharing Services
UNITED STATES: Two Legal Nonprofit Groups File Class Action

UNUM GROUP: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Action in Del. Now Concluded
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Actions in California Dismissed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solta Medical Actions Okayed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 2016 Trial in Allergan Litigation

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Basile" Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held on Motion to Dismiss
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Afexa Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Hearing Date on Medicis Settlement
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc Plaintiffs May Seek Appeal

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: US-Based Fusarium Claims Now Resolved
VERDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Teaser" Electricity Rate
VIVUS INC: "Kovtun" Plaintiff Seeks Rehearing on Appeal
VIVUS INC: April 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Case
WEGMANS FOOD:  Recalls OrganiC Frozen Spinach Due to Listeria

WELLS FARGO: "Opt-Out" Actions Filed Related to Interchange Suit
WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Ruling in "Order of Posting" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Securities Lending Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015
WINE GROUP: Wines Contain High Levels of Arsenic, Fla. Suit Says
WINWOOD HEALTH: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

WS ENERGY: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
YELP INC: Investors Fight Bid to Dismiss Stock Pumping Class Suit
ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingsbury" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly

* Amendments Remove Time Limits in Sexual Assault Suits
* Australia Likely Jurisdiction for Class Actions Outside of US
* Companies Use Arbitration Clauses to Avert Class Actions
* Employers Face Class Actions Over BYOD Expense Reimbursement


                            *********


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rapp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., Lawrence Mehren, and
Steve Reichling, Case No. 2:15-cv-00504 (D. Ariz., March 19,
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.

Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 3950 South Country Club,
Suite 470, Tucson, Arizona 85714. It purportedly develops and
commercializes solutions for the diagnosis of serious infections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
      J. James Christian, Esq.
      TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
      Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
      2525 East Camelback Road
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 255-6000
      Facsimile: (602) 255-0103
      E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com
              jjc@tblaw.com

         - and -

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AMY'S KITCHEN: Recalls Various Products With Organic Spinach
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy's Kitchen, Inc. is voluntarily recalling approximately 73,897
cases of select code dates and manufacturing codes of the products
identified on Attachment A. This recall is based on a recall
notice from one of Amy's organic spinach suppliers that Amy's may
have received organic spinach with the possible presence of
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Amy's Kitchen is not aware of any illness complaints to date
related to the recalled products identified in Attachment A. Out
of an abundance of caution, however, Amy's Kitchen is recalling
these products based on the recall notice we received from our
supplier.

The recalled products were distributed to stores nationwide in the
United States and in Canada.

The recalled products are identified in Attachment A, and no other
products or varieties are included in this recall.

Amy's Kitchen has notified its distributors and retailers and is
taking this voluntary action as a precautionary measure. This
recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

Consumers who have any of the products identified in the chart
above are urged to dispose them or return them to the store where
they were purchased for an exchange or full refund. Consumers may
also call Amy's at (707) 781-7535 [Monday through Friday between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. (Pacific)].

ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF AMY'S KITCHEN PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO RECALL
NOTICE DATED MARCH 22, 2015

  Product  Amy's   Consumer  Lot Codes  Retail  Package  Country      Dates
  Name      Item #  Unit UPC  --------   Unit   Type     of            Made
  ----      -----   --------             Size   ------   Distribution
-----
                                         ----            ------------
Vegetable  000032   0-42272-  30-A215    9.5 oz. Box     USA
Jan-21-
Lasagna,            00032-6              (269g)                        2015
12pk                                                                   30-A305
                                                                        Jan-30-
                                                                        2015
                                                                        30-B115
                                                                        Feb-11-
                                                                        2015
                                                                        30-C045
                                                                        Mar-04-
                                                                        2015

Vegetable  000032F   0-42272-  30-A215    269g    Box     Canada        Jan-21-
Lasagna,             90032-9                                            2015
CAN,

Tofu       000033    0-42272-  30-B135    9.5 oz. Box     USA           Feb-13-
Vegetable            00033-3              (269g)                        2015
Lasagna,
12pk

Garden     000041    0-42272-  30-B025    10.3    Box     USA           Feb-02-
Vegetable            00041-8   30-C095    oz.                           2015
Lasagna,                                  (291g)
12pk

Tofu       000054    0-42272-  10-A305    9.0 oz. Box     USA          Jan-30-
Scramble,            00054-8              (255g)                       2015
12pk

Enchilada  000085    0-42272-  10-A305    10.0    Box     USA          Jan-30-
Verde                00085-2              oz.                          2015
Whole                                     (284g)
Meal, 12pk

Spinach    000102    0-42272-  30-A285    14.0    Box     USA          Jan-28-
Pizza,               00102-6   30-B105    oz.                          2015
8 pk                                      (397g)                       Feb-10-
                                                                       2015

Brown Rice 000161    0-42272-  30-A205    10.0    Box     USA          Jan-20-
& Vegetables         00161-3              oz.                          2015
Bowl, 12 pk                              (283g)

Stuffed    000178    0-42272-  30-C055   10.0     Box     USA          Mar-05-
Pasta                00178-1             oz.                           2015
Shells                                  (284g)
Bowl, 12 pk

Vegetable  000201    0-42272-  30-A205   57 oz    Box     USA          Jan-20-
Lasagna              00201-6             (6/9.5                        2015
Multi Pk,                                oz.)
6/57,
CLUB

Vegetable  000240    0-42272-  30-C145   9.5 oz.  Box     USA          Mar-14-
Lasagna              00240-5             (269g)                        2015
LIS,
12 pk

Brown      000243    0-42272-  30-A195   10.0     Box     USA         Jan-19-
Rice                 00243-6   30-C035   oz.                          2015
&                                        (283g)                       Mar-03-
Vegetables                                                            2015
Bowl LIS,
12 pk

Gluten     000807    0-42272-  30-A265   5.5 oz.  Box     USA         Jan-26-
Free                 00807-0   30-B025   (156g)                       2015
Tofu                                                                  Feb-02-
Scramble                                                              2015
Breakfast
Wrap, 12 pk

Gluten       000807F   0-42272-  30-B025   156g    Box    Canada     Feb-02-
Free                   90807-3                                       015
Tofu
Scramble
Breakfast
Wrap CAN,
12 pk

Gluten       000814    0-42272-  30-B045   9.0 oz. Box    USA        Feb-04-
Free                   00814-8             (255g)                    2015
Dairy
Free Veg
Lasagna,
12 pk

Gluten       00814F    0-42272-  30-B045   255g    Box    Canada     Feb-04-
Free Dairy             90814-1                                       2015
Free Veg
Lasagna, CAN,
12 pk

Vegetable    000933    0-42272-  30-A305   9.5 oz. Box    USA        Jan-30-
Lasagna,               00032-6             (269g)                    2015
8 pk

Enchilada    000940    0-42272-  10-A305   10.0    Box    USA        Jan-30-
Verde Whole            0085-2              oz.                       2015
Meal, 8pk                                 (284g)

Family Size  000965    0-42272-  30-C045   28.0    Box    USA        Mar-04-
Vegetable              00965-7             oz.                       015
Lasagna,                                  (794g)
8 pk

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439401.htm


ANGIE'S LIST: Settlement Liability Is $2.1MM in Fritzinger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's remaining
legal settlement liability is $2,183,000 as of December 31, 2014,
in the case Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc.

On August 14, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class action status was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that
the Company automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate
than customers are led to believe, breaching their membership
agreements. On September 22, 2014, the Court issued an Order
approving the parties' proposed settlement terms. Under the
settlement terms, total cash payments to the class will be
$107,000. Additionally, 734,299 class members will receive a one
month Angie's List membership, and 353,130 class members will
receive a five dollar e-commerce voucher. The Company estimates
that attorney's fees and litigation fees will amount to $875,000.

The Company recorded a $4,000,000 legal accrual related to the
settlement at December 31, 2013. Based on the terms of the
settlement approved by the Court, including payments made under
the settlement to date, the Company's remaining legal settlement
liability is $2,183,000 as of December 31, 2014. The Company
believes this amount represents the best estimate of its remaining
liability with respect to this litigation.


ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Local 464A Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Local 464A, which
has yet to be ruled upon by the Court.

On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class
action complaints was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and
various of its current and former directors and officers as
defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's
List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second
putative securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second
complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al,
1:14-cv-0023.

Both complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by
making material misstatements in and omitting material information
from the Company's public disclosures concerning the Company's
business prospects. On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated the
two cases and appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local
464A Pension Fund as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A").

On August 29, 2014, Local 464A filed its consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges
that Angie's List made material misrepresentations and omissions
regarding its paid membership model ("PPM"). The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which has yet to be
ruled upon by the Court.


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

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

No illnesses have been reported to date.

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

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

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

Private Label Products That Use Store Branded Labeling Include:
America Choice, Belmont Market, Boiceville Market, Gaul's Market,
Green Hills Market, Harvest Co - Op Market, Hurley Ridge, Lees,
Miles Market, Palmers Market, Union Market, Walter Stewart ,
Windfall Market and Wild Acorns.

America Choice Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------

Walnuts       12 oz.      75480779049   10/29/15 - 12/7/15
              Plastic
              Pouch
Cranberry     12 oz.      75480779046   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix    Plastic
              Pouch

Belmont Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic
               Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic
               Cup
Cranberry      21 oz.      65585200585  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt   20 oz.      65585200340  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Tub
5 K Omega      10 oz.      65585200703  11/3/15 - 11/16/15
Trail Mix      Plastic Cup

Boiceville Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic
Nuts           Cup

Citarella Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    79084505949  10/30/15 - 12/19/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      Bulk        NO UPC       10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix

Food Emporium Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------6
- Section    26 oz.      01119079012  11/6/15 - 12/10/15
Nut Tray       Plastic
Assortment     Tray
4 - Section    13 oz.      01119079011  11/6/15 - 12/10/15
Nut Tray       Plastic
Assortment     Tray
Cranberry      7.5 oz.     01119079044  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Gift Bag
Raisin Nut     7.5 oz.     01119079050  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Gift Bag
Roasted Salt   6.5 oz.     01119079042  11/4/15 - 12/10/15
Mixed Nuts     Gift Bag
Roasted Salt   20 oz.      01119079095  11/4/15 - 12/10/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Tub
Roasted No     20 oz.      01119079039  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Tub
Nuts
Cranberry      21 oz.      01119079010  10/30/15 - 12/19/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Walnuts        14.0 oz.    01119079090  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Tub
Walnuts        12.0 oz.    72297451004  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Pouch

Gaul's Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      21 oz.      65585200585  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Raisin
Nut Party      11.0 oz.    65585200094  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Mix            Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Roasted Salt    9.0 oz.     65585200084  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts      Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt    20 oz.      65585200340 11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts      Plastic Tub

Gourmet Garage Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     79084505931  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Walnuts        14.0 oz.    79084505371  10/29/15 -12/7/15
               Plastic Tub
Roasted Mixed  9 oz.       79084505922  11/4/15 - 12/19/15
Nuts with sea  Plastic Cup
salt
Roasted Mixed  9 oz.       79084506010  11/10/15 - 12/19/15
Nuts No Salt   Plastic Cup
Roasted Salted 9 oz.       79084505945  11/18/15 - 12/19/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Deluxe
Roasted Salt   20 oz.      79084505842  11/4/15 - 12/19/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Tub
with sea salt
San Fernando   11 oz.      79084505936  11/10/15 - 12/19/15
Sunshine Mix   Plastic Cup
5 K Omega      10 oz.      79084505947  11/3/15 - 12/19/15
Trail Mix      Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    79084505949  10/30/15 - 12/19/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      21 oz.      79084505603  10/30/15 - 12/19/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup

Green Hills Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/19/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      21 oz.       65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup

Harvest Co - Op Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Raisin Nut     11.0 oz.    65585200094  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Roasted Salt    9.0 oz.     65585200084   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts      Plastic Cup

Hurley Ridge Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Walnuts        12 oz.      65585200316  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Pouch
Raisin Nut     11.0 oz.    65585200094  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Roasted Salt   9.0 oz.     65585200084  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      21 oz.      65585200585  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup

Lees Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cups
Cranberry      21 oz.      65585200585  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup

Miles Market Brand Products (Bermuda)

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

Palmers Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt   9.0 oz.     65585200084  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts

Union Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
5 K Omega      10 oz.      65585200703  11/3/15 - 11/16/15
Trail Mix      Plastic Cup

Walter Stewart Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        14.0 oz.    65585200070  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Tub
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts

Windfall Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585200288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup

Wild Acorns Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     81957401075  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt   9.0 oz.     81957401052  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     81957401040  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Raisin Nut     11.0 oz.    81957401031  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    81957401025  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      16.0 oz.    81957401114  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Pouch

Wild By Nature Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Cranberry      9.25 oz.    65585270288  10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt   9.0 oz.     65585270084  11/4/15 - 12/10/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9.0 oz.     65585270243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585270097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup

PRODUCTS PREVIOUSLY RECALLED

Aurora Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Walnuts        14.0 oz.    65585200070  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Tub
Walnuts        Bulk        NO UPC       10/29/15 - 12/7/15
Walnuts        4.0 oz.     65585200490  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic
               Pouch
Walnuts        12.0 oz.    65585200316  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic
               Pouch
Roasted Salt   9.0 oz.    65585200084   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Cup
Roasted Salt   4.5 oz.    65585200252   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Pouch
Roasted Salt   20 oz.     65585200340   11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic Tub
Roasted Salt   Bulk       No UPC        11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts
Roasted No     9.0 oz.    65585200243   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic Cup
Nuts
Roasted No     10 oz.     65585200805   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic
Nuts           Pouch
Roasted No     Bulk       No UPC        11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed
Nuts
Raisin Nut     11.0 oz.   65585200094   11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Plastic Cup
Cranberry      9.25 oz.   65585200288   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      10.0 oz.   65585200826   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Pillow
               Pouch
Cranberry      16.0 oz.   65585200827   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic
               Pouch
Cranberry      18 oz.     NO UPC        10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic
               Pouch
Cranberry      21 oz.   65585200585   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Plastic Cup
Cranberry      4.5 oz.  65585200208   10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix     Single
               Serve
Cranberry      1.35 oz. 65585200574   12/16/15
Health Mix     Single
               Serve
Cranberry      Bulk     NO UPC        10/30/15 - 12/13/15
Health Mix
5 K Omega     20 oz.    65585200121   11/3/15 - 11/16/15
Trail Mix     Plastic Cup
5 K Omega     10 oz.    65585200703   11/3/15 - 11/16/15
Trail Mix     Plastic Cup
Forest Bounty 13 oz.    65585200571   10/28/15 - 12/13/15
Grail Mix     Plastic Cup
Forest Bounty 13 oz.    65585200290   10/28/15 - 12/13/15
Grail Mix     Plastic
              Pouch
Forest Bounty 17.5 oz.  65585200496   10/28/15 - 12/13/15
Grail Mix     Plastic Cup
6 - Section   26 oz.    65585200145   11/6/15 - 12/10/15
Nut Tray      Plastic
Assortment    Tray
4 - Section1  3 oz.     65585200141   11/6/15 - 12/10/15
Nut Tray      Plastic
Assortment    Tray

PRODUCTS PREVIOUSLY RECALLED

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

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

PRODUCTS PREVIOUSLY RECALLED

Whole Foods Market Brand Products

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


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

The expanded recall covers product that was distributed to one
retail store located in New York City.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Aurora had already communicated with the store that has received
the affected products. The store has been instructed to cease
distribution of these products and to remove the affected product
from store shelves.

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

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

Additional Private Label Products That Use Store Branded Labeling
Include:
Ernest Klein Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Walnuts        6.5 oz.     65585200097  10/29/15 - 12/7/15
               Plastic Cup
Raisin Nut     11 oz.      65585200094  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Party Mix      Plastic Cup
Roasted No     9 oz.       65585200243  11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed     Plastic
Nuts           Cup
Roasted Salt   9 oz.       65585200084  11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts     Plastic
               Cup

EXPANDED to Clarify Bulk Product Name

Aurora Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE     UPC CODE     BEST IF USED BY DATE CODE
  PRODUCT      SIZE        --------     RANGE
  --------     -------                  -------------------------
Roasted Salt   Bulk        No UPC       11/4/15 - 12/13/15
Mixed Nuts
Deluxe
Roasted No     Bulk        No UPC       11/10/15 - 12/10/15
Salt Mixed
Nuts Deluxe


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Deregistration of Sacred Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gartry, writing for ABC, reports that traditional owners in
Western Australia are set to launch a class action lawsuit against
the State Government over the deregistration of sacred Indigenous
sites.

In the past year several culturally significant sites, including
waterways in the Mid West, have had their protection withdrawn by
the Government on the basis they no longer fit the definition of a
sacred site.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Peter Collier told Parliament late
last year that for a place to be considered a sacred site, it must
show it was devoted to religious use rather than just be a place
of mythological story, song or belief.  The decision to deregister
several sites was sparked by development applications from mining
and exploration companies.

Aboriginal Heritage Action Alliance (AHAA) co-founder Clayton
Lewis said they were waiting for a Supreme Court judgment on a
test case challenging the deregistration of sites in Port Hedland.

"If the ruling on Port Hedland is overturned, this opens the door
for lots of other Aboriginal people to get together to have a
class action against the State Government," he said.

Mr. Lewis is a Widi traditional owner from the Perenjori region,
in the state's Mid West, north of Perth.  He was recently notified
by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) that the Mongers
Lake Waterways would be removed from state's Heritage Register,
despite being recognized as a significant site in 2005.

"Under the original DAA registration it was recorded as a
mythological site of significance," he said.

"The disturbance of any serpent [Beemarra] mythology upsets the
balance of [the] region. We believe that the waterways should be
left alone."

Mining application prompts reconsideration of site

In a statement, the DAA said the site was reconsidered after
receiving an application by Perangery Pastoral Company to extract
gypsum from the salt lake.

"It was determined the information available did not support that
the entire water system of the lake was a single sacred site on
the basis," it said.

The Widi mob was informed by a letter from the DAA that the site
no longer fit the definition of a sacred site and they must prove
its validity for it to remain protected.

"For this place to be determined as sacred site . . . specific
details regarding the religious activity conducted and are solely
associated with this place would need to be provided . . . rather
than just a belief or the presence of an ancestral being," the
letter stated.

Mr. Lewis described the requirement as "ludicrous".

"It's just ridiculous to suggest that religious activity is
conducted at an Aboriginal mythological site," he said.

"It's not like we are going to church on a Sunday morning there in
a western sense.  That's not what happens at the mythological
site.  We greet the Beemarra and throw sand into water, it's a
cultural practice."

Lawyer Greg McIntyre, who represented Eddie Mabo in the historic
1992 native title case, is representing the Port Hedland claimants
in the test case.  He has previously argued whether or not a site
has been used for religious purposes was irrelevant.

Mr. McIntyre confirmed he would be involved in a potential class
action but could not comment further until the judgment on the
Port Hedland case was handed down in a number of weeks.

The AHAA is hoping to locate any other sacred sites that have been
deregistered on the basis they were not religious.

"We are hoping to bring people together and consolidate action
against the state.  AHAA are looking to gain an understanding of
where else this is happening across the state, we already know of
a number of other sites," Mr. Lewis said.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs said the group was entitled
to pursue legal action.


BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline to File Supreme Court Petition Elapsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the February 3,
2015 deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court related to the Bank of America Securities,
Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation, elapsed without any objector filing a petition.

