CAR_Public/150413.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 73


                             Headlines

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Plaintiff Appeals to 9th Cir.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Removes "Grundmeyer" Suit to W.D. Washington
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 7 Smoking, Health Actions in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015

ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: Deal Reached to Resolve 415 Federal Engle Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Caprio Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date in Donovan Case Set for Jan. 2016
ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending

ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served on PM Thru Jan. 27
ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Aspinall Case to Begin October 19
ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date on PM Bid to Decertify in Larsen Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set on Appeal in Miner Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case
AMBIT ENERGY: Faces "Kostovetsky" Suit Over RICO Act Violations
ASTOR WEISS: Plaintiffs Drop Ponzi Scheme Class Action
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
BIOMET INC: Faces "Cannon" Suit Over M2A-Magnum-Related Injury

BLUCORA INC: W.D. Wash. Court Tosses Securities Class Suit
BP SUB EXPRESS: Faces "Cortes-Balbuena" Class Suit in New York
BROOKS PHOTOGRAPHY: Court Awards $18,000 to Newlywed Couples
CANADA: Settlement Talks Underway in Afghan Veterans' Class Suit
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CAVALRY SPV I: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS15-Bil Privacy Class Action
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Facing 2 Securities Class Actions
COLUMBIANA, AL: Faces "Woods" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Asserting Personal Injury Claims

COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Keen" Suit Transferred From Ohio to Alabama
COOPER TIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Apollo Buyout
COSTAR GROUP: Company and Insurer Reimbursed Legal Fees
CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Accused of Firing Dissenting Employees

DOU JIA FU: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Class Action over TCPA Violation
DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff Won't Bid to Certify Nationwide Class
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case

DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss Altaflo Case
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ELSEVIER INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Due to Discrimination
EMCOR GROUP: USM Inks Consent Decree to Resolve Class Action

ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal in "Brent" Suit Remains Pending
ENTEGRIS INC: Class Action Challenging Merger Dismissed
ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Lawsuits Over Lehman Collapse Losses
FCA US LLC: Accused of Discriminating Against Chinese Employee
FERGUSON, MO: Report Reveals Unconstitutional Policing Pattern

FINISHMASTER INC: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Age
FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents Win Compensation Citrus Canker Suit
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Racial Discrimination
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft Charge
FRIGIDAIRE: Faces Class Action Over Molds in Front Load Washers

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Melton Faulty Ignition Switch Suit
GEORGIA: DoJ Files Statement of Interest in Juvenile Defense Suit
GFB ENTERPRISES: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
GHIRARDELLI: Settles Food Labeling Class Action for $5.25MM
GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

GWB LLC: Removes "Wyckoff" Class Suit to Florida District Court
HEALTHWAYS INC: May 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HERTZ CORP: Removes "Lo Cascio" Suit to California District Court
HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Chao" Suit Seeking to Get Unpaid Overtime
HMSHOST CORP: Did Not Pay for Hours Worked, "Benedetto" Suit Says

HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay for Hours Worked, "Boden" Suit Says
HONDA: Launches U.S. Ad Campaign to Boost Recall Repairs
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Opana ER Antitrust Class Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Actions Has Okay

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Agreed to Settle Aruliah Class Action
IPEX: Settles Kitec Insulation Class Action
KABERLINE HEALTHCARE: Moves Alan Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri
KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial Begins in Skin Removal Surgery Suit
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed

LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Knopf Bigger Files Laminate Flooring Suit
LYFT: New Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid Bonuses
MANPOWERGROUP US: Removes "Lull" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Reverses Benecol Class Suit Dismissal
MICHIGAN: AG Apologizes to Reporters Over Subpoenas

MOODY'S CORP: New York Appeals Court to Hear Class Action Appeal
MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Moberly Project Class Action for $8.25MM
NESTLE PURINA: 7th Circuit Addresses Settlement Injunction Issue
NEW YORK: In Settlement Negotiations Over "Nunez" Class Action
NOMAX INC: Removes St. Louis Suit to Eastern District of Missouri

NUCO2 LLC: Removes "Balmaseda" Suit to Florida District Court
ORYX OILFIELD: "Robinson" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas
PAYTIME INC: Judge Dismisses Two Data Breach Class Actions
PEACE WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
ROYAL PALM: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Fair Housing Act

SEMPRA ENERGY: Settled Claim Related to Sept 2011 Power Outage
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Judge OKs $18MM Red-Light Camera Settlement
STAFF ASSISTANCE: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files OT Class Action
STAR CAREER: Accused of Discriminating Against Muslim Employee
SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Must Define Class

SYNGENTA: Enyart Looks to Represent Farmers in GMO Corn Suit
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail Passes U.S. Crash Tests
UBS AG: Settles Forex Rigging Class Action for $135 Million
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VIVENDI CANADA: Health Insurance Class Action Ruling Upheld

VXI GLOBAL: Accused by Gay Worker of Severe, Pervasive Harassment
WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Bid to Nix Class Suit Completed
WASHINGTON: Holding Mentally Ill People in Jail Unconstitutional
WATTS REGULATOR: "Meyers" Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts
WINGS NETWORK'S: Faces Class Action over Pyramid Scheme

WOLFER LANDSCAPE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
WORLD WRESTLING: "Singleton" Suit Transferred From Pa. to Conn.
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Injury Lawsuits on PROFEMUR(R)
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Complaints Over Tornier Merger
WRIGHT NATIONAL: Sued Over Hurricane Sandy Insurance Fraud

* Arbitration Agreements Limit Class Action Consumer Relief
* Florida Law to Limit Jury Awards in Tobacco Lawsuits
* Manufacturers Face Class Action Over "Flushable" Wet Wipes
* Oregon Gov. Signs Bill on Unclaimed Class Action Damage Awards


                            *********


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 13 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 ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. publicly traded
securities during the period between February 26, 2015 and
March 11, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 13, 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/acadia/

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 ACADIA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ACADIA is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of medicines to address unmet medical needs
in neurological and related central nervous system disorders.
ACADIA has a pipeline of product candidates led by NUPLAZID(TM)
(pimavanserin), which is in Phase III development as a treatment
for Parkinson's disease psychosis ("PDP").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse facts regarding the timing of ACADIA's submission of its
New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA for NUPLAZID.  As a result
of defendants' false and misleading statements or omissions during
the Class Period, ACADIA securities traded at artificially
inflated prices, with its stock trading at prices above $45 per
share.

On February 26, 2015, ACADIA announced its 2014 fourth quarter and
year-end financial results (for the year ended December 31, 2014)
and told investors it "remain[ed] on track to submit [its] New
Drug Application to the FDA in the first quarter of 2015."  Then,
on March 11, 2015, ACADIA issued a press release announcing a
change in the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID from the first quarter of 2015 to the second half of
2015.  In a separate press release the same day, ACADIA announced
the retirement of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
director, Uli Hacksell. On this news, ACADIA common stock dropped
$9.94 per share to close at $34.82 per share on March 12, 2015, a
one-day decline of 22% on volume of 15 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ACADIA publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").  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.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Plaintiff Appeals to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff in a
securities class action lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's
former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an
amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended
complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the
purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate
goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011
acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP," the Company said. The amended complaint sought monetary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. On
December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on
behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint
states the same claims as the amended complaint."

"On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Align
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended
complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any."


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Removes "Grundmeyer" Suit to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Michael Grundmeyer v. Allstate
Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 15-2-04104-5, was
removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00464-RSL to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, (i) that he is the
insured under a policy issued by Allstate that covers "sudden and
accidental direct physical loss" to the Plaintiff's residence in
Seattle, Washington, (ii) the residence was damaged by water
intrusion that "was caused by improper construction," and (iii)
that the Policy does not expressly exclude coverage for damage
caused by improper construction and that, absent exclusion, the
Policy actually covers damages from construction defects under the
"sudden and accidental direct physical loss" language.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Hayes, Esq.
          HARPER HAYES PLLC
          600 University St., Suite 2420
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 340-8010
          Facsimile: (206)260-2852
          E-mail: todd@harperhayes.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Berger, Esq.
          SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Ave. Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 628-2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gavin Williams Skok, Esq.
          Hilary Bramwell Mohr, Esq.
          RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S.
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154-1192
          Telephone: (206) 624-3600
          Facsimile: (206) 389-1708
          E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com
                  hmohr@riddellwilliams.com


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 7 Smoking, Health Actions in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 January 27, 2015,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in ten
health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also
name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 January 27, 2015,
57 Engle progeny cases and three individual smoking and health
cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are set for trial
in 2015. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are
also scheduled for trial in 2015. Trial dates are subject to
change.


ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 January 27, 2015,
70 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this
ruling occurred in September 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM
USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal.

As of January 27, 2015, 70 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs and 34 verdicts were returned in favor of
PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo
(formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart,
Junious, Szymanski, Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock, Wilder, D.
Cohen, LaMotte, J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Jacobson, Blasco,
Gonzalez, Reider, Banks, Surico, Davis, Baum, Bishop, Starbuck and
Vila).

In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of
which have resulted in new trials as of January 27, 2015. The
juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages
verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and
Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no
damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur.

In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants'
favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial.
Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court,
which was granted in September 2013. Oral argument occurred in
April 2014 in the Florida Supreme Court on the question of whether
the statute of repose applies in Engle progeny cases.


ALTRIA GROUP: Deal Reached to Resolve 415 Federal Engle Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 Philip Morris USA Inc.
("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco
Company reached on February 25, 2015, a tentative agreement to
resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the
"Agreement"). Under the terms of the Agreement, PM USA will pay
$42.5 million. PM USA will record a pre-tax provision of $42.5
million in the first quarter of 2015. Federal cases that were in
trial as of February 25, 2015 and those that have previously
reached final verdict are not included in the Agreement. Engle
progeny lawsuits pending in Florida state courts are also not part
of the Agreement.

The Agreement is conditioned on approval by all federal-court
plaintiffs in the cases resolved by the Agreement or as the
parties otherwise agree. On February 25, 2015, the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order staying
all upcoming federal trials pending final approval of the
Agreement.


ALTRIA GROUP: Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Caprio Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 Broward County jury
returned a partial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
Lorillard Tobacco Company and Liggett Group LLC in the Caprio
case.

In Caprio, on February 24, 2015, a Broward County jury returned a
partial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard
Tobacco Company and Liggett Group LLC. The jury found against
defendants on class membership allocating 25% of the fault to PM
USA. The jury also found $559,172 in economic damages. The jury
deadlocked with respect to the intentional torts, certain elements
of compensatory damages and punitive damages.

In McKeever, on February 20, 2015, a Broward County jury returned
a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding
approximately $5.78 million in compensatory damages and allocating
60% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $3.48
million).  The jury also awarded plaintiff approximately $11.63
million in punitive damages.  However, the jury found in favor of
PM USA on the statute of repose defense to plaintiff's intentional
tort and punitive damages claims.  The Florida Supreme Court is
currently considering the applicability of the statue of repose
defense in Engle progeny cases.

In McMannis, a Charlotte County jury returned a verdict in favor
of PM USA on February 19, 2015.

In Landau, on February 19, 2015, a jury in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of
plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and
Lorillard Tobacco Company awarding $100,000 in compensatory
damages. One defendant settled the case.

In Sowers, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on
February 11, 2015.

In Boatright, on February 9, 2015, defendants filed a notice of
appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date in Donovan Case Set for Jan. 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 in the Donovan
case is scheduled for January 25, 2016.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In Donovan, filed in December
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's
residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand
for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with
lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for
suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the
district court, held in October 2009 that under certain
circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers
for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury.
The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be
determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to federal
court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have
proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate
cost of $190 million.

In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for partial summary
judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district
court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended
the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the
class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to
exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of
February 26, 2013. In January 2014, plaintiffs renewed their
previously filed motions for partial summary judgment and to
strike affirmative defenses. In December 2014, the court issued
its rulings on plaintiffs' previously-filed motions, granting and
denying the motions in part.


ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 January 27, 2015,
a total of 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.

As of January 27, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in
various U.S. state courts.


ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served on PM Thru Jan. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., 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, provided updates on federal
multidistrict proceeding.

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through January 27, 2015, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in
certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15
states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All
of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed
to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial
proceedings ("MDL proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back
to the federal district courts in which the suits originated.
These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM
USA.

In Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the
litigation. In Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, following the district
court's denial of class certification, PM USA made an offer of
judgment to resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted,
and the court dismissed the case. In Cabbat, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion in January 2014. After plaintiffs were
unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, in July 2014, the
parties filed, and the court approved, a stipulation for dismissal
with prejudice. In Wyatt, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion in August 2013. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in
obtaining appellate review, PM USA made an offer of judgment to
resolve the case for $1,000, which plaintiff accepted in September
2014. The district court dismissed the case in October 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 January 27, 2015,
in addition to the federal district court in the MDL proceeding,
18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in
the Price case. See The Price Case below for further discussion.
In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial
court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that
purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled
"Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab
voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio
Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and
Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the
Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for
interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case
that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to
certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the
Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal
district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM
USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in
May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this
litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Aspinall Case to Begin October 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 scheduled
to begin October 19, 2015 in the Aspinall case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order in the Aspinall case. In August
2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s
motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion
for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a
state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute.
On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported
its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for
review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the
appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against
Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts
Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court
denied. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date on PM Bid to Decertify in Larsen Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 trial date has not
been set in the Larsen case related to Philip Morris USA Inc.'s
motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on
plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order in the Larsen case. In December 2009, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
period during which potential class members can qualify to become
part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for
partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. A
trial date has not been set.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set on Appeal in Miner Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 Philip
Morris USA Inc.'s appeal of the class certification ruling in the
Miner case was scheduled for February 12, 2015.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding discussed above. In November 2010, the district court
in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court.
In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims
against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In
November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including
Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM
USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to
the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. Oral argument was
scheduled for February 12, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016 in the Vassallo case.

UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain
actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco
manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other
relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result
of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included
among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC")'s smokeless tobacco
products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be
associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC,
along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed
from such proceedings since December 2001.

UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of
other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability in these cases are based on various
theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection
statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief,
including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016.


AMBIT ENERGY: Faces "Kostovetsky" Suit Over RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Oleg Kostovetsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, Ambit Midwest,
LLC, Ambit Texas, LLC, Ambit Northeast, LLC, Ambit New York, LLC,
Ambit Marketing, LLC, Ambit Illinois, LLC, Ambit California, LLC,
Ambit Holdings, LLC, Ambit New Jersey LLC, Ambit Management, Inc.,
Ambit Group, L.P., A Jere Thompson, Chris Chambless and John Does
1-100, Case No. 1:15-cv-02553 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2015) is
brought for claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W. Lake St., #400
          Oak Park, IL 60301-1043
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 776-5601
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  toma@hbsslaw.com


ASTOR WEISS: Plaintiffs Drop Ponzi Scheme Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, Matt Fair and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360,
report that plaintiffs have dropped a putative class action in
Pennsylvania state court alleging that Astor Weiss Kaplan & Mandel
LLP attorneys should have known green investment business Mantria
Corp. was running a Ponzi scheme, following a $6 million
settlement in Colorado federal court in 2014.

The Colorado settlement between lead plaintiff Touchstone Group
LLC and a series of defendants including Astor Weiss -- which
agreed to pay $750,000 -- resolved all of the claims in the 2013
Pennsylvania lawsuit, according to a filing from March 6.

Both suits stemmed from an alleged $54.5 million scheme run by
Mantria that primarily targeted elderly citizens and new retirees.

In the federal suit, filed in 2011, Touchstone alleged that
Pennsylvania-based Mantria had raised the funds from more than 300
investors between September 2007 and November 2009 by offering
fraudulent and unregistered securities purportedly investing in
green operations such as the production and sale of biochar, a
charcoal substitute made from organic waste, and a so-called
carbon-negative housing community in rural Tennessee.  Mantria
also claimed to have invested in varied operations such as
mortgage banking and hip-hop record production, according to the
complaint.

The state court negligence suit against Astor Weiss, brought by
Ronald and Margaret Greenspan, claimed that attorneys with the
firm were complicit in Mantria's violation of state securities law
because they knew -- or should have known -- that stakes the
company sold in these enterprises were not registered as
securities and that company principals were themselves not
registered to sell securities.

Touchstone also lodged similar claims against Astor Weiss and law
firm Estill & Long LLC, contending that they received millions of
dollars for their roles in preparing unregistered private
placement memorandums that were later offered to investors and
approving investors as accredited to acquire funds regardless of
their sophistication.

Estil & Long agreed to pay out $100,000 in the Colorado
settlement.  The largest payments came from former Mantria interim
Chief Financial Officer Daniel J. Rink and executive services firm
Tatum LLC -- the company that contracted with Mantria to provide
Rink's services.  They were responsible for $5.1 in the
settlement, which was approved in July.

The total $6.05 million settlement, which encompassed Touchstone's
agreements with all the defendants, served to recover just over 16
percent of investors' alleged losses, according to court
documents.

Attorney Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- of Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky PC emphasized on March 13 that the end to the
Pennsylvania lawsuit was simply a procedural move.  A
representative from Astor Weiss did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The Greenspans are represented by Simon Paris, Patrick Howard and
Charles Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- of Saltz, Mongeluzzi,
Barrett & Bandesky PC and Anthony Shapiro and Karl Barth of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The case is Ronald Greenspan et al. v. Astor Weiss, Kaplan &
Mandel LLP, case number 121202484 in the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff's
motion to certify a class action is pending.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality matters. Plaintiffs allege these
actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a
decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of
excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the
company's current and former executive officers, and other damage
to the company.

The company and plaintiffs in a consolidated derivative suit filed
in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois have entered
into a settlement agreement, which settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the court. Two other derivative actions
were previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County,
Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court. Both matters have
been stayed pending the resolution of the federal action.

In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company
and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover
the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently
proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its
opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action,
which motion is pending.

The company was a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. The
company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64
million, which amount was paid during the first quarter of 2014.


BIOMET INC: Faces "Cannon" Suit Over M2A-Magnum-Related Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Cannon v. Biomet Orthopedics, Inc., n/k/a Biomet
Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, Biomet, Inc.,
and Biomet Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-00132 (N.D. Ind.,
March 25, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff has been injured due to
a defective M2A-Magnum device manufactured by the Defendants.

Ms. Cannon alleges that for many years, the Defendants have known
that their hip replacement device, specifically the M2A-Magnum Hip
Replacement System, is prone to failure well before its expected
life.

