CAR_Public/150428.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 84


                             Headlines


ACCESS INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Flores" Suit Says
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Customers Can Pursue Price Fixing Claims
ANGIE'S LIST: Settlement Terms in "Fritzinger" Case Okayed
ANGIE'S LIST: Defendants to File Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Suits
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach

ASTROS FOOD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
ATLANTIC POWER: Lead Plaintiff in Mass. Suit Filed Brief Letter
ATLANTIC POWER: May 20 & 21 Hearings on Certification Motions
AVIV REIT: Faces Four Putative Class Actions

BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Suit Belongs in State Court, 9th Circuit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Intravenous Solutions
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Improperly Charges Sales Tax in Fla., Suit Says
BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Appeal in Catskills Annexation Deemed Untimely
BOULDER BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss California Action Still Pending

BOULDER BRANDS: All Activity in New York Action Stayed
CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Court Ruling on Class Action Settlement
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Related to Initial Offering
CHAUFFEURED EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued Over Damages Caused by Banana Production

CORELOGIC INC: Final Fairness Hearing Held in RESPA Case Deal
CRICKET WIRELESS: Misled Consumers Into Buying Phones, Suit Says
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Suit Alleging Wage Suppression Dismissed
ENTERGY CORP: Parties in Texas Power Price Lawsuit Await Ruling
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit for Illegally Acquiring Biometric Data
FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices
FMS INVESTMENT: Sued Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over misleading Financial Reports
FREDERICKSBURG CARE: Malpractice Arbitration Raises Concerns

G4S SECURE: Face "Lubin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GOGO LLC: Consumers Can Pursue Suit Over Automatic Renewals
GOOGLE INC: Settles for $8.5MM With Class in Privacy Litigation
GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Parents' App Suit
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT: "Cardine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces 8 Class Actions on Merger Agreement
HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Reznik" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
INTERNAL REVENUE: Asked to Reveal Who Applied for Tax-Exempt
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Class Action in Preliminary Stage
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Executed Settlement in Gypsum Class Action

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Class Actions in Preliminary Stage
INTERTHINX INC: "Weber" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KARESH GLASS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KIND LLC: Faces "Kaufer" Suit Over Products Misbranding
KIND LLC: Faces "McDonald" Suit in Cal. Over Product Misbranding

LA GUADALUPANA: Recalls Hot Chicken, Hot Pork & Vegan Tamales
LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling Yet on US Direct Purchaser Settlement
LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Ordered Non-Binding Mediation
LEGGETT & PLATT: US Direct Purchaser Cases to Be Tried in Ohio
LEGGETT & PLATT: "Restraint of Trade Act" Cases to Be Remanded

LEGGETT & PLATT: Provides Update on Canadian Class Actions
LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling Yet on Class Cert Bid in Missouri Case
LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fees Settlement
LONG ISLAND: "Guan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MACHINE ZONE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mobile Application

MARIO'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Final Hearing Held to Approve "Benner" Accord
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Partial Judgment Motion Granted in Hoyt Case
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Dismissed "DeSantis" Case
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: 9th Cir. Granted Motion to Expedite Appeal

MICHAELS STORES: Class Actions Over Credit Checks Consolidated
NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Cullen" ADA Suit
NOMAC DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
NOVAK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Galvan" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
NOVARTIS: Bellwether Suit Over Bone Loss Drug Zometa Settled

OASIS PETROLEUM: To Defend Claims Connected to Train Derailment
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Sued in Iowa Over High Investment Products Fees
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Suit Claims Denture Cause Neurological Damage
PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Schroers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Four Lawsuits Filed on Dai-ichi Merger

QC FINANCIAL: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Alleged Invasion of Privacy
RCI HOSPITALITY: Settles Labor Suit With Strippers for $15-Mil.
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase
RELIABLE RUNNERS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SABRA DIPPING: Recalls Classic Hummus Products Due to Listeria

SKIPPY'S GYROS: Faces "Marquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SMS MARKETING: Sued in N.D. Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
SPANSION INC: Inks MOU in Class Action Over Cypress Deal
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Millennium Class Action in NY Has Concluded
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held in Settlement