Beginning in January 2009, the Corporation, as well as certain
current and former officers and directors, among others, were
named as defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and
federal courts. The actions generally concern alleged material
misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to certain
securities filings by the Corporation. The securities filings
contained information with respect to events that took place from
September 2008 through January 2009 contemporaneous with the
Corporation's acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill
Lynch). Certain federal court actions were consolidated and/or
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (the District Court) under the caption In re Bank of
America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) Litigation.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action (the
Consolidated Securities Class Action) asserted claims under
Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and asserted damages based on the drop in the stock price
upon subsequent disclosures. On April 5, 2013, the District Court
granted final approval of the settlement of the Consolidated
Securities Class Action. On November 5, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the final approval of the
settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. On
February 3, 2015, the deadline for filing a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court elapsed without any
objector filing a petition.

Certain shareholders opted to pursue their claims apart from the
Consolidated Securities Class Action. Following settlements in an
aggregate amount that was fully accrued as of December 31, 2013,
the District Court dismissed the claims of these plaintiffs with
prejudice.

In addition, on January 11, 2013, the District Court approved the
settlement of claims filed by plaintiffs in a derivative action in
the Consolidated Securities Class Action, which also resolved a
consolidated derivative action filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  In addition, the District Court dismissed a complaint
filed by plaintiffs in the ERISA actions in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action on August 27, 2010, and the parties
stipulated to the withdrawal of the appeal of that decision on
January 14, 2013.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sherman Act Claim in Cardholder Complaint Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim in a
cardholder complaint.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies (BHCs), including the Corporation, as
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the
level of default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa
and MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at
the point of sale were unreasonable restraints of trade.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

On October 19, 2012, defendants settled the matter. The settlement
provides for, among other things, (i) payments by defendants to
the class and individual plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6
billion, allocated proportionately to each defendant based upon
various loss-sharing agreements; (ii) distribution to class
merchants of an amount equal to 10 bps of default interchange
across all Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a
period of eight consecutive months, to begin by July 29, 2013,
which otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which
effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time;
and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules
regarding merchant point of sale practices.

The court granted final approval of the class settlement agreement
on December 13, 2013. Several class members appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, a number of
class members opted out of the settlement of their past damages
claims. The cash portion of the settlement was adjusted downward
as a result of these opt outs.

The Corporation is named in three of the opt-out suits, including
one brought by cardholders, and, as a result of various sharing
agreements from the main Interchange litigation, the Corporation
remains liable for any settlement or judgment in opt-out suits
where it is not named as a defendant. All but one of the opt-out
suits filed to date have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 18, 2014, the
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss opt-out complaints
filed by merchants, and on November 26, 2014, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim in the
cardholder complaint.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Considering Motions in Libor Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court is
continuing to consider motions regarding the Corporation and Bank
of America N.A., related to LIBOR, Other Reference Rate and
Foreign Exchange (FX) Inquiries and Litigation.

The Corporation has received subpoenas and information requests
from government authorities in North America, Europe and the Asia
Pacific region, including the DoJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) and the FCA, concerning submissions made
by panel banks in connection with the setting of LIBOR and other
reference rates. The Corporation is cooperating with these
inquiries.

In addition, the Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) have
been named as defendants along with most of the other LIBOR panel
banks in a series of individual and class actions in various U.S.
federal and state courts relating to defendants' LIBOR
contributions. All cases naming the Corporation have been or are
in the process of being consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The
Corporation expects that any future cases naming it will similarly
be consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Plaintiffs allege that
they held or transacted in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or
other financial instruments and sustained losses as a result of
collusion or manipulation by defendants regarding the setting of
U.S. Dollar LIBOR. Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims,
including antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO), common law fraud, and breach of contract
claims, and seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.

In a series of rulings, the court dismissed antitrust, RICO and
certain state law claims, while permitting the Commodity Exchange
Act and other state law claims to proceed. As a result of a
procedural ruling by the Supreme Court, plaintiffs are pursuing an
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their antitrust claims.
Further, based on the statute of limitations, the court has
substantially limited the time period for which manipulation
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act may be pursued.

As to the Corporation and BANA, the court has also dismissed
manipulation claims based on alleged trader conduct, and certain
common law claims by plaintiffs who alleged no direct dealings
with the Corporation or BANA. Other claims against the Corporation
and BANA remain pending, however, and the court is continuing to
consider motions regarding them, including the applicability of
its prior rulings to subsequently filed actions.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss U.S. FX Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the U.S. Action, finding that
plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the elements of an antitrust
claim.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on March 31, 2014, the
Corporation and Bank of America N.A. were named as defendants
along with other FX market participants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of plaintiffs and a putative class who allegedly
transacted in FX and are domiciled in the U.S. or transacted in FX
in the U.S. (the U.S. Action). On April 30, 2014, a substantively
similar class action was filed against the Corporation and other
FX market participants on behalf of a plaintiff and putative class
allegedly located in Norway (the Foreign Action).

The complaints allege that class members transacted with
defendants at or around the time of the fixing of the WM/Reuters
Closing Spot Rates or entered into transactions that settled in
whole or in part based on the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates and
that they sustained losses as a result of the defendants' alleged
conspiracy to manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates.
Plaintiffs in the U.S. Action assert a single claim for violations
of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and plaintiff in the
Foreign Action asserts claims for violations of the Sherman Act,
as well as certain claims under New York statutory and common law.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the U.S. Action, finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently
pleaded the elements of an antitrust claim. In the same decision,
the court granted with prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss the
Foreign Action, finding that the Sherman Act does not apply
extraterritorially, except in limited circumstances not present in
the case, and that plaintiff had failed to plead an actionable
state law claim.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal in Montgomery Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs'
appeal in the Montgomery class action is pending in the the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Corporation, several current and former officers and
directors, Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS), Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S) and other unaffiliated
underwriters have been named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York entitled Montgomery v. Bank of America, et al.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf of all persons who acquired
certain series of preferred stock offered by the Corporation
pursuant to a shelf registration statement dated May 5, 2006.

Plaintiff's claims arise from three offerings dated January 24,
2008, January 28, 2008 and May 20, 2008, from which the
Corporation allegedly received proceeds of $15.8 billion. The
amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleges that the prospectus
supplements associated with the offerings: (i) failed to disclose
that the Corporation's loans, leases, CDOs and commercial MBS were
impaired to a greater extent than disclosed; (ii) misrepresented
the extent of the impaired assets by failing to establish adequate
reserves or properly record losses for its impaired assets; (iii)
misrepresented the adequacy of the Corporation's internal controls
in light of the alleged impairment of its assets; (iv)
misrepresented the Corporation's capital base and Tier 1 leverage
ratio for risk-based capital in light of the allegedly impaired
assets; and (v) misrepresented the thoroughness and adequacy of
the Corporation's due diligence in connection with its acquisition
of Countrywide. The amended complaint seeks rescission,
compensatory and other damages.

On March 16, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint. On December 3, 2013, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint. On February
6, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to amend
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing Held in Annuity Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court
scheduled a final approval hearing for March 12, 2015, of the
settlement in the Policemen's Annuity Litigation.

On April 11, 2012, the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the
City of Chicago, on its own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
class of purchasers of 41 RMBS trusts collateralized mostly by
Washington Mutual-originated (WaMu) mortgages, filed a proposed
class action complaint against Bankof America N.A. and other
unrelated parties in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, entitled Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, N.A. and U.S. Bank
National Association. BANA and U.S. Bank are named as defendants
in their capacities as trustees, with BANA (formerly LaSalle Bank
National Association) having served as the original trustee and
U.S. Bank having replaced BANA as trustee.

Plaintiff asserted claims under the federal Trust Indenture Act as
well as state common law claims. Plaintiff alleged that, in light
of the performance of the RMBS at issue, and in the wake of
publicly-available information about the quality of loans
originated by WaMu, the trustees were required to take certain
steps to protect plaintiff's interest in the value of the
securities, and that plaintiff was damaged by defendants' failures
to notify it of deficiencies in the loans and of defaults under
the relevant agreements, to ensure that the underlying mortgages
could properly be foreclosed, and to enforce remedies available
for loans that contained breaches of representations and
warranties. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages
and/or equitable relief, and costs and expenses. The court
dismissed some of the common law claims, but allowed the Trust
Indenture Act claim and a claim for breach of contract to proceed.

After the filing of two amended complaints and the consolidation
of the case with a related matter filed on August 23, 2013,
entitled Vermont Pension Investment Committee and the Washington
State Investment Board v. Bank of America, N.A. and U.S. Bank
National Association, 10 named plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint on October 31, 2013, on behalf of two proposed classes
of purchasers of 35 trusts collateralized mostly by WaMu-
originated mortgages (later reduced to 34 trusts).

On June 5, 2014, the parties informed the court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for an amount
not material to the Corporation's results of operations, subject
to approval of plaintiffs' boards. The settlement remains subject
to final court approval and various conditions. On November 10,
2014, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement,
and scheduled a final approval hearing for March 12, 2015.


BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goalie Masks and Replacement Wire Cages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bauer Hockey, Inc., of Exeter, N.H., announced a voluntary recall
of About 1,200 Goalie masks and replacement wire cages in the U.S.
and 1,300 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal wires on the cages can break, posing a facial impact or
laceration hazard.

This recall involves cages on the Concept C1 Goal Mask with
Certified Titanium Oval Wire and the NME 10 Goal Mask with
Certified Titanium Oval Wire, and the RP NME Ti Titanium
Replacement Cage. The Concept C1 and NME 10 goalie masks were sold
in black or white with a titanium wire cage that attaches to the
mask with two screws on each side of the mask.  The Concept C1
mask is a Senior mask in sizes S/M and M/L.  "Concept C1" is
printed at the top of the shell.  A sticker inside the shell at
the jaw also lists the model and size. The NME 10 Goal Mask is a
Senior mask in sizes Fit 1, Fit 2, and Fit 3.  "NME10" is printed
at the top of the shell.  A sticker inside the shell at the jaw
also lists the model and size. The RP NME Ti Titanium Cage is a
replacement cage intended for the Concept C1 and NME 10 goalie
masks.  A side plate reads "Bauer Titanium Oval Wire" and "RPNME
Ti Sr."

Bauer Hockey has received nine reports of wire breakage, one in
the U.S. and eight in Canada.  Lacerations were reported in three
of the Canadian incidents and the one U.S. incident.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/f4mAfv

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold at
Independent sporting goods and online retailers nationwide from
April 2013 through February 2015 for about $900 for masks with
cages and $90 for replacement cages.

Consumers should immediately stop using goalie masks and
replacement wires and contact Bauer Hockey for a free replacement
wire cage and complimentary throat protector.


BEAR STERNS: May 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 10 issued a statement regarding the
In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:08-cv-08093-LTS

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL Persons who (i) prior to July 9, 2009, purchased or
otherwise acquired offered residential mortgage-backed securities
("RMBS") pursuant or traceable to offerings BALTA 2006-5, BALTA
2006-6, BALTA 2006-7, BALTA 2006-8, BALTA 2007-1, BSARM 2006-4,
BSARM 2007-1 (certificates backed by groups 1, 3 and 5 only), or
BSARM 2007-3, and were damaged thereby; (ii) prior to August 20,
2008, purchased or otherwise acquired offered RMBS pursuant or
traceable to offering BSMF 2006-AR1, and were damaged thereby; or
(iii) prior to May 15, 2009, purchased or otherwise acquired
offered RMBS pursuant or traceable to offerings BSMF 2006-AR2,
BSMF 2006-AR3, BSMF 2006-AR4, BSMF 2006-AR5, BSMF 2007-AR1, BSMF
2007-AR3, SAMI 2006-AR4, SAMI 2006-AR5, SAMI 2006-AR6, SAMI 2006-
AR7, SAMI 2006-AR8, SAMI 2007-AR1 (certificates backed by group 1
only), or SAMI 2007-AR2 (certificates backed by group 1 only), and
were damaged thereby (the "Class").  CERTAIN PERSONS, SUCH AS
PERSONS THAT HAVE SEPARATELY ASSERTED AND/OR PURSUED THEIR CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS.
The excluded Persons are specified in the available Stipulation.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities LLC),
EMC Mortgage Corporation (n/k/a EMC Mortgage LLC), Structured
Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Jeffrey L. Verschleiser,
Michael B. Nierenberg, Jeffrey Mayer, and Thomas F. Marano,
relating to the sale of mortgage-backed securities (the "Action")
as a class action on behalf of the Persons described above (the
"Class"); and (ii) that a settlement of the Action for a total of
$500 million in cash and payment of up to $5 million in litigation
and administrative expenses has been proposed.  A hearing will be
held on May 27, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Laura
Taylor Swain, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007,
Courtroom 12D: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (b)
to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided for
under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action, on
the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the
release by the Class of the Released Claims against the Released
Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered; (c)
to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and
should be approved by the Court; (d) to determine whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; and (e) to rule upon such other
matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs (the
"Notice") and Proof of Claim Form (the "Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 1014
Dublin, OH 43017-3148
Toll-free number: (855) 382-6452

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the Settlement website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BearStearnsCertificateSettlement.com or from Lead Counsel's
websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.cohenmilstein.com

If you are a Member of the Class, in order to be potentially
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 6,
2015.  If you are a Member of the Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action whether or not you make a Claim.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than May 6, 2015, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any objections to
the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with
the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants
such that they are received no later than May 6, 2015, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
are a Member of the Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form,
you will not share in the Settlement Fund but you will
nevertheless be bound by the Judgment of the Court.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

David R. Stickney, Esq.
Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
(866) 648-2524

    - or -

Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
(888) 240-0775

By Order of the Court


BEST FOODS: Recalls Deer Brand Raisin Golden Due to Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
Best Foods Inc. 75 Midvale Rd Edison, NJ 08817 is recalling its
7 ounce packages of Deer Brand Raisin Golden because they contain
undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction
if they consume this product. The consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions
in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain
sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting
10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

Deer Brand Raisin Golden 7 ounce packages were distributed in New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode island, Maine, and New Hampshire, and have
reached consumers through retail stores.

The product comes in 7 ounce clear and yellow plastic packages.
Some of the packages are marked with UPC number 714760029255.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspector revealed the
presence of sulfites in the 7 ounce package of Deer Brand Raisin
Golden which were not declared on the label.

No illnesses or allergic reaction involving this product have been
reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased 7 ounces packages of Deer Brand
Raisin Golden are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 1-732-650-1300 Ext 222, Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.


BLINDS TO GO: Recalls Window Shades Due to Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Blinds To Go of Lakewood, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall
of about 200,000 Blinds To Go custom-made window shades. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The shade's chain or cord loop can slip out of the hold-down
device, posing a strangulation hazard for small children.

The recalled custom-made shades have a hold-down device for the
cord that is a clear, P-shaped plastic hook. The cord or chain
loop of the window shades clips into the device. The hook is
screwed to the side of the wall or window during installation. It
was shipped with the Blinds To Go custom-made roller shades with
Sidewinders; Smartlift pleated and cellular shades; Panel Tracks
shades and Serenity shades.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/obj4EX

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Blinds
To Go showrooms and online at www.blindstogo.com from January 2009
to November 2014 for between $60 and $770.

Consumers can contact the company to order a free retrofit kit
that includes a new hold down device and instructions on how to
replace the recalled part. Customers also can bring the window
shades to a local showroom to have the new device fitted on the
shades.


BLUE BELL: Recalls Three Flavors Ice Cream Cups Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Bell Ice Cream of Brenham, Texas, is recalling three 3 oz.
institutional/food service ice cream cups- chocolate, strawberry
and vanilla with tab lids because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

On March 22, the Kansas Department of Health & Environment
reported one positive test for Listeria monocytogenes on a
chocolate institutional/food service cup recovered from a hospital
in Wichita, Kan. This cup was produced in the Broken Arrow, Okla.,
plant on April 15, 2014. These cups are not sold thru retail
outlets such as convenience stores and supermarkets.

The ice cream cups listed below were distributed in Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia and Wyoming via food service accounts.

   --- Ice Cream Cup Chocolate (3 FL OZ) No UPC - SKU #453
   --- Ice Cream Cup Strawberry (3 FL OZ) No UPC - SKU #452
   --- Ice Cream Cup Vanilla (3 FL OZ) No UPC - SKU #451

There have been no reported illnesses to date.

This recall in no way includes Blue Bell Ice Cream half gallons,
pints, quarts, 3 gallons or other 3 oz. cups.

Consumers who have purchased these items are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. For more information
consumers with questions may call 979-836-7977, Monday - Friday 8
a.m. - 5 p.m. CST.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Facing Under 10 Lawsuits Over Defibrillators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that fewer than ten
individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation alleging personal
injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in
certain 2005 and 2006 product communications.

"Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product
liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions
associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices
involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these
suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four
of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class
actions," the Company said.

On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class
of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a
class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009,
the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members
with derivative claims.

"In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from
us," the Company said.  "The parties in the defibrillator class
action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter
for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the
settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial
required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and funded the
publication of the settlement notice during the third quarter of
2014."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 25,000+ Cases Related to Surgical Mesh
---------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February
24, 2015, there were over 25,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending
against the Company.

The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the
United States and include eight putative class actions. There were
also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative
class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the United Kingdom.

"Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs
assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and
loss of consortium claims. Over 2,500 of the cases have been
specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts,"
the Company said.

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests.

"We have established a product liability accrual for known and
estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as
costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical
mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with
this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required
in the future as additional information becomes available. We
intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against
us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal
surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and
unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment
in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all
cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh
products."


CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Frozen Ravioli Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------
Carmel Food Group issued a voluntary recall of certain Rising Moon
Organics frozen Ravioli items, because of possible presence of
Listeria monocytogenes.

The frozen ravioli products were produced with organic spinach
which was found in test results performed by the spinach supplier
to show the presence of Listeria. The recall was initiated when it
was discovered that certain lots of the listed items were produced
with the ingredient in question.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriage and stillbirths
among pregnant women.

Although the company is not aware of illnesses associated with
this product, we are taking this precautionary action. Items &
Sell By dates included in the recall are listed in the table:

  Item Description,  UPC#      Recalled Case     Recalled Package
  Pack/Size          ----      SELL BY date(s)   SELL BY date(s)
  ---------                    ---------------   ----------------

Rising Moon          7-85030-   010916           JAN092016
Organics Garlic      00011-3
& Veggie Ravioli,
6/8 oz

Rising Moon          7-85030-   011916          JAN192016
Organics Spinach     22770-1
Florentine Ravioli,
6/8 oz

Rising Moon          7-85030-   122215,         DEC222015,
Organics Spinach     55561-3    123015,         DEC302015,
& Cheese Ravioli,               123115,         DEC312015,
6/8 oz                          010216,         JAN022016,
                                011916,         JAN192016,
                                012016          JAN202016

The products affected by the recall are listed above with
corresponding SELL BY dates and were distributed through retail
stores nationwide.

Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions can contact the company at
510-429-0356. Monday - Friday, 8am to 5pm, Pacific Time.


CASHFORIPHONES.COM: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Return Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Helaina Washington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. Cashforiphones.Com, Case No. 3:15-cv-00627 (S.D.
Cal., March 20, 2015), arises out of the fraudulent and deceptive
mail-in policy that fails to give consumer a clear and conspicuous
return policy term and condition.

Cashforiphones.Com is an Internet-based company that is engaged in
gadget buying.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Sara D. Avila, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
      E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
              savila@milsteinadelman.com

         - and -

      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      Tammi Markowitz, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile:  (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              tmarkowitz@golombhonik.com


CAVIAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Non-Payment of Business Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caviar, Inc. d/b/a Try Caviar, Case No. 3:15-cv-01285
(N.D. Cal., March 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
misclassifying couriers as independent contractors and by failing
to reimburse them for business expenses they paid that should have
been borne by their employer.

Caviar, Inc. is a food delivery service that provides couriers
through a mobile phone application or through their website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              apagano@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


CENTERPLATE INC: Illegally Retains Workers Tip, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Underwood, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Centerplate, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02114
(S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's illegal
retention of tips of its banquet service workers.