Biomet, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of
business located in Warsaw, Indiana.  Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, is
a wholly subsidiary of Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, an Indiana
Corporation headquartered in Warsaw.  Biomet Manufacturing Corp.
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Biomet, Inc.

The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, promoted,
marketed, distributed, tested, warranted, and sold in interstate
commerce the Biomet M2A-Magnum device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond L. Panneton, Esq.
          Robert J. Talaska, Esq.
          THE TALASKA LAW FIRM, PLLC
          442 Heights Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 869-1240
          Facsimile: (713) 869-1465
          E-mail: ray@ttlf.com
                  rjt@ttlf.com

               - and -

          Ben C. Martin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BEN C. MARTIN
          3219 McKinney Ave., Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 761-6614
          Facsimile: (214) 744-7590
          E-mail: bmartin@bencmartin.com


BLUCORA INC: W.D. Wash. Court Tosses Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Blucora, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted the
order dismissing a class action lawsuit.

On May 12, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against the Company and certain of its officers.  The complaint
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
between November 5, 2013 and February 20, 2014.  Prior to filing
the amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiff agreed to
voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice, and the Court
granted the order dismissing the case on November 4, 2014.


BP SUB EXPRESS: Faces "Cortes-Balbuena" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Cortes-Balbuena, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Benjamin Grossman, jointly and
severally; BP Sub Express Inc. d/b/a BP Sub Express, jointly and
severally; and Cafe Shalva Inc. d/b/a Cafe Shalva, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01575 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.


BROOKS PHOTOGRAPHY: Court Awards $18,000 to Newlywed Couples
------------------------------------------------------------
10News reports that a judge has ruled against a San Diego wedding
photographer accused of shooting weddings but not handing the
photos over to the couples.

In a class-action lawsuit, a San Diego Small Claims Court judge on
March 13 awarded $18,000 total to three couples and two
photographers who say they were hired by Adam Brooks but were
never paid for their work.

Mr. Brooks lost by default because he was a no-show at the
hearing.

"He's a chicken," plaintiff Nicholas Dawson said on March 13
outside the courtroom.  "Flat out yellow bellied chicken.   If he
can't man up to do what needs to be done and do it the right way
. . . He's a little coward that can't face justice."

In February, dozens of newlyweds sat down with 10News to talk
about how they had been scammed by Mr. Brooks.  Several said they
paid hundreds of dollars for a wedding photography package that
they never received.

On the Brooks Photography website, a statement reads, "The company
has filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and our counsel will be in touch
with you as such if you are owed any refunds or physical
products."

10News checked federal records and were unable to find a recent
Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing for an Adam K. Brooks in California.
However, Mr. Brooks filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy less than six
years ago.

Usually, eight years must pass after someone files for Chapter 7
bankruptcy before they can be excused from their debts again
through a subsequent Chapter 7 filing.

Mr. Brooks is currently being investigated by the San Diego Police
Department's fraud division.  Several attempts by 10News to
contact Brooks have failed.

Most of the couples paid up front. Even though they are out
thousands of dollars, they are not asking for money, just the
photographs.

"I had even said, I don't care about the prints anymore," newlywed
Alishia Maceachern told 10News in February.  "Please just give us
you know, the raw."


CANADA: Settlement Talks Underway in Afghan Veterans' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
class-action lawsuit launched by dissatisfied Afghan veterans is
on hold because settlement talks are underway, The Canadian Press
has learned.

The legal challenge, which has become a political black eye for
the Conservative government, was put into abeyance recently at the
B.C. Supreme Court, two federal sources said on March 12.  The
decision -- effectively a time-out from legal proceedings -- was
taken because both sides were facing court-imposed deadlines to
file further submissions in the case.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, confirmed settlement
talks are underway with the government, but declined to give
details.

"When the new minister came in, we'd had approaches to talk,"
Mr. Sorochan said.

"We notified the court -- both parties -- that we were in that
situation and asked that we not bother filing these further
materials that had been requested by the court, and they agreed to
that."

The soldiers are determined to see change, but are also interested
in hearing what the government has to say, Mr. Sorochan said --
especially now that Erin O'Toole, a former air force navigator,
has taken over from Julian Fantino, who had a combative
relationship with the veterans community.

Veterans charter under fire

"The lawsuit is there for one purpose only and that is to improve
the benefits for a broad class of veterans," Mr. Sorochan said.

"Legal mechanisms can only go partway and the court can't impose
legislation.  It can declare it to be unconstitutional.  To a
certain extent, the relief we were seeking in court can be
enhanced by discussion."

The ex-soldiers are challenging the government's 2006 overhaul of
veterans benefits, alleging the so-called new veterans charter is
discriminatory under the charter of rights because it does not
provide the same level of support as the old pension system.

In defending the lawsuit, government lawyers outraged veterans by
asserting that the federal government has no extraordinary
obligation to those who've fought for the country.  They argued it
is unfair to bind the current government to a system of benefits
and entitlements promises made nearly a century ago by another
prime minister.

Those statements have been politically toxic to the Harper
government, which prides itself on supporting the troops, and has
led to increasing friction with former soldiers.

Conservatives have been scrambling to fix the battered
relationship ahead of the election scheduled for this fall.  Plans
are underway to roll out a series of measures between now and the
summer.

The political campaign began on March 9 in Toronto, where O'Toole
announced the creation of a retirement fund for moderately and
severely wounded soldiers who otherwise might spend their final
years in poverty.

Federal sources said the minister would be in Halifax on March 13
to announce new measures for wounded reservists and their
families, giving part-time members the same access to the same
benefits and support as full-time military members during their
rehabilitation programs.

Such a plan would address a gap identified by the House of Commons
veterans committee in a report last June.

The unequal treatment of reservists, many of whom served in
Afghanistan, is another sensitive topic for the Conservatives, who
have put a politically charged overhaul of the reserve force
organization on hold.

National Defence was supposed to have delivered a new structure
for the part-time, volunteer force by this spring's budget, but it
likely won't be done until after the election, scheduled for
October.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim E. Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01537 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVALRY SPV I: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Simmons, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00857-LMM-LTW (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Addleton, Esq.
          ADDLETON LTD. CO.
          355 Cotton Avenue
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (404) 797-7166
          E-mail: dfaddleton@gmail.com

               - and -

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ, LLC
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 350-5900
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS15-Bil Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on March 15 disclosed that a purported class
action was filed against the Company, by plaintiffs alleging to be
subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation for non monetary
damages in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully
violated the privacy of its subscribers.  The amount claimed from
the Company, if the lawsuit is certified as class action is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS15 billion, all for alleged
non monetary damages.  At this early stage the Company cannot
assess the lawsuit's chances of success.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is the largest Israeli cellular
provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.010 million
cellular subscribers (as at September 30, 2014) with a broad range
of value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad, additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile
office etc. and most recently -- also television over the internet
service in Israel, based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure.  The Company operates an LTE 4 Generation
and HSPA 3.5 Generation networks enabling advanced high speed
broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE
networks.  Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest
customer service infrastructure including telephone customer
service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers,
distributed nationwide.  Cellcom Israel further provides through
its wholly owned subsidiaries internet connectivity services and
international calling services, as well as landline telephone
communication services, in addition to data communication
services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York
Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). For
additional information please visit the Company's website
http://www.cellcom.co.il


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Facing 2 Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Channeladvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
facing the actions, Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. and
Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al.

"On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers,"
the Company said.  "Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our
common stock by making false and misleading statements to
investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter
of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a
purported class action complaint in in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff brings the
same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action
brought by Mr. Dice. The complaint names us and certain of our
executive officers. We are currently evaluating the claims
asserted in these two matters."


COLUMBIANA, AL: Faces "Woods" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Woods, Hali Woods and Loretta Cotton, Individually and for a
class of similarly situated persons or entities v. City of
Columbiana, Case No. 2:15-cv-00493-TMP (N.D. Ala., March 25, 2015)
is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandria Parrish, Esq.
          G. Daniel Evans, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM
          1736 Oxmoor Road
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 870-1970
          Facsimile: (205) 870-7763
          E-mail: ap@evanslawpc.com
                  gdevans@evanslawpc.com

               - and -

          William M. Dawson, Esq.
          DAWSON LAW OFFICE
          1736 Oxmoor Road
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          E-mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Asserting Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00403-
JFC (W.D. Pa., March 24, 2015) alleges claims for personal injury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Medure, Esq.
          LUXENBERG, GARBETT, KELLY & GEORGE, P.C.
          315 North Mercer Street
          New Castle, PA 16101
          Telephone: (724) 658-8535
          Facsimile: (724) 658-8013
          E-mail: jmedure@lgkg.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Keen" Suit Transferred From Ohio to Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Keen v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00427, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern).
The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00483-
KOB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON
          700 St. Clair Avenue, W, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175

               - and -

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Johnson, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON LLC
          1600 Midland Bldg.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 696-9330
          Facsimile: (216) 696-8558

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265


COOPER TIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Apollo Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Courier reports that Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. urged a Delaware
federal judge to throw out a class action lawsuit on behalf of
stockholders surrounding its failed $2.5 billion buyout by Apollo
Tyres, of India, arguing the case has no merit.

Judge Richard G. Andrews has not yet ruled on the motion.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2014, claiming Cooper, its chief
executive officer, Roy Armes, and other senior executives violated
federal securities laws by allegedly issuing misleading statements
and omissions during its failed buyout by Apollo in 2013.

The plaintiffs include all purchasers of Cooper's publicly traded
stock from June 12, 2013, through Nov. 8, 2013, inclusive, and all
Cooper shareholders who held shares as of the record date of
Aug. 30, 2013, and were entitled to vote with respect to the
proposed merger between Cooper and Apollo, the firms said.

The lawsuit alleges Cooper falsely represented the significant
risks associated with the planned buyout by concealing the fact
that the company lacked control over its joint venture
manufacturing facility in China, Cooper Chengshan Tire Co.  The
plant was a major stumbling block in the merger negotiations after
striking workers at the plant and the then-minority owner,
Chengshan Group, blocked Cooper Tire employees from entering the
plant or accessing financial information.  It also temporarily
quit producing Cooper tires.

The combined moves sabotaged the proposed buyout.

The shareholder lawsuit alleges Cooper concealed the fact that
Chengshan Group opposed the merger, and had in fact sought to
acquire Cooper for itself.

After the buyout attempt unraveled, Chengshan Group resumed
production of Cooper tires and reopened the plant to Cooper
employees.  Chengshan Group also last year bought Cooper Tire's
ownership interest in the plant and became the sole owner.


COSTAR GROUP: Company and Insurer Reimbursed Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that pursuant to an agreement
between the parties in a class action, the Company and its insurer
reimbursed certain legal fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the total
amount of $300,000. The Company paid approximately $200,000 of
this amount.

In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's then-proposed merger with the
Company. The stockholder actions alleged, among other things, that
(i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties
to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet
to the Company, (ii) the merger did not maximize value to LoopNet
stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company made incomplete or
materially misleading disclosures about the transaction and (iv)
LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet
Board.

The stockholder actions sought class action certification and
equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of
the merger. The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the
actions, and permitted the filing of a consolidated complaint.

In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $200,000.

On March 20, 2013, the California Superior Court declined to grant
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and issued an
order scheduling a hearing on June 11, 2013 to show good cause why
the case should not be dismissed. Shortly before the hearing, the
plaintiffs filed a third supplemental submission in support of
their motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
The show cause hearing took place on May 13, 2014 and a follow up
hearing took place on July 16, 2014.

At the July 16, 2014 hearing the Court again denied preliminary
approval of the settlement and encouraged the parties to discuss a
potential disposition of the case due to the mootness of
plaintiffs' disclosure claims. The parties engaged in such
discussions, and on October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs requested
that the Court dismiss their claims with prejudice. The Court
dismissed the action and, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, the Company and its insurer reimbursed certain legal fees
to plaintiffs' counsel in the total amount of $300,000. The
Company paid approximately $200,000 of this amount.


CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC d/b/a Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01544-SJ-JO (E.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Accused of Firing Dissenting Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Chantelle Teasdell, Glendora Meyers and Jamal Jones v.
District of Columbia, Serve: Mayor Muriel Bowser; Dr. John M.
Thompson; and Camile Williams, Case No. 1:15-cv-00445 (D.D.C.,
March 26, 2015) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern
of violations of state and federal laws against their employees,
and then retaliated against persons, who raised any objection.

If the Defendants were unable to force the dissenter to quit their
job, they ultimately terminated anyone who dared to complain, the
Plaintiffs allege.

The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation.

The Office on Aging is a subunit of the District of Columbia and
is located in Washington, DC.  John M. Thompson is the Director of
the District of Columbia Office on Aging.  Camile Williams is the
Chief of Staff for Dr. Thompson at the Office.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Hornal, Esq.
          TALOS LAW
          705 4th St., NW, #403
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 709-9662
          E-mail: Daniel@taloslaw.com


DOU JIA FU: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jing Chun Ruan v. Dou Jia Fu, Inc., Jian Zhong, "John Doe" and
"Jane Doe" # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01567 (E.D.N.Y., March 25,
2015) alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees,
including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek.

Dou Jia Fu, Inc., purchased and handled goods moved in interstate
commerce.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers,
directors, managers, shareholders, or agents of Dou Jia Fu, Inc.
The Defendants own and operates a restaurant located in Flushing,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          William M. Brown, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
                  wbrown@hanglaw.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Class Action over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a lawsuit against a telemarketing
company alleges it called phone numbers that have been registered
with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Tranis Cates and Andrew Allison filed the lawsuit on March 4
against Dun & Bradstreet, alleging the company called the
consumers and businesses without receiving prior permission to
make those calls.  The lawsuit said D&B has access to more than
235 million companies around the world, and that the calls made to
consumers "are in no way connected to any business."  The suit
alleges the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which was meant to protect consumers from unsolicited
telemarketing calls.

"(D&B) makes these calls despite the fact that neither plaintiffs
nor the other members of the putative classes ever provided
express consent to receive such telemarketing calls," the lawsuit
said.

D&B provides businesses with information on other companies and
also helps companies promote their own products and services. D&B
uses its massive database to sell the information to businesses,
the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks class status and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus court costs.  The plaintiffs also look to prevent
D&B from making any more unsolicited phone calls.

The plaintiffs are represented by Rafey Balabanian, Ari Scharg and
Alicia Hwang -- ahwang@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC in Chicago,
and Stefan Coleman of the Law Office of Stefan Coleman, LLC, in
Lakewood, N.J.

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey case
number 2:15-cv-01617


DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff Won't Bid to Certify Nationwide Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the
case, Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation Class Action
Litigations O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.),
plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to
certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to
CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. The complaint alleged, among other things,
that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive
marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring
products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value
of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery
of damages and equitable relief.

On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations.

The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and
granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim
with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims without
prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence,
defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the
Company answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17,
2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to
certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to
CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery
is ongoing in the case Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.))

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, purporting to sue on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder
product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may
certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As
against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The
complaint alleged deceptive trade practices, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of
the amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed
a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District
of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order
granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing and the
Company is continuing to investigate the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case
----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery
is ongoing in the case Vinotemp International Corporation and
CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-
00451 (C.D. Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf
of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of
California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive
marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring
products, in violation of Sec. 17200 and Sec. 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also
alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.
As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company
entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in
violation of Sec.  17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation
claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court
granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by
the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in
the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate
the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery
is ongoing in the case Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. Flow Sciences purports to sue on
behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the
state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company
and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's
sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation
of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sec.  75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the
complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint
also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against
DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in
the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate
the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss Altaflo Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the case Altaflo, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.))

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all
purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New
Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in
deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec.  56:8-1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court
granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20,
2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in
the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate
the allegations.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Stamler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01565 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELSEVIER INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Due to Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wade v. Elsevier, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01579-PKC-SMG
(E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015) is brought to recover compensatory and
punitive damages because the Defendant allegedly discriminated
against the Plaintiff on the basis of his race in the terms,
conditions and privileges of his employment.

Mr. Joseph Wade is a 47-year-old African American male resident of
East Meadow in Nassau County, New York.

Elsevier, Inc., maintains a corporate office in New York City and
was the Plaintiff's employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Mayol, Esq.
          ANTHONY MAYOL, P.C.
          116-55 Queens Blvd., Suite 201
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 909-8538
          Facsimile: (718) 268-3894
          E-mail: am@lawyeram.com


EMCOR GROUP: USM Inks Consent Decree to Resolve Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that USM, Inc., and its
customer entered into a consent decree to resolve the claims and
defenses asserted in a class action.

"One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in
California provides, among other things, janitorial services to
its customers by having those services performed by independent
janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns
retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal
class action lawsuit brought by five employees of USM's California
janitorial subcontractors. The action captioned Federico Vilchiz
Vasquez, Jesus Vilchiz Vasquez, Francisco Domingo Claudio, for
themselves and all others similarly situated vs. USM, Inc. dba USM
Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., was commenced
on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was
removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California," the Company said.

"The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that
USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our
acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits
USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor
when it knows or should know that the contract does not include
funds sufficient to allow the janitorial subcontractor to comply
with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing
the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted
that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial subcontractors are
insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet
their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all
hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal
and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only
themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial
services at the Customer's stores in California during the
relevant four year time period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with
whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek
a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California
statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon,
restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

"On February 17, 2015, USM and its Customer entered into a consent
decree which, subject to approval of the consent decree by the
federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California following a determination by the Court of
the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and reasonableness, will
resolve the claims and defenses asserted in the class action.
Under the terms of the consent decree, USM is to (a) pay an
aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to the members
of the class, (ii) for awards to the class representative
plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act payments to the State of California for an immaterial
amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and administration of the
claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of
$1.3 million, of which $0.25 million is to be allocated for their
reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and $1.05 million is to
be allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c) establish procedures to
monitor USM's California subcontractors providing janitorial
services to its Customer designed principally to ensure janitorial
employees of those subcontractors are paid no less than minimum
wage."


ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal in "Brent" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeal of the
settlement in the case Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
et. al, remains pending.