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: To File Response to Class Certification Bid
STERLING JEWELERS: Class Arbitration Allows Disparate Impact
TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Class Action Still Pending
TEXAS PECAN: Recall Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs File Opening Brief in Appeal

TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURES: Homeowners Fight LBJ Highway Project
TURN INC: Sued for Using Secret Zombie Cookies in Mobile Devices
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Retains Gibson as New Counsel as Trial Looms
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.1MM After-Tax Charge From Accord

WAL-MART STORES: Court Refuses to Junk Suit by Assistant Managers
WEBPRESENCE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says
WEST EAST: "Mariscal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WORLD WIDE GOURMET: Recalls Teriyaki Salmon Jerky Due to Wheat
WPX ENERGY: Royalty Litigation Parties to Seek Stay of New Suit

WPX ENERGY: Facing Class Action in New Mexico Court
YOUNG HOSPITALITY: Faces "Venancio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* Plaintiffs Counsel Face Challenge in Filing Arbitration Claims
* Recent Tobacco Ruling May Hit Florida Smokers' Tort Lawsuits
* Tort Reforms Groups Back Asbestos Litigation Bill


                            *********


ACCESS INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Flores" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Access Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-CAS-
AGR (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making calls on the class members'
cellular telephone for non-emergency purpose using an automatic
dialing system.

Access Insurance Company owns and operates an insurance company
with a headquarters at 3 Ravinia Dr. NE, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA,
30346.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Customers Can Pursue Price Fixing Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court ruled on
April 21 that energy companies can be sued under state antitrust
laws for illegally manipulating natural gas prices more than a
decade ago during California's energy crisis.

The justices on April 21 ruled 7-2 against American Electric Power
Co., Duke Energy Co. and other natural gas traders arguing that
federal law precludes state law claims.

Natural gas customers allege the companies falsely reported data
to industry trade publications, leading to higher gas prices.

A federal district court sided with the gas traders.  But the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed and said
retail buyers of natural gas could go forward with their lawsuit.

The Supreme Court agreed in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer,
who wrote that the state claims at issue are directed at retail
pricing within the province of states and not pre-empted by
federal law.

Among the consumers who sued over rise in gas prices are
manufacturers Learjet, Inc., and Briggs & Stratton Corp., as well
as a Colorado brewery, a Kansas school district, a Wisconsin
college and a Missouri hospital.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in
Oneok v. Learjet, 13-271.


ANGIE'S LIST: Settlement Terms in "Fritzinger" Case Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
court has issued an order approving the parties' proposed
settlement terms in the case Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc.
(Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis).

A federal class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by
member Marie Fritzinger. The suit, while not about the Company's
automatic renewal practices, alleges that the Company used its
automatic renewal authority to take advantage of members, claiming
it increases prices for subscriber renewals without informing them
and uses confusing language on its website. The claims center
around the Company's alleged breach of the "plain language of its
Membership Agreement," by claiming that the Company automatically
renews its members at a more costly fee.

Before the date by which the court would have determined whether
to certify the proposed class, the parties reached a tentative
settlement.  After the period of notice was exhausted and a Court
Hearing held on September 17, 2014, on September 22, 2014 the
court issued an Order approving the parties' proposed settlement
terms.


ANGIE'S LIST: Defendants to File Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
Defendants will vigorously defend and intend to file a Motion to
Dismiss the cases Baron v. Angie's List, Inc., Oesterle, Hicks,
Hundt, Millard, Thapar, 1:13-cv-2032 (S.D. Ind., 2013); and
Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., Oesterle, Hicks, Hundt, Millard,
Thapar, 1:14-cv-0023 (S.D. Ind., 2014).

Two nearly identical class action securities lawsuits have been
filed against the Company and naming the CEO as a co-defendant.
The suits allege that Defendants are liable for (1) making false
statements or (2) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them
about the Company. It further alleges that Defendants' fraudulent
scheme was a success as it (a) deceived the investing public in
regards to the Company's prospects and business; (b) artificially
inflated the price of the Company's stock; (d) caused other
members of the class to purchase ANGI stock at artificially
inflated prices. The complaints request unspecified damages,
interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On June 16,
2014, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed United
Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff ("Local 464A").