Centerplate, Inc. provides catering, concessions, management and
merchandise services for some of the most prominent venues
throughout more than 300 venues across North America and the
United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      Jessica Lynne Witenko, Esq.
      Michael James Lingle, Esq.
      Sarah Cressman, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
      E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
              jwitenko@theemploymentattorneys.com
              mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
              scressman@theemploymentattorneys.com


CIS GROUP: "Neff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Neff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion v. CIS Group, LLC f/k/a
Alamo Claims Services, Case No. 6:15-cv-00459 (M.D. Fla., March
19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CIS Group, LLC is an insurance company that maintains its
principal place of business located at 950 E State Hwy 114, Suite
150, Southlake, Texas 76092 and performs substantial business in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
      Joseph Odato, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Westshore Center
      1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com
              jodato@ffmlawgroup.com


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss FX Benchmark Rates Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup Inc. and
Citibank, N.A., are named as defendants in putative class actions
that are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the
defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR),
thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in
connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs
assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust
enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where
authorized by statute, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class
actions filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and Citibank Korea Inc., as well as
numerous other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants
in a putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK
PLC, ET AL. (SIMMTECH) that was proceeding before the same court.
The plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of persons who
traded foreign currency with the defendants in Korea, alleging
that the class suffered losses as a result of the defendants'
alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserted federal and state
antitrust claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Additionally, Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup, as well as numerous
other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a
putative class action captioned LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET
AL. (LARSEN), that was proceeding before the same court. Plaintiff
sought to represent a putative class of persons or entities in
Norway who traded foreign currency with defendants, alleging that
the class suffered losses as a result of defendants' alleged WMR
manipulation. Plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages
where authorized by statute, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved
to dismiss all of these actions. On January 28, 2015, the court
issued an opinion and order denying the motion as to the IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION plaintiffs,
but dismissing the claims of the SIMMTECH and LARSEN plaintiffs in
their entirety on the grounds that their federal claims were
barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act and their
state claims had an insufficient nexus to New York, Citigroup Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789,
13 Civ. 7953, and 14 Civ. 1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in "Taylor v. Bank of America" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Citigroup and Citibank,
N.A., as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are
named as defendants in a putative class action captioned TAYLOR v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of investors that transacted in
exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options
on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges,
alleging that the putative class was harmed as a result of the
defendants' manipulation of the foreign exchange market.  The
plaintiffs assert violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and
federal antitrust claims.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-1350
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Named as Defendant in Libor-Based Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Citigroup and Citibank,
N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are
defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL). Following motion practice,
consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two
separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) OTC purchasers of
derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and, (ii) purchasers of
exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of
these putative classes alleges that the panel bank defendants
conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims
under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and, (ii)
purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert claims
under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for
unjust enrichment. Individual actions commenced by various Charles
Schwab entities also were consolidated into the MDL proceeding.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and restitution for
losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages
under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek
injunctive relief.

Additional actions have been consolidated in the MDL proceeding,
including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes
of, community and other banks, savings and loans institutions,
credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-
linked financial products; and, (ii) lawsuits filed by putative
classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage borrowers. The
plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially
suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law and seek
compensatory and other damages.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 12
Civ. 4205; 12 Civ. 5723; 12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056;  12 Civ.
6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ. 346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13
Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13 Civ. 2262, 13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018;
13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146 (Buchwald, J.); 12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.)
(Seybert, J.); 12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 12 Civ. 10903
(C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.);
13 Civ. 62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.)
(Beller, J.); 13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D.
Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 13 Civ. 122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ.
334, 13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J); 13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.)
(Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 13 Civ.
1476 (E.D. Cal.)  (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt,
J.); 13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D.
Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ.
4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); and 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.)
(Vadas, J.)


CITIGROUP INC: Discovery in "Sullivan" Stayed Until May 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted the
Department of Justice's motion to stay discovery for eight months,
until May 12, 2015, in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC,
ET AL.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v.
BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York filed a second amended
complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. as defendants.
Plaintiffs claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported
EURIBOR manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity
Exchange Act, the Sherman Act and the federal RICO law, and for
unjust enrichment. On September 11, 2014, the court granted the
Department of Justice's motion to stay discovery for eight months,
until May 12, 2015. Additional information concerning this action
is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13
Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Interchange MDL Transferred to Judge Brodie
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Interchange MDL,
including the opt out cases, was transferred from Judge Gleeson to
Judge Brodie.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases
in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT
CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things,
that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of
interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes.
Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in
the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's
respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and
violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's
initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment approving
the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things,
a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to
merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10
basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months
by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain
network rules. A number of objectors have noticed an appeal from
the final class settlement approval order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL
05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.).

Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have
requested exclusion from the class settlements, and some of those
opting out have filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in
some instances one or more issuing banks.  Two of these suits, 7-
ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., and SPEEDY STOP FOOD
STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., name Citigroup as a
defendant.  On December 5, 2014, the Interchange MDL, including
the opt out cases, was transferred from Judge Gleeson to Judge
Brodie.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 05-md-1720
(E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.); 13-cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.),
and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist. Ct.).


CITIGROUP INC: ISDAFIX Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the
ISDAFIX-related litigation have filed an amended complaint.

Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of
Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), are
conducting investigations or making inquiries concerning
submissions for the global benchmark for fixed interest rate swaps
(ISDAFIX) and trading in products that reference ISDAFIX.
Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related
investigations and inquiries.

Beginning in September 2014, various plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Citigroup and other U.S.
dollar (USD) ISDAFIX panel banks, which are proceeding on a
consolidated basis.

On February 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants colluded to manipulate ISDAFIX,
thereby causing the putative class to suffer losses in connection
with USD interest rate derivatives purchased from the defendants.
Plaintiffs assert federal and various common law claims and seek
compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute,
restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket
number 14 Civ. 7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).


CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Villella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chemical & Mining Co. Of Chile Inc., Patricio
Contesse, Patricio De Solminihac, and Ricardo
Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-02106 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 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.

Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. is a producer of potassium
nitrate, iodine and lithium chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Petition Waiting LRC Review
----------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the petition
filed by John L. Soileau is currently awaiting review by the
Louisiana Racing Commission.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages - Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  The petition defines the
"alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and
jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course &
Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first
effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008.

The petition alleges that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C.
("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw
poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements
and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to
thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse
meets while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those
supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.

The petition requests that the Court declare that Fair Grounds
violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory
injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due
to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the
plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the
value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the
Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc.
("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also
liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds.  On October 9,
2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit,
including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking a referral
to the Louisiana Racing Commission.

By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted
the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to
the Louisiana Racing Commission.  On January 26, 2015, the
Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
request for supervisory review of the Judgment.  This matter is
currently awaiting review by the Louisiana Racing Commission.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Referred Treasury Class Suit to Insurers
--------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
filed by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey
has been referred to the Company's insurance carriers.

"In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common shares filed suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against us and certain current and former officers and directors
of the Company. The action is captioned Department of the Treasury
of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v.
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031," the
Company said.

"The action asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on alleged false or misleading statements or omissions
during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding
operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and the
impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including
sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged misstatements
caused our common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The lawsuit seeks class certification and an award of monetary
damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount, along with
costs of suit and attorneys' fees. On October 21, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this action. The lawsuit has been
referred to our insurance carriers."


CLIFFS NATURAL: Referred Rosenberg Class Suit to Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
filed by Rosenberg has been referred to the Company's insurance
carriers.

In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued
by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative
class action, which is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio and is captioned Rosenberg
v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01531.

"The suit asserts claims against us, certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company, and several underwriters of
the offering, alleging disclosure violations in the registration
statement regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine and the
impact of those operations on our finances and outlook. This
action seeks class certification and monetary relief in an
unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees.
This lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers," the
Company said.


CLYBOURN EXPRESS: Faces ""Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Jimenez and Johnny Rutilio Cenon (a/k/a Johnny), on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Clybourn Express Carwash and Gregory Nicolandis, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02411 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Clybourn Express Carwash provides automobile detailing services in
the Chicago 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


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Consolidated World
Travel Inc. was hit on March 10 with a proposed class action in
Florida federal court alleging the cruise line company, which does
business as Holiday Cruise Line, robocalled consumers' cellphones
to promote cruises, the latest suit alleging it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Texas resident and plaintiff Nolan Moran claims that Fort
Lauderdale, Florida-based HCL, which operates the Grand
Celebration cruise ship and offers cruise packages to the Bahamas,
called his cellphone in February with an autodialer and a
prerecorded message to promote one of its cruises without first
getting his prior express written consent in violation of the
TCPA.

"By making such unauthorized calls, HCL caused plaintiff and each
of the class members actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited
calls, and the monies paid to their wireless carriers for the
receipt of such calls," the complaint said.

Moran alleges that he received an automated call from HCL
containing a prerecorded message on or about Feb. 2, but he claims
that the company has made, or had made on its behalf, the same or
substantially the same calls en masse to a list of thousands of
wireless telephone numbers or randomly generated phone numbers,
according to the suit.

He is seeking to represent a proposed class of "all individuals in
the United States who received one or more phone calls without
prior express written consent of the called party from or on
behalf of defendant Consolidated World Travel Inc. d/b/a Holiday
Cruise Line placed by an automatic telephone dialing service or by
an artificial or prerecorded voice," the suit says.

Moran's suit comes on the heels of a similar suit that was
launched in early February in California federal court by
plaintiff Scott Wiederhold, who accused HCL of sending him
advertisements for cruises via text message.

In that suit, Mr. Wiederhold alleged that HCL sent him 15 text
messages starting in December.  The messages claimed that
Mr. Wiederhold had prizes to claim, despite his never having had
any kind of relationship with the company.  After he called the
company to investigate, it sent him emails to solicit his
business, the complaint said.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph J. Siprut and Ismael T.
Salam -- isalam@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC, Scott D. Owens of
Scott D. Owens PA, and Robert Ahdoot, Tina Wolfson and Brad King
of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

The case is Nolan Moran v. Consolidated World Travel Inc., case
number 0:15-cv-60482, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Defending Two Purported Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company is currently defending two purported class actions, one of
which has been settled by agreement with the plaintiffs (such
settlement remains subject to approval by the court).

"For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to such
claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial
amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case.
We have recorded a liability as of December 31, 2014 with respect
to such matters, in the aggregate," the Company said.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Hawkins" Suit Over Resale-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01297 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 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:

      Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
      Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
      MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
      465 California Street, 5th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 438-4515
      Facsimile: (415) 434-4505
      E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com
              keng@mzclaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      101 N Main Street, Suite 565
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 769-2144
      Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

          - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      30 N. LaSalle, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Ohmes" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Ohmes and Jeffrey Stetler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch +
Lomb, Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper
Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01301 (N.D.
Cal., March 19, 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:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      Jennifer J. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
              jscott@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              tboardman@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Thomas V. Bender
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City center Square, 1100 Main
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LAW CENTER, P.S.C.
      P.O. Box 1876
      601 Washington Street
      Paducah, KY 42003
      Telephone: (270) 442-1422
      Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
      E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com


CRANE CO: Completed Obligations Under Roseland Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Company completed all
obligations required of it to complete the settlement of a lawsuit
related to the Roseland Site.

The Roseland Site was operated by Resistoflex Corporation
("Resistoflex"), which became an indirect subsidiary of the
Company in 1985 when the Company acquired Resistoflex's parent
company, UniDynamics Corporation. Resistoflex manufactured
specialty lined pipe and fittings at the site from the 1950s until
it was closed in the mid-1980s. In 2009, at the request of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP"), the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding the
Roseland Site to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic
compound vapors from groundwater) from the Roseland Site were
present in those homes. The test results showed that three homes
had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ DEP's recommended
concentration levels, and the Company installed vapor mitigation
equipment in those homes.

On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their lost
property value and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 138 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the Roseland Site. The plaintiffs
in these cases amended their complaints to assert claims under New
Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the Company's alleged
failure to properly report its waste discharge practices in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, and for natural resource damages.

In late December 2013, the plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139
homeowners certified, and the motion was granted in early February
2014. At the same time the Court also entered partial summary
judgment on liability for the three homes where the Company had
installed vapor mitigation equipment. The Company reached an
agreement to settle all current claims with the class and
individual plaintiffs for a one-time payment of $6.5 million. This
agreement was approved by the Court on July 23, 2014 and the
Company completed all obligations required of it to complete the
settlement on October 10, 2014.

The Company undertook an extensive soil remediation effort at the
Roseland Site following its closure, and had been monitoring the
Site's condition in the years that followed. In response to
changes in remediation standards, the Company has conducted
further site characterization and delineation studies.

In the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company, in
consultation with its advisors, substantially completed its
assessment of soil and groundwater contaminants at the Roseland
Site, and developed an enhanced remediation plan for the site,
which includes further soil removal, groundwater treatment, and
soil vapor extraction, resulting in a charge of $6.8 million for
remediation activities which are expected to be completed by 2017.
Estimates of the Company's environmental liabilities at the
Roseland Site are based on currently available facts, present laws
and regulations and current technology available for remediation,
and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. While actual
remediation cost may be more or less than amounts accrued, the
Company believes it has established adequate reserves for all
probable and reasonably estimable costs.


CREATIVE HEALTH: Sued Over Sexual Discrimination Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Doris Wesner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Creative Health Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01430
(E.D. Pa., March 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice
of age, gender and sexual orientation and preference
discrimination.

Creative Health Services, Inc. is a Mental Health Service company
located at 11 Robinson St, Pottstown, PA 19464.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Drake, Esq.
      ROBERT C. DRAKE LLC
      1525 Locust Street, 12th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 732-7027
      E-mail: robert.drake@rcdrakelaw.com


DOG GONE: Faces "Alvarez-Castor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alberto Alvarez-Castor and Carlos Cisneros, individually and
on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Dog Gone Good
Food, Inc., and Hollis Pass, Case No. 1:15-cv-02440 (N.D. Ill.,
March 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMEX INC: "Borden" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Borden, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Dynamex Inc., Dynamex Operations East, Inc.,
Ralph Grotto, and Doris Oloton, Case No. 1:15-cv-02142 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation services company
with its principal place of business located at 26 West 39th
Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Reyes" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AJ Reyes, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated
v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00628 (S.D. Cal., March 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Educational Credit Management Corporation is a company that
specializes in student loan servicing and maintains its principal
place of business at 1 Imation Place Building 2, Oakdale, MN
55128-3422.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
      J. James Christian, Esq.
      TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
      Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
      2525 East Camelback Road
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 255-6000
      Facsimile: (602) 255-0103
      E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com
              jjc@tblaw.com

         - and -

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


EQUIFAX INC: Ninth Circuit Granted Petition to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted the petition for
permission to appeal related to the California Bankruptcy
Litigation.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended ("FCRA"), the
California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to
determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy,
including the method for updating the status of an account
following a bankruptcy discharge.

On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages.

On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011. The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting
plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling
plaintiff and granted the motion of counsel for the settling
plaintiffs' to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On May
1, 2014, the District Court granted the objecting plaintiffs
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the January
21, 2014 Order and the objectors filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On
July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the petition for permission to appeal.


EXELIS INC: Sued in S.D. Ind. Over Misleading Merger Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
The George Leon Family Trust, Stephen Ballweber, Jesse Mallinger,
and The Hopper Family Trust c/o Joseph R. Hopper and/or Shirley A.
Hopper, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Exelis Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00466 (S.D.
Ind., March 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Proposed Merger Agreement between Exelis
Inc. and Harris Corporation.

Exelis Inc. is an Indiana corporation provides command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, and surveillance and
reconnaissance related products and systems in the United States
and internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Piatt, Esq.
      William N. Riley, Esq.
      PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-8787
      Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
      E-mail: jpiatt@price-law.com
              wriley@price-law.com


FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Trust Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Kalan, M.D.; et al., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Farmers & Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg as
Successor by Merger to Community Trust Company, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-01435 (E.D. Pa., March 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for improperly spending the Trust funds in violation of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Farmers & Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg owns and
operates a bank located at 20 S Main St, Chambersburg, PA 17201,
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      IRA B. SILVERSTEIN, Esq.
      c/o MORGADO, P.A
      228 Park Ave S #84164
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (855) 899-9121
      Facsimile: (855) 499-9191
      E-mail: irasilverstein@mac.com


FIFTH THIRD: Several Opt-Out Lawsuits Have Been Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that several of the opt-out
federal lawsuits related to the antitrust class action against
major financial institutions have been resolved.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.  In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement
Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a
class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an
additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection
with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the
class action.

More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion from the class
settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25%
of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have
been returned to the control of the defendants through Class
Exclusion Takedown Payments.

Approximately 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from
the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust
violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the
opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements noted above. In addition, one merchant filed a separate
state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain other
defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust
violations.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the
class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from
that approval. On July 18, 2014, the court in which all but one of
the opt-out federal lawsuits has been consolidated denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. Several of the opt-
out federal lawsuits have been resolved.


FIFTH THIRD: No Further Proceedings in Dudenhoeffer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
No further proceedings have occurred in the Dudenhoeffer class
action after the Supreme Court issued its mandate remanding the
case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Third
Bancorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In 2008, two cases were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain
officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No.
1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on
allegations similar to those set forth in the previously reported
securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by
the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States
Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and
sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal.

On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and
agreed to hear the appeal. Oral arguments were held on April 2,
2014 and on June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court unanimously vacated
the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the standards articulated in its
decision. The Supreme Court issued its mandate remanding the case
back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but no further
proceedings have occurred.


FREEDOM DEBT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00527 (C.D.
Cal., March 19, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system and an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Freedom Debt Relief, LLC is engaged in the business of providing
debt relief to debtors.

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


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Little Italy Paninis Due to Undeclared Egg
---------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand Little Italy Paninis, prepared and
sold individually from the Prepared Foods department inside Giant
Eagle and Market District supermarkets through March 23, 2015 have
been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared egg
allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products. The product is safe for consumption
by those who do not have egg allergies.

The recalled Little Italy Paninis were purchased in Giant Eagle
and Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania and Ohio. There
are no reported illnesses to date associated with this recall.

The paninis were sold individually from the Prepared Foods
department with UPCs of:

  --- 97525 20399 Little Italy Panini, Cold
  --- 07369 20399 Little Italy Panini, Hot

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue during ongoing ingredient
declaration monitoring. The product label for the paninis, which
contain egg, omitted egg as an allergen.
Customers with an egg allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EDT.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439647.htm


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets,
prepared and sold individually from the Seafood department inside
Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets through March 23,
2015 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an
undeclared soy allergen. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product is
safe for consumption by those who do not have soy allergies.

The recalled Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets were purchased by
customers in Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland. There are no
reported illnesses to date associated with this recall.

The fillets were sold individually from the Seafood department
with a UPC of 68106 31470.

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue during ongoing ingredient
declaration monitoring. The product label for the fillets, which
contain soy, omitted soy as an allergen.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439660.htm


GIANT FACTORIES: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Giant Factories Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 240 Gas water heaters. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

On units with a space between the bottom of the water tank and the
combustion chamber, the flame arrestor or flame arrestor plate can
fail, posing a risk of fire or explosion if flammable liquids or
gases are nearby.