On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which
the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of
the Company's subsidiaries (the "Midland Defendants"). The
complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants' business practices
violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act. The Company has vigorously denied the claims
asserted against it in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed
settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued
litigation. Subject to court approval, settlement awards to
eligible class members, as well as fees and costs, will be paid
from a settlement fund of approximately $5.2 million, which has
already been paid by the Company and its insurer. If the number of
class members who make claims exceeds a certain level, the total
settlement could increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million.
On October 14, 2014, the district court issued an order granting
final approval of the parties' revised agreed upon settlement of
this lawsuit. That order has been appealed by an objector to the
settlement, which appeal remains pending.


ENTEGRIS INC: Class Action Challenging Merger Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Entegris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
challenging the Merger between the Company and ATMI, Inc. has been
dismissed by agreement of the parties.

On or about February 7 and 28, 2014, two putative class action
complaints challenging the Merger between the Company and ATMI,
Inc. were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Danbury, captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc.,
et al. and Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al., respectively. The
complaints were filed on behalf of the public shareholders of
ATMI, Inc. and name as defendants ATMI, Inc., the members of the
Board of Directors of ATMI, Inc., the Company and the Company's
subsidiary, Atomic Merger Corporation. The complaints generally
alleged that ATMI, Inc.'s directors breached their fiduciary
duties to ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders by agreeing to sell ATMI, Inc.
for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an
inadequate and unfair process, and that ATMI, Inc., the Company
and Atomic Merger Corporation aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The complaint in the Carter action and the second
amended complaint in the Pace action also allege purported
disclosure deficiencies in the preliminary and definitive proxy
statements for the merger that ATMI, Inc. filed with the SEC. The
complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger.

The Merger was approved by ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders on April 15,
2014 and was closed on April 30, 2014. The case captioned Dolores
Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al. was subsequently dismissed by the
plaintiff. The case captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al.
was transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket of the Superior
Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury.

On July 21, 2014, ATMI, Inc. and the Company each filed a motion
to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint. On December
29, 2014, the court granted the defendant's motion to strike and
on January 27, 2015, the case was dismissed by agreement of the
parties.


ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Lawsuits Over Lehman Collapse Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Fitzgerald, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that Ernst & Young LLP has agreed to settle a pair of lawsuits
filed by the state of New Jersey and a handful of California
cities and counties over losses they suffered when Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. collapsed.

Lawyers for New Jersey and the California municipalities each said
they have reached "an agreement in principle" to settle their
legal disputes with the accounting firm, according to documents
filed in U.S. District Court in New York.

New Jersey, seven California cities and counties plus one
California-based insurer had accused Ernst & Young of helping
Lehman hide its true financial condition while the bank's
executives were pitching them to invest in "safe" Lehman stock and
securities.

Terms of the settlement weren't disclosed. Representatives for
Ernst & Young, New Jersey and the California plaintiffs either
declined to comment or didn't respond to requests for comment.

Pension funds, municipalities and individuals from places as
far-flung as Scotland, Ireland and Guam, sued Lehman a few months
before its September 2008 collapse after their investments in some
$30 billion in Lehman debt and equity went sour.

The suits claimed Lehman's use of so-called Repo 105 deals --
repurchase transactions that allowed Lehman to temporarily lower
its leverage -- falsely allowed the bank to present itself as
financially stronger than it really was.

The lawsuits also took aim at Ernst & Young for saying Lehman was
in compliance with accounting rules even though the auditor was
aware of the bank's use of Repo 105 transactions to buff up its
balance sheet.

A 2010 report by a bankruptcy-court examiner, exposing Lehman's
use of Repo 105s, raised questions about whether its executives
and auditors should face any regulatory action or other sanctions.

New Jersey lost more than $192 million on its Lehman investment
and San Mateo County alone lost $155 million.  Among the other
California cities that sued were Auburn, Burbank and San
Buenaventura, along with the Contra Costa Water District, Vallejo
Sanitation and Flood Control District and Zenith Insurance Co.

Ernst & Young was Lehman's auditor from 2001 until Lehman's
collapse.  The accounting firm, while denying any liability,
agreed to pay $99 million to settle a class-action suit filed by
Lehman investors in 2013.  Ernst & Young has always denied
allegations of wrongdoing and argued Lehman's demise was caused by
the global financial crisis that affected the entire financial
sector, not by accounting- or financial-reporting issues.

New Jersey and the California cities and counties also sued former
Lehman finance chief Erin Callan, along with former Lehman Chief
Executive Dick Fuld and more than a dozen of the bank's other
officers and directors.  The ex-Lehman officials, without
admitting wrongdoing, settled with New Jersey for $8.25 million;
they settled with the California municipalities for $9.75 million
in 2013.

Lehman, once the nation's fourth-largest investment bank by assets
under management, collapsed into the largest bankruptcy ever in
September 2008.  The filing sent markets into turmoil and helped
trigger a global financial crisis.  Lehman's brokerage business
was quickly sold to Barclays.

Lehman emerged from bankruptcy protection in March 2012, but the
estate is still winding down and selling off its remaining
holdings, a process that is expected to continue for several more
years.


FCA US LLC: Accused of Discriminating Against Chinese Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Te H. Wu v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
(formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC), Case No. 2:15-cv-11132-
MFL-MJH (E.D. Mich., March 26, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff
was treated disparately in comparison with similarly situated
employees with different national origins whose performance was
the same or less satisfactory than the Plaintiff's.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Michigan.  The
Plaintiff was born in China, but emigrated from China to the
United States.

Incorporated in Delaware, FCA US, LLC is a global supplier of
automobiles and automotive parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Warnicke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. WARNICKE, PLLC
          16291 W. 14 Mile Road, Suite 21
          Beverly Hills, MI 48025
          Telephone: (248) 930-4411
          Facsimile: (248) 232-7832
          E-mail: tom@warnickelaw.com


FERGUSON, MO: Report Reveals Unconstitutional Policing Pattern
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Militant's Naomi Craine and John Hawkins, a
report issued by the Justice Department March 4 details how
workers in Ferguson, Missouri, especially those who are Black,
face rampant and illegal harassment, arbitrary arrests and abuse
from the police and municipal court.  Ferguson, a suburb of St.
Louis, became a household word last August after cop Darren Wilson
shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, and after police met
protests with tear gas, rubber bullets and arrests.  Attorney
General Eric Holder was dispatched to Ferguson as part of federal
and state government efforts to defuse the demonstrations.
The same day the Justice Department issued a separate report
saying there were no grounds to bring federal charges against
Mr. Wilson, following the November decision of a St. Louis grand
jury not to indict him for killing Brown.

The Ferguson Police Department has a "pattern of unconstitutional
policing" that "violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal
statutory law," the report states.  The cops' actions
"disproportionately harm Ferguson's African-American residents."

In March 2010, the city finance director complained to the police
chief that "unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before
the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise
collections next year."  The cops obliged.  Court fines and fees
have become the city's second-largest source of income.

A class-action lawsuit filed against the city of Ferguson in
February describes how workers are shaken down by this scheme, and
chronicles similar policies in surrounding towns.  The local jails
serve as debtors' prisons where those who can't pay are subjected
to inhuman conditions.

"Ferguson is mild compared to some other municipalities,"
Rodney Martin told the Militant in a phone interview March 9.
"Ferguson just got caught, and that put them in the hot seat."

Mr. Martin, a worker at Home Depot, was a victim of the traffic
ticket scam last fall, spending a week in jail, while being
shuffled from one municipality to another.  "Theoretically it was
great for them to recognize that there is a system of injustice
and that racism is behind it," he said, "but I'm skeptical about
any real change coming out of it."

According to the Justice Department, Ferguson police regularly
violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable
search and seizure" and says the cops and the government can't
come after you without "probable cause."  In November 2013, a cop
arrested five Black youth who were simply listening to music in a
car, claiming they were "gathering in a group for the purposes of
committing illegal activity."  Another cop said he demands
identification from every person in any vehicle he stops, and
arrests anyone who exercises their legal right to refuse for
"Failure to Comply."

The report said use of force by Ferguson police "is routinely
unreasonable and sometimes clearly punitive."

African-Americans "are more than twice as likely as white drivers
to be searched during vehicle stops . . . but are found in
possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers,
suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor
when determining whether to search," the report said.

Circulation of racist emails and "jokes" among Ferguson city
officials is documented. Mayor James Knowles fired the top court
clerk, Mary Ann Twitty, March 4 over the emails, claiming they
were "in no way representative" of the city.  Two police
supervisors connected to them resigned the next day.

Municipal Judge Ronald Brockmeyer and City Manager John Shaw also
resigned in the wake of the report.

"There is no credible evidence to refute Wilson's stated
subjective belief that he was acting in self-defense," the
simultaneous Justice Department report on Brown's death concluded.
"There are no credible witness accounts that state that Brown was
clearly attempting to surrender when Wilson shot him."

Brown's parents, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr., said in a
written statement they were disappointed that "the killer of our
son wouldn't be held accountable for his actions."  They said they
welcomed the report on the Ferguson Police Department, and said if
it helps bring about change, "our son's death will not have been
in vain."


FINISHMASTER INC: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Age
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Chamberlain v. Finishmaster, Inc., a foreign profit
corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-11136-GER-MJH (E.D. Mich.,
March 26, 2015) is brought under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act.

Mr. Chamberlain alleges that a motivating factor in the decision
to terminate his employment was his age.

Finishmaster, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation doing business
throughout Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen N. Lenhoff, Esq.
          Robert Kent-Bryant, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLEN N. LENHOFF
          328 South Saginaw Street, 8-N
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 235-5660
          E-mail: lenhofflaw@usol.com


FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents Win Compensation Citrus Canker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Fleshler, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that thousands
of Palm Beach County households won compensation on March 13 for
fruit trees destroyed in the state's failed fight against the
citrus canker disease, which ended nine years ago.

The exact amount of the award still needs to be calculated, but
Robert Gilbert, lead attorney for the homeowners, estimated it at
roughly $19 million, with deductions for previously paid
compensation and additions of several million dollars in interest.

"We are extremely pleased and gratified by the work this jury put
in and by the ultimate decision," Mr. Gilbert said, following a
nearly two-week trial in West Palm Beach.  "They stood by the
constitutional principle of awarding full compensation for private
property."

This is a class-action lawsuit, so anyone who lost trees during
the period covered by the case -- 2000 to 2006 -- is automatically
included.  The state has computerized records of the addresses,
dates and size of trees.  More than 26,000 households, which own a
total of 66,493 trees, are covered by this case.

But collecting the award may be difficult.  A jury in Broward
County awarded compensation several years ago that still hasn't
been paid because the Florida Department of Agriculture has taken
the position that any payment must first be appropriated by the
Florida Legislature, which has not done so.

A Broward judge refused the homeowners' request to force the state
to pay.  The case is on appeal.

From 2000 to 2006, the department's tree-cutting crews went
through Florida's residential neighborhoods, destroying orange,
grapefruit and other citrus trees found within 1,900 feet of
diseased trees.  Delayed and hampered by lawsuits from homeowners,
the campaign failed to stop the disease, which eventually made it
to the state's commercial groves.

Under the complex verdict returned by the jury, the amount due
each household will be based on the height of the tree destroyed.
At the low end, trees up to two feet tall were valued at $105.36,
and at the high end, trees of 17 feet or taller were valued at
$447.78.

Wes Parsons, attorney for the Department of Agriculture, called
the verdict a "compromise," saying the jury's decision represented
less than the average of $500 per tree sought by the homeowners.
He said no decision has been made whether to appeal.  But he noted
that three similar cases in other counties are on appeal, and said
he hoped they would go to the Florida Supreme Court.

David Mendez, of Boca Raton, who lost four orange and grapefruit
trees to the tree-cutting crews, said the verdict strengthened the
rights of Floridians against trespassing and seizure of their
property by the state.

"I'm very proud that justice was served," he said.  "I didn't
believe they could come into your backyard, tear up your backyard
and pay you nothing. I was not after the money.  It was the
principle. You can't go onto someone's property and do as you
please and expect them to be happy about it."

Mr. Gilbert said he was optimistic that payment in the Broward and
Palm Beach cases would be made within a year.

"We haven't gotten it yet," he said.  "We're going to get the
money."


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph S. Pete, writing for nwi.com, reports that an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission investigation found evidence of
sexual harassment and racial discrimination at Ford's Chicago
Assembly Plant.

A group of women are saying in a class action lawsuit they were
subjected to frequent and widespread abuse that included unwanted
touching, lewd comments and requests for sexual favors.

Before a group of former female employees filed suit in November,
attorneys say 100 women who worked at the automotive factory in
Hegewisch first went to the EEOC with discrimination complaints,
such as that they were groped, had hand-carved phallic symbols
thrown at them, and were ridiculed when they complained.

A federal investigator looked into claims that female employees
were discriminated against, harassed, treated differently than
male colleagues, and retaliated against for filing complaints.
The probe also examined claims they were discriminated against
because of race, religion and age if they were more than 40 years
old.

Ford paid $9 million in 2000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit
at the Chicago Assembly Plant, and spent another $10 million to
train managers and male autoworkers on how to treat female
colleagues, after the EEOC found proof of harassment that included
sexually suggestive graffiti.  Ford established a hotline to
report discrimination, and monitors watched over the next few
years for abusive behavior at the Chicago Assembly Plant and the
Chicago Stamping Plant in Chicago Heights.

In February, the EEOC notified the Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker
it again found evidence of sexual harassment and discrimination at
the plant.

The EEOC investigation concluded female and black employees were
punished when they complained of discrimination, including by
being reassigned to less favorable job assignments or shifts,
being denied overtime or transfers, and being disciplined or
fired.

A Ford spokesman said after the 124-page class action lawsuit was
filed in November that the automaker cannot address specific
allegations of what happened in the plant, but that it generally
promotes a diverse and welcoming environment at all its
workplaces.

"Ford is proud to be an equal opportunity employer and takes
reports of harassment or discrimination very seriously,"
spokeswoman Kristina Adamski said at the time.

The EEOC gave Ford 14 days to propose a conciliation agreement
that would eliminate unlawful practices and make victims whole,
such as by restoring lost benefits or jobs.


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft Charge
-----------------------------------------------------
Sasha Jones, writing for WMC, reports that Jemar Lambert, who owns
Galilee Memorial Gardens, pleaded guilty to a charge theft over
$60,000 after burying bodies on nearby land that he did not own.

Mr. Lambert, 39, agreed to an Alford plea, which means he
maintains his innocence but acknowledges there is enough evidence
to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many families do not think the cemetery owner received a
punishment suitable for the crime.

"Don't let it go just because he plead guilty to one crime and not
the other, it's a crime," said Tina Correly.  Ms. Correly is just
one of the families affected by the closing of the cemetery back
in January of 2014.

The cemetery closed shortly after Lambert was arrested on the
theft charge in September 2013, but was released on his own
recognizance.  He was later arrested in January 2014 on new
charges of theft of property and abuse of a corpse, accused of
crushing caskets and burying three bodies in a single grave.

Ms. Correly's mother is buried on the land reportedly not owned by
Lambert.

"It's hard that we can't go in and actually go to her grave," says
Ms. Correly.

"He should have got more time," said Chris Walsh.  Mr. Walsh's
family could not bury their loved one in a pre-paid plot at
Galilee, putting them thousands of dollars in debt for the
funeral.

"She didn't get nothing, nobody called her, it was just a lost
cause," says Mr. Walsh.

Hundreds of families are now a part of a class action lawsuit
against the cemetery.  On March 9, a status conference was set
with the court to discuss the class action lawsuit.


FRIGIDAIRE: Faces Class Action Over Molds in Front Load Washers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McKinnon, writing for WBZ-TV, reports that Frigidaire is
facing a class action over mold problems in washing machines.

A washing machine is supposed to clean clothes, not stink up a
house.  Many owners of front load washers are reporting problems
with the buildup of slime and mold. A growing number of consumers
are now heading to court.

Kathleen Caddell of Plymouth thought one of these energy efficient
machines would be a good investment, but she quickly regretted
making the purchase.  "I couldn't take it anymore because there
was black mold actually getting in there, so it was a true health
and human safety hazard."

The problem was poor drainage around the door.  Kathleen needed to
use an extra towel after every load just to sop up the extra water
that got trapped around the door.  "It had a stench to it."

Calls to the manufacturer frustrated Ms. Caddell.  "There was no
remedy for it, except it was my job to clean out the machine every
time.  So clearly, if I had known that, I would never have
purchased the machine to begin with.  I would have gotten a top
loader until they figured out a better design."

Class action lawsuits are now pending against several top washing
machine makers, such as Kenmore, Whirlpool, LG, and Bosch.
There is also a suit pending against Frigidaire which made
Kathleen's machine.  Other owners are also claiming that the
machine produced a mold or mildew odor that could permeate a home.

Attorney Ed Wallace of Wexler Wallace in Chicago is one of the
attorneys handling the case against Frigidaire.  "The company knew
there was a problem as early as April 2007, and rather than recall
the machines and letting consumers know there was a problem, they
continued to sell the machines."

In a statement, Frigidaire disputed the existence of a design
defect.  Other manufactures stated a majority of customers are
satisfied, and added these machines work well if the operating
instructions are closely followed.

Chris Blanchette of Mr. Appliance of the Merrimack Valley books a
lot of service calls for homeowners unhappy with the smell and
performance of their front loader.  "If you are ruining your
clothes, it's expensive."  Mr. Blanchette said most owners
describe a swampy odor that gets into their clothes.

Ms. Caddell is much happier with a new machine that has better
drainage around the door.  She is considering joining the Class
Action suit.  "It is very frustrating as a consumer, reaching out
to the manufacturer and saying here's a clear design problem, can
you fix it, or can you replace it, and they don't stand behind
their product."

There are few things to try if your machine is giving off a bad
odor: make sure to use the recommended amount of detergent; swap
liquid fabric softener for dryer sheets; run some bleach through
the machine; wipe the door and gasket down with a disinfecting
sheet; and leave the door open when not in use, as long as there
are no children or pets present.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Melton Faulty Ignition Switch Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Vlasic, writing for The New York Times, reports that in a
notable victory for General Motors, a lawsuit that helped spur the
biggest safety crisis in the company's history has been withdrawn
in exchange for a settlement from its compensation program,
according to two people briefed on the agreement.

The lawsuit was the second brought by the family of a Georgia
woman, Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 in a car with a faulty
ignition switch that has now been linked to at least 64 deaths.

For G.M., the agreement removes the significant legal threat of
senior officials, including Mary T. Barra, the automaker's chief
executive, being questioned under oath about the company's failure
for years to recall the defective vehicles.  It was depositions in
the Meltons' first lawsuit that exposed the dangerous flaw in
millions of small cars.