On August 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). Although the class period has
not changed (February 13, 2013 through October 23, 2013), the
allegations in the Amended Complaint, for the most part, are
different from the original complaints filed in December 2013. The
Amended Complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding its paid membership
model ("PPM").

The Defendants believe this case to be without merit and will
vigorously defend against them and intend to file a Motion to
Dismiss. The Company, officers and directors are covered under the
D&O insurance policies and notice has been provided to all
carriers. The Company will closely monitor and work with the
carriers to ensure coverage.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00508-JFC (W.D.
Pa., April 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com


ASTROS FOOD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Degabriel Perez v. Misael Hernandez and Astros Food Corp.
d/b/a Athens Grill, Case No. 1:15-cv-02211 (E.D.N.Y., April 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Queens, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that in 2010, Circuit Judge Richard Posner refused to dismiss
antitrust litigation filed over the price of text messages.  On
April 9, he struck down the same lawsuit.

In an opinion, Judge Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, wrote that the plaintiffs hadn't provided enough
evidence that there was actual collusion in violation of the
Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law.

The four leading wireless carriers in the case -- AT&T Mobility
LLC, Verizon Wireless Inc., Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile US Inc. --
might have raised prices at about the same time because they were
competitors in a tight market, he said.

"We hope this opinion will help lawyers understand the risks of
invoking 'collusion' without being precise about what they mean,"
Judge Posner wrote.  "Tacit collusion, also known as conscious
parallelism, does not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Collusion is illegal only when based on agreement."

Plaintiffs attorney Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- of
counsel at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, said he
planned to petition a Seventh Circuit en banc panel for a
rehearing or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  He said the
opinion was "anything but illuminating."

"Is that what you have to find? That one of these executives has
to explicitly admit it?" he said.  "If that's the standard . . .
it really puts damage in private enforcement of antitrust laws,
which are key to the enforcement scheme."

Verizon attorney Aaron Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- a partner at
Washington's Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who
argued the case before the Seventh Circuit, did not respond to a
request for comment.

Dozens of lawsuits, later coordinated before U.S. District Judge
Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, were
brought against the four carriers, which owned 90 percent of the
cellphone market at the time, and a trade association to which
they belonged.

The plaintiffs alleged the carriers conspired between 2005 and
2008 to increase the price of single text messages -- a marketing
structure they eventually replaced with bundling plans.  The case
accompanied a U.S. Department of Justice probe, later dropped,
into why the carriers had increased the price of a text message to
20 cents within weeks of each other.

In 2010, the same panel, taking up an interlocutory appeal,
refused to dismiss the lawsuit.  That decision was closely watched
for its application of the U.S. Supreme Court's heightened
pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.

At the time, Judge Posner wrote that the plaintiffs had several
factors in their favor, including an alleged sudden price change.

"What is missing, as the defendants point out, is the smoking gun
in a price-fixing case: direct evidence, which would usually take
the form of an admission by an employee of one of the
conspirators, that officials of the defendants had met and agreed
explicitly on the terms of a conspiracy to raise price," he wrote.
"Discovery may reveal the smoking gun."

But it did not.  What the plaintiffs posited as a smoking gun -- a
pair of emails between two T-Mobile executives -- wasn't enough to
reverse the trial judge's grant of summary judgment in the case,
Posner wrote on April 9.  The plaintiffs' reliance on those
emails, he wrote, demonstrates their "failure to understand the
fundamental distinction between express and tacit collusion."

"Competitors in concentrated markets watch each other like hawks,"
he wrote.  "We can, moreover, without suspecting illegal
collusion, expect competing firms to keep close track of each
other's pricing and other market behavior."


ATLANTIC POWER: Lead Plaintiff in Mass. Suit Filed Brief Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 Massachusetts
District Court class action lawsuits, the Lead Plaintiff has filed
a brief letter identifying supplemental authorities and Defendants
have filed a response.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported
securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District
Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the Company's
former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director
of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, the Company's former interim
Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, the Company's current
Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed
Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the
"Proposed Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions").