This recall involves atmospherically vented propane and natural
gas water heaters in 30, 40, 50 and 60 gallon capacities. The
recalled water heaters are white with a red "Giant" logo decal on
the front. The water heaters have a nameplate near the gas valve
with the model number, date of manufacture and serial number.
Recalled water heaters have the following model number and have a
serial number within the following ranges:

   Model           Serial Number Range
   -----           -------------------
UG30-30MF-N2U-US    A7093000, A7176930 to A7176932
UG40-32LF-P1U-US    A7125009 to A7125069
                    A7129350 to A7129373
                    A7136418 to A7136422
                    A7170513 to A7170522
                    A7170524 to A7170527
                    A7177431
                    A7182196 to A 7182283
UG50-36LF-P1U-US    A7120387
UG50-40LF-N1U-US    A7120400 to A7120417
                    A7121718 to A7121722
                    A7147644 to A7147651
                    A7181128 to A7181133

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/H68vZB

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at
Independent distributors in Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania
from April 2014 through October 2014 for between $340 and $830.

Consumers should immediately ensure there are no combustible
materials near the water heater and contact Giant for a free
inspection. If the water heater has a space between the bottom of
the water tank and the combustion chamber, Giant will replace the
water heater free of charge.


GOLDMAN PHIPPS: MDL Atty Urge Court Not to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, Emily Field, Cara Salvatore and Daniel Wilson,
writing for Law360, report that the lead attorneys from a settled
multidistrict litigation over the contamination of crops by Bayer
AG's genetically modified rice told a Missouri federal court on
March 9 not to dismiss their proposed class action accusing other
firms who also represented plaintiffs in the MDL of refusing to
pay into a common fund for attorneys' fees.

The lead attorneys filed their 2013 class action on behalf of
farmers and their lawyers who obtained a $750 million settlement
from Bayer for the rice contamination.  The class action alleged
that Goldman Phipps PLLC, Keller Stolarczyk PLLC and Mikal C.
Watts PC, which also represented the farmers against Bayer, failed
to pay portions of state court settlements reached with Bayer into
a trust established to cover the lead attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 9, Don M. Downing and Adam J. Levitt, the court-
appointed, co-lead attorneys in the Bayer MDL, shot back at seven
motions filed by Goldman Phipps and the other firms as well as
individual lawyers from those firms, rejecting a range of
challenges to their standing.

Goldman Phipps and the other defendants argued that it was their
clients who benefited from Messrs. Downing and Levitt's work
rather than the firms themselves, and lawyers from the firms,
Martin J. Phipps, Mikal C. Watts, Charles A. Banks and Stephen B.
Murray Sr., claimed they were acting on behalf of their firms,
meaning the lead attorneys couldn't bring claims against them.

According to the firms, Messrs. Downing and Levitt don't have
enough members in their proposed class which includes 34 law firms
at most, well short of the 100 required under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Further, the lead attorneys aren't entitled to any of the money
Bayer paid through its state court settlements because that money
was never property of the trust for the common benefit fund
managed by Messrs. Downing and Levitt, the firms argued.

The lead attorneys said on March 9 that the defendants completely
ignored their claims that the firms were unjustly enriched by
using the common labor and materials in the MDL, including
depositions and other evidence presented at bellwether trials and
hearings, to reach settlements with Bayer in state courts.

Messrs. Downing and Levitt said their claims against the
individual lawyers are valid, because they seek to hold the
lawyers personally accountable for their actions, namely, using
the lead attorneys' work for their own direct benefit.

As for the size of their proposed class, Downing and Levitt
contended that the firms mistakenly claimed the class included
just 34 members, arguing that the thousands of farmers who paid
into the trust are part of the proposed class.

The lead attorneys also said the firms missed the mark by arguing
that the money at issue was not property of the trust, because the
class action isn't seeking the actual money the firms received
from Bayer, but rather a percentage of that recovery the firms
should have contributed to the trust.

The defendants had also asked Judge Perry to split the case and
transfer it to Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana, but Downing and
Levitt said that would be burdensome and illogical since the
underlying dispute involves Missouri law.

In 2011, Bayer settled the MDL for $750 million and was ordered to
place 11 percent of that money into a common benefit fund to cover
attorneys' fees and costs.

According to Messrs. Downing and Levitt's complaint, the three
firms targeted in their class action refused to contribute to the
fund after relying on the lead attorneys' work to obtain
settlements with Bayer in state courts.

U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry threw the suit out in 2013
after ruling the court lacked jurisdiction over the state court
settlements, but the Eighth Circuit reversed in 2014, finding that
the district court did have jurisdiction over Downing and Levitt's
state court settlement claims and remanded the case to Judge
Perry.

Goldman Phipps and the other firms appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which denied their petition for certiorari in February
2015.

The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick J. Stueve --
stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Todd E. Hilton --
hilton@stuevesiegel.com -- and Bradley T. Wilders of Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

The defendants are represented by Peter W. Herzog --
pwh@herzogcrebs.com -- Michael A. Vitale and Brian M. Wacker --
bmw@herzogcrebs.com -- of Herzog Crebs LLP.

The case is Downing et al v. Goldman Phipps PLLC et al, case no.
4:13-cv-00206 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Says Class Certification Not Justified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that a federal judge on March 10 recommended against certifying a
class-action lawsuit in which female employees at Goldman Sachs
Group Inc accused the Wall Street bank of gender bias in pay and
promotions.

While saying "this is a close case," U.S. Magistrate Judge James
Francis said there were not enough common issues to justify
letting potentially thousands of current and former female
employees sue as a group.

Judge Francis said the plaintiffs offered "substantial evidence"
of alleged "pervasive discrimination" at Goldman, including that
the bank maintained a "boys' club" atmosphere that condoned the
sexualization of women and punished those who complained.

However, he said class certification was not justified.

"While the validity or bias of Goldman Sachs' performance measures
is a common issue, there are countless individualized factors that
influence whether those performance measures cause legally
cognizable injury," he said.

The main plaintiffs, former Goldman vice president Cristina Chen-
Oster and former associate Shanna Orlich, claimed Goldman paid
women less than men and gave women weaker performance reviews that
impeded their careers.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres will now decide whether to
accept Francis' recommendation. Class certification raises the
potential for larger damage awards, without prohibitively high
legal costs.

The plaintiffs are "gratified the court found in favor of
plaintiffs on so many issues," their lawyer Kelly Dermody said.

"We will attempt to address the court's open questions and secure
class certification going forward," Ms. Dermody added.

Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said the bank is pleased that
Francis found the case "not appropriate for class action
treatment."

The plaintiffs said the alleged "boys' club" atmosphere included
heavy drinking and events at strip clubs, and contributed to 75
women filing formal complaints alleging sexual harassment.

In seeking class certification, the plaintiffs said Goldman
promoted 23 percent fewer female vice presidents to managing
director than their male counterparts.  They also said female vice
presidents earned 21 percent less than men, while female
associates made 8 percent less.

Goldman denied the bias claims and accused the plaintiffs of
conflating its investment banking, investment management and
securities divisions, which had different pay scales and job
responsibilities.

Large banks and brokerages are often targets of gender bias
lawsuits.  Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc, Morgan Stanley are
among those to settle in the last decade.

In a well-known 1990s case, Smith Barney settled charges that men
harassed women in a basement space known as the "Boom-Boom Room."

The case is Chen-Oster et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-06950.


GREAT WESTERN: Faces "Matters" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Matters, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Great Western Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00464
(S.D. Ind., March 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Great Western Financial Services, Inc. is Texas Corporation, which
sells mortgage loans and other financial products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON, PC
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 221-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com


HANNAFORD SUPERMARKET: Recalls Mixed Nuts & Cranberry Mix
---------------------------------------------------------
Hannaford Supermarkets is alerting customers of a product recall.
Nature's Place Roasted Unsalted Mixed Nuts and Nature's Place
Cranberry Mix have been recalled due to potential salmonella
contamination.

The mixed nut products are in 9 - ounce and 9.5 - ounce packages.
The item numbers are 725439 94507 and 725439 94563.

The supplier of the items, Aurora Products, has been advised of a
positive test result for Salmonella in walnuts that are contained
in these products. Salmonella is an organism that can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. No
illnesses have been reported in connection with this recall.

Customers are advised to discard these products and bring the
sales slip to any store to receive a full refund.

Hannaford Supermarkets, based in Scarborough, Maine, operates 186
stores in the Northeast. Stores are located in Maine, New York,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. All Hannaford stores
feature Guiding Stars, America's first storewide nutrition
navigation system, and most stores have full-service pharmacies.
Hannaford employs more than 26,000 associates. Additional
information can be found at www.hannaford.comdisclaimer icon.


HAWAII: Court Approves Public Housing Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khon2.com reports that the Hawaii Circuit Court has approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit challenging unsafe and
unsanitary conditions at the Mayor Wright Homes public housing
project.

The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of Mayor Wright tenants
by the non-profit Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law & Economic
Justice and co-counsel, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, resulted in
dramatic improvements at the 364-unit apartment complex.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2011.  At the time, most of the
tenants at Mayor Wright did not have hot water.  Residents said
they were afraid to leave their homes due to problems with
security and a spate of assaults and murders at the property.
Leaks from a decaying plumbing systems caused mold problems
throughout the project. Residents also complained of overflowing
dumpsters; rat, roach and bed bug infestations; and shoddy
repairs, if maintenance was performed at all.

"(The garbage bins) were all wide open day and night.  They were
not closed, they were just opened up all the time.  There were
rats and cats getting things from the garbage to the units where
we were, because nobody cared to close the garbage," said resident
Kasner Alexander.  "My disabled wife and my two kids, son and a
daughter, were going to school. They'd have to take a shower
before they go to school, but they took a shower with the cold
water."

"There's a variety of very big issues that affected the units at
Mayor Wright Homes. we're talking about instances in which severe
lack of maintenance resulted in what can only be described as
gaping holes in portions of bathrooms and kitchens resulting in
health-related issues such as excessive leaking that could result
in mold and mildew as well as pest intrusion," said John Rhee --
JRhee@ahfi.com -- of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Some residents had kitchen sinks falling through deteriorating
countertops "fixed" with duct tape. Others had gaping holes in
their bathroom walls providing easy access by vermin intent on
invading tenants' apartments -- holes that were left for months
after maintenance staff attempted to fix plumbing problems, but
failed to seal up the repairs.

In the years leading up to the filing of the lawsuit and even
after, the property twice failed inspections by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, attorneys said.

In response to the lawsuit, the State of Hawaii invested over $4.5
million to bring conditions of the property up to an acceptable
standard and, under the settlement agreement, continues to make
critical repairs.

"After our lawsuit was brought, the state housing authority went
through each of the units on a case-by-case basis trying to decide
exactly what would be necessary to make the improvements and they
were done from our perspective quite well," said Hawaii Appleseed
executive director Victor Geminiani.

The settlement also includes a $350,000 payment to compensate
residents for years of enduring the decrepit conditions, and to
cover a portion of the costs of the suit.  Now, the State is
evaluating plans to redevelop the property.

"This case pushed the State to live up to its responsibilities as
a landlord," said attorney Paul Alston.  "Years of tenant
complaints, reports in the media about problems at Mayor Wright,
and poor results on federal inspections apparently were not
enough.  It took a court case to make things right, and we are
pleased with how things have shaped up."

While advocates for the tenants are happy with the results at the
Mayor Wright project, they are concerned about the broader outlook
for public housing tenants across the state.

According to Mr. Geminiani, "People need a safe, decent place to
raise their families to break out of the generational cycle of
poverty. We need to do better, or the long-term costs of this
neglect is going to come back to haunt us."


HOMEJOY INC: Faces "Iglesias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Homejoy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01286 (N.D. Cal.,
March 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Homejoy, Inc. is a San Francisco-based cleaning service company,
which provides cleaning services in cities throughout the country
via an on demand dispatch system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


HUMANA PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Milburn" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Milburn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a
Rightsource, Case No. 3:15-cv-00123 (N.D. Ind., March 19, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's illegal actions of contacting Class
members on their cellular telephone for non-emergency purposes
using a prerecorded message or artificial voice.

Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. is a Kentucky corporation that
maintains its headquarters at 500 West Main Street, Louisville, KY
40202. It owns and operates a mail-order pharmacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy L. Cueller, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      1100 Summer St 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: acueller@lemberglaw.com


KEY ENERGY: Faces Four Class Actions Over Wage and Hour Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that between May of 2013
and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one
enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged
violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the
lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and
minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment
terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable
and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage
statements consistent with California law, and violations of the
California meal and break period laws, among other claims.

"We intend to vigorously investigate and defend these actions.
Because these cases are in relatively early stages, and we have
not yet briefed class certification issues, we cannot predict the
outcome of these lawsuits at this time. Accordingly, we cannot
estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Case Filed Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lead plaintiff
in a securities class action filed the consolidated amended
complaint on February 13, 2015.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean
Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J.
Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and
Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August
21, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated
the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag-
along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and
approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as
lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group,
LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead
plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13,
2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint adds
Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants and
expands the class period to include the timeframe between
September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014.

"Because this case is in early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss," the Company said.


LA TERRA: Recalls Organic Spinach Dip Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
Due to receiving a recall notice from its organic spinach supplier
because of possible Listeria monocytogenes exposure, La Terra Fina
is recalling the products outlined in the chart below. Following
its voluntary recall of Organic Spinach Dip last Friday, La Terra
Fina is expanding the recall to include these products that were
manufactured on the same production equipment on the same day as
the Organic Spinach Dip and are being recalled out of an abundance
of caution.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. The recalled products were distributed to Costco
stores in the Northwest, Midwest, Northeast and Southeast regions
and Smart & Final stores along the West Coast only.

To-date, there have been no confirmed cases of illness in relation
to these products. The FDA is aware that the company is
undertaking this voluntary action, which is out of an abundance of
caution for consumers' well-being and safety.

Only products with the following "best by" dates are being
recalled. The "best by" date for each product can be found on the
side of the container. Consumers who have purchased these products
are urged to discard or return the place of purchase for a full
refund. For more information consumers can call La Terra Fina at
510-404-5889 between Monday and Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM US PST.

  Product         UPC Code          Best By Date   Retailer
  -------         ---------         ------------   --------
Spinach Artichoke 6-40410-51338-9   4/14/15        Costco - NW
& Parmesan Dip                      4/20/15        Region
made with Greek                                    Grocery Outlet
Yogurt, 31oz. tub

Chunky Spinach    6-40410-51193-4    3/31/15       Costco - MW,
Artichoke &                          4/5/15        NE & SE
Parmesan Dip,                        4/29/15       Regions
31oz. tub                                          Smart & Final
                                                   - West Coast
                                                   Grocery Outlet

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439943.htm


LANDS' END: Recalls Children's Pajamas & Robes Due to Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lands' End Inc., of Dodgeville, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 173,000 Children's Pajamas and Robes. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pajamas and robes fail to meet federal flammability standards
for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to
children.

This recall involves 25 styles of boys, girls and toddler sleep
sets, sleepers, pants, nightgowns and robes sold in 100% polyester
fleece or knit. The garments were sold in sizes 3 months to 16
(girls) and 20 (boys), and in various colors and patterns. The
style number is printed on a tag affixed to the garments' neck,
waist or side seam. Style numbers included in the recall are:

  Style Number   Description
  ------------   -----------
  434255         TODDLER GIRL LONG SLEEVE SOLID FLEECE HOODED
                 ROBE
  439935         BOY KNIT SLEEP PANT SET
  41286          LITTLE BOY KNIT SLEEP PANT SET
  441540         TODDLER BOY KNIT SLEEP PANT SET
  444983         TODDLER BOY FLEECE PAJAMA SET
  444986         TODDLER BOY FLEECE SLEEP PANT
  444991         TODDLER BOY FULL ZIP FLEECE SLEEPER
  444999         TODDLER BOY HOOD FLEECE PRINTED ROBE
  445595         TODDLER BOY SOLID HOODED FLEECE ROBE
  445927         TODDLER GIRL SLEEP FLEECE SET
  445930         INFANT LONG SLEEVE FULL-ZIP FLEECE SLEEPER
  445933         TODDLER GIRL PRINT HOODED FLEECE ROBE
  447284         BOY FLEECE OPEN BTM PAJAMA SET
  447285         BOY FLEECE SLEEP PANT
  447286         BOY FULL ZIP FLEECE SLEEPER
  447287         BOY PRINT HOODED FLEECE ROBE
  447288         BOY SOLID HOODED FLEECE ROBE
  447352         GIRL LONG SLEEVE FLEECE SHIRRED GOWN
  447353         GIRL LONG SLEEVE FULL-ZIP FLEECE SLEEPER
  447354         GIRL LONG SLEEVE PRINT HOODED FLEECE ROBE
  447357         GIRL KNIT SLEEP TOP
  447359         GIRL LONG SLEEVE SOLID FLEECE HOODED ROBE
  447361         GIRL SLEEP FLEECE PANT
  447362         GIRL SLEEP FLEECE SET
  448521         TODDLER GIRL LONG SLEEVE FLEECE GOWN

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/FAiwv2

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Landsend.com and Lands' End kid's catalogs from January 2014
through February 2015 for between $19 and $35.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled sleepwear away from
children and return it to Lands' End for a full refund. Lands' End
is notifying all known consumers and will provide a prepaid
mailing label. Consumers who return the recalled garments will
receive a $15 Lands' End gift card.


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Fla. Over Harmful Spyware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-21141 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 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:

      Lance A. Harke, P.A.
      Sarah Clasby Engel, P.A.
      Howard M. Bushman, P.A.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138
      Telephone: (305) 536-8220
      Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
      E-mail: hbushman@harkeclasby.com
              lharke@harkeclasby.com
              sengel@harkeclasby.com

         - and -

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Robert Neary, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
      2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: JSX@SearcyLaw.com


LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Recalls Chocolate Covered Raisin & Almond Bags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Swiss chocolatier Lindt & Sprungli is voluntarily
recalling one product lot of its 6.4 oz Chocolate Covered Raisin
Bags and 6.4 oz Chocolate Covered Almond Bags sold in nine Lindt
Chocolate Shop locations in the U.S. between January 23 and March
16, 2015. Lindt is issuing this voluntary recall due to concerns
about the potential presence of undeclared hazelnuts. People who
are allergic to hazelnuts run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

This voluntary recall affects the following products:

  --- Chocolate Covered Raisin 6.4 oz standup bag with a lot code
L2975 and a best before date of 4-30-2015
  --- Chocolate Covered Almond 6.4 oz standup bag with a lot code
of L2975 and best before date of 4-30-2015

Consumers can find the lot codes on a white sticker placed on the
back of the bag. Codes begin with the letter "L."

Lindt is issuing this voluntary recall after learning that a
limited number of bags (56 bags or less) of these two products
were mistakenly labeled and may contain hazelnuts. No allergic
reactions have been reported to date. The impacted bags were
available for purchase at the following nine Lindt Chocolate Shops
between January 23 - March 16, 2015:

Fashion Outlets of Chicago
5220 Fashion Outlets Way
Rosemont, IL 60018Peninsula Hotel
692 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10019

Maine Outlet Mall
345 US Route 1
Kittery, ME 03904The Rolex Building
665 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Woodbury Common Premium Outlets
498 Red Apple Court
Central Valley, NY 10917Tanger Outlet Center
1770 West Main Street
Riverhead, NY 11720

Sawgrass Mills
12801 West Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise, FL 33323Chicago Premium Outlets
1650 Premium Outlets Blvd
Aurora, IL 60502

Mall of America
284 South Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55425

Consumers who believe they purchased one of these bags should
return the product to a Lindt Chocolate Shop for a full refund, or
contact Lindt Customer Service at 1-877-MY-LINDT (1-877-695-4638)
24 hours/ day or ChocCovered@lindt.com. Consumers with questions
should contact Lindt Customer Service.
About Lindt & Sprungli


With 170 years of history and Swiss tradition, Lindt & Sprungli is
a global leader in the premium chocolate category, offering high
quality products in more than 120 countries. Lindt & Sprungli
operates 12 production facilities in Europe and the United States
and employs more than 12,000 worldwide. Lindt USA operates more
than 50 retail stores in the U.S. and maintains wide distribution
through extensive retail and wholesale channels. For more
information on Lindt, visit www.Lindt.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm439890.htm


LINON HOME: Recalls Outdoor Wood Bistro Sets Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Linon Home Decor Products Inc., of Mineola, NY, announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,300 Outdoor Wood Bistro Sets.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The chair can unexpectedly tip over when a consumer sits on the
edge of the seat, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves foldable outdoor patio chairs sold
individually and as a table and two chair bistro set. The teak
stained wood chairs measure 22 inches wide by 36 inches tall and
have spaced wood slats on the back and seat. The foldable table
measures 28 inches round by 28 inches tall.