"The attorneys for the Melton family may have uncovered additional
information that suggested G.M. did too little to protect consumer
safety," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor
who has been closely following G.M. safety issues.

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  A G.M. spokesman
confirmed that the case had been resolved, but declined to provide
other details.

Ms. Melton was killed after she lost control of her 2005 Chevrolet
Cobalt on a Georgia highway when the ignition key slipped into the
accessory position, shutting down engine power and disabling the
car's airbags.  The family's initial lawsuit was settled two years
ago for $5 million, but only after G.M. officials admitted in
depositions that the company had been unsuccessfully grappling
with defective ignitions for a decade.

Lawyers for Ms. Melton's family also discovered that G.M. had
secretly upgraded its switches without changing the part's
identification number -- further frustrating efforts to pinpoint
the cause of dozens of accidents that caused deaths and injuries.
The revelations in the initial case forced further investigations
within G.M. that led to the company's recall of about 2.6 million
small cars, and prompted dozens of subsequent recalls of other
models.

After the switch recall prompted a congressional investigation and
other government inquiries, Ms. Melton's family filed a second
suit last year, claiming G.M. had knowingly sold unsafe cars.

The New York Times has exposed missteps and delays by automakers
and federal safety regulators in responding to deadly defects in
automobiles during what has become a record year for recalls.

A lawyer for the victim's parents, Ken and Beth Melton, said an
aim of the second suit was to force G.M. to admit it had concealed
evidence of the deadly ignition problem.

"One of the important issues for the Meltons was accountability,"
said Lance Cooper, the family's lawyer.  "They are grieving
parents who simply wanted the truth and for no one else to suffer
a similar loss."

Mr. Cooper was not available for comment beyond his prepared
statement.  A spokeswoman in his office said Ms. Melton's parents
also declined to discuss the case.

The family's first lawsuit played a pivotal role in uncovering how
G.M. had failed to fix faulty ignitions for years, despite knowing
about crashes in which vehicles suddenly lost power.

In one deposition, a G.M. engineer, Raymond DeGiorgio, denied that
any changes were made to the switches, despite evidence that he
had ordered newer vehicles be equipped with a replacement part.

Another lawyer for the Melton family, Jere L. Beasley, said the
initial suit was "directly responsible for alerting the government
and the public to a massive cover-up by General Motors."

G.M.'s compensation program allows accident victims or their
family members to file claims even if they had previously received
settlements from the company.  The program's administrator,
Kenneth R. Feinberg, can then authorize additional compensation
beyond the original settlement.  But victims or family members
cannot pursue a lawsuit once they have been compensated through
the program.

The ignition-switch recalls announced last year mushroomed into a
far-reaching crisis for G.M., which spent about $3 billion to
recall vehicles and compensate accident victims in 2014. It also
led to widespread changes inside the nation's largest automaker,
including the dismissal of 15 employees, a shake-up of its vast
engineering organization and the institution of a new safety
department.

Ms. Barra was questioned at four congressional hearings, and the
company was fined $35 million by federal regulators for failing to
fix the ignition defect in a timely manner.

While the withdrawal of the Melton suit eliminates one legal
headache for G.M., other potential pitfalls remain.

A federal bankruptcy judge, Robert E. Gerber, could rule soon on
whether the company can retain a liability shield in its 2009
bankruptcy restructuring that protects it from claims involving
accidents that occurred before the Chapter 11 filing.

The company is also seeking to avoid claims that cars built before
it went bankrupt have lost value in the marketplace because of
recalls and safety problems.

Whatever Judge Gerber decides, a number of class-action cases
involving accidents after 2009 are proceeding, with a possible
trial set for next January.  Depositions are expected to begin
this spring, including possible testimony from senior executives
and former employees who were fired over their role in the delayed
ignition-switch recall.


GEORGIA: DoJ Files Statement of Interest in Juvenile Defense Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Imperial Valley News, the Department of Justice on
March 14 filed a statement of interest in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia, in N.P. et al. v. The State of Georgia, et
al.  The class action asserts that the public defense system in
the Cordele Judicial Circuit is so underfunded and poorly staffed
that indigent adults and juveniles accused of committing criminal
acts are routinely denied their right to legal representation.

The department's statement of interest focuses solely on the due
process rights of children accused of delinquency.  It is the
first department filing in a state court action to address the due
process right to counsel for children established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in In re Gault.  In Gault the court recognized the
critical needs of children for guidance and advocacy and the vital
role counsel plays in ensuring fairness in delinquency
proceedings.  More recent Supreme Court decisions have emphasized
the differences between adults and children in the criminal
justice system.  Applying this case law, the department's filing
identifies procedural safeguards that must be provided to children
who appear before the court.

"For too long, the Supreme Court's promise of fairness for young
people accused of delinquency has gone unfulfilled in courts
across our country," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "Every
child has the right to a competent attorney who will provide the
highest level of professional guidance and advocacy.  It is time
for courts to adequately fund indigent defense systems for
children and meet their constitutional responsibilities."

"Every day, in communities across our country, under-resourced
public defense systems fail to meet their constitutional
obligation to provide effective representation for children," said
Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights
Division.  "Children who depend on these failing systems often get
the poorest representation, relegating them to second-class status
in our courts. The systemic deprivation of counsel for children
cannot be tolerated."

In N.P., the plaintiffs allege that children in juvenile
delinquency proceedings in the Cordele Judicial Circuit are denied
their right to meaningful representation and are, at best,
provided with "assembly-line justice."  They assert that because
public defense counsel are understaffed and under-resourced, they
often are not appointed on behalf of children, and that children
routinely waive their right to counsel without the waiver being
knowing, intelligent and voluntary.  The plaintiffs claim that the
denial is so total that it amounts to a systemic violation of the
juveniles' due process right to counsel, as required by Gault and
the U.S. Constitution.

In its statement of interest, the department asserts that children
are denied their right to counsel not only when an attorney is
entirely absent, but also when an attorney is available in name
only.  It provides the court with a framework to assess the
plaintiffs' claim that the defendants are depriving young people
accused of delinquency of their right to counsel.  As the
department summarized in the statement of interest, "due process
requires that every child who faces the loss of liberty should be
represented from their first appearance through, at least, the
disposition of their case by an attorney with the training,
resources and time to effectively advocate the child's interest.
If a child decides to waive the right to an attorney, courts must
ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary by
requiring consultation with counsel before the court accepts the
waiver."

N.P. et al. v. The State of Georgia et al. was filed in January
2014 and brought by adult defendants and juveniles accused of
delinquency in the Cordele Judicial Circuit.  The plaintiffs seek
reform to prevent future due process and right to counsel
violations.


GFB ENTERPRISES: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Perez, et al. v. G.F.B
Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-18947 CA 01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21172-JLK to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that their Lexus and Toyota vehicles and
those of the putative class are defective in that they have
"suffered damage to the dashboard and various interior components
as a result of heat encountered during the normal use of the
vehicles in Florida."  The Plaintiffs allege that "dashboards and
other similarly constructed interior components" have "become
sticky, oily, shiny, cracked and degraded in appearance."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Juan P. Bauta, II, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jpb@ferrarolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3000
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: bercole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-4806
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: jgcooney@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John C. Seipp, Jr., Esq.
          Donald A. Blackwell, Esq.
          SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY, LLP
          Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 995-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 995-6090
          E-mail: jseipp@seippflick.com
                  dblackwell@seippflick.com


GHIRARDELLI: Settles Food Labeling Class Action for $5.25MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Pappas, Esq., Gary M. Pappas, Esq., Alina Alonso
Rodriguez, Esq., of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for
JDSupra, report that a California district court certified a Rule
23(b)(3) food labeling class action against chocolatier
Ghirardelli and approved a proposed settlement.  The genesis of
Plaintiffs' claim is that defendant mislabeled its "White Chips"
and other products in a way that would mislead consumers into
believing that the products contained white chocolate.  Plaintiffs
also asserted a claim that the "all natural" label was improper
because the products contained "genetically modified, hormone-
treated . . . or chemically extracted ingredients."  As part of
the settlement, Ghirardelli agreed to pay $5.25 million into a
common fund and agreed to effect certain labeling changes to all
products at issue for a period of three years.  The named
plaintiffs would each receive a $5,000 incentive payment.  Other
class members would receive between $0.75 and $1.50 depending on
the products purchased. Class counsel would receive over $1.5
million in attorney's fees and approximately $87,000 in costs.

Settlement Approval

The court began its analysis noting that settlement is a "strongly
favored" method for resolving disputes, particularly where complex
class action litigation is concerned.  The court's focus when
evaluating such a settlement is strictly guided by whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, free of collusion and
consistent with the named plaintiffs' fiduciary obligations to the
class.  In so determining, courts bound by the Ninth Circuit
consider: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's case; (2) the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
(3) the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout trial;
(4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery
completed and the stage of the proceeding; (6) the experience and
views of counsel; (7) the presence of a government participant;
and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.
Moreover, where a settlement is the product of arms-length
negotiations conducted by capable and experienced counsel, the
court presumes that the settlement is fair and reasonable.  In
keeping with this framework, the court found the proposed
settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court noted that
the litigation to date had been a "a hard-fought affair."
Considering the strength of the plaintiffs' case, the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation --
including the risk of maintaining class action status throughout
the trial and successfully proving liability in the face of
Ghirardelli's strong denial -- the court found that these factors
all weighed in favor of approving the settlement.

Fees and Costs

The court also awarded class counsel $1,575,000 in attorney's fees
and $87,572.15 in costs.  In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for
an attorney's-fee award is 25% of the total settlement value.
When determining the value of a settlement, courts consider both
the monetary and non-monetary benefits.  In common-fund cases,
such as this one, the Ninth Circuit requires district courts to
assess proposed fee awards under either the "lodestar" method or
the "percentage of the fund" method.  The court found the fee
request reasonable under both approaches.

First, with respect to the "percentage of the fund" approach,
Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the changed practices
required by the settlement for the next three years can be
expected to save class members $13.46 million.  When added to the
$5.25 million, the requested fee represented 8.9% -- significantly
below the Ninth Circuit's $25% benchmark.  The court found that
the requested fee appropriate even if the expert's estimate was
deeply discounted.

Second, after applying the percentage method, courts typically
calculate the lodestar as a cross-check to assess the
reasonableness of the percentage award.  Once the court has fixed
the lodestar, it may increase or decrease that amount by applying
a positive or negative multiplier to take into account a variety
of other factors, including the quality of the representation, the
novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained and the
contingent risk presented.  Based on the declarations submitted by
the plaintiffs' counsel, the court found that lodestar was
approximately $1,711,710, which sum exceeded the requested fee
award of $1,575,000.

Thus, the court found the fee request reasonable under both the
"percentage of the fund" approach and the lodestar cross-check.
Finally, based on documentation provided, the court found that the
cost award was reasonable.

Incentive Awards

The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that awarding incentives should
not become routine practice.  However, the court concluded that
the incentives proposed here were within the range of such awards
that the Ninth Circuit has either affirmed or cited with approval.
The court specifically noted that the named plaintiffs merit this
incentive, detailing the effort they personally made in pursuing
this lawsuit.

Cy Pres Doctrine

The settlement agreement provides that if, after payment of
notice, administration, fees, costs, incentives and valid claims,
there remains a balance in the common fund, the plaintiffs will
ask the court to approve a list of charitable organizations to
receive any balance remaining in the settlement fund.  The court
found that the cy pres doctrine is appropriate for a case like
this one, where class members who did not make claims cannot be
easily located or identified, in order to "put the unclaimed fund
to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate,
indirect, prospective benefit of the class."

Objections to Settlement

The court rejected three objections, finding that all three
objectors failed to establish their standing to challenge the
settlement because they did not establish they were proper class
members.  The court also rejected the objections on the merits,
dismissing claims of collusion, challenges to the cy pres
distribution and to the attorney's fees.

Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-cv-04936-LB (N.D. Cal.
Feb 20, 2015).


GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Ziegler, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-02094-AET-DEA (D.N.J., March 24, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
          8 Cayuga Road
          Cranford, NJ 07016
          Telephone: (862) 812-0623
          E-mail: cavarsvp@people.com


GWB LLC: Removes "Wyckoff" Class Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants GWB LLC and Cheney OFS, Inc. removed the class action
lawsuit titled Wyckoff, III v. GWB, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-15-
002755, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Ft. Lauderdale Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:15-cv-60612-BB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  apetisco@rgpattorneys.com

Defendants GWB LLC and Cheney OFS, Inc. are represented by:

          Benjamin D. Sharkey, Esq.
          Justin C. Sorrell, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 638-2655
          Facsimile: (904) 638-2656
          E-mail: sharkeyb@jacksonlewis.com
                  Justin.sorrell@jacksonlewis.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: May 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on March 13 issued a statement regarding
the Healthways Shareholder Litigation.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated and On Behalf of Nominal
Defendant HEALTHWAYS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN W. BALLANTINE, J. CRIS BISGARD, MARY JANE ENGLAND, BEN R.
LEEDLE JR., C. WARREN NEEL, WILLIAM D. NOVELLI, ALISON TAUNTON-
RIGBY, DONATO TRAMUTO, JOHN A. WICKENS, KEVIN WILLS, and SUNTRUST
BANK, Defendants, and HEALTHWAYS, INC., Nominal Defendant.

C.A. No. 9789-VCL

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All persons and entities who held Healthways Inc.
("Healthways" or the "Company") common stock at any time during
the period from June 8, 2012 through and including the close of
trading on February 10, 2015 (the "Class Period") and that
continued to hold Healthways common stock as of the end of the
Class Period, but excluding (a) the Individual Defendants and
their respective immediate family members; (b) the Company,
SunTrust and each of the other Lenders, as well as each of their
respective subsidiary companies, officers, directors and
affiliates; and (c) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any of the foregoing
excluded parties (the "Class").1 Members of the Class are referred
to herein as "Class Members."

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Delaware Court of
Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court") has preliminarily certified
the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") as a non-"opt-out"
class action on behalf of the Class.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System ("Plaintiff") has reached a proposed settlement
of the Action (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve
all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on May 8, 2015, at 11:00 AM, before Vice
Chancellor J. Travis Laster at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing").  At the
Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things:  (a)
determine whether the certification of the Class should be made
final; (b) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable
and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court;
(c) determine whether the Judgment should be entered dismissing
the Action with prejudice against Defendants pursuant to the
Stipulation; (d) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses
should be approved; (e) hear and consider any objections to the
Settlement, final certification of the Class or Plaintiff's
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses; and (f) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, your rights will be affected by the
pending Action and the Settlement.  If you have not yet received
full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice"), you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Notice Administrator at Healthways Shareholder
Litigation, c/o GCG, PO Box 10166, Dublin, OH 43017-3166.  Copies
of the Notice can also be downloaded from the website
www.gardencitygroup.com or by calling the Notice Administrator
toll-free at 1-800-231-1815.

As consideration for the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to
eliminate the Proxy Put provision in the Company's 2012 Loan
Agreement.  Plaintiff alleged that the Proxy Put provision in the
2012 Loan Agreement had the potential to deter stockholders from
nominating directors and/or supporting the director nominees of
other stockholders because, under certain circumstances, the
nomination of directors through an actual or threatened proxy
contest could give rise to an "event of default."  As a result of
the Action and Settlement, the parties have agreed to eliminate
the Proxy Put provision, and Healthways stockholders can nominate
or support director nominees without concern for the possibility
of triggering an event of default under the 2012 Loan Agreement.
Additionally, the Healthways Board has agreed to issue a
resolution instructing the Company's senior management and its
General Counsel that any material corporate contract containing a
change of control provision like the Proxy Put provision must be
brought to the attention of and explained to the Board, including
its impact on the shareholder franchise, prior to its execution.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Plaintiff's Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
representative counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants such that they
are received no later than April 28, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please note that there is no proof of claim form for Class Members
to submit in connection with the Settlement.  Also, because the
Class was preliminarily certified as a non-"opt-out" class, Class
Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the
Class.

Please do not call or write to the Court or the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice.  All questions, other than
requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
1-800-380-8496

FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
Wilmington, DE 19801
1-302-573-3500

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Notice
Administrator:

Healthways Shareholder Litigation
c/o GCG
PO Box 10166
Dublin, OH 43017-3166
1-800-231-1815
www.gardencitygroup.com

By Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
February 20, 2015

1All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated February
10, 2015 (the "Stipulation").  A copy of the Stipulation is
available for review at www.gardencitygroup.com


HERTZ CORP: Removes "Lo Cascio" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation removes the class action lawsuit styled Lo
Cascio v. Hertz Local Edition, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00042259-
CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00667-WQH-KSC to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William D. Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert A. Dolinko, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8300
          E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com


HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Chao" Suit Seeking to Get Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Chao, Clinton Hartman Ira Stone, and Vickie Willingham v.
HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 0:15-
cv-60616-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for
all hours worked by them as well as for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost
Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary
of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation.  Directly or through
wholly owned subsidiaries, including Defendant Host International,
Inc., HMSHost Corporation manages and oversees the operations of
food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports
and other travel facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg L. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


HMSHOST CORP: Did Not Pay for Hours Worked, "Benedetto" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Benedetto, Oscar Middleton, Ricky Malin, and Ryan Jensen v.
HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00947-L (N.D. Tex., March 26, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt under federal laws and
failed to pay them for all hours worked.

The Defendants, directly and through their subsidiaries, are one
of the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise and
food and beverage concessions.  HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Bill Pedersen III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BILL PEDERSEN III, PLLC
          2501 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 380-LB50
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 630-4554
          Facsimile: (214) 630-9264
          E-mail: bill@bpedlaw.com


HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay for Hours Worked, "Boden" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Boden and David Vigil v. HMSHost Corporation and Host
International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00606-KMT (D. Colo.,
March 24, 2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiffs as exempt under federal law and failed to pay them for
all hours worked.

HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by
Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an
Italian corporation.  Host International, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation also headquartered in Bethesda.  The Defendants are
among the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise
and food and beverage concessions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212-4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


HONDA: Launches U.S. Ad Campaign to Boost Recall Repairs
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Honda is launching an
unprecedented U.S. ad campaign urging owners to get vehicles
repaired if they have been recalled to fix defective air bags.
The Japanese automaker will spend several million dollars on ads
in 120 newspapers and 30-second radio spots in 110 markets.  It's
also sponsoring customized Facebook posts that will appear in
owners' timelines.  The ads are in English and Spanish.

Honda has recalled about 6.2 million cars in the U.S. since 2008
because air bag inflators made by Takata Corp. can explode with
too much force, sending shrapnel into the vehicle.  Ten
automakers, including Honda, have recalled about 22 million cars
globally to replace Takata inflators. Six deaths have been blamed
on the problem.

Spokesman Chris Martin said it's the first time Honda has reached
out to owners through a media campaign.  The ad makes clear that
recalls are free, and promises loaners if there is a delay in
getting the cars repaired.

"Almost everyone knows someone who owns a Honda," says one print
ad, which urges friends to tell owners to contact the company.
"We care about your safety, so please take action immediately."
The ads will focus on the 11 warm weather states and U.S.
territories that Honda says are at greatest risk.

Honda says it has replaced 1.1 million of about 8 million
defective inflators in the U.S., or just 14 percent of the total.
Some of the recalled cars have recalled Takata inflators on both
the driver and passenger sides. Honda reported to the government
that 17,809 owners hadn't been found, despite mailings and phone
calls.

Chrysler, Ford and Toyota, which also have recalled cars with
Takata air bags, say they have also done phone calls and mailings,
but none plans to match Honda's advertising effort.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from July 2013 to
March 2014, 15 class action complaints were filed against
manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic
equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Opana ER Antitrust Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from June 2014 to
January 2015, eleven class action complaints were filed against
the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints have
not yet been filed in the consolidated proceeding.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Actions Has Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in the securities class
actions.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class
Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and
directors violated the federal securities law by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing
deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility,
including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would
have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for
the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its
generic version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions
were subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and
lead plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated
amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2013.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the
Company, together with certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, agreed to settle this consolidated
securities class action, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $8.0 million for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action.

On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The Company will not be taking any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered
by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains
subject to final court approval and certain other conditions and
does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Agreed to Settle Aruliah Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company,
together with certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company, agreed to settle the securities class action filed by
Linus Aruliah.

On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged
that the Company and those named officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies
at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not
limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's
ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's then
branded product candidate, RYTARY(TM) (which was subsequently
approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015).

On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this securities class action, without any admission or concession
of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action. The Company will not be taking any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered
by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains
subject to preliminary and final court approval and certain other
conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative
litigations.


IPEX: Settles Kitec Insulation Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Richard Silver, writing for inman.com, reports that a class action
against IPEX has been settled.

With the cold weather this winter, there's nothing more
comfortable than radiant heating, especially when it's installed
in your flooring or used for high-end treats such as heated towel
racks.  However, if your clients have used a product known as
Kitec in the installation of the radiant heat, some insurance
companies won't insure their homes. This issue turned up in a
house inspection recently and caught everyone by surprise.

Is this the new UFFI (urea-formaldehyde foam insulation)? It seems
that the plumbers who originally installed Kitec have come to
believe that if you have Kitec in your home, it will eventually
cause a problem -- not maybe, but definitely.

If your clients have radiant heating in their houses that is
water-heated and was installed between 1995 and 2007, ask them to
call a plumber and have him or her certify that no Kitec was used.
If they do find Kitec, the best thing to do is replace it right
away and join in the class-action lawsuit at kitecsettlement.com
to get some money to help the remediation.

What is Kitec?

Sold between 1995 and 2007, Kitec is a piping system that was used
both for carrying water throughout a home and supplying water to
radiant heating systems.  The Kitec system used brass fittings as
well as blue and orange flexible piping, which was made from a
mixture of polyurethane and aluminum.  This system was initially
thought to be a superior product to copper piping because the
Kitec pipes are more flexible, easier to install and less
expensive than copper.  In fact, many plumbers pushed for the use
of Kitec over copper piping before it became apparent that the
product was faulty.

What can clients get from the class-action settlement?

If your clients have bought a home and discovered that it has
Kitec in it, they might have trouble getting your home insured --
it all depends on the insurance company.  According to a 2013
article from the Nova Scotia Association of Realtors about the
dangers of Kitec: "Insurance companies assess risks based on their
own claims experience, and some larger companies have not had
enough bad experiences with Kitec to deny insurance.  Some
companies are denying insurance, however, most likely because they
are not relying solely on their own claims experience, but
avoiding all possible risks."

Even if clients haven't been denied home insurance because of the
product, they should still be able to receive compensation from
Kitec's manufacturer, IPEX, in order to help them replace the
Kitec.

In 2011, three class-action lawsuits -- one in the U.S., one in
Quebec and one covering the rest of Canada -- were brought against
IPEX on behalf on anyone who owns or had previously owned a home
with Kitec in it.  In 2012, all parties reached a settlement in
which IPEX was forced to create a settlement account of $125
million (U.S. dollars) in order to compensate the claimants.

The settlement became effective Jan. 9, 2012, and the deadline for
filing a claim against IPEX is Jan. 9, 2020, so if you believe
your clients might deserve compensation, ask them to visit
kitecsettlement.com to see whether they are eligible and to find
out how to make a claim.


KABERLINE HEALTHCARE: Moves Alan Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C. v.
Kaberline Healthcare Informatics, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC00432, was
removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00536 to the
proceeding.

The case is brought over alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew D. Knepper, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial Begins in Skin Removal Surgery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
two-week trial was set to begin in a class action lawsuit filed
against health care service provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Inc. over its alleged refusal to cover excess skin removal
surgeries.

The trial was set to take place in California's Alameda County
Superior Court starting March 16.  It will be webcast live and
recorded on Courtroom View Network.

In her class action, plaintiff Wendy Gallimore, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleges that Kaiser
violated California law by refusing to cover the skin removal
surgery.  The surgery is typically done in patients who lose a
significant amount of weight after lap band, or stomach stapling,
surgery.

According to her complaint, filed in the superior court in
February 2012, Ms. Gallimore underwent bariatric surgery for
treatment of morbid obesity.  Following the surgery, she
experienced massive weight loss and was left with large amounts of
excess skin.

At that time, she requested that Kaiser authorize reconstructive
surgery to remove the excess skin. Kaiser denied the request.

Ms. Gallimore argues that her condition satisfied the requirements
of state statute -- Health and Safety Code section 1367.63,
enacted by the California Legislature in 1998.

The statute, according to the class action complaint, was enacted
because health plans were denying requests for reconstructive
surgery on the basis that it was only medically necessary to
restore or improve a bodily function, not restore a normal
appearance -- even in cases where a physical abnormality was
caused by trauma, disease or congenital defects.

Basically, the plans claimed such surgeries were "cosmetic."

To remedy the problem, section 1367.63 made clear that health
plans must cover surgeries to correct abnormal structures of the
body caused by disease when the surgery would improve function or
create a normal appearance to the extent possible.

Ms. Gallimore argues that Kaiser has a "pattern and practice" of
violating the statute by not covering such reconstructive
surgeries, including her own.

"Kaiser systematically ignores both the functional impairment
standard and the 'normal appearance' prongs of section 1367.63(c)
and, in doing so, systematically violates the statute," her
lawyers wrote.

Los Angeles law firm Gianelli & Morris is representing the
plaintiffs.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014, and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014. The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws related to
misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its
Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company
believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously.  On February 20, 2015, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the action. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in
connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their
early stages.


LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Knopf Bigger Files Laminate Flooring Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Crosby, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that an
Orlando law firm is seeking class-action status after filing a
federal complaint against Lumber Liquidators on March 13 on behalf
of an Orlando couple. The firm, Knopf Bigger, is fielding calls
from other concerned consumers.

"Their kids are playing on it, they have it in their homes," said
Andrew Knopf, a firm attorney.  "The 60 Minutes piece obviously
has been a catalyst for a lot of folks."

Mr. Knopf's firm is following in the footsteps of California group
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, which filed the original
lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators in December.

After the show aired, the suit was moved to federal court, which
means judges across the country will likely consolidate similar
cases -- like Knopf's -- to reach one streamlined conclusion, he
said.

While Lumber Liquidators' flooring made in the United States met
California's CARB emissions standards, every sample manufactured
in China failed.  Lumber Liquidators, which has 354 stores in the
United States and Canada, said random testing of its six laminate
flooring suppliers in China determined the products were "safe and
compliant."

"We stand by every single plank of wood and laminate we sell all
around the country," the company said in its SEC filing.  The
company is offering to pay for customers to safety test their
floors.

The Lumber Liquidators location in Lutz has been open for about
eight years, said assistant manager Kiel Skrobacz.  On March 12,
he stood on his toes, reaching up to stick small yellow "sale"
tags on most of the store's products.

Mr. Skrobacz said his head manager has been in contact with
corporate to "make sure we fully understand what's going on."

As for concerned customers calling their store?

"We've had our fair share," he said.


LYFT: New Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid Bonuses
-------------------------------------------------------
R. Rex Parris Law Firm on March 13 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed accusing Lyft, a peer-to-peer ridesharing
company, of promising $1,000 bonuses for new drivers that turned
out was too good to be true. The lawsuit claims Lyft has paid very
few of the new drivers the $1,000 bonus.

In a detailed 22 page complaint, lead plaintiffs Casey Loewen and
Jonathan Wright claim Lyft breached their contract and defrauded
recruits by failing to pay the $1,000 bonuses.  According to the
complaint, in an effort to grow its driver community and compete
with other rideshare companies (such as Uber), Lyft launched two
$1,000 new driver referral programs on February 25, 2015.  These
programs were available in Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago,
Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, Philadelphia, San
Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Washington D.C. To
qualify for the bonuses, drivers had to apply on or after midnight
February 25th and complete their first ride on or before March
5th.

"The promotions resulted in a huge wave of applicants," said
Alexander R. Wheeler, a lawyer with the R. Rex Parris Law Firm.
As stated in the complaint, "On March 4, 2015, Lyft sent an email
to all of its new applicants and drivers in participating cities."
It stated that "the invitation -- apply to be driver, give 1 ride
by March 5th, and make $1,000 -- brought the biggest wave of
applicants in Lyft history.  As we're processing the applications,
it's important that we continue to fulfill our safety obligations.
Some of these steps, including DMV and background checks, are
outside our control and can vary in length for different
applicants.  It is possible that you won't qualify for the
promotion if all steps aren't completed by the March 5th deadline,
along with the ride requirement."  A copy of this email can be
found in the complaint.

"Lyft took drivers for a ride by not providing timely background
checks for new drivers making it impossible for them to give their
first ride by the deadline imposed by Lyft," said Mr. Wheeler.

According to the complaint, "Lyft's actions caused outrage
throughout the Lyft community, with many referring drivers and new
drivers believing the entire promotion had been a scam to attract
new drivers without having to pay them $1,000. Many drivers took
to the Internet to voice their frustrations, accompanied by
#lyftgate."  The lawsuit alleges that Lyft breached its contract
and is guilty of fraud. It seeks compensatory damages as well as
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by R. Rex Parris, of Lancaster and
Dunn & Associates of Santa Monica.

               About The R. Rex Parris Law Firm

For over 25 years, R. Rex Parris -- http://www.rrexparris.com--
has devoted his practice to protecting the rights of injured
people and aggrieved workers.

                About Dunn & Associates Law Firm

Since 1977, Dunn & Associates -- http://www.dunnpersonalinjury.com
-- has been helping those who are injured get full and fair
compensation for their injuries.


MANPOWERGROUP US: Removes "Lull" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lull v. ManpowerGroup US Inc.,
Case No. 15AC-CC00084, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cole
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Jefferson City).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04058-MJW to the proceeding.

On behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiff Sandra Lull
seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys
fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          301 S. US 169 Hwy.
          Gower, MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505-4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424-1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatins.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chris R. Pace, Esq.
          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          Rene L. Duckworth, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com
                  Justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com
                  rene.duckworth@ogletreedeakins.com


MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Reverses Benecol Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court on March 13 reversed the dismissal of a proposed class
action claiming that the butter substitute Benecol, made by
Johnson & Johnson unit McNeil Nutritionals, had misleading
labeling claims about its health benefits and trans fat content.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals said the lower court had erred by finding that
plaintiff Robert Reid's state-law claims were preempted by federal
regulation of food labels, because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had never authorized the labeling claims in
question.


MICHIGAN: AG Apologizes to Reporters Over Subpoenas
---------------------------------------------------
Chad Livengood, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
attorney General Bill Schuette apologized on March 12 to two
journalists who were slapped with subpoenas by his office for news
gathering on allegations of juvenile prisoner abuse in state
prisons.

Sounding embarrassed, Mr. Schuette said he called Huffington Post
reporter Dana Liebelson and Michigan Radio host Cynthia Canty to
apologize for subpoenas sent to them by staff attorneys for
information they obtained from plaintiffs and an attorney suing
the Department of Corrections.

"I said I was sorry and there's no excuse for that," Mr. Schuette
said in a conference call on March 12 evening with reporters.  "It
should not have happened.  It will not happen again."

The Republican attorney general said he did not learn about the
subpoenas until March 9 while he was on a family skiing vacation
in Colorado, when Liebelson disclosed the two subpoenas she was
served during interviews with inmates on March 5 and March 6 at
state prisons in Ionia and Lapeer.

Mr. Schuette ordered the subpoenas immediately withdrawn on
March 9 -- the day the third subpoena arrived at Michigan Radio's
office seeking "complete and unedited" audio and video recordings
of a March 3 interview of an Ann Arbor attorney representing
inmates who are suing the state for alleged sexual and physical
abuse sustained as juveniles.

"He did apologize," said Ms. Canty, host of Michigan Radio's
"Stateside" program.  "And I am certainly accepting the apology."

Ms. Liebelson on March 9 she told The Detroit News she was served
the first subpoena March 5 during the middle of an interview with
one of the inmates suing the state at the Michigan Reformatory
Prison in Ionia.  She identified the Attorney General's Office
employee as David Dwyre, a special agent in the criminal division.
The next day, Ms. Liebelson said Mr. Dwyre was waiting for her at
the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, the site of a third
scheduled interview with a juvenile prisoner who is suing the
state.

Ms. Liebelson said it was "intimidating" to be followed across the
state from one prison to another.

Mr. Schuette would not disclose on March 12 whether disciplinary
action was taken against any of the attorneys involved in the
subpoenas or the process that was followed in authorizing the
subpoenas.

"I'm not going to go back into it," Mr. Schuette told reporters.

Deborah LaBelle, the Ann Arbor attorney whose radio interview with
Ms. Canty was subpoenaed, said the Attorney General's Office has
deployed "scorched earth" legal tactics in trying to get her
class-action lawsuit dismissed.  The lawsuit alleges that
officials in the Michigan Department of Corrections failed to
prevent abuse of juvenile inmates at the hands of adult prisoners
and guards.

Ms. LaBelle said she hoped Mr. Schuette's apology to the
journalists would signal the end of "abusive tactics" by state
attorneys in the case.

"Hopefully this is a new day in the case and the direction of the
attorneys involved in the case," she said.

Mr. Schuette, who just began his second four-year term as attorney
general, said very few of the evidence-seeking subpoenas pursued
by the state's 275 attorneys rise to his desk for approval.

"If I reviewed every subpoena the Department of Attorney General
issued, everything would grind to a halt," Mr. Schuette said.

He said he bears responsibility for the mistake.

"I'm not throwing nobody under the bus, that's not what I do," Mr.
Schuette told reporters.

In the future, though, Mr. Schuette said if state attorneys
believe they need to compel journalists to disclose their notes or
unpublished work product, the subpoena request will have to go
through him.

The attorney general said the future use of subpoena power against
journalists would remain "very infrequent, if at all."

Asked how many other times journalists have been subpoenaed under
his watch since 2011, Mr. Schuette replied: "To the best of my
knowledge, none."


MOODY'S CORP: New York Appeals Court to Hear Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the New York Court of
Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal in a class action and set a
briefing schedule.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.

In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added
to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants
moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding
and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new
New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed
claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and
abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court
ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims
of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims
to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those
plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The
court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and
abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were
dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7,
2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the
claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013.

On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements,
the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these
claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover
certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and
Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by
the Court.

On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of
class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively,
$5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in
connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal.

In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a
ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence
relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second
Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but
instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's
argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of
Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question and set
a briefing schedule. After the New York Court of Appeals has ruled
on the certified question, the case will be returned to the Second
Circuit for a final decision on Commerzbank's appeal.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Moberly Project Class Action for $8.25MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudi Keller, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that
investment banker Morgan Keegan and St. Louis law firm Armstrong
Teasdale will pay up to $8.25 million to settle claims stemming
from the 2011 collapse of Mamtek U.S., the scandal-plagued project
to build an artificial sweetener factory in Moberly.

Under the terms of a settlement deal filed on March 11 in federal
court, some investors who purchased bonds underwritten by Morgan
Keegan will recover about 86.5 percent of their losses.  The
settlement does not cover investors who opted out of the class-
action lawsuit, many of whom are pursuing their own litigation
against Morgan Keegan, Armstrong Teasdale and Mamtek officers and
consultants.

The filings reveal for the first time the terms of a deal struck
Jan. 14, as the case filed by Alabama investor John Cromeans and
other plaintiffs was ready to go to trial before U.S. District
Judge Nanette Laughrey. The plaintiffs alleged that Morgan Keegan
and Armstrong Teasdale misled investors who purchased $39 million
in industrial development bonds to finance construction and
equipment for the factory.

Attorney fees and expenses will take about one-third of the
settlement, leaving $5.2 million for distribution to investors.
Attorney Timothy Francis of Birmingham, Ala., lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, said the investors participating in the lawsuit
purchased about $6 million of the bond issue.

Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale "paid more than the out-of-
pocket losses of these investors, which is a really good
settlement," Francis said.

The Mamtek project was sold to Moberly and the state of Missouri
as an opportunity to capitalize on a proprietary process for
making sucralose that had been developed in China.  In July 2010,
Gov. Jay Nixon and Mamtek CEO Bruce Cole announced the factory
would provide up to 600 jobs.

Along with the bonds, Missouri promised up to $17.6 million in tax
credits and other incentives.  Construction halted in August 2011
after Mamtek defaulted on the bond payments and private
investments promised by Mr. Cole and other Mamtek insiders never
materialized.  The settlement filed on March 11 will compensate
investors who purchased the bonds before Mamtek defaulted on the
August 2011 payment.