The firm has received reports of four consumers who have fallen
from tipped-over chairs, including two reports of minor injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/V2lR1N

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Daily Fair, Home Goods, Marshalls, Old Time Pottery
and T.J. Maxx stores nationwide from February 2014 to February
2015 for about $30 for the chair and $150 for the set.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled folding
chairs and return the product to the store where purchased for a
full refund.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bailey and Terry Vietz and Jacqueline Vietz, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00430 (W.D. Wash., March 19, 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., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      Keshraw Karmand, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
              kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pesce" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pesce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01321 (N.D.
Cal., March 20, 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., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Avenue
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Telephone: (415) 381-5599
      Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
      E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com

         - and -

      Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
      Kevin O'Brien, Esq.
      POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC
      161 Washington Street, Suite 1520
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 941-4204
      Facsimile: (610) 941-4248
      E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
              kobrien@pbmattorneys.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
              ktucker@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Nyran R. Rasche, Esq.
      Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP
      30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
              csanchez@caffertyclobes.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Prasad" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Salil Prasad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01315 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 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., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
              kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Settles Kids-for-Cash Class Suit for $4.75MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mark and James Halpin, writing for The Citizens' Voice,
report that Robert J. Powell, a key player in the kids-for-cash
scandal, has reached a $4.75 million settlement of a class-action
suit with juveniles improperly jailed in a detention center he co-
owned.

A settlement agreement in the six-year-old case was filed on
March 10 in U.S. Middle District Court in Scranton.

Mr. Powell, a former Drums-based lawyer, could be required to pay
out more money to settle the suit, depending on his net worth
after other legal actions he is involved in are completed,
according to the terms of the agreement.

The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge before it
becomes official.

Mr. Powell, 55, served an 18-month prison sentence after admitting
he paid more than $700,000 in bribes to former Luzerne County
judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan, who funneled
juveniles to his detention center.

The scheme made national headlines and sent Powell, Ciavarella,
Conahan and local developer Robert Mericle to prison.

The class-action suit filed against Powell and other kids-for-cash
figures in 2009 previously resulted in a $17.75 million settlement
with Mr. Mericle, who built the detention center and is serving a
year in prison for failing to report a felony.

In the 25-page settlement agreement released on March 10,
Mr. Powell does not admit guilt.

"While denying any liability, the Powell defendants also consider
it desirable that the actions be settled and ended so as to halt
the substantial cost of litigation," the agreement reads, in part.

The settlement class -- those who qualify for a piece of the
settlement money -- includes all juveniles who appeared before
Judge Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 and were
adjudicated delinquent or "placed," according to the agreement.
It also includes parents of juveniles who were adjudicated
delinquent or placed by Judge Ciavarella, who suffered financial
loss or "any loss of companionship and/or familial integrity" for
which they have not been reimbursed.

The settlement makes provision for those who wish to opt out and
pursue a separate claim against Powell.  The settlement money will
be deposited into an escrow account at PNC Bank, according to the
agreement.  A first payment of $200,000 must be made within 30
days, while the remaining balance of the $4.75 million must be
deposited by Dec. 21.  Once the account is fully funded, the money
will be distributed among the plaintiffs in the case, after
subtracting attorneys' fees.

The total monetary damages might increase, depending on Powell's
net worth as of Dec. 21, 2016, or 30 days after two legal actions
Powell is involved in are settled and he receives all fees and
expenses which he is awarded.

One of those actions is the settlement of Tronox, Inc. vs.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., in which Powell represented plaintiffs
in an environmental contamination case involving a Kerr-McGee
creosote plant near Avoca.  The other legal action concerns
dueling lawsuits that Powell and his former business partner
Gregory Zappala filed against each other.

In February, Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo stayed
two lawsuits between Messrs. Powell and Zappala, pending
settlement negotiations between them.

Messrs. Powell and Zappala co-owned the for-profit juvenile
detention centers to which Judges Ciavarella and Conahan funneled
children while taking $2.8 million in cash from Messrs. Powell and
Mericle.  Powell pleaded guilty in July 2009 to failing to report
a felony and being an accessory to a crime.  He was later
sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and was permanently
disbarred.


MAGGIANO'S HOLDING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
German Zanelli v. Maggiano's Holding Corporation d/b/a Maggiano's
Little Italy, and Ahnich Khalid, Case No. 9:15-cv-80370 (S.D.
Fla., March 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 21090 St.
Andrews Blvd., Boca Raton, FL 33433.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Construction Defects Suits in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid-America
Apartments, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company (by virtue
of its merger with Colonial Properties Trust) and Colonial LP
along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in
lawsuits arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with
respect to condominium units at Regatta at James Island in
Charleston, South Carolina. Regatta at James Island property was
developed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries prior to MAA's
merger with Colonial and constructed by Colonial Construction
Services, LLC. The condominiums were constructed in 2006 and all
212 units were sold. The lawsuits, one filed on behalf of Regatta
at James Island Owners Association, the condominium homeowners
association, and one filed by Laura Dunlap et al., three of the
unit owners (purportedly on behalf of all unit owners), were filed
in the Court of Common Pleas for the North Judicial Circuit in
Charleston, South Carolina in August 2012, against various parties
involved in the development and construction of the Regatta at
James Island property, including the contractors, subcontractors,
architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs
are seeking damages resulting primarily from alleged construction
deficiencies, but the amount plaintiffs seek to recover has not
been disclosed. The lawsuits are currently in discovery.

The Company is continuing to investigate the matter and evaluate
its options and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims. No assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved
favorably to the Company. The Company has included in its loss
contingency an estimate of probable loss in connection with this
matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further
possible loss, or any further range of reasonably possible loss,
in connection with this matter.


NABORS DRILLING: Faces "Garstka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew J. Garstka, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-00743 (S.D.
Tex., March 20, 2015), ), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in
a week.

Nabors Drilling USA, LP operates a land-based drilling rig yard in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


NESTLE PURINA: Family Blames Beneful Product for Pet's Illness
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Unger, writing for WFAA, reports that at least one North
Texas family says its four-legged friends are fortunate to be
recovering after becoming seriously ill after switching to a new
pet food in February.

The Traill family has two dogs -- 8-year-old Thor and 2-year-old
Ava, a young Doberman.  Morgan Traill said both pets became very
sick, shortly after they started using a Beneful brand kibble dog
food.

"The dogs are so different," Mr. Traill said.  "But I noticed
something was really wrong [with both].  They wouldn't even go
eat, so I took them to the vet."

The family has veterinarian bills totaling nearly $2,000.

Mr. Traill spoke with attorneys who filed a massive class action
suit in February. You can view a copy of that lawsuit at the end
of this story.

The suit stems from a dog's death in California, and also
references some "3,000 online complaints about dogs becoming ill
[. . .] and/or dying after eating Beneful."

Purina, Beneful's parent company, issued a statement, saying in
part:

"First and foremost, there are no quality issues with Beneful.
Beneful is a high quality, nutritious food enjoyed by millions of
dogs every day.  In fact, in 2014, nearly 1.5 billion Beneful
meals were served to millions of happy, healthy dogs who enjoy and
thrive on this food.

"Recently, a class action lawsuit was filed against Beneful in
Northern California.  We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we
intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand.  Beneful had
two previous class action suits filed in recent years with similar
baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts.
Class action suits are common in business these days. They are not
indicative of a product issue.

"Beneful is backed by Purina's strict quality controls and
comprehensive food safety program."

The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the pet food
industry, has not released any warnings about the product.

This is a copy of the class action lawsuit alleging pet health
problems associated with Beneful dog food.

Lucido v Nestle Purina Petcare 02-05-2015


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mortgage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Ocwen Financial has
asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming the
mortgage servicer misreported mortgage interest to U.S. tax
authorities, saying plaintiffs' claims fall under the purview of
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

In a motion on March 5, lawyers for Ocwen said borrowers who sued
the company are trying to bypass the IRS, which has procedures in
place to handle their dispute over the way mortgage interest was
reported.


OLD NATIONAL: Expects Decision on Appeal in 2015 First Half
-----------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp expects a decision on an appeal by the Court
of Appeals sometime in the first six months of 2015, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging the Company's checking
account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft
fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar
to other class action complaints filed against other financial
institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts.

On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a
First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and
amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other
relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13,
2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On
September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest." Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on
the issue of class certification on April 2, 2013, which was
subsequently denied.

Old National does not believe that relevant facts are in dispute
or that plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Indiana law. Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old
National moved for summary judgment. On September 16, 2013, a
hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and on September
27, 2013, the Circuit Court ordered the parties to mediation and
informed the parties that "Court will be denying the motion for
summary judgment upon receiving the report of the mediator."

The parties subsequently met twice with the mediator and were
unable to reach an agreement to resolve the dispute. Old
National's pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 11,
2013, was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014, and on
April 23, 2014, Old National sought leave from the Circuit Court
to file an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

On May 28, 2014, the Circuit Court granted Old National's motion.
On June 5, 2014, Old National filed with the Court of Appeals a
"Combined Motion to Accept Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal
Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(B) and Motion to Stay Trial Court
Proceedings Pending Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(H)". On
July 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted both of Old National's
Motions, thereby accepting the appeal and issuing a Stay of the
case before the Circuit Court.

Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiffs. Old National expects a decision on the
Appeal by the Court of Appeals sometime in the first six months of
2015. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for
management of Old National to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
loss.


OMNICARE INC: Court Dismissed Charles Lee Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Charles Lee against Omnicare, Inc. is closed,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, a complaint captioned Charles Lee on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Omnicare, Inc., No.
14-CIV-1335 was filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff
brought the action individually and on behalf of a similarly
situated class of plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleged that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
improperly calling cellular telephone numbers using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

On July 11, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. On
December 15, 2014, the parties executed a settlement agreement in
which the plaintiff agreed to settle the individual claims with
prejudice for a nominal sum. On January 14, 2015, the court
granted the parties' motion to dismiss the individual claims with
prejudice and entered an order declaring the case closed.


OMNICARE INC: Oral Argument Held at Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------
Oral argument at the United States Supreme Court has been held in
an appeal related to the case, Indiana State Dist. Council of
Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc.,
et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in the Company's public
offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i)
artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-
compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic
drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation
of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its
contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to
timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made
other allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court
dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en
banc was denied on July 23, 2013. On October 4, 2013, the Company
filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court
granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On June 5,
2014, the Company filed its Brief in Support of Appeal in the
United States Supreme Court. Oral argument at the United States
Supreme Court was held on November 3, 2014.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 10 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. common stock during the
period between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 10, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/orexigen

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Orexigen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity,
including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy
expenditure through [central nervous system] activity."

The complaint alleges that as part of the FDA post-marketing
approval process for Contrave, Orexigen was required to conduct "a
new randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate
the effects of long-term treatment with Contrave on the incidence
of [major adverse cardiac events, or 'MACE'] in overweight and
obese subjects with [cardiovascular] disease or multiple
[cardiovascular] risk factors," referred to as the "LIGHT study."
On March 3, 2015, in connection with reporting to investors the
status of certain patent applications the Company had sought for
Contrave, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim results of its
ongoing LIGHT study, despite, the complaint alleges, having been
previously admonished by the FDA for inappropriately releasing
interim study data in the past.  As a result of the Company's
March 3, 2015 disclosure of the interim study results, the
complaint alleges that the price of Orexigen common stock
significantly increased in intraday trading on March 3, 2015, on
highly unusual trading volume.

Then, after the close of trading on March 5, 2015, Forbes
published a report entitled "Top FDA Official Says Orexigen Study
Result 'Unreliable,' 'Misleading.'"  The complaint alleges that
this report contained commentary from an FDA official charged with
overseeing the Contrave post-marketing clinical trial program who
stated in pertinent part that the interim data from the study was
probably "'unreliable,'" "'misleading,'" and "'likely false,'"
with the Forbes report warning that "[i]f Orexigen cannot find a
way to set things right, it could face fines, civil penalties, or
even the withdrawal of Contrave from the market."  On this news,
the complaint alleges that the price of Orexigen stock fell
substantially when trading resumed on March 6, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Orexigen common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


OUTRIGGERS FLAME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Marchlewicz and Sharon Fritz, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v.
Outriggers Flame, Inc. and Dimitri Mikroulis, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02439 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois.

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


PAUL E. WALSH: "Gunter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Gunter, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Paul E. Walsh Trucking, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00463
(M.D. Fla., March 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Paul E. Walsh Trucking, Inc. is a contract truck hauling company
located in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Facing "Fernando" and "Zepeda" Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, that in the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-
action lawsuits (Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc.
and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits
contain allegations related to violations of aspects of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a
previous settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or
allege that we improperly held consumer funds or otherwise
improperly limited consumer accounts. These lawsuits seek damages
as well as changes to our business practices, among other
remedies.

"A determination that there have been violations of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of other laws
relating to our business practices could expose us to significant
liability. Any changes to our business practices resulting from
these lawsuits could require us to incur significant costs and to
expend substantial resources, which could delay other planned
product launches or improvements and further harm our business,"
the Company said.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Recently Settled Murray v. Bill Me Later Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, that the Company recently settled Murray v. Bill Me Later
(filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in June 2012), which alleged that Bill Me Later made
calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without prior
consent.

"These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not currently alleged
as class actions, seek damages (including statutory damages) and
injunctive relief, among other remedies. Given the enormous number
of communications we send to our customers, a determination that
there have been violations of the TCPA or other communications-
based statutes could expose us to significant damage awards that
could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm our
business," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Light" Cigarettes Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld a state court's order certifying
a class action against cigarette maker Philip Morris USA.

The state's high court issued its 17-page order affirming the
Pulaski County Circuit Court's decision Feb. 26.

The circuit court certified the plaintiffs' class action against
Philip Morris based on the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Philip Morris appealed the class certification.

The class plaintiffs allege Philip Morris deceived them by
advertising Marlboro Lights as being safer and having less tar and
nicotine than other cigarettes.

Philip Morris, in its appeal to the high court, argued that each
element of the plaintiffs' ADTPA claim  --  misrepresentation,
causation and damages -- contains "overriding" individual issues
that destroy predominance.

First, the cigarette maker argued misrepresentation is an
"inherently" individual issue because whether its representations
on its Marlboro Lights cigarettes were false depends on each class
member's smoking habit.

Second, it argued proof of causation requires proof of reliance,
and since each buyer bought Lights for different reasons, these
individual reasons destroy predominance.

Lastly, Philip Morris argued each individual's damage claim
depends on his or her smoking habits, which also destroys
predominance.

"We conclude that proof of misrepresentation does not turn on each
class member's smoking habit because the key inquiry under the
ADTPA focuses on the defendant's actions," Associate Justice
Rhonda K. Wood wrote for the court. "We further conclude that any
individual issues regarding causation and damages can be
addressed, if necessary, using the bifurcated approach.

"And we agree that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
when it reached the same conclusion: 'The other issues raised by
[Philip Morris] in an attempt to negate predominance are
downstream of the common, predominate threshold allegation of the
plaintiffs: that Marlboro Lights, as designed, manufactured,
advertised and sold, were misrepresented.'"

Simply put, the class action is a "superior" method to adjudicate
at least some parts of the plaintiffs' cause of action, the court
said in its 6-1 decision. Associate Justice Josephine L. Hart
dissented.

Justice Hart contends the majority is wrong to approve a class
that cannot "reasonably be ascertained" and is so broad as to
include "perhaps thousands" of members who have sustained no
actual damages.

"Even the appellees' experts conceded that 90 percent of smokers
did not fully compensate and not every purchaser bought 'Lights'
because he or she believed it was a 'healthier' cigarette," she
wrote.  "These facts are fundamental to the case."

Justice Hart said she is "mindful" that the action is directed
against the maker of a "highly unpopular" consumer good.

"However, this case will stand as precedent for all consumer
goods," she wrote.  "'Light' is the term that has been demonized
today because it is associated with cigarettes.

"Should we countenance equally low standards for class
certification when it comes to foods that are labeled 'diet,' 'all
natural,' 'low-fat,' or -- dare I say -- 'light?'"

The class action  --  of which the exact size is unknown -- seeks
refunds on every pack of Marlboro Lights sold in the state from
1971 to 2010.


POSTMATES INC: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Singer and Ryan Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Postmates, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01284 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Postmates, Inc. is a San Francisco-based courier service that
provides delivery service in cities throughout the country via an
on demand dispatch system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Blackwolfe" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Michelle Blackwolfe and Jonathan Blackwolfe, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00429 (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to secure Class Members' medical
records containing sensitive and confidential medical  information
and personally identifiable information.

Premera Blue Cross own and operate a health care insurance company
with its headquarters located at 7001 220th Street SW, Building 1,
Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cliff Cantor, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
      627 208th Ave. SE
      Sammamish, WA 98074
      Telephone: (425) 868-7813
      Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
      E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS: Caddies File Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
NPR.org reports that more than 100 caddies filed legal action
against the Professional Golfers Association for $50 million in
advertising revenue.

Rex Hoggard, a senior writer at the Golf Channel, said "It's a
situation where caddies at each tournament are required to wear a
bib.  On that bib is the name of the title's sponsor for that
week.  And the caddies receive no compensation for that.  The
lawyers for the caddies have estimated that's worth upwards of $50
million a year.  And about a year and half ago, the caddies formed
an association -- not a union -- and they tried to negotiate with
the Tour because what they're trying to create here is a
retirement fund, better health insurance benefits -- that type of
thing.  They didn't get very far.  They were told right out of the
gates that the bibs were a nonstarter -- that the Tour wasn't
going to negotiate about that. And it led to this lawsuit which
was filed in San Francisco at the beginning of February."


RDS DELIVERY: "McBride" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McBride, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. RDS Delivery Service Co., Inc., Lawrence
Zogby and David Zogby, Case No. 1:15-cv-02143 (S.D.N.Y., March 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a courier service company located
at 436 E 11th St, New York, NY 10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


SASKATCHEWAN MEDICAL: Can't Appeal Surgical Assistant Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholi, writing for The Regina Leader-Post, reports that a
class-action lawsuit over the differing fees paid to surgical
assistants in this province has made it over one more legal
hurdle.

A Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judge has refused to grant leave to
appeal to the Saskatchewan Medical Association (SMA), which
disputed that the suit should in fact be a class action.

In his written reasons, Justice Maurice Herauf pointed out that
it's still early days, and the go-ahead to proceed as a class
action doesn't determine whether or not the case actually has
merit.

"The SMA can continue to vigorously oppose the merits of the
proposed class action at trial," he said.

"A timely resolution will likely resolve some of the angst that
has been expressed by the SMA that this action is a direct
challenge to the principles of medicare," Justice Herauf added.

At issue is a compensation scale which pays parttime surgical
assistants 17 per cent more for the same service provided by the
fulltime surgical assistants. The claim alleges a breach of duty
by the SMA, which negotiates on behalf of most of the province's
physicians.

According to Justice Herauf's summary, part-time surgical
assistants are those whose practice comprises less than 50 per
cent of surgical assistant's work.  Most are family physicians
treating patients out of an office, whereas full-time assistants,
also family physicians, usually have a hospital-based practice.
The difference in fees, which was accepted by the SMA and
Saskatchewan government, was based on an initiative to have
office-based physicians assist in their patients' surgery, so the
fee recognized that they should be compensated for continued
office overhead when leaving their offices.