Mr. Cole, who used money from the bond issue to prevent
foreclosure on his $6 million Beverly Hills home, is currently
serving a seven-year prison term at the Tipton Correctional Center
after pleading guilty to theft and securities fraud.

In the papers filed on March 11, Morgan Keegan and Armstrong
Teasdale denied the settlement was an admission of wrongdoing.

"Defendants deny that they have engaged in any unlawful activity,
have failed to comply with the law in any respect or have any
liability to anyone under the claims asserted in the litigation,"
according to the filings. "The parties expressly acknowledge that
this settlement is entered into solely for the purpose of
compromising highly disputed claims and that nothing herein is an
admission of liability or wrongdoing by defendants."

The plaintiffs benefit by certainty they will recover most of
their money this year, according to the filings.

Chuck Hatfield of the Stinson Leonard Street law firm declined to
comment on the settlement. Hatfield represents Morgan Keegan in
the federal case and in six lawsuits pending in state courts.


NESTLE PURINA: 7th Circuit Addresses Settlement Injunction Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
JDSura, reports that defendants who are defending multiple class
actions involving the same issue in different jurisdictions can
sometimes be faced with a quandary when they want to settle.  They
might reach a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel in one
of the cases, but until that settlement is final, which typically
takes months, they may have to continue litigating the other
cases.  And, in the meantime, cross their fingers that the other
cases do not undermine the settlement.  One option some federal
courts have used to prevent other litigation from derailing a
settlement is to issue an injunction, after preliminary approval,
that bars the class members from prosecuting other litigation in
state court on the same issue.  The Seventh Circuit, however, held
that such an injunction violated the Anti-Injunction Act, in
Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 14-3436, 2015 U.S. App.
LEXIS 3270 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015).

The Anti-Injunction Act bars a federal court from enjoining state
court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to
protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283.  Where
a class action settlement reaches a final judgment, an injunction
may well be appropriate, as the Seventh Circuit explained.  But
here, where the settlement process would take months to complete,
and the state court class action was heading towards trial, the
parties relied on the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction"
exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.  In finding this exception
inapplicable, Judge Easterbrook wrote that the word "jurisdiction"
meant "adjudicatory competence," or, in other words, that a court
"has been designated by statute as an appropriate forum for a
dispute of a given sort . . . . ." Id. at *6.  The opinion further
explained that "[p]arallel state and federal litigation is common"
and "[t]he first to reach final decision can affect the other,"
but "the potential effect of one suit on the other does not
justify an injunction." Id. at *7.  The Seventh Circuit also cited
the word "necessary" in the statute and dictum in Smith v. Bayer
Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011) to the effect that when in doubt
injunctions should not be issued. Id. at *10-11.  It noted that
other courts had reached contrary results but did not discuss
those opinions.

Adkins may be taking an unduly narrow view of the terms
"jurisdiction" and "necessary."  The word "jurisdiction" has
different meanings in different contexts.  If "jurisdiction" means
only that the federal court has statutory authority to hear a
case, which Adkins seems to suggest, it is difficult to conceive
of circumstances in which state courts could interfere with that.
Either the federal court has jurisdiction or it does not, and that
is a federal question that the state court has nothing to do with.
But the "necessary in aid of jurisdiction" exception cannot be a
dead letter.  Congress likely intended to allow federal courts to
enjoin state courts to prevent them from interfering with federal
courts' authority (not merely statutory jurisdiction) in some
respects.  Adkins seems to acknowledge that, at least if there
were inconsistent orders by the federal and state systems, the
"necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception might apply (and
it has been found applicable in "in rem" cases).

Other than arguing that Adkins was wrongly decided (if you are in
another circuit, or in the Supreme Court), what can a defendant do
in this scenario? Asking the state court for a stay would be an
option (and perhaps trying to appeal the ruling on that issue, if
possible).  But where there is a "race to res judicata" that might
fail.  Another option would be to try to speed up the federal
settlement -- speed up the issuance of the notice, shorten the
opt-out period, and hold the fairness hearing as soon as possible.
Not easy, but it might work.  There is no real reason why class
members need a long period after getting a class action notice in
the mail (or by e-mail) to send back a form.  Perhaps a federal
court could even issue a judgment that would be effective as a
final judgment (and thereby permit an injunction against other
proceedings), but be subject to reopening if the settlement
process failed? It may take some creativity to work around this
decision and achieve the objective of a final resolution sooner
with lower litigation costs.


NEW YORK: In Settlement Negotiations Over "Nunez" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Capital New York, reports that on
March 12, Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled a 14-point plan to improve
conditions at the Rikers Island jail complex, which focused on
reducing violence among prisoners while increasing overall
security.  "The policies that we announce will have a profound
impact on reducing the amount of violence that has been
experienced here over many years," Mr. de Blasio told reporters at
a press conference at the jail.

The announcement came on the eve of a court deadline for the
administration, which is currently engaged in settlement
negotiations over the class-action Nunez suit, which was filed on
behalf of former Rikers prisoners by the Legal Aid Society, Ropes
& Gray and was joined by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's office in
late December.  According to court documents, the administration
has been working on coming to a final settlement with the parties
since at least February 5, and faced a deadline of March 13 for
attempting to reach an agreement on "all remaining operational
topics."  A status report was due to Magistrate Judge James
Francis on March 16.  An April 15 deadline was set for any
"remaining settlement language."

Mr. De Blasio's plan mostly avoids the issues that appear to be
involved in the Nunez negotiations. According to a Christmas Eve
letter from the plaintiffs to the court, nearly a month before
joining the suit, Mr. Bharara's office provided the city with
proposed settlement language on a number of topics: "(1) the Use
of Force Policy, (2) Use of Force Investigations, (3) the Safety
and Supervision of Inmates Under the Age of 19, and (4) Discipline
for Inmates Under the Age of 19."  This was to be added to areas
already presented by the plaintiffs: "(5) Inmate Arrests, (6)
Screening and Assignment of Staff, (7) Video Camera Surveillance,
(8) Accountability and Discipline, (9) Use of Force Incident
Reporting, and (10) Risk Management."

The administration has previously rolled out reforms that were
connected to some of what Mr. Bharara had called for, such as
changes to the facility's youth-detention policy.

Still, to the surprise of some close observers of the case, de
Mr. Blasio's announcement on March 12 addressed only one of these
areas, promising to "add full video and camera coverage within all
facilities on Rikers Island by February 2018," according to a
press release from the administration.  But even that echoed an
earlier pledge: the administration announced in November it was
"installing security cameras in every D.O.C. facility on Rikers
Island within the next 18 months"--or by mid-2016.

For Mr. de Blasio, who has made a priority of reforming Rikers,
the plan serves to show he's taking his own proactive steps,
before a big announcement that's sure to split the credit with
Mr. Bharara.


NOMAX INC: Removes St. Louis Suit to Eastern District of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Nomax, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC00433, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the County of St. Louis to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00517-RLW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

Defendant Nomax, Inc. is represented by:

          Tina N. Babel, Esq.
          Laura Bailey Brown, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854-8663
          Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
          E-mail: tnb@carmodymacdonald.com
                  lbb@carmodymacdonald.com


NUCO2 LLC: Removes "Balmaseda" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Balmaseda v. NUCO2 LLC was removed
from a Florida state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21199-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          Patrick Gerald DeBlasio, III, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: Nstorch@littler.com
                  pdeblasio@littler.com


ORYX OILFIELD: "Robinson" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robinson, et al. v. Oryx
Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00039, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Corpus Christi) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Fort Worth).  The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00230-O to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
          RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
          814 Leopard Street
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 880-8181
          Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
          E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Russell Daniel Cawyer, Esq.
          Ezra Rodgers Kuenzi, Esq.
          KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
          201 Main Street, Suite 2500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 878-2500
          Facsimile: (817) 878-9280
          E-mail: russell.cawyer@khh.com
                  ezra.kuenzi@kellyhart.com


PAYTIME INC: Judge Dismisses Two Data Breach Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that saying no legally
compensable injuries have yet occurred, a federal judge on
March 13 dismissed two would-be class-action lawsuits filed over
last year's massive data breach at the Paytime Inc. national
payroll firm.

The clients who sued the Cumberland County-based Paytime had
sought financial damages for what they claimed was the threat they
face of identity theft due to the April 2014 breach by unknown
hackers.

They contended that about 233,000 Paytime clients were put at risk
nationwide.  Also, the clients claimed in their suits that
Paytime, which offered free credit monitoring and identity
restoration services to those affected, had delayed informing them
about the breach.

In dismissing the suits, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones
III noted that none of those who sued Paytime have proven they
have yet been victimized by identity thieves because of the
hacking.

And that, he said, is the critical point.

The courts have to address cases of actual injuries, not injuries
that are merely speculative, the judge concluded.

"For a court to require companies to pay damages to thousands of
customers, when there is yet to be a single case of identity theft
proven, strikes us as overzealous and unduly burdensome to
businesses," Judge Jones wrote in his dismissal ruling.

"There is simply no compensable injury yet (from the Paytime hack)
and the courts cannot be in the business of prognosticating
whether a particular hacker was sophisticated or malicious enough
to be able to successfully read and manipulate the data and engage
in identity theft," he added.

Still, Judge Jones continued, "Once a hacker does misuse a
person's information for personal gain . . . there is a clear
injury and one that can be fully compensated with money damages."
If that happens, he wrote, any affected Paytime client "would be
free to return to court and would have (legal) standing to recover
his or her losses."

It was obvious from his opinion that Judge Jones doesn't expect
the Paytime case to be the last such dispute he'll have to
address.

At the outset of his ruling, he cited a 2014 data security report
by the Ponemon Institute which found that 43 percent of companies
had experienced data breaches in the past year.  "When our fellow
citizens hear statistics such as these, they are understandably
worried about the privacy of their most personal information,"
Jones wrote.


PEACE WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shandra Kelly v. Peace Wellness Center, P.L.L.C., an Arizona
Professional Limited Liability Company; Timothy S. Peace and Jane
Doe Peace, husband and wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-00534-ROS (D. Ariz.,
March 24, 2015) is brought for alleged unlawful failure to pay
overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Peace Wellness Center P.L.L.C. was incorporated in the state of
Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Phoenix.  The
Individual Defendants are owners or agents of the Company.  The
Defendants operated a wellness center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


ROYAL PALM: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Fair Housing Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Freedman v. Royal Palm Place Investments, LLC, Case No. 9:15-
cv-80387-KAM (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2015) is brought for injunctive
relief pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

Ms. Freedman suffers from osteoporosis and back pain from
spondylolisthesis, which constitutes a "qualified disability"
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  She was, at all
material times, a joint lessee of real property located in Boca
Raton, Florida.  She leases an apartment unit within an apartment
complex called "Royal Palm Place."

Royal Palm Place Investments LLC is a Florida limited liability
company headquartered in Boca Raton.  The Company owns the land
and complex of buildings known as "Royal Palm Place," encompasses
14 acres of mixed use residential space and commercial space.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431-1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Settled Claim Related to Sept 2011 Power Outage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that SDG&E settled a
claim related to the September 2011 Power Outage and the related
appeal and lawsuit have been dismissed.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E
customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court
in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West
Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed
to prevent the outage. The lawsuit sought recovery of unspecified
amounts of damages, including punitive damages.

In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the
punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service
Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit.

In September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action. In
January 2015, SDG&E settled this claim for an insignificant amount
and the appeal and lawsuit have been dismissed.

The FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) Staff conducted a joint inquiry to determine the cause of
the power failure and issued a report in May 2012 regarding their
findings. In January 2014, FERC Enforcement Staff issued a Staff
Notice of Alleged Violations, in which FERC Enforcement Staff
alleged violations of various Reliability Standards by several
entities. FERC Enforcement Staff did not allege or find any
violations by SDG&E.


ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Judge OKs $18MM Red-Light Camera Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Currier, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a
judge approved on March 13 an $18 million settlement in class-
action lawsuits that challenged Missouri's red-light camera laws,
but only about $2.2 million is expected to be paid out.

Circuit Judge Tom W. DePriest Jr. certified a settlement reached
in September that releases claims against 27 Missouri cities that
have contracted with Tempe, Ariz.-based American Traffic Solutions
Inc., which makes and installs the cameras.

At issue was issuance of tickets to vehicle owners instead of
drivers, in what the nine suits claimed was a violation of
Missouri law governing tickets for moving violations.  They said
it deprived them of due process of law. The cases were
consolidated for the settlement.

It was unclear on March 13 what effect the settlement would have
on continuing red-light camera enforcement.

The settlement is a significant step in an ongoing legal showdown
between cities, which argue that cameras improve safety, and
drivers, who see them as Orwellian devices designed primarily to
make money.

The class-action suits filed in St. Louis County court represent
892,725 class "members" who have received tickets going back to
2005.  ATS and cities using the cameras have defended the devices
as legal and effective for improving road safety.  Plaintiffs
could split as much as $16 million; lawyers will get about $2
million in fees.  Tickets from red-light camera violations
typically cost $100; people who paid them should be eligible for a
partial refund of about $20 per ticket, the lawsuit says.  As of
March 1, only 112,123 valid claims were filed, which means the
total payout to those who got tickets will be about $2.2 million.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached on March 13.  ATS
responded to an inquiry with an email that said, in part, "Under
Missouri law, a Judgment becomes final 30 days after it is
entered.  Therefore, we expect settlement checks to be mailed
approximately within weeks to class members who filed timely valid
claims.

Missouri cities included in the settlement are: Arnold, Bellerive
Acres, Bel-Nor, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bridgeton, Calverton
Park, Clayton, Country Club Hills, Creve Coeur, Dellwood,
Ellisville, Excelsior Springs, Ferguson, Florissant, Grandview,
Hazelwood, Kansas City, Moline Acres, Northwoods, Richmond
Heights, St. Ann, St. John, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Sugar Creek and
Washington.

ATS is settling the claims on behalf of the cities.  By reaching
the settlement, defendants do not admit to allegations made in the
lawsuits.

The settlement excludes plaintiffs in a separate suit pending
before the Missouri Supreme Court that focuses on red-light camera
programs in St. Louis, St. Peters and a speed-camera case from
Moline Acres.  Those cities also have argued that their cameras
are legal and an important safety tool.

Last year, a St. Louis judge invalidated St. Louis city's red-
light ordinance but later suspended his order to allow for an
appeal.  The city is still issuing tickets but putting fines it
collects into an escrow account pending the outcome of the Supreme
Court case.

In December, Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Union, filed a bill aimed at
giving Missourians a chance to eliminate red-light cameras
statewide.  If it passes, a referendum would be put to the voters
in August 2016.

In February, St. Peters terminated its contract with Redflex
Traffic Systems, another red-light camera firm.  The city turned
off its cameras last fall and said they would be dismantled this
summer.


STAFF ASSISTANCE: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files OT Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik on March 13 disclosed that on
December 29, 2014 the Los Angeles employment law lawyers at the
firm filed a proposed class action Complaint against Staff
Assistance, Inc. ("SAI") for allegedly failing to provide their
employees with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted
meal periods.  The lawsuit also claims that the Company failed to
give their employees complete and accurate wage statements in
order to avoid paying all overtime worked by their California
employees.  The SAI lawsuit, Case No. BC567943 is currently
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Staff Assistance, Inc. claims that SAI's
uniform policy and practice to not pay their employees the correct
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked is evidenced by SAI's
business records.  Under the California Labor Code, an employee
who is classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis
must be paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of eight
hours in a workday and time worked over forty hours in a workweek.
Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that SAI failed to maintain and
provide their employees with accurate wage statements evidencing
the correct overtime wages for all overtime worked, including,
work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or
forty (40) hours in any workweek.

The Complaint also alleges that the employees working at Staff
Assistance, Inc. were unable to take off duty meal breaks and were
not fully relieved of duty for meal periods because the Company
did not have a policy or practice that provided meal and rest
breaks to their employees.  California law requires employers to
provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with
thirty minute meal periods before the employee works five hours.
The penalty for failing to provide adequate meal breaks is one
hour of pay under the California Labor Code.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that SAI failed to reimburse and
indemnify their employees for required business expenses incurred
as a direct result of discharging their duties on behalf of SAI.
The Complaint claims that in the course of their employment, SAI
required their employees to travel between job sites but failed to
reimburse their employees for the cost associated with traveling
to the job sites assigned to them, including money for gas.  Under
California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to
indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and
scope of their employment.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Staff Assistance, Inc., please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to one
of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a labor law firm that has
offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.  The firm
dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


STAR CAREER: Accused of Discriminating Against Muslim Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omnia Lotfi v. Star Career Academy, Michelle Mumma in her
individual capacity, Derrick Ruffin in his individual capacity,
Adrianna Tortorello in her individual capacity and Michael Levitt
in his individual capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-02215-NRB (S.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2015) is brought for damages (compensatory and punitive)
for alleged injuries the Plaintiff has sustained as a result of
the Defendants' discrimination on the basis of her gender,
national origin, race and religion, sexual harassment and a
hostile work environment, in violation of the New York State Human
Rights Law and other statutes.

Ms. Lotfi is a resident of the County of Brooklyn, New York.  She
is a Middle Eastern female, of Egyptian origin and a practicing
Muslim.

Star Career Academy is a for-profit network of private, post-
secondary schools, providing career training in medical,
hospitality, culinary, and business fields at eight campuses in
New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  Star's main office and
headquarters is located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, employees or agents of Star.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine Alexandria Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINA A. RODRIGUEZ
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 430-6525
          Facsimile: (888) 349-2932
          E-mail: christine@crodriguezlaw.com


SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Must Define Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a Nevada state
judge has said he will consider certifying a class action accusing
a Las Vegas hospital of maintaining lax safety standards that
exposed patients to tuberculosis infections.

Judge Kenneth Cory of the Eighth Judicial District Court on
March 11 ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs -- a group of
patients, visitors and employees at Summerlin Hospital Medical
Center who say they may have been exposed to the disease -- to
come up with a firm definition for a proposed class by April 9,
according to attorneys in the case.


SYNGENTA: Enyart Looks to Represent Farmers in GMO Corn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bustos, writing for BND.com, reports that Bill Enyart has
scheduled an information session for farmers to learn more about
lawsuits against Syngenta.  It was scheduled at 8:00 a.m. on
March 16 at Eckert's at 951 S. Green Mount Road in Belleville.

Former U.S. Rep. Bill Enyart of Belleville is looking to represent
farmers in lawsuits against Syngenta, a Swiss producer of seed
corn.