"Hence, the reason for the increased fee to this class of
physicians much to the chagrin of the hospital-based physicians
who perform the same function or duty for less remuneration,"
wrote Justice Herauf.

Before a lawsuit can proceed as a class action it must first be
certified by a judge.

In December, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Ted Zarzeczny found
the proposed suit, argued by lawyers Tony Merchant and Casey
Churko, met the requirements for a class action.  That means that
rather than each individual suing, one person, in this case
Dr. Keith Anstead, can launch the action on behalf of himself and
a group -- the fulltime surgical assistants.

According to Justice Zarzeczny's decision, Saskatchewan had 61
full-time surgical assistants as of the end of 2013.


SILVER LAKE: Recalls Easter Egg Cookies Due to Egg Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Silver Lake brand Easter Egg Cookies, NET WT. 8 OZ
(226g), have been voluntarily recalled due to undeclared egg
(Allergen) in the ingredients. For people who have an allergy or a
severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these cookies. The
cookies are safe for consumption by those who do not have egg
allergies.

The recalled Easter Egg Cookies were primarily sold to
supermarkets in the following states: MN, WI, NY, GA, IL, CT, PA,
MA, and IN.

There are no reported illnesses to date associated with this
recall.

The Easter Egg Cookies were sold under The Silver Lake label with
the UPC code of: 0 37695 49817 1

Customers with an egg allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it. Consumers with a questions can call
Silver Lake Cookie Company at 1-800-645-9048 x263, Monday through
Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Aerobars Bicycle Handlebars
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 8,300 Aerobars Bicycle
Handlebars. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bolt used to affix the aerobars to the bicycle can loosen,
posing a fall hazard to the rider.

This recall involves carbon and alloy Aerobars sold individually
and with model years 2012 through 2015 Specialized Shiv bicycles
and model year 2013 Specialized Transition Apex bicycles. The
carbon Aerobar was sold in black with a white Specialized logo on
the top side of the handlebar, and the alloy model was sold in
black with no markings.

The firm has received four reports of the Aerobars bolt loosening.
No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized Specialized Bicycle dealers nationwide and online at
www.specialized.com from November 2011 to February 2015 for
between $200 and $575.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled aerobars and
contact Specialized Bicycle Components to receive replacement
extension mounting hardware.


ST. GEORGE, UT: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Searches
-------------------------------------------------------------
David DeMille, writing for The Spectrum, reports that plaintiffs
have filed to have an ongoing federal case against the City of
St. George certified as a class action suit, alleging that the
city's code enforcement program infringed on residents' legal
rights to due process and protection from unreasonable searches.

The motion, filed in February in federal court, alleges that
approximately 3,200 residents had properties searched illegally
without a warrant and that an estimated 16,000 "have had their
properties encumbered and/or been fined as part of the ordinance
enforcement scheme," estimating the figures based on documentation
obtained from the city.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2013, alleges widespread criminal
violations and corruption among elected officials and city staff
related to the code enforcement program, an administrative program
that plaintiffs argue was developed as a way to expedite citation
and circumvent the due process required in criminal cases.

"St. George through its due diligence process was aware that other
municipalities had moved their ordinance enforcement from the
criminal law arena into a quasi-criminal arena where many
Constitutional rights were not in play," according the most recent
version of the complaint.

The city's response to the class action motion and the proposed
amended complaint was due to be filed on March 13.

Jody Burnett, an attorney with a Salt Lake City law firm
representing the city, declined to comment on the specific
allegations included in the complaint, noting that the response
due to be filed on March 13 would address the allegations.

In November, U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson dismissed some
of the charges outlined in the first amended complaint, including
accusations that the code enforcement program was unconstitutional
on its face and allegations that the program as written violates
due process

Some of the charges were dismissed without prejudice, though,
leaving the door open for the plaintiffs to present more evidence
and refile.

The code enforcement program remains in place, although residents
have been unable to go through the administrative court process
since August when the judge assigned to administer the program
stepped down.

Brian Filter, who filled the position while also working at the
Washington County Attorney's Office, resigned shortly before
leaving to take another position in Nevada.

Mayor Jon Pike said on March 11 that several have been interviewed
for the position, although none of the candidates have been named
yet.

Pike and several members of the city council have expressed
interest in making changes to the code enforcement program,
although they have been reluctant to do so with the lawsuit still
in court.

Council members Joe Bowcutt and Michele Randall were both elected
in 2013 after voicing support for some sort of reform to code
enforcement, and Mr. Pike said during his campaign that he wanted
to create a new committee tasked with overhauling the process.

They were pushing their attorneys to see if there were at least
some changes they could make, Mr. Pike said, arguing that there is
an appetite to address some issues instead of waiting until the
lawsuit is resolved.

"I don't think we're going to want to wait until it's all over
because that's going to take some time," he said.  "We're all on
the same page that we'd like to be able to do some things."


SUPERIOR FOODS: Recalls Organic Frozen Spinach Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
This recall is based on a recall notice from one of Superior
Foods, Inc., organic frozen spinach suppliers that Superior Foods,
Inc., may have received organic spinach with the possible presence
of Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Product was distributed Nationwide at Target retail stores.

  -- Simply Balanced Organic Chopped Spinach 10-oz steam in bag
     DPCI # (Department, Class, Item.) 270-00-0663
     UPC Code - 85239 00663
     Production Date Code and Best By Code
     4360SF3 through 7 J1 Best By 26/06/2016
     4360SF3 through 7 J2 Best By 26/06/2016
     5026SF4 through 8 J1 Best By 26/07/2016
     5026SF4 through 8 J2 Best By 26/07/2016
     5051SF2 through 4 J1 Best By 20/08/2016
     5051SF2 through 4 J2 Best By 20/08/2016

Superior Foods Inc., is not aware of any illness complaints to
date related to this event. Out of an abundance of caution,
however, Superior Foods, Inc., is recalling these products based
on the recall notice we received from our supplier. This recall is
being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

Consumers who have any of the product identified are urged to
dispose it, or return it to the store where it was purchased for
an exchange or full refund.

Consumers with questions may call 1-866-672-0811 Monday through
Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


TEXAS BRINE: Watchdog Balks at Exorbitant Sinkhole Suit Atty Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
attorneys representing residents of Bayou Corne in class action
litigation over environmental damage caused by a massive sinkhole
in Ascenion Parish are under fire from a local legal watchdog
group that alleges they racked up unrealistic and excessive legal
fees.

Attorneys handling the case on behalf of the plaintiffs were given
a big pay day for their representation of the class involved in
the Bayou Corne disaster.

The Bayou Corne sinkhole first appeared in August 2012 after an
underground salt dome collapsed due to oil exploration activity
that was being conducted in the area by Texas Brine.  The collapse
caused a 2.5 acre sinkhole that has now, over two and half years
later, expanded to at lest 32 acres and caused a number of
environmental issues that has resulted in the evacuation and
condemnation of affected parts the town of Bayou Corne and
surrounding areas.

Texas Brine later agreed to a $48.2 million class action
settlement, $12 million of which was allocated, along with nearly
$300,000 in additional costs, by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey to
attorneys involved in the representation of area residents who
were evacuated in the aftermath of the disaster.

Court documents show that attorneys representing class counsel in
the case documented 8,256 hours of work on the settlement while
their assistants and paralegals logged 709 hours.  Together, that
is a total cost of roughly $1,300 an hour.

The legal fees were granted by the court-appointed special master
in the case, A. Shelby Easterly, of Denham Springs-based Easterly
Law Office APLC.   Easterly lauded the efforts of class counsel
claiming they had squeezed over four years of effort into just two
years and deserved the fee rate requested.

"Class Counsel have earned a reasonable fee and considering the
circumstances of this case the request is recommended for
favorable consideration as reasonable," Easterly wrote in his
court filing supporting the legal fees.

In contrast, Melissa Landry, executive director of legal watchdog
Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, said the settlement fees provided
to attorneys involved in the case are questionable at best.

"Rule 1.5 of the Louisiana Rules for Professional Conduct requires
attorneys to charge their clients a 'reasonable fee.' In what
world is $1,300/ hour a reasonable fee? I'm sure if you asked, the
vast majority of Louisianians would disagree," she said.

Attorneys handling the case, who in addition to receiving a
portion of their client's claims also received a lump sum of
$1,324,320.58, include Calvin C. Fayard Jr. of Denham Springs-
based Fayard & Honeycutt, Matthew B. Moreland of Reserve-based
Becnel Law Firm, Lawrence J. Centola III of New Orleans-based
Martzell & Bickford and Richard Perque of New Orleans-based The
Law Office of Richard G. Perque LLC.

Mr. Fayard in particular, also known as a member of the group of
attorneys representing plaintiffs the Deepwater Horizon class
action, has been prolific when it comes to class action
representation in Louisiana.  He also has a reputation for being a
big spender in funding the campaigns of state politicians having
provided hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past decade
alone.

Below is a full list of allocations to attorneys in Bayou Corne
settlement:

Class Counsel - $1,324,320.58
Girardi Keese - $814,007.57
Lana Ourso Chaney - $517,357.64
Huber, Slack, Thomas & Marcelle, LLP - $505,642.45
Calvin C. Fayard, Jr. (APC) - $333,242.50
D. Blayne Honeycutt - $333,242.50
Law Office of Hobart Pardue, L.L.C. - $252,910.18
Pardue Law Firm, L.L.C. - $252,910.18
Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C. - $220,805.13
Heidi Mabile Gould - $160,644.66
Law Office of Richard Perque, L.L.C. - $147,630.67
Martzell & Bickford - $104,883.51
Koury & Hill, L.L.C. - $104,883.51
Pendley, Baudoin & Coffin, L.L.P. - $59,130.86
Harley M. Brown, APLC - $48,493.91
Block Law Firm, APLC - $43,710.99
Autumn Town - $36,907.67
Whitworth Law Firm - $36,266.79
Marvin Gros, APLC - $29,333.33
Broussard & David, L.L.C. - $28,589.17
Kenneth Dupaty - $3,333.33
C.E. Bourg, II - $833.33
Cave Law Firm, L.L.C. - $416.64


TINDER: Faces Class Action Over New Subscription Fee
----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
man has filed a class action lawsuit against the popular dating
app Tinder over its recent announcement that it will be charging
users $2.99 per month.

Billy Warner filed his lawsuit March 6 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  He claims he would have
reconsidered his decision to download and use the Tinder app if he
had known that it would one day no longer be free.

Mr. Warner is represented by the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Mr. Warner says he is "entrenched in the use" of Tinder and has
foregone the use of other online dating sites.

"Defendant offered these free services with the goal in mind of
enlisting a user base of tens or hundreds of millions of users,
with the ultimate goal of later changing the rules of
participation and deceptively and forcibly migrating a
substantially percentage of its user based to a paid subscription
model," the complaint says.

"Had Defendant warned Plaintiff that additional fees may apply,
Plaintiff would have reconsidered Plaintiff's use of Defendant's
app.

"Failure to disclose that additional fees may apply unfairly
induced Plaintiff's downloading of Defendant's app, as he
reasonably believed it to be a 'free' service."

Mr. Warner was notified by the app that he was out of "likes" on
March 5, and that he could purchase unlimited "likes" for $2.99
per month.  He called it a bait-and-switch ploy and says the app's
users became addicted to it.  He alleges violations of the
California False Advertising Act and the Business and Professions
Code.  The suit seeks statutory penalties and restitutions of
funds obtained by Tinder.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:15-cv-01668.


TOKYO ELECTRIC: US Insists Navy Sailors Not Exposed to Radiation
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gutierrez, writing for Global Research, reports that U.S.
Navy sailors exposed to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima
nuclear disaster have been falling ill, even as the Defense
Department insists that they were not exposed to dangerous levels
of radiation. Many of the sailors have now joined in a class
action lawsuit against Fukushima operators and builders Tokyo
Electric Power Company (Tepco), Toshiba, Hitachi, Ebasco and
General Electric.

Even if they wanted to -- which many do not -- the sailors would
be unable to sue the Navy.  According to a Supreme Court ruling
from the 1950s known as the Feres Doctrine, soldiers cannot sue
the government for injuries resulting directly from their military
service.

Mocked and attacked

On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami triggered
multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in
Japan. It was the worst nuclear disaster in history, releasing
twice as much radioactive material as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

That same day, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was
redirected to the coast of Japan to participate in relief work for
tsunami survivors.  When sailors from the ship later began to fall
ill, Congress asked the Defense Department for a report on the
issue.  The Pentagon report concluded that the sailors had not
been exposed to enough radiation or contaminated water to cause
health effects.

Yet in the four years since the disaster, at least 500 sailors
have fallen ill, and 247 of them have joined the class-action
suit.  The 100-page legal complaint chronicles their symptoms: an
airplane mechanic suffering from unexplained muscle wasting; a
woman whose baby was born ill; a sailor told his health problems
must be genetic, even though his identical twin is perfectly
healthy; and case after case of cancer, internal bleeding,
abscesses, thyroid dysfunction and birth defects.

The defendants initially claimed that they could not be sued in a
U.S. court, so plaintiffs' attorney Paul Garner asked the sailors
to come to a court hearing in San Diego, to offer moral support.
Nearly all of them refused, for fear of public attack.  Initial
plaintiff Lindsey Cooper, for example, had already been mocked by
atomic energy experts on CNN and by conservative radio hosts.
Others were afraid of being perceived as anti-military, or un-
American.

Powerful interests at stake

Only one plaintiff was willing to show up: Lieutenant
Steve Simmons.  Once a triathlon runner, Mr. Simmons fell ill a
year after returning from Japan, suffering from hair loss, muscle
wasting, migraines, bloody discharge and incontinence.  His
fingers turned yellow or even brown, and his feet have now turned
dark red.  He suffers from whole-body spasms and must now use a
wheelchair.

He has never received a diagnosis for his problems, and sometimes
he wonders if his Defense Department doctors are deliberately
withholding one, so that the Department need not be held
responsible.  One doctor, he said, told him it would be better if
he didn't know the cause of his illness.

Mr. Simmons believes that the Navy meant to do good with the
mission to Japan, and does not blame USS Ronald Reagan's
commander, Captain Thom Burke, for what happened to him.  But he
is troubled by Captain Burke's silence now, he says.  He believes
that Captain Burke will not speak out about the case because he
hopes to become an admiral.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Marc Stanley Files Class Action Over Hacking Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based trial attorney Marc R. Stanley on March 10 filed a
class action lawsuit against Toyota, Ford and General Motors for
failing to address a defect that allows cars to be hacked and
control wrested away from the driver.  The case was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Car manufacturers long have known about the risks posed by this
hazard.  In February, 60 Minutes aired a segment demonstrating how
a hacker using a laptop could disable the brakes, preventing a
driver from stopping or slowing down.

Lead attorney Marc Stanley explained, "Toyota, Ford and GM have
deliberately hidden the dangers associated with car computer
systems, misleading consumers."

In today's cars, electronic control units (ECUs) are connected
through a controller area network, referred to as a CAN or CAN
bus.  The ECUs communicate by sending CAN packets -- digital
messages containing small amounts of data.  If a hacker can send a
CAN packet to an ECU on the car's CAN bus, he can take control of
basic functions of the car, including braking, steering and
acceleration.

A 2013 study by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) found researchers could make vehicles "suddenly
accelerate, turn, [and] kill the brakes."  DARPA reported the
defect represents a "real threat to the physical well being of
drivers and passengers."  Before releasing its study, DARPA shared
its finding with car manufacturers to address the vulnerabilities,
but they did nothing.

Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) recently released a report, "Tracking &
Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk,"
explaining wireless technologies in cars represent "potential
threats to both automobile security and to consumer privacy."
Sen. Markey specifically asked numerous automobile manufacturers,
including Toyota, Ford and GM, how they were dealing with this
defect, but found "a clear lack of appropriate security measures
to protect drivers against hackers. . ."

Toyota owner and named plaintiff Helene Cahen said, "It's scary to
know you could be driving down the highway and a hacker could
seize control of your car.  Toyota never mentions this risk when
extolling its technology to sell you the car."

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges Toyota, Ford and GM
concealed or suppressed material facts concerning the safety,
quality and functionality of vehicles equipped with these systems.
It charges the companies with fraud, false advertising and
violation of consumer protections statutes.

Stanley continued, "We shouldn't need to wait for a hacker or
terrorist to prove exactly how dangerous this is before requiring
car makers to fix the defect.  Just as Honda has been forced to
recall cars to repair potentially deadly airbags, Toyota, Ford and
GM should be required to recall cars with these dangerous
electronic systems."

Stanley is a founder of the Stanley Law Group, which focuses on
complex litigation.  He previously served as president of the
Texas Trial Lawyers Association.


TRI-STATE WIRELINE: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Terry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tri-State Wireline, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00382 (W.D.
Pa., March 19, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tri-State Wireline, LLC is an oilfield services company with
offices in Perryopolis, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retiree's Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp. on March 9 urged a Michigan federal
judge to toss a putative class action brought by automotive
systems plant retirees over the discontinuance of their health
care plan, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent M&G Polymers
ruling saps the plaintiffs' arguments.

TRW, Kelsey-Hayes Co. and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. urged
U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh to grant them summary
judgment and dismiss the suit, in which the United Auto Workers
claimed TRW subsidiary Kelsey-Hayes' 2012 move to discontinue
group health care plans for retirees over age 65 in favor of
giving them individual health reimbursement accounts deprived
retirees of the benefits they were promised in a collective
bargaining agreement.

The defendants' memorandum in support of their motion for summary
judgment, however, argues that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme
Court's January decision in M&G Polymers USA LLC v. Tackett, the
retirees are not entitled to at-issue healthcare benefits for as
long as they live because the collective bargaining agreement
doesn't contain any explicit language requiring such benefits.

In fact, the defendants argue, the collective bargaining agreement
contains language limiting how long the benefits must be provided,
and that language is given force by the M&G Polymers ruling.

"Under Tackett, collectively bargained retiree healthcare benefits
expire with the agreement in which they are created unless the
contract expressly provides for an intent to vest," the memorandum
states.  "The relevant collective bargaining agreement and the
insurance agreement in this case contained a series of durational
clauses. There is no language that explicitly excludes retiree
healthcare benefits from the scope of these provisions."

In M&G Polymers, the high court vacated a Sixth Circuit decision
that left the company on the hook for a class of retirees'
lifetime health care benefits.  The Supreme Court's ruling took
issue with the Sixth Circuit's application of the appeals courts'
retiree-friendly 1983 decision called Yard-Man, saying the Yard-
Man decision and its progeny were out of step with contract law
and placed a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree
benefits.

The union and three individual retirees brought the current suit
in October 2011, alleging Kelsey-Hayes and its parent corporations
breached the terms of the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, and in doing so, violated its responsibilities under an
existing Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefit plan.

The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that they and their
surviving spouses were entitled to a lifetime of fully paid
retirement health care benefits and to issue a permanent
injunction precluding the defendants from terminating their
existing group health plan.

The 1998 collective bargaining agreement provides that the company
will fully cover premium or subscription costs for health care,
according to court filings.

Ownership of the plant changed hands after the agreement was
struck, with TRW Automotive, a public company that now owns
Kelsey-Hayes, eventually informing retirees that it would
discontinue its current health care plan for Medicare-eligible
retirees in January 2012 and directing them to set up health
reimbursement accounts.  TRW pledged to provide a one-time
contribution to the HRAs of $15,000 for each eligible retiree and
his or her spouse for 2012, and a $4,800 contribution for each
eligible retiree and his or her spouse for 2013, according to
court filings.