Mr. Enyart, who is a practicing attorney, is working with Texas-
based attorney Mikal Watts to represent farmers across the country
in lawsuits against Syngenta after it attempted to sell
genetically modified corn to China in 2013.

China had not approved Syngenta's GMO corn and rejected it.  The
country proceeded to reject all other corn from the United States
because of the tainted supply chain, Enyart said.  It led to a
drop in corn prices after the U.S. market had an excess corn
supply, Mr. Enyart said.

"In 2013, corn prices plummeted thanks to the underhanded
practices of Syngenta," Mr. Enyart said.  "We're working to get
our farmers the money they deserve for their hard work and their
quality crops."

The former congressman is looking to represent anyone who grew
corn and lost money because of the Syngenta move.  He said soybean
growers also may have been negatively affected by Syngenta's
actions.

Mr. Enyart will be holding informational sessions in Southern and
Central Illinois for farmers who might wish to join the class-
action lawsuit.  One session was scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on
March 16 at Eckert's, 951 S. Green Mount Road, Belleville.

"We want to make sure farmers understand the theory of why they're
damaged, how they were damaged, and what their recourse is,"
Mr. Enyart said.

Mr. Enyart said the litigation could affect tens of thousands of
farmers.

"Losses in the agricultural sector of the economy mean farmers
didn't have money to buy the new tractor, or the new plow, or the
new pickup truck," Mr. Enyart said.  "Clearly the agricultural
sector was affected by it."

Mr. Enyart, a Democrat, served one term in the U.S. House of
Representatives.  He lost re-election in November to Republican
Mike Bostof Murphysboro.  Mr. Enyart now has a law office in
Belleville and was recruited by Watts to find clients in Illinois.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail Passes U.S. Crash Tests
-----------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an
allegedly defective guardrail widely used across Canada and the
U.S. has passed a series of crash tests, U.S. authorities said on
March 13, but the findings are unlikely to end concerns about
their safety.

Questions about Trinity's ET Plus unit continued to swirl as
highway officials conceded results of one of the tests involving a
small passenger car could be interpreted differently.

"Based on our analysis of the crash test results and the analysis
we conducted into the level of risk of serious injuries, we
concluded . . . the ET Plus end terminal meets the applicable
crash test criteria," Tony Furst, associate administrator for
safety for the Federal Highway Administration, told a news
teleconference.

"There was no penetration of the vehicle by any test article in
any of the four tests."

U.S. highway authorities ordered the crash tests on the ET Plus --
subject of a recent $500-million proposed Canadian class action --
after an American jury found Texas-based Trinity Industries guilty
last year of fraud in a civil action.

Trinity had modified the guardrail unit about 10 years ago without
notifying appropriate authorities and critics say the ET Plus end
unit can end up impaling occupants of a vehicle like a "spear"
rather than protecting them.

Most states and several provinces, including Quebec, Nova Scotia,
Alberta and New Brunswick, have stopped installing them pending
the testing and analysis but thousands remain in place on the
country's highways.

Greg Nadeau, deputy administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration, said the agency was making no recommendations on
whether installation of the units should resume, saying that
decision is up to local authorities.

In the last of the eight crash tests done in Texas, a small
passenger car slammed into the rail at about 100 kilometres an
hour.

Mr. Furst said it was "unlikely" a driver exposed to the crash
conditions would have been at risk of serious injury from the
folded rail impact to the driver side door.

"We are mindful that others have reached their own conclusions,"
Mr. Furst said.

Lawyer Matt Baer, who launched the proposed class action on behalf
of Stratford, Ont., said the administration considered the test a
pass because the guardrail did not penetrate the door.

Still, he said, the test casts doubt on the safety of the rails.
"The guardrail did lock up in the feeder chute and at the head
which is a classic failure in real-world accidents," Mr. Baer
said.

"It is worrisome both that they were so close to failure in a test
designed to pass under perfect conditions."

Zyg Gorski, an accident-reconstruction expert based in London,
Ont., said the problem with the U.S. tests is that they occur
under controlled conditions that don't necessarily replicate
reality.

One example, he said, is that gravel thrown into the rail channels
from snowplows could cause them to jam in a crash.

"No one is taking real-life collisions and examining what is
happening" Mr. Gorski said.  "That's frightening."
A spokesman for Trinity said the ET Plus has now been
"successfully crash tested more times than any product of its
kind."


UBS AG: Settles Forex Rigging Class Action for $135 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that UBS AG on
March 13 agreed to a $135 million settlement in an antitrust class
action alleging that it was part of a conspiracy to rig the
approximately $5 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market,
attorneys for the plaintiffs announced.

Along with paying $135 million, the Swiss banking giant also
agreed to provide documents and other assistance to plaintiffs as
they pursue claims against other banks.  That clause in the
settlement mirrors terms that JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to in a
January settlement that saw it pay $99.5 million to exit the case.

"The class will not only obtain a substantial sum for their
losses, but it will also receive unique and valuable cooperation
from UBS, as it has from JPMorgan," David Scott, the managing
partner of Scott & Scott LLP, said in an emailed statement.

Scott & Scott attorneys are co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs on
the case, along with lawyers from Hausfeld LLP.

UBS is the second of the banks targeted in the class action, which
also includes Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. and several other global banking giants, to settle the
litigation.  The suit alleges their traders engaged in a
conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates in violation of
U.S. antitrust law.

The UBS settlement shows that pressure to settle the litigation is
beginning to build on the banks.

"This also builds momentum toward further settlements while
improving our litigation posture vis a vis the remaining
defendants," Mr. Scott said.

The pressure to settle first arose after Judge Lorna G. Schofield
denied their motion to dismiss a complaint from U.S.-based
investors alleging market manipulation in early January.

The judge rejected the banks' claims that the U.S. plaintiffs
failed to bring enough evidence of a potential conspiracy, finding
that the facts laid out in the complaint, including the existence
of chat rooms where traders "congratulated each other on the
manipulation of 'the Fix,'" were enough that discovery and trial
were needed to determine their veracity.  "The Fix" is an industry
term for the median price of a widely traded currency 30 seconds
before market close that sets the closing price for the day.

"Even the names the FX traders gave their chat rooms -- such as
'The Cartel,' 'The Bandits' Club' and 'The Mafia' -- support the
inference that the chat rooms were used for anti-competitive
purposes," Judge Schofield wrote.

The plaintiffs, including the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, filed their complaint in 2012.  They
alleged the banks routinely charged pension funds the worst
possible forex rates when processing transactions on their behalf.

Other plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints.  They were
eventually consolidated in New York district court.

Buttressing the plaintiffs' claims were a series of enforcement
actions from U.S. and other regulators resulting in about $4.3
billion in fines against the banks.

Discovery in the class action has been stayed for six months as
the U.S. Department of Justice continues its investigation into
forex rigging.

UBS is represented by Joel S. Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com
-- Joshua H. Soven and Melanie L. Katsur -- mkatsur@gibsondunn.com
-- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by David R. Scott, Chris M. Burke,
Kristen Anderson, Sylvia M. Sokol, Walter Noss, William
Fredericks, Thomas Boardman of Scott & Scott LLP and Michael D.
Hausfeld, William Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com --
Reena Gambhir, Timothy Kearns, and Nathaniel Giddings --
ngiddings@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld LLP.

The case is In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-07789, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Kura, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01554 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


VIVENDI CANADA: Health Insurance Class Action Ruling Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Torrance, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the
right of former employees to pursue a class action against their
former employer after the employer unilaterally amended their
post-retirement health insurance benefits to their detriment in
Vivendi Canada Inc. v Dell'Aniello, 2014 SCC 1.  The Quebec
Superior Court had originally disallowed the action on the basis
that it did not raise "identical, similar or related" questions
within the meaning of Article 1003(a) of the Quebec Code of Civil
Procedure.  It found 5 different groups of employees who, based on
their retirement date, had received different information and
might have different rights from those of the petitioning
employee.  It felt that a determination of that employee's rights
would not have resolved the dispute for the majority of the
remaining employees.  That assessment was rejected by the Quebec
Court of Appeal.  In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the
validity of the plan amendments was an 'identical, similar or
related' question for all group members.  The individual questions
to be determined for each employee could co-exist with the
determination of that common issue.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of
Appeal.  It held that an issue could be "identical, similar or
related" if addressing that issue enabled all the claims to move
forward and avoided duplication of the analysis for each group
member.  It could meet that criterion even if the issue was
answered differently for one group member than for another, as
long as the answer did not give rise to conflicting interests
among the members.  The Court also noted that the Article 1003(a)
requirement was broader and more flexible than the 'common issue'
requirement for a class action in the common law provinces,
suggesting that its decision may have limited application outside
Quebec.


VXI GLOBAL: Accused by Gay Worker of Severe, Pervasive Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Patton v. VXI Global Solutions Inc., Staff Right Services,
LLC, Talia Lawson, Kenny -- Last Name Unknown -- John Doe, Pam
Hall, Jeryan -- Last Name Unknown -- Jane Doe, and Shavvar Brown,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00566 (N.D. Ohio, March 24, 2015) alleges that
throughout the Plaintiff's employment, he faced severe and
pervasive harassment from his direct supervisor, Talia Lawson, on
the basis of his non-conforming gender behavior.

Mr. Patton is a homosexual male.  According to the complaint, he
at times engages in non-conforming gender behavior.

VXI Global Solutions, Inc. is a California corporation lawfully
licensed to conduct business in the state of Ohio.  Staff Right
Services, Inc. is an Ohio Corporation with offices located in
Columbiana, Ohio, Boardman, Ohio, and Warren, Ohio.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, employees or agents of either
of the Corporate Defendants.  Staff Right is in the business of
employment recruiting and staffing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Bid to Nix Class Suit Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing
on the motions to dismiss a shareholder class action was completed
on February 19, 2015.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint alleges
that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the
individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions
relating to the Company's internal controls and financial
reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with
applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree
Servicing (including certain of the Company's business practices
that are being reviewed by the FTC and the CFPB), the liabilities
associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's
internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and
February 26, 2014.

On August 11, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which includes some additional allegations, but asserts the same
claims against the same defendants as the amended complaint. In
the second amended complaint, plaintiffs seek an expanded class
period of May 9, 2012 through August 11, 2014. On January 23,
2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on
February 19, 2015.


WASHINGTON: Holding Mentally Ill People in Jail Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has deemed
unconstitutional Washington's practice of holding mentally ill
people in jails while they await competency evaluations and
treatment and during a trial that was set to start on March 16,
lawyers for mentally ill defendants and the state will try to find
a remedy.

The trial in U.S. District Court in Seattle comes as the
Legislature debates bills that seek to fix the problem ahead of a
court ruling.  But one lobbyist for a state defender's group said
the judge is unlikely to approve either of the measures lawmakers
are considering to shorten wait times and provide treatment.

In a criminal case, if there's a question on whether a defendant
is mentally able to participate in his defense, the judge will
order a competency evaluation.  Under state law, the Department of
Social and Health Services then has seven days to conduct that
review, usually at Western or Eastern state hospitals.  If the
person is found incompetent, the state has another seven days to
provide treatment to restore competency.

But bed and staffing shortages at the psychiatric hospitals have
resulted in hundreds of mentally ill defendants waiting weeks or
months in jail cells.  These defendants who often spend 23-hours a
day in solitary confinement don't receive treatment while on the
competency wait lists.

Some judges who were angry that Washington was not following their
orders in a timely fashion started holding the state in contempt
and ordered sanctions ranging from $200 to $500 per day for each
day the person waited in jail.  The fines have topped $200,000.

As of March 6, 10 people were awaiting competency evaluations at
Western State Hospital, and seven had waited longer than seven
days, according to Kathy Spears, spokeswoman for the state's
behavioral health and service agency. Another 83 people were
awaiting restoration treatment and 72 had spent more than seven
days in jail, Ms. Spears said.

The numbers were lower for Eastern State Hospital.  Six were
waiting more than seven days in jail for evaluations and another
six spent more than seven days waiting for treatment, Ms. Spears
said.

Lawyers for Disability Rights Washington and the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit last year asking a
federal judge to force the agency to deal with the problem.

In December, Judge Marsha Pechman granted the lawyers' motion for
summary judgment, saying the practice violates the defendants' due
process rights.

"The state has consistently and over a long period of time
violated the constitutional rights of the mentally ill -- this
must stop," she said in her order.

Judge Pechman acknowledged that lawmakers are addressing the issue
during the 2015 session.

"Legislation passed by both houses of the Legislature can be
brought forward by either party during trial for determination of
its relevance," she said in a March 9 order.

To date, the bills cover two areas -- the amount of time a
defendant can be on the wait list and where evaluations and
treatment can be conducted. But Bob Cooper, a lobbyist for the
Washington Defenders Association, said he doubts the judge will go
along with those plans based on comments she has made in previous
orders.

The Legislature passed, and on March 12, Gov. Jay Inslee signed
House Bill 5889, a measure that sets a new time limit for the
state to provide evaluations or restoration treatment. The bill
changed the seven day deadline to 14 days.

"I would be surprised if she finds 14 days acceptable," Cooper
said of the judge.

In her Dec. 22 order granting summary judgment, Judge Pechman
said: "It is clear to the court that wait times of less than seven
days comport with due process, and that anything beyond seven days
is suspect.  The precise outer boundary permitted by the
constitution depends on facts proven at trial . . . some detainees
are held in solitary confinement -- isolated for 22 to 23 hours
per day -- because city and county jails are ill equipped to
handle the challenges posed by mentally ill detainees,"
Judge Pechman said.  "For many, solitary confinement exacerbates
mental illness and increases the chance of suicide."

Several other bills encourage the state to develop alternative
sites for competency restoration.  The bills would allow treatment
to be conducted in jails.  However, they say the jails should keep
those defendants separated from other inmates.

Cooper said he doubts Judge Pechman would approve that idea.

"If you look at her decision, three times the judge states that
jails are not therapeutic environments," Cooper said.


WATTS REGULATOR: "Meyers" Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Meyers v. Watts Regulator
Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02729, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
11180-ADB to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

The lawsuit arises out of alleged damages sustained by the
Plaintiff and the proposed class that were proximately caused by
Watts' defective supply lines, which were used in Class members'
homes and other structures.

Watts manufactures and markets a line of flexible braided
stainless steel water supply lines.  Each line consists of two
metal (e.g., brass or other metallic material) coupling nuts, a
braided stainless steel outer sheathing covering a thermoplastic
rubber inner tubing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  gabramson@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Defendant Watts Regulator Company is represented by:

          Harold T. Schisler, II, Esq.
          Brian S. Sullivan, Esq.
          DINSMORE AND SHOHL LLP
          1900 Chemed Center
          255 E 5th Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8200
          E-mail: toby.schisler@dinsmore.com
                  brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Vladimir P. Belo, Esq.
          DINSMORE AND SHOHL LLP
          191 W Nationwide Blvd., Suite 300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 628-6935
          Facsimile: (614) 628-6890
          E-mail: vladimir.belo@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Jodi Dylan Oley, Esq.
          Keith E. Smith, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          Two Liberty Place, 22nd Floor
          50 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 851-8400
          E-mail: joley@eckertseamans.com
                  ksmith@eckertseamans.com


WINGS NETWORK'S: Faces Class Action over Pyramid Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Connell, writing for The MetroWest Daily News, reports
that a Clinton woman accused by the government of raising $6
million for an accused pyramid scheme is also the lead plaintiff
in a class action suit against the company, court records show.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which filed a complaint
against Wings Network's operators and promoters in U.S. District
Court in February, listed Viviane Amaral Rodrigues among the 17
defendants, many of whom live in the Marlborough area.  Federal
investigators allege Ms. Rodrigues, 37, was a top promoter for the
company, generating commissions approaching $434,150.

But Ms. Rodrigues's lawyer, Evans J. Carter, said his client
actually only made around $20,000, and was not even able to access
that money.

"It was all pie in the sky, or as we say, illusory dollars," he
said.

In addition to defending Ms. Rodrigues in the SEC case, the
Framingham lawyer is also representing her in her class action
suit against Wings.  Authorities claim the company, which began
business in Massachusetts around November of 2013, was able to
raise at least $23.5 million from thousands of investors in the
state, especially Brazilian and Dominican immigrants, until
Secretary of State William Galvin's office ordered it to shut down
last May.

"Basically, she didn't know the first thing about securities
laws," Mr. Carter said of Ms. Rodrigues, whom the SEC claims
appeared in promotional videos, attended online conferences, and
traveled to out-of-state marketing events on behalf of Wings.

Ms. Rodrigues's class action suit says promoters for the company
-- in particular two Marlborough couples, Vinicius and Thais
Aguiar and Geovani and Priscila Bento -- started a strong
recruiting effort from the Boston area outward in early 2014.  The
Aguiars and Bentos, who are also named in the SEC's complaint,
"went door-to-door in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking communities
in the Boston and MetroWest area to induce Massachusetts residents
to join," and would also hold informal group presentations at
people's houses, the lawsuit claims.

Wings purported to sell products like phone apps and cloud
storage, but government investigators allege the company's revenue
mostly came from the sale of membership packages, which depended
on the continuous recruitment of new investors.  In particular,
Ms. Rodrigues's lawsuit claims the defendants in her case
"aggressively pushed the purchase of the Elite package," the most
expensive membership Wings offered, at $1,499.

Ms. Rodrigues ended up investing $20,000 of her own money into the
alleged scheme, her complaint says, and took in approximately
$175,000 from other investors.

Ms. Carter originally filed her class action case in Middlesex
Superior Court on Jan. 21, according to court records.  It was
bumped up to federal court, primarily because the complaint names
a couple multinational banks as defendants, he said, and because
racketeering charges are involved.

With the case now in federal court, Ms. Carter said he could soon
add a couple other clients as plaintiffs to the complaint.