In June 2012, a federal judge sent to arbitration the claims of
retirees who had retired after the closure of the plant.

On March 9, Northrop Grumman, which acquired then Kelsey-Hayes
parent TRW Inc. in 2002, at which point TRW Inc. ceased
operations, argued that it should be dismissed from the suit
entirely because it was never a party to the collective bargaining
agreement.

"A successor corporation is not generally liable for its
predecessors' liabilities unless they are expressly assumed," the
defendants argue in the memorandum.

Also on March 9, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify
a class of workers who retired before the closure of the plant.
On March 10, the court set a hearing on the motion for summary
judgment and certification motion for April 27.

The plaintiffs are represented by William Wertheimer of Law Office
of William Wertheimer, and Stuart M. Israel and John G. Adam --
jga@legghioisrael.com -- of Legghio & Israel PC, and UAW Associate
General Counsel Michael F. Saggau.

The defendants are represented by Gregory V. Mersol --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- and Todd A. Dawson -- tdawson@bakerlaw.com
-- of Baker & Hostetler LLP.

The case is International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace And
Agricultrual Implement Workers of America et al. v. Kelsey-Hayes
Company et al., case number 2:11-cv-14434 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.


TWIN CITY FOODS: Recalls Organic Spinach Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twin City Foods, Inc. of Stanwood, Washington is recalling the
following products because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

  --- Cadia Organic Cut Spinach, 16 oz. frozen packages
      UPC 15369 01165
      Package code: 23424
      Product distributed only in California

  --- Meijer Organics Chopped Spinach, 16 oz. frozen packages
      UPC 41250 02362
      Package code: BEST BY FEB 2017 50415
      Distributed to warehouses in MI, OH, and WI

  --- Wild Harvest Organic Cut Leaf Spinach, 16 oz. frozen
      packages
      UPC 11535 50170
      Package code: SELL BY 08.DEC.2016 L084WE, Distributed to
      warehouses in AZ, CA, WA
      Package code: SELL BY 22.JAN.2017 A225WE, Distributed to
      warehouses in PA and VA
      Package code: SELL BY 30.JAN.2017 A305WE, Distributed to
      warehouses in DE, ME, PA, and VA
      Package code: SELL BY 04.MAR.2017 C045WE, Distributed to
      warehouses in ME and PA

  --- Wegmans Organic Just Picked Spinach, 12 oz. frozen packages
      UPC 77890 32932
      Package code: BEST USED BY JAN.26.2017 50265, Distributed
      to warehouses in NY and PA
      Package code: BEST USED BY FEB.02.2017 50335, Distributed
      to warehouses in NY and PA

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The Recalled Product was supplied to Twin City Foods by Coastal
Green Vegetable Company LLC of Oxnard, CA which initiated a recall
of the bulk spinach on March 20, 2015 due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. Twin City Foods
immediately notified all affected customers and initiated recalls
of the retail packages on March 20, 2015.

Consumers who have purchased the affected product are urged to not
consume the product and immediately return the product to the
store where they purchased it for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the retailer at which they purchased the
affected product.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers with any questions may contact Mark Hubbard at (804)
385-3772 Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time, or email to mhubbard@mwcllc.com.


U.S. SILICA: 86 Active Silica Products Liability Claims at Feb 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Silica Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 25,
2015, there were a total of 86 active silica-related products
liability claims pending in which the Company was a defendant and
1,060 inactive claims.

"Since at least 1975, we and/or our predecessors have been named
as a defendant, usually among many defendants, in numerous
lawsuits brought by or on behalf of current or former employees of
our customers alleging damages caused by silica exposure," the
Company said.  "Prior to 2001, the number of silicosis lawsuits
filed annually against the commercial silica industry remained
relatively stable and was generally below 100, but between 2001
and 2004 the number of silicosis lawsuits filed against the
commercial silica industry substantially increased. This increase
led to greater scrutiny of the nature of the claims filed, and in
June 2005 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas issued an opinion in the former federal silica multi-
district litigation remanding almost all of the 10,000 cases then
pending in the multi-district litigation back to the state courts
from which they originated for further review and medical
qualification, leading to a number of silicosis case dismissals
across the United States."

"In conjunction with this and other favorable court rulings
establishing "sophisticated user" and "no duty to warn" defenses
for silica producers, several states, including Texas, Ohio and
Florida, have passed medical criteria legislation that requires
proof of actual impairment before a lawsuit can be filed.
As a result of the above developments, the filing rate of new
claims against us over the past few years has decreased to below
pre-2001 levels, and we were named as a defendant in two, three
and one new silicosis cases filed in 2012, 2013 and 2014,
respectively.

"As of February 25, 2015, there were a total of 86 active silica-
related products liability claims pending in which we were a
defendant and 1,060 inactive claims. Almost all of the claims
pending against us arise out of the alleged use of our silica
products in foundries or as an abrasive blast media, and involve
various other defendants.

"Prior to the fourth quarter of 2012, we had insurance policies
for both our predecessors that cover certain claims for alleged
silica exposure for periods prior to certain dates in 1985 and
1986 (with respect to various insurance). As a result of a
settlement with a former owner and its insurers in the fourth
quarter of 2012, some of these policies are no longer available to
us and we will not seek reimbursement for any defense costs or
claim payments from these policies. Other insurance policies,
however, continue to remain available to us and will continue to
make such payments on our behalf."


UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit in Memphis Over Ride Sharing Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McLaren, Esq. -- michael.mclaren@butlersnow.com -- of
Butler Snow LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the City
of Memphis is the site of the latest legal challenge to the peer-
to-peer ride sharing services offered by Uber and Lyft.  On March
4th, a federal class action lawsuit was filed against Uber and
Lyft on behalf of all individuals and businesses engaged in "for
hire" transportation services in Memphis. Like others that have
been filed across the country, the Complaint targets the ride
sharing companies' purported "intentional" refusal to comply with
local statutes that regulate companies providing "transportation
for hire" services in the county.  The Complaint specifically
highlights the ride sharing companies' alleged failure to comply
with statutes requiring the payment of operating and licensing
fees, certain levels of insurance, regulated transportation rates,
and those mandating drivers to undergo physical examinations and
criminal background checks.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendants'
failure to comply with these mandatory requirements (and
specifically their "refusal" to pay the mandated fees) has
resulted in Defendants' receipt of "illicit profits to the
detriment of Plaintiffs" who have complied with the City's
regulations.  Plaintiffs seek damages for Defendants' alleged
intentional interference with their prospective business
relationships with customers desiring to hire taxis and for
Defendants' alleged RICO Act violations.

The Complaint also seeks to immediately enjoin Defendants from
operating in Memphis under their current business models.
Generally, such a request is granted only upon a showing of
"irreparable harm."  However, as the Complaint recognizes, some
courts have presumed the existence of irreparable harm where the
allegations at issue concern a defendant's violation of a law or
regulation.  Thus, because the claims at issue concern Defendants'
alleged violations of local statutes and ordinances, Plaintiffs
argue that they are entitled to the presumption and need not
demonstrate "irreparable harm."

However, in Checker Cab Phila. v. Uber Techs., Inc. et al., 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26471, *14-15 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2015), a case
involving similar claims against Uber and other companies
providing ride sharing services in Philadelphia, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania recently rejected this very argument.  In
Checker Cab, the court denied the plaintiffs' petition for a
preliminary injunction, holding that, in actions between two
private parties, irreparable harm is not presumed, even where the
injunction is premised on another's violation of a law or
regulation.  Thus, because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden
of demonstrating a likelihood of immediate irreparable harm if the
ride sharing companies were not enjoined from operating (i.e.,
harm that was not compensable through money damages), the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania did not preclude Uber's continued
operation in the city.

To the extent that Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief
in the Memphis litigation, we can likely expect Defendants to
raise the same arguments that were successful in Philadelphia.


UNITED STATES: Two Legal Nonprofit Groups File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Geidner, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that two legal
nonprofit groups filed a class action lawsuit against the Social
Security Administration on March 10 for its treatment of married
same-sex couples after the Supreme Court struck down a federal law
that prevented the federal government from recognizing their
marriages.

For almost a year after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense
of Marriage Act as unconstitutional in June 2013, the SSA
continued to treat Hugh Held and Orion Masters as unmarried.

Despite Mr. Held asking the local Social Security branch office in
Los Angeles whether the court's ruling, in light of his 2008
marriage to Masters, would mean a change to his Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits, he continued to receive his
benefits of $877.40 a month.

Then, in June 2014, Mr. Held's benefit was reduced to $308.10 a
month on account of his marriage to Masters.

Messrs. Held and Masters were fine with that change, but they are
not OK with the $6,205 bill that the Social Security
Administration (SSA) also sent Mr. Held, the amount, SSA asserts,
that Held was overpaid in benefits since the Supreme Court ruling
in United States v. Windsor.

On March 10, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Justice in
Aging filed a class action lawsuit against the Social Security
Administration on behalf of Held and Kelley Richardson-Wright,
another married person with a same-sex spouse being told to repay
SSA's overpayments, and all other people similarly affected.  The
lawsuit asks for the Social Security Administration to be barred
from asking people to repay benefits.

"Unfortunately for married same-sex couples in marriage
recognition states, SSA was completely unprepared to implement
policies required of it by law after DOMA was struck down,"
Gerald McIntyre, directing attorney for Justice in Aging, said in
a statement.  "The victims of that discrimination should not be
the ones to pay for the agency's mistake."

The lawsuit claims that "SSA should have recognized Plaintiffs'
marriages immediately" after the Windsor decision.  "Yet it failed
to do so."  Then, once SSA finally did begin treating married
same-sex couples as married, it asked for overpayments that
resulted from not recognizing the marriages.

As GLAD and Justice in Aging's lawyers write, "SSI recipients are
now being targeted by SSA for recoupment of overpayments caused by
the government's own unlawful actions."

The Social Security Act itself, however, makes it illegal for SSA
to seek repayment in this circumstance, the lawyers argue.
"The Social Security Act provisions authorizing overpayment
recoupment expressly require SSA to waive recovery of SSI
overpayments if (1) the overpaid SSI recipients were not at fault
for the overpayment and (2) recoupment would either a) be against
equity and good conscience or b) defeat the purposes of the
statute," the lawsuit claims.

In other words, the lawyers argue that the overpayments are not
the same-sex couples' fault because the Social Security
Administration failed to implement the constitutional ruling in
Windsor, meeting the first part, and it would be "against equity
and good conscience" -- basically, unfair -- to order repayment.

Specifically, they write, "[I]t is unfair, inequitable, and
unconscionable for SSA to demand overpayment from a group of
individuals who not only are destitute, but who have been
discriminated against by SSA, and then were overpaid by the
government's unjustified perpetuation of that very discrimination
long after it was held unlawful by the Supreme Court."

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Central District of
California.


UNUM GROUP: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that United States Supreme Court denied
the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari in the class
action filed by Denise Merrimon and Bobby S. Mowery.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine. "This class action alleged that we breached fiduciary
duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life
insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by
establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than
by mailing checks," the Company said.

In September 2013, the District Court awarded damages to the
plaintiffs based on a benchmark it created by averaging the
interest rates paid on money market mutual funds and money market
checking accounts.

"Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, which overturned the District Court's decision
in July 2014, finding our payment of benefits by retained asset
accounts was in full compliance with the policy terms and
therefore ERISA," the Company said.

The United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition
for a writ of certiorari in January 2015. Thus the opinion of the
Court of Appeals stands, and this case is effectively concluded.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Action in Del. Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that Medicis shareholder class action in Delaware is now
concluded.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation ("Medicis"), several purported holders of then public
shares of Medicis filed putative class action lawsuits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona Superior Court against
Medicis and the members of its Board of Directors, as well as one
or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger Sub (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Medicis
acquisition). The Delaware actions (which were instituted on
September 11, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively) were
consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-
CS (Del. Ch.). The Arizona action (which was instituted on
September 11, 2012) bears the caption Swint v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, et. al., Case No. CV2012-055635 (Ariz.
Sup. Ct.).

The actions all alleged, among other things, that the Medicis
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they supposedly
failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially misleading
and incomplete information to be disseminated to Medicis' public
shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin Merger Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions also
sought, among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and money damages.

The plaintiff in the Arizona action agreed to dismiss her
complaint and, on January 15, 2013, the Arizona Superior Court
issued an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss
the Arizona action.

The parties agreed to settle the Delaware action and, on November
25, 2013, executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement, which provided, among other things, that Medicis and
the other defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a
fee award (subject to a capped amount). At the settlement hearing
on February 26, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to
approve the settlement or award plaintiffs any attorneys' fees and
the matter was dismissed with prejudice to allow the plaintiff to
revise their fee request, which they have subsequently decided not
to bring. The Delaware action is now concluded.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Actions in California Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the court in the Obagi shareholder class actions in
California granted the request for dismissal of the actions.

Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of
Obagi Medical Products, Inc. ("Obagi"), the following complaints
were filed: (i) a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on April 1, 2013
and on April 8, 2013, captioned Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical
Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 22,
2013, and amended on March 27, 2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi
Medical Products, Inc., et al.; and (iii) a complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
dated March 27, 2013, captioned Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical
Products, Inc., et al.

Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names
as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of
Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi
acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each
action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the
members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the
company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi,
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that
the proposed transaction undervalued Obagi, involved an inadequate
sales process and included preclusive deal protection devices. The
plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case in
California also filed amended complaints, which added allegations
challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the
transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

The parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release on January 31, 2014, which set forth the
terms for the settlement and dismissal of all of the lawsuits and
provided, among other things, that Obagi and the other defendants
would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a fee award (subject to a
capped amount). At a settlement hearing on April 30, 2014, the
Delaware Court of Chancery declined to approve the settlement or
award plaintiff any attorneys' fees. The Delaware Court of
Chancery entered the dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs on October 8, 2014.

On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the California actions sought
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of each of those actions
without notice to the proposed class. On October 20, 2014, the
court in the California actions granted the request for dismissal
of both actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solta Medical Actions Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the settlement in the Solta Medical shareholder class actions
has been approved by the Court.

Prior to the Company's completion of the acquisition of Solta
Medical, Inc., several purported holders of then public shares of
Solta Medical filed putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, against Solta Medical and the
members of its board of directors, as well as the Company,
Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Solta Medical
acquisition). The Delaware actions were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Solta Medical, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9170-CS (Del. Ch.). The California actions
were filed under the captions Lathrop v. Covert, et al., Case No.
HG13-707363 (Cal. Super.); Walter, et al. v. Solta Medical, Inc.,
et al., Case No. RG13-707659 (Cal. Super.); and Bushansky v. Solta
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG13-707997 (Cal. Super.).

The plaintiffs' allegations in each action were substantially
similar.  The actions all alleged, among other things, that the
directors of Solta Medical breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Solta Medical in connection with the Company's
proposed acquisition of Solta Medical. In support of their
purported claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed
transaction did not appropriately value Solta Medical, was the
result of an inadequate process and included preclusive deal
protection devices. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by Solta Medical on December 23, 2013, in connection
with the proposed transaction contained material omissions and
misstatements. The complaints claimed that Solta Medical, the
Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions sought,
among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
money damages. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' and expert
fees and costs.

On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, which provides
for a release and settlement by Solta Medical's stockholders of
all claims against Solta Medical and the other defendants and
their respective affiliates and agents in connection with the
Company's acquisition of Solta Medical. In connection with the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs sought an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. Pursuant to the scheduling order, a settlement
hearing was held on September 29, 2014 and the settlement was
approved by the Court.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 2016 Trial in Allergan Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that trial is set for June 28, 2016, in the Allergan securities
litigation.

On August 1, 2014, Allergan, Inc. commenced the federal securities
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant's subsidiary AGMS
Inc. ("AGMS"), Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1,
LLC ("PS Fund 1") and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 13(d),
14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by
the SEC under those Sections. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, a declaration that the defendants violated Rule 14e-3 and
Sections 13(d), 14(a) and 14(e); an order requiring rescission of
the defendants' purchases of Allergan securities; an order
requiring the defendants to file corrective disclosures;
preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief as may be necessary
to prevent the defendants from enjoying any rights or benefits
from Allergan securities that were acquired unlawfully and to
prevent irreparable injury to Allergan or its stockholders arising
out of unlawful solicitations; damages under Section 20A of the
Exchange Act; and costs and attorneys' fees.

On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant and AGMS filed an Answer
to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. The remaining defendants
filed a separate answer on August 19, 2014. Also on August 19,
2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman
filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the
Allergan Board of Directors. The Counterclaims allege violations
of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules
promulgated by the SEC under those Sections, and seek, among other
relief, an injunction requiring Allergan to issue corrective
disclosures; an order enjoining further violations of Sections
14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rules 14a-9 and 14a-3,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 2, 2014, the counterclaim-defendants filed an Answer
to the Counterclaims. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in
part and granted in part a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a
preliminary injunction. The Court directed the defendants to make
certain additional disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion.
On December 26, 2014, the defendants moved for summary judgment as
to all of Allergan's claims and all of plaintiff Parschauer's
claims except for certain of her Rule 14e-3 and Section 20A
claims. A hearing on the motion was set for March 23, 2015.

On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended
complaint also asserts violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule
13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS Management, GP, LLC,
PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint seeks
substantially the same relief as the original complaint.
Defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint. Trial
is set for June 28, 2016. The Company is vigorously defending this
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Basile" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company is vigorously the "Basile" class action.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS Inc., Pershing Square
Capital Management, L.P., PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and
William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). The
complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and
April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of
Sections 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the
SEC thereunder. The complaint also alleges violations of Section
20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P., PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A.
Ackman. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants have
not yet responded to the Complaint. The Company is vigorously
defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that oral argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was
scheduled for March 12, 2015, in the the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' and the End Payor Plaintiffs' complaints related to
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions.

On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-
04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers
of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from
the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets,
a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis
under the brand name, Solodyn(R).

The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a
scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and
abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the
detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor
purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges.
Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have
been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable,
treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including
attorneys' fees.  Additional class action complaints making
similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and
the Company have been filed in various courts by other private
plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-
situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester
Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No.
2:13-CV-4642-JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers
Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ
(E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-
JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-
CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105
(E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode
Island, Case No. 2:13-cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013);
International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers
Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D.
Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No. 30 Health
and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed
Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-
06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)).

On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class
action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all
defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar
relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints.

On February 25, 2014, on a motion by Medicis and the Company, the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered that
the cases pending outside the District of Massachusetts be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, with the consent of
that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the actions already pending in that district.  The Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline
Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC,
is now pending before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.  Two
additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District of
Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order:
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D.
Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case
No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014).  These cases
have been included in the pending MDL.

On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the
End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, with the
Defendants' consent, subsequently filed a corrected amended
complaint on September 22, 2014. On November 24, 2014, the
Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' and the End Payor Plaintiffs' complaints.  Oral
argument on the Defendants' motion was scheduled for March 12,
2015.  The Company is vigorously defending these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Afexa Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a decision is pending in the Afexa Class Action.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff
served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-
characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what
was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015 and a decision is
pending. The Company denies the allegations being made and is
vigorously defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Hearing Date on Medicis Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the parties in the legacy Medicis employment matter are
awaiting a settlement approval hearing date.

In September 2011, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation ("Medicis")
received a demand letter from counsel purporting to represent a
class of female sales employees alleging gender discrimination in,
among others things, compensation and promotion as well as claims
that the former management group maintained a work environment
that was hostile and offensive to female sales employees. Related
charges of discrimination were filed prior to the end of 2011 by
six former female sales employees with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). Three of those charges have
been dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no findings of
discrimination.