WOLFER LANDSCAPE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Arango v. Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Sean A. Wolfer, Case No. 0:15-cv-60620-WJZ (S.D.
Fla., March 25, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff and those
similarly-situated to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime wages compensation, as well as an amount for liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation
having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida, and
the Individual Defendant were the Plaintiff's employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Brian Roller, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ ROLLER, LLP.
          3876 Sheridan Street
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 966-2483
          Facsimile: (954) 966-2566
          E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: "Singleton" Suit Transferred From Pa. to Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Singleton, et al. v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00223, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).  The Connecticut District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00425-VLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert personal injury-related claims.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Curtis B. Krasik, Esq.
          Jerry S. McDevitt, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          K&L Gates Center
          210 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
          Telephone: (412) 355-8696
          Facsimile: (412) 355-6501
          E-mail: curtis.krasik@klgates.com
                  jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Injury Lawsuits on PROFEMUR(R)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 15,
2015, the Company is a defendant in 34 lawsuits in various state
and federal courts involving claims for damages for personal
injury associated with fractures of the Company's PROFEMUR(R) long
titanium modular neck product.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Complaints Over Tornier Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 25,
2014, two purported Wright shareholders, Anthony Marks (as Trustee
for Marks Clan Super) and Paul Parshall, filed class action
complaints challenging the proposed merger with Tornier N.V. in
the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth
Judicial District, at Memphis and the Court of Chancery of the
state of Delaware, respectively. On November 26, 2014, a third
purported Wright shareholder, City of Warwick Retirement System,
filed a class action complaint challenging the merger in the
Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District,
at Memphis. On December 2, 2014, a fourth purported Wright
shareholder, Paulette Jacques, filed a class action complaint
challenging the merger in the Chancery Court of Shelby County
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis.

The four complaints name as defendants, among others, Wright,
Tornier, and the members of the board of directors of Wright. The
complaints seek, among other relief, an order enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on
the grounds that the Wright board or directors breached their
fiduciary duty in connection with entering into the merger
agreement and approving the merger. The complaints further allege
that Wright, Tornier, and certain of their respective subsidiaries
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Wright board of directors. It is possible that these complaints
will be amended to make additional claims and/or that additional
lawsuits making similar or additional claims relating to the
merger will be brought.


WRIGHT NATIONAL: Sued Over Hurricane Sandy Insurance Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Dunn, writing for International Business Times, reports
that  New York and New Jersey homeowners whose properties flooded
during Hurricane Sandy filed a series of class action lawsuits on
March 13, leveling a new set of fraud allegations -- this time,
involving manipulated software programs -- against insurers and
the federal government.

The four complaints all claim that insurers systematically
underpaid claims by purposefully excluding sales tax from damage
calculations.  Homeowners filed three lawsuits in federal court in
the Eastern District of New York, and one suit in federal court in
New Jersey.

In New Jersey, where the state charges a 7 percent sales tax, that
means "for every $100,000 worth of storm damages, homeowners were
shortchanged $7,000," says attorney Charles Mathis IV, with Merlin
Law Group.

"This was potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that was
underpaid to Sandy victims," says Louisiana-based attorney
John Houghtaling, who represents homeowners in the three New York
suits.

The suits, with their focus on common insurance estimates, broaden
accusations of fraud beyond the allegations of altered engineering
reports that have roiled FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).  The agency, succumbing to pressures from lawmakers and
homeowners' attorneys, agreed on March 11 to reopen all 144,000
Hurricane Sandy flood insurance claims to a new review process.

Engineering reports were written up for 14 percent of Sandy flood
insurance claimants, according to Mr. Mathis.  Yet, by comparison,
virtually everyone received estimates from adjusters who evaluate
damages.

"The issues we're alleging in our complaint are potentially very
pervasive," Mr. Mathis says.

Three of the lawsuits name insurance companies which are among the
dozens of private carriers that administer claims on behalf of
FEMA -- handling about 83 percent of the program's 5.3 million
policies.

A fourth suit, filed in New York, names the National Flood
Insurance Program itself as a defendant.  FEMA's own insurance
unit -- known as "NFIP Direct" -- administers the rest of the
policies in the program.

As in the other New York class actions, the homeowner accusing the
NFIP says her insurer "uniformly" failed to include sales tax in
damage estimates, and conspired to cover it up with adjusting and
software firms involved in the claim.

"They put a notation to the policyholder that tax was included in
the line items of the estimate," says Mr. Houghtaling.  "And it
turned out that was a lie."

At FEMA, the agency "can't comment on the specifics of ongoing
litigation," a representative said, "but we remain committed to
increasing oversight of the program to ensure it's fair,
transparent and efficient."

A representative for Standard Fire Insurance, a unit of Travelers
Insurance, said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.  Representatives for Wright National Flood Insurance
and for Simultaneous Solutions Inc. -- the maker of Simsol
software that is being sued in all three New York suits -- did not
respond to messages seeking comment.

In the New Jersey case, against Selective Insurance, homeowners
Charles and Beverly Mooney allege that even though their damage
estimate stated that sales tax was included in each line item, a
software program called Xactimate was "incapable" of performing
that function at the time.

Reached for comment, a representative for Selective said the
company doesn't discuss pending lawsuits.

Like the Mooneys, another New Jersey homeowner, Humphrey Uddoh,
recently accused Selective of using a fraudulently altered
adjuster report to underpay his claim.  In that case, slated for
an evidentiary hearing in May, Mr. Uddoh alleges the Selective not
only changed the report, but kept evidence hidden from him during
nearly two years in litigation.

Amid the ongoing fallout from the fraud allegations, FEMA
confirmed the departures of two senior agency officials.  This
month, a U.S. Senate task force will begin to tackle structural
reforms to the program.

Meanwhile, multiple government investigations continue. They
include a criminal probe in New York state, and an investigation
by the inspector general's office at the Department of Homeland
Security, which oversees FEMA.


* Arbitration Agreements Limit Class Action Consumer Relief
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bohn, Esq., of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion upheld an arbitration clause
requiring arbitration of claims individually, thereby effectively
preventing class actions.  While the consumer finance industry and
other industries frequently invoked arbitration clauses in
defending lawsuits before AT&T, since that decision was published,
industry has increasingly relied on such clauses to successfully
defend against expensive class actions.

But on March 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("the
CFPB" or "Bureau"), the watchdog federal agency created by the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-
Frank") to implement and enforce regulations on consumer financial
products and services, released the results of a three-year study
on arbitration agreements, and announced its finding that
arbitration agreements were restricting consumer relief in
disputes with financial service providers by limiting class
actions.  The announcement also signaled that arbitration clauses
in agreements for consumer financial products and services other
than home mortgages may be next on the Bureau's regulatory agenda.

Dodd-Frank prohibited arbitration agreements in home mortgages and
authorized the Bureau to regulate the use of arbitration clauses
in other consumer financial products if it found by a study of
such agreements that doing so would protect consumers and serve
the public interest, and if findings in any proposed rule are
consistent with the results of the Bureau's study.

The 700-plus page study released March 10 analyzes the resolution
of consumer disputes in arbitration and the courts dating back to
2010, focusing primarily on credit card and checking account
products.  Excluded from the study were cases involving investors,
securities, brokerage accounts, or investor services, as were
insurance cases unless an add-on to a consumer financial product
such as title or credit card insurance was involved.

According to the report, arbitration clauses are found in the
agreements of card issuers with 53 percent of the credit card
market, and in checking account agreements of banks and credit
unions representing 44 percent of insured deposits.  Eighty- eight
percent of mobile wireless providers who authorize third parties
to charge consumers for services and cover over 99 percent of the
market also have arbitration clauses in their customer agreements.

Most consumers were reportedly unaware of the fact that they were
subject to arbitration clauses with their financial service
providers, and a small minority understood that the clauses
restricted their ability to sue in court.  The study also found
that arbitration clauses were invoked to block class actions
against credit card issuers whose agreements contained arbitration
clauses 65 percent of the time.

According to the study, class action settlements involving
consumer finance markets totaled $2.7 billion (averaging $220
million per year) over the study period and the amounts paid did
not take into account the potential value to consumers of class
action settlements requiring companies to change behavior.  By
contrast, the study reported that the value in debt forbearance
consumers reportedly recovered in arbitration cases was a mere
$400,000.  No evidence was found that companies that included
arbitration clauses offered lower prices as a result of not being
subject to class action lawsuits, the CFPB reported.

In conclusion, the Bureau stated that arbitration clauses
"restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by
limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in
consumer redress each year" and that now that it has finished the
study, it would consider "what next steps are appropriate."

Having concluded that arbitration clauses chill consumer rights to
compensation in consumer disputes with financial companies, the
CFPB appears to have laid the groundwork for future regulation of
the use of these clauses in the credit card, checking account, and
other consumer financial markets which were the focus of the
study.


* Florida Law to Limit Jury Awards in Tobacco Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Buzzacco-Foerster, writing for Naples Daily News, reports
that nearly a decade ago, the Florida Supreme Court tossed out a
$145 billion award in a class-action lawsuit against Big Tobacco,
but not before giving plaintiffs a chance to individually pursue
their claims.

More than 8,000 lawsuits were filed within a year of the ruling,
and more than 180 trials have taken place.  Now some state
lawmakers want to drastically reduce the amount juries can award
plaintiffs in those cases.

Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, said the proposal (SB 978) caps
how much can be awarded in these cases, and puts the jury awards
in line with punitive damage limits already in state law.

"This says that in those suits . . . tobacco companies still, if
they go to court, will pay compensatory damages.  They will pay
punitive damage, but not sky-is-the-limit punitive damages, not
$100 million," he said.  "If you end up suing tobacco, call it $10
million on 4,000 cases, they've already paid billions of dollars.
They're going to go out of business."

But opponents said the measure changes the playing field, and
could result in plaintiffs in tobacco-related cases never getting
paid damages.

"They're doing it now because they don't like how the litigation
has gone," said Jimmy Gustafson, a lawyer and treasurer of the
Florida Justice Association, which opposes the measure.  "They're
losing a lot of cases.  They're being held accountable, about two-
thirds of the jury verdicts are in favor of plaintiffs."

In 1994, attorneys filed a class-action lawsuit against tobacco
companies.  Mr. Gustafson said public health experts estimated
that 700,000 Floridians met the criteria for the class-action
suit.

The case went to trial in the late 1990s.  In 1999, a jury found
the companies were guilty and ordered them to pay $145 billion in
punitive damages.  Tobacco companies appealed the decision, and in
2006 the Florida Supreme Court tossed out the verdict, saying the
cases should have been tried individually.

The state Supreme Court gave members of the class action suit one
year to file individual lawsuits.

In 1999, the Florida Legislature approved caps on punitive
damages.  According to state law, those caps went into place on
any action that surfaced after the law went into effect.

Sen. Richter's bill, and a similar one (HB 1067) filed by
Rep. David Santiago, R-Deltona, aims to change that.  Under both
proposals, the caps would apply to "all civil actions in which
judgment has not been entered, regardless of when the cause of
action arose."

"My take on this is this is a desperate attempt on the behalf of
cigarette manufactures to achieve through legislation what they
have not been able to achieve in the court system," said J.B.
Harris, a Miami trial attorney who specializes in these types of
tobacco cases.

Mr. Harris said he solely handles tobacco litigation, and has been
doing so since the state's high court tossed the class action
verdict.  He said he has more than 170 cases, including three that
went to trial.

In one case, Mr. Harris said a jury awarded his client $30 million
in her claim against R.J. Reynolds.  His team won a second case,
though he did not disclose how much was awarded, and lost a third.
A trial in a fourth case begins in May, he said.

Mr. Harris' clients aren't the only ones seeing success in the
courtroom.  In February, a $100 million settlement was reached
between three major tobacco companies -- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. -- and
hundreds of people who sued them in Florida federal court.  And in
July 2014, a Pensacola jury awarded the widow of a longtime smoker
$23 billion in punitive damages.

Sen. Richter said his bill puts potential payouts in line with
existing law, something he said he thought should have happened
when plaintiffs began filing individual lawsuits.

"I got involved because I think it's the right thing to do," he
said.  "I wouldn't have taken it on if I thought it was unfair.
The bill does provide the damages be paid by companies, if it was
proved in a court of law that there was malicious intent."

Campaign finance records show that Sen. Richter received about
$1,500 total from tobacco companies, including Philip Morris USA,
in the months leading up to his 2012 re-election.

Mr. Gustafson, with the Florida Justice Association, said his
organization is doing everything it can to make sure the proposal
doesn't pass.  They're meeting with lawmakers, in hopes of
persuading them not to vote for the bill.

Both bills have been assigned to two committees each.  Sen.
Richter said his office requested that his bill be placed on the
Senate judiciary committee's calendar.

Mr. Harris said he's hopeful lawmakers won't support the
legislation, but knows anything can happen during the annual 60-
day legislative session.

"I'm concerned.  Nothing can be taken for granted," he said.  "I
think it would be a travesty if this bill would pass."


* Manufacturers Face Class Action Over "Flushable" Wet Wipes
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Flegenheimer, writing for The New York Times, reports that
with its sewer system under siege, tallying millions of dollars in
equipment damage across its underground maze, New York City is
confronting a menace that has gummed the gears of plumbing
networks around the world: the common wet wipe.

In recent years, the intersection of evolving hygienic
sensibilities and aggressive industry marketing has fueled the
product's rise.  Wet wipes, long used for baby care, have grown
popular with adults.  Some of the products are branded as
"flushable" -- a characterization contested by wastewater
officials and plaintiffs bringing class-action lawsuits against
wipes manufacturers for upending their plumbing.

Often, the wipes combine with other materials, like congealed
grease, to create a sort of superknot.  "They're really
indestructible," said Vincent Sapienza, a deputy commissioner for
the city's Department of Environmental Protection.  "I guess
that's the purpose."

The city has spent more than $18 million in the past five years on
wipe-related equipment problems, officials said.  The volume of
materials extracted from screening machines at the city's
wastewater treatment plants has more than doubled since 2008, an
increase attributed largely to the wipes.

Removal is an unpleasant task.  The dank clusters, graying and
impenetrable, gain mass like demon snowballs as they travel.
Pumps clog.  Gears falter.  Then, there is the final blow, wrought
by an intake of sewage that overwhelmed a portion of a north
Brooklyn treatment plant.

"Odor control," a sign there reads.  But on a recent afternoon,
the second word had disappeared behind a wayward splotch: It was a
used wipe, etched with a heavenly cloud design.

The city is not alone.  Wet wipes, which do not disintegrate the
way traditional toilet paper does, have plagued Hawaii and Alaska,
Wisconsin and California.  Sewer systems have been stuffed in
Portland, Ore., and Portland, Me. Semantic debates have visited
Charleston, W.Va., challenging the latitude of "flushability."  "I
agree that they're flushable," said Tim Haapala, operations
manager for the Charleston Sanitary Board. "A golf ball is
flushable, but it's not a good idea."

The consummate cautionary tale is that of London, where in 2013 a
collection of wipes, congealed cooking oil and other materials
totaled 15 tons, according to Thames Water, the utility company
that removed it.  It was known, like some previous occurrences, as
the fatberg.  "We reckon it has to be the biggest such berg in
British history," Gordon Hailwood, an official with Thames Water,
said at the time.

For wipe manufacturers, heavy investments in products for adults
have resonated with customers.  Market research, cited in a
Bloomberg News article last year, suggested that from 2008 to
2013, sales of the moist flushable wipes had grown 23 percent to
$367 million.

In New York, city officials are tackling the problem in various
ways.  A City Council bill, which has the backing of the
administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, was introduced in
February to prohibit advertising certain moist wipes as flushable.
The environmental department has begun work on a public awareness
campaign concerning the importance of proper wipe disposal:
throwing them in the trash.

Emily Lloyd, Mr. de Blasio's environmental commissioner, who also
served in that role from 2005 to 2009 and was sanitation
commissioner from 1992 to 1994, recalled the warning she received
during a return tour of a wastewater plant last year: "You're not
going to believe what's happened with baby wipes." And it is
residents, Ms. Lloyd noted, who bear the extra cost.  "That goes,
obviously, on the water rates," she said.  "It's an expense we
didn't have before that now we have."

High-profile wipes champions have included the television host
Dr. Mehmet Oz; he has since reversed course after conferring with
wastewater experts.  In a segment outlining his change of heart,
he advised viewers to return to regular toilet paper, manually
moistened if possible.

Industry representatives chafe at the suggestion that they have
operated irresponsibly.  The prime culprits, they say, are
customers who ignore label warnings.

Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry, a trade group representing wipes manufacturers, said a
vast majority of problems derived from "nonflushable wipes
inappropriately flushed."

The group has teamed up with municipal officials and advocacy
groups to promote proper disposal.  The industry even pitched in
with a logo.  "It's the symbol of a stick man dropping something
in the toilet, with a slash bar across the stick man," Mr. Rousse
said. But environmentalists say the industry must do more, calling
for improved labeling and refined standards for what is considered
flushable.

While companies like Procter & Gamble have maintained that their
flushable wipes are compatible with municipal pumps, wastewater
authorities have long argued that guidelines are not stringent
enough.

At issue, primarily, is an industry trial known as the "slosh box
test," designed to gauge disintegration thresholds.  Critics say
the test, which rocks wipes back and forth in a crate of water,
does not properly mimic the wastewater system, allowing
manufacturers to claim flushability for a product that may be too
sturdy for treatment systems.  The test is "a lot more turbulent
than the flow that you find in a wastewater pipe," said
Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs for the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies. Flushed materials, she added,
generally move "on very gentle slopes."

Mr. Rousse agreed that the test "can be modified," but added that
only 5 or 6 percent of wipes were designed to be flushable,
suggesting that much of the trouble involved improper disposal.

City officials have emphasized that they are not anti-wipe.  The
Council bill would keep the "flushable" label off any product that
does not pass a third-party test approved by the environmental
protection commissioner, but would not imperil sales, supporters
say.  "We're not banning wipes," said Councilman Antonio Reynoso,
a co-sponsor.  He said the bill would simply ban the "flushable"
label for products that emerge from the wastewater treatment
process "almost as new."

On a recent afternoon at the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Brooklyn, heaps of wipes -- flushable or otherwise -- had
survived the underground journey intact.  They clung to walls and
wires, hanging off gears and horizontal rails, with some discarded
atop a metal sheet.

A sewage treatment worker, Michael Brady, approached with a rake,
sidling up beside the machines.  He cleared the materials off the
sheet, into a small trash bin.

"It's kind of gross," Mr. Brady said, scraping the bottom clean.


* Oregon Gov. Signs Bill on Unclaimed Class Action Damage Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denis C. Theriault, writing for The Oregonian, reports that
Gov. Kate Brown reports signed House Bill 2700 on March 4,
directing unclaimed damage awards from class-action lawsuits to
the Oregon State Bar's legal-aid fund.  Before, sued companies
could keep any unclaimed money.  The money will provide free legal
counsel for Oregonians who need help in housing, family law,
public benefits and other noncriminal cases.


                             *********

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  * * *