Medicis engaged in mediation with such former employees and the
parties signed a definitive settlement agreement in this matter,
settling the matter on a class-wide basis and resolving all claims
with respect thereto, including all of the remaining related EEOC
charges. In connection with the settlement, Medicis would pay a
specified sum, would pay the costs of the claims administration up
to an agreed-upon fixed amount and would also implement certain
specified programmatic relief.

On September 5, 2013, a putative class action was filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter of Brown
et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (No. 1:13-cv-01345-
RJL) based on the allegations described. Simultaneously with the
filing of the Complaint, the parties filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. A hearing on
such motion took place in September 2014 and the motion was
denied. A hearing to address the Court's concerns with the motion
for preliminary approval took place on October 23, 2014 and
November 12, 2014.

A revised settlement agreement and related approval materials have
now been submitted and the parties are awaiting a settlement
approval hearing date. The Company has recognized a reserve in its
consolidated financial statements covering the proposed settlement
amount, and such amount is not material.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc Plaintiffs May Seek Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Plaintiffs in the MoistureLoc(TM) Product Liability
Lawsuits have 30 days from notice of entry of the order in which
to move for leave to appeal.

Currently, Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L") has been
served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in
approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits
(some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State
Consolidated Proceeding described below as well as certain other
U.S. state courts on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered
personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with
MoistureLoc(TM). Two consolidated cases were established to handle
MoistureLoc(TM) claims.

First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the
Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second,
on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating
Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State,
and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are
approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in
the New York Consolidated Proceeding.

On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the
New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On
September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. On February 7,
2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' additional
appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial
court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss all remaining claims.

On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to
renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. The appeal
was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on
February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs' appeal to renew and
affirming the lower court's decision granting B&L's motion for
summary judgment regarding all remaining non-fusarium claims.
Plaintiffs have 30 days from notice of entry of the order in which
to move for leave to appeal.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: US-Based Fusarium Claims Now Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that currently Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L") has
settled approximately 630 cases in connection with MoistureLoc(TM)
product liability suits. All U.S. based fusarium claims have now
been resolved and there are less than five active fusarium claims
involving claimants outside of the United States that remain
pending. The parties in these active matters are involved in
settlement discussions.


VERDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Teaser" Electricity Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that an energy company is being sued over
claims its charging customers an unfair price compared to the
market rate.  Shane C. Roberts filed the lawsuit on March 3
against Verde Energy USA claiming the company uses a variable rate
electricity plan, but doesn't lower the rates when the market
price goes down.  When customers first sign up for Verde they
receive a "teaser rate." However, when the rate expires customers
are subject to a month-to-month variable rate plan that is tied to
the market rate of wholesale power, the complaint says.

The lawsuit alleges Verde charges its customers up to nearly four
times what the underlying market rate stands at.  The lawsuit
alleges that Verde charged customers about 20 cents per kilowatt,
but the market wholesale price was about 4 cents per kilowatt in
December, which is about 375 percent above market value. The price
rose from about nine cents per kilowatt in November 2013,
according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Roberts is seeking class status for the lawsuit as well as
more than $5 million in damages plus court costs.  He is
represented by Robert A. Izard -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Seth R.
Klein and Nicole A. Veno -- nveno@izardnobel.com -- of Izard
Nobel, LLP in West Hartford, Conn.

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut case
number 3:15-cv-00312


VIVUS INC: "Kovtun" Plaintiff Seeks Rehearing on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Plaintiff in the "Kovtun" class
action has asked the Court of Appeals' panel to rehear the case or
for the Court to rehear the case en banc.

The Company, a current officer and a former officer were
defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in
November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
false or misleading statements made by the defendants in
connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug
Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The
Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action
Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal
was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants
the same day.

On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following briefing of
the appeal, the Court of Appeals held oral argument on January 16,
2015. On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a
Memorandum decision affirming the District Court's ruling. On
February 12, 2015, plaintiff asked the Court of Appeals' panel to
rehear the case or for the Court to rehear the case en banc.

"We cannot predict the outcome of that petition," the Company
said.


VIVUS INC: April 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint filed by Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin is
currently scheduled for hearing on April 23, 2015.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the
demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their
state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014.  On December 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the federal action.
On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated briefing and
hearing schedule, the motion is currently scheduled for hearing on
April 23, 2015.

"The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability
insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the
anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to payment
of our self-insured retention and the policies' terms and
conditions," the Company said.


WEGMANS FOOD:  Recalls OrganiC Frozen Spinach Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is recalling approximately 12,540
packages of Wegmans Organic Food You Feel Good About Just Picked
Frozen Spinach, 12 oz. (UPC 77890-32932) due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. The product was sold in
the frozen food department of the company's 85 stores in New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts
between January 27 and March 21, 2015. Only packages with the
following codes are affected:

   --- BEST USED BY JAN 26 2017 50265

   --- BEST USED BY FEB 02 2017 50335

This product is supplied to Wegmans by Twin City Foods, Inc. based
in Stanwood, Washington.

L. monocytogenes is a bacterium that can contaminate foods and
cause a mild non-invasive illness (called listerial
gastroenteritis) or a severe, sometimes life-threatening, illness
(called invasive listeriosis). Persons who have the greatest risk
of experiencing listeriosis after consuming foods contaminated
with L. monocytogenes are fetuses and neonates who are infected
after the mother is exposed to L. monocytogenes during pregnancy,
the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems. Customers
who have experienced these symptoms and are concerned should
contact their physician.

No illnesses associated with this recall have been reported to
date.

Wegmans will place automated phone calls to customers who
purchased the product using their Shoppers Club card. Customers
who purchased the recalled products from Wegmans should return it
to the service desk for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Wegmans consumer affairs
department toll free at 1-855-934-3663 Monday through Friday,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.


WELLS FARGO: "Opt-Out" Actions Filed Related to Interchange Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that merchants have filed
several "opt-out" actions related to the Interchange Litigation.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A.
and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants, separately or in
combination, in putative class actions filed on behalf of a
plaintiff class of merchants and in individual actions brought by
individual merchants with regard to the interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Visa, MasterCard and several
banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants in
various of these actions.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services
offered to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and
entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements,
which provide that they, along with other entities, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of
the consolidated individual actions. The proposed settlement
payments by all defendants in the consolidated class and
individual actions total approximately $6.6 billion. The class
settlement also provides for the distribution to class merchants
of 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
categories for a period of eight consecutive months. The Court
granted final approval of the settlement, which is proceeding.
Merchants have filed several "opt-out" actions.


WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Ruling in "Order of Posting" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Eleventh Circuit has
vacated a ruling in the Order of Posting Litigation based on the
District Court's lack of jurisdiction until class certification
has been determined, and remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There
are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these
cases to arbitration under Supreme Court authority.

On November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank
defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo
renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District
Court denied the motion and Wells Fargo appealed the decision to
the Eleventh Circuit. On February 10, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the order based on the District Court's lack of
jurisdiction until class certification has been determined, and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district
proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting
method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff
class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a
different posting methodology and ordering remediation of
approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment
was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated
the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately
$203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo
violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent
representations and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against
Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together
with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and,
effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or
disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of
posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed
the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo
for approximately $203 million, but limited the injunction to
debit card transactions. Wells Fargo is presently considering its
options.


WELLS FARGO: Securities Lending Cases Scheduled for Trial in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
is involved in four separate actions brought by securities lending
customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various courts. In
general, each of the cases alleges losses based on claims that
Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties in its
investment of collateral for loaned securities. Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Minnesota, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. resulted in
verdicts dismissing the claims against Wells Fargo. Plaintiffs
have appealed the verdicts. The remaining cases are scheduled for
trial in 2015.


WINE GROUP: Wines Contain High Levels of Arsenic, Fla. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tacarra Washington, Latanja Johnson, Bernard Johnson, and George
Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Wine Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00163
(N.D. Fla., March 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants produce
and market wines that contain dangerously high levels of inorganic
arsenic, that is up to 500% or more than what is considered the
maximum acceptable safe daily limit.

The Wine Group, Inc. sells and distributes wine in Florida and
throughout the United States and maintains its principal place of
business located at 4596 South Tracy Blvd., Tracy, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINWOOD HEALTH: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Morales, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Winwood Health, LLC and Eric Cooper, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02438 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a health insurance company in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WS ENERGY: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WS Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00135 (S.D.
Tex., March 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

WS Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
specializing in providing torque and test services, which
maintains places of business in Premont, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


YELP INC: Investors Fight Bid to Dismiss Stock Pumping Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that
Yelp Inc. shareholders have asked a California federal judge to
reject Yelp's attempt to boot their consolidated class action
alleging the online consumer review website artificially inflated
its stock by falsely promoting the authenticity of "firsthand"
reviews, insisting their claims were sufficiently pled.

The Yelp investors, including the City of Miami Fire Fighters' and
Police Officers' Retirement Trust and an individual named Joseph
Curry, argued on March 6 that they sufficiently included facts to
back up their allegations that Yelp and its top brass pumped up
its stock by misleading investors with materially false statements
about the authenticity of the consumer reviews on its sites as
well as the future business prospects of its local business
advertising.

In a reply brief they filed with the court opposing Yelp's recent
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action, the plaintiffs
say they've done more than enough to meet their burden under
federal rules of civil procedure and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act to survive the pleadings stage.

"At bottom, none of defendants' contentions are factually or
legally persuasive and certainly cannot derail the action at the
pleadings stage," they said.  "Indeed, even their claim that the
so-called truth was previously disclosed is without merit as Yelp
has consistently and continually denied that there is any truth to
allegations that they manipulate reviews to leverage advertising
revenue."

More importantly, "truth-on-the-market" is not properly decided on
a motion to dismiss, they added.

"Rather than challenge the particularity and plausibility of the
alleged false statements, defendants invent a pleading standard
that is inconsistent with the federal securities laws, demanding
that accounts of business owners must be 'verified' or 'proven'
before they can be credited by the court," the investors said in
their brief.

The plaintiffs had launched the proposed class action in August
2014 alleging that Yelp stock was inflated based on false claims
that the "word of mouth" reviews of businesses posted on its
website were written by people with firsthand information about
the companies, and that its algorithmic software successfully
screened out unreliable reviews.

They claimed the defendants' false and misleading statements
caused Yelp's stock price to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the class period, starting from October 2013 and
peaking at $101.75 a share on March 5, 2014, according to the
plaintiffs' brief.

The truth was that the defendants deliberately allowed fake
negative reviews to remain prominent while filtering authentic
positive reviews to use as leverage to sell advertising -- a shady
practice that was revealed on April 2, 2014, when The Wall Street
Journal published an article regarding a Freedom of Information
Act request to the Federal Trade Commission that produced the
details of more than 2,000 complaints submitted to the FTC over a
five-year period concerning Yelp's business practices, according
to the brief.

As a result of the multiple press reports that surfaced after
that, the investors say it became clear that many reviews were
fraudulent posts written by people without any direct experience
with the subject businesses, and San Francisco-based Yelp allowed
many such negative reviews to remain prominent while it tried to
sell companies services designed to suppress these disparaging
accounts, according to the complaint.

Meanwhile, Yelp has fired back at the allegations, maintaining
that for as long as it's been around, businesses have lobbed
complaints and have been unhappy with the content that consumers
post about them on Yelp.

And Yelp says it has vigorously developed software to weed out
biased reviews, both unfairly negative and positive.  It says it
has also been upfront to investors about previous allegations of
"extortionate" advertising sales practices and manipulation of
reviews in favor of advertisers -- allegations that Yelp has
consistently denied, according to court documents.

"No one, including the FTC and numerous courts, has ever found
that Yelp engages in such practices, but Yelp can do nothing about
continuing speculation and rumor except to continue to disclose
their existence and demonstrate its innocence," Yelp said in a
motion to dismiss filed in February.

Yelp has argued that the consolidated class action should be
booted because the plaintiffs are trying to "manufacture"
securities claims where none exist.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shawn A. Williams and Kenneth J.
Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Stephen H. Cypen -- scypen@cypen.com -- of Cypen & Cypen.

Yelp is represented by Gilbert R. Serota --
Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- Marjory Gentry and Ryan Keats of
Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Joseph Curry v. Yelp Inc. et al., case number 3:14-cv-
03547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingsbury" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Kingsbury and Darren Uyenoyama, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate
Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01324 (N.D. Cal.,
March 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's overarching
anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its monopoly power
in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed
martial arts (MMA) bouts and monopsony power in the market for
live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services.

Zuffa, LLC is a sports promotion company specializing in mixed
martial arts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
      Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
              mweiler@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
      Hiba Hafiz, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
      E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
              hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
              mdellangelo@bm.net


* Amendments Remove Time Limits in Sexual Assault Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Helen Murphy, writing for Guysborough Journal, reports that
victims of sexual assault are welcoming their new right to file a
civil lawsuit against their abuser regardless of when the assault
took place.  Following months of lobbying by those who have
accused Fenwick MacIntosh of sexual assault, amendments to the
Limitation of Actions Act were introduced in the NS Legislature on
March 27.

The new amendments allow victims of sexual assault and individuals
in an intimate or dependent relationship to file a civil lawsuit
without time limits.

Before the change was introduced and passed into law in the
legislature on March 5, the time limit on such cases was two
years.

During an interview with The Journal, victim and activist
Bob Martin of Port Hood said the victims were moved by the level
of support from others during this battle.

"I felt that I was legitimized because there were other people
with me," he said.

Mr. Martin received a call from Justice Minister Lena Diab on
March 4 to let him know she would be introducing the amendments on
March 6.  The two met on March 5 so he could review the changes.
They also took some time to talk about his personal story of abuse
and survival.

When asked if a suit against Mr. MacIntosh can be expected soon,
Martin said, "Absolutely."  He said victims have some time now to
properly prepare their case, as Mr. MacIntosh is in jail in Nepal
for sexual assault in that country.

"When this legislation was strengthened in the fall, we heard from
Nova Scotians that they wanted to see the issue of historic sexual
assaults addressed," said Minister Diab in a statement.  "At that
time, I committed to reviewing what was in place in other
provinces.  We've done that work and I'm pleased to be able to
make changes that will further improve this legislation."


* Australia Likely Jurisdiction for Class Actions Outside of US
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linklaters reports that class actions are an established and
important part of the Australian legal landscape.  In recent
years, Australia has become the most likely jurisdiction outside
of the United States in which a corporation will face significant
class action litigation.

Recent developments in the Australian legal landscape -- including
increasingly plaintiff-friendly class action laws, the acceptance
of litigation funding and a growing number of plaintiff class
action legal practices -- have facilitated that evolution. At
least in part, these developments are the direct result of
judicial and legislative support for class actions (and third
party funding of class actions) as important means of facilitating
access to the civil justice system.  The checks and balances in
the Australian system have, however, helped to prevent what was
predicted in the mid-2000s to be an 'explosion' of class action
activity.

This paper outlines some of the key issues and trends in
Australian class actions.

Trends in Australian class actions

Steady increase in major claims, but no 'explosion': Despite the
so-called 'perfect storm' conditions for class action growth,
there has not been an 'explosion' (or even significant increase)
in the number of class actions filed in recent years.  Class
actions have, however, become an increasingly significant and
evolved part of the Australian legal landscape.

A potential policy shift: In recent years, the Federal Government
has played a significant role in the development of the policy and
regulatory framework applicable to Australian class actions,
particularly through its facilitative approach to third party
funding. This has largely been driven by an acceptance, at a
policy level, that third party funding of class actions promotes
access to justice.  As mentioned above, there may, however, be a
shift in that policy as a result of the change of government in
late 2013   and the recommendations made by the Productivity
Commission in December 2014.

Broader range of claims: There has also been an expansion in the
contexts in which class actions are being commenced.

Australian class actions were traditionally the domain of the
product liability claim.  The first securities class action was
filed in 1999.  By 2009, shareholder class actions had overtaken
product liability claims as the most common type of class action.
Since about 2008, there has been a marked increase in the number
of non-equity investor claims -- many, but by no means all, of
these  claims relate to losses associated with the global credit
crisis.  In recent years there has also been a number of mass
consumer claims, the most high profile of which relates to the
'exception fees' charged by major retail banks.  There has also
been a slight resurgence in product liability claims and a number
of claims alleging anti-competitive conduct and environmental
damage.

Broader range of defendants: Traditionally, the defendant in
Australian class actions has been the company most directly
connected with the alleged damage.  In recent years there has,
however, been an increasing trend towards claims being brought
against others alleged to have been involved in the loss
including, for example, advisors, auditors, brokers and ratings
agencies.

Most class actions are settled: This is a clear trend. It is most
likely simply a reflection of the fact that the risks associated
with a class action judgment (and inevitable appeals) are too high
for the class and defendants alike.  It is also not unusual for
proposed class actions to be settled before they are filed.

A copy of the paper is available at http://is.gd/gcZIE0


* Companies Use Arbitration Clauses to Avert Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Knutson, writing for Financial Advisor, reports that companies
rarely invoke mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent individual
customers from going to court, but they are frequently used to
prevent class action lawsuits, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau said on March 10.

Companies used the clauses to stop class actions 65 percent of the
time in consumer financial contracts, including those tied to
credit cards, reloadable prepaid cards, private student loans,
storefront payday loans and wireless phones, according to a study
by the bureau.  The study also found that in cases where consumers
win class action and individual lawsuits, the awards are on
average small.

Plaintiffs on average were awarded $137.50 in class action
consumer finance settlements from 2008 to 2012, according to the
study.  The 3,500 consumers who filed individual lawsuits obtained
just a total of $1 million from 2010 to 2012.  Three out of four
consumers don't know if they are subject to the mandatory
arbitration clauses, according to the study.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray noted that mandatory arbitration
clauses in consumer financial contracts have only become common in
the last 20 years.  About 80 million credit card holders are
subject to mandatory arbitration clauses, which limit their
ability to go to court to settle grievances.  Nearly all large
private student lenders and third-party wireless phone vendors use
the clauses.  While the clauses generally prohibit consumers from
litigating the disputes, most allow the customers to go to small
claims courts to settle the matters.

In the last 10 years, Congress has taken two steps to restrict the
clauses, barring them from some contracts for members of the
military in 2007 and in most residential mortgages in 2010 under
the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.


* Employers Face Class Actions Over BYOD Expense Reimbursement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Donovan, writing for Fierce MobileIT, reports that employee
class action lawsuits against California employers demanding
reimbursement for BYOD expenses are being filed.

As FierceMobileIT reported last year, a California court ruled
that employers had to reimburse employees for personal mobile
phone call charges related to work.

"We hold that when employees must use their personal cellphones
for work-related calls, Labor Code section 2802 requires the
employer to reimburse them.  Whether the employees have cellphone
plans with unlimited minutes or limited minutes, the reimbursement
owed is a reasonable percentage of their cellphone bills," the
court said in Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc.

Employees are beginning to file class action lawsuits in
California courts based on that decision, reported attorneys with
the Seyfarth Shaw law firm in an article at Lexology.

"In Araiza v. The Scotts Company, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC570350 (filed January 26, 2015), the plaintiffs bring
class claims alleging a failure to reimburse employee business
expenses, in violation of Section 2802," wrote Kristen Verrastro
and Michele Haydel Gehrke.

"The plaintiffs expressly cite Cochran, arguing that Cochran
requires the defendant employer to 'maintain an expense
reimbursement policy and/or practice stating that Defendant will
affirmatively reimburse Class Members for a reasonable portion of
their monthly personal cell phone bills and expenses necessarily
incurred in their discharge of their duties.'"

There have been other class action lawsuits filed prior to the
Cochran case in which employees have sought reimbursement for BYOD
expenses.

"Cochran and cases of its ilk have many employers calling for
guidance on how to reconcile their California expense
reimbursement practice with their Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
policy," the attorneys concluded.

Sounds like a lot more business for California law firms.


                             *********

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  * * *