The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23,
2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic
Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of
investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion
(collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the
District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions
(the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its
choice of lead counsel confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the
U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in support of their respective
motions. On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status
conference to address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Motions, entered an order consolidating the five U.S.
Actions, and directed two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants to file supplemental submissions by September 9, 2013.
Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested
supplemental submissions, and then sought leave to file additional
briefing. The Court granted those requests for leave and
additional submissions were filed on September 13 and September
18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which
sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion.
The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead
Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before
May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before
July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an
opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead
Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed
Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead
Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and
proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule,
and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants
jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the
following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014,
(iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any,
on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an
order setting this requested schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with
analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the
class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims
under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced
above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
(the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline
for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in
which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On
October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the
"Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint.
On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint
scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline
for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014
as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as
the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further
support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On
October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this
requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss
and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On
January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss and Extension Motion.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion
for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted
Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental
authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015,
and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions.


ATLANTIC POWER: May 20 & 21 Hearings on Certification Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 Canadian
securities class actions, a hearing of the Plaintiffs' leave and
certification motions on May 20-21, 2015.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the
actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.
On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating
to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
assert common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on, among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common law claims
under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who purchased
and held securities through a proposed class period of November 5,
2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

Between June 2014 and January 2015, the Defendants and Plaintiffs
exchanged responding and reply materials.

A schedule for the Plaintiffs' leave and certification motions was
set in December 2014. It provides for a hearing of the Plaintiffs'
motions on May 20-21, 2015.

The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30,
2015.

The plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated their alleged
statutory damages at $197.4 million.


AVIV REIT: Faces Four Putative Class Actions
--------------------------------------------
AVIV REIT, Inc., and AVIV Healthcare Properties Limited
Partnership 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 four putative class
actions have been filed by purported stockholders of AVIV against
AVIV, its directors, Omega and Omega's merger sub challenging the
merger of AVIV and Omega in the Circuit Court of Maryland,
Baltimore County. The class actions were filed on November 10,
2014, November 17, 2014, November 24, 2014 and December 2, 2014.
Each plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2015. The
lawsuits seek injunctive relief preventing the parties from
consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement, imposition of a constructive
trust in favor of the class upon any benefits improperly received
by the defendants, compensatory damages, and litigation costs
including attorneys' fees. The four lawsuits were consolidated on
January 28, 2015 under the title In Re Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-006352.

In addition, AVIV's Board of Directors has received a stockholder
litigation demand letter dated November 17, 2014, from a law firm
representing Gary Danley, who is the named plaintiff in the
putative class action filed on November 24, 2014 in Circuit Court
of Maryland, Baltimore County. The letter alleges that the
directors of AVIV violated fiduciary duties to AVIV, and demands
that the AVIV Board of Directors take action to ensure that the
consideration provided in the merger is fair to AVIV and its
stockholders and otherwise seek appropriate remedies for AVIV.

"We believe that these actions have no merit and intend to defend
vigorously against them," the Company said.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Suit Belongs in State Court, 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action against Bank
of New York Mellon over its administration of $16 million in bonds
earmarked for the Jensen River Ranch project belongs in state
court because of the securities exception to the Class Action
Fairness Act, the 9th Circuit ruled April 2.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Robert Branch, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1725 N Fine Ave.
          Fresno, CA 93727
          Telephone: (559) 400-8999
          E-mail: rbranch@rbtlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas V. Thornton, Esq.
          RUMMONDS THORNTON, LLP
          Central Valley
          1725 North Fine Avenue
          Fresno, CA 93727
          Telephone: (559) 400-8999
          Facsimile: (559) 492-3385

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          David J. Bird, Esq.
          James C. Martin, Esq.
          Eric A. Schaffer, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sitter, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: dbird@reedsmith.com
                  jcmartin@reedsmith.com
                  eschaffer@reedsmith.com
                  bsitter@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Donald H. Glasrud, Esq.
          DIETRICH, GLASRUD, MALLEK & AUNE
          Fig Garden Financial Center
          5260 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 205
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 435-5250
          Facsimile: (559) 435-8776
          E-mail: dhg@dgmalaw.com

The appellate case is Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P., an Arkansas
Limited Liability Limited Partnership, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bank of
New York Mellon, a New York Banking Corporation, Defendant-
Appellant, Case No. 15-15237, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P. v. Bank of
New York Mellon, Case No. 1:13-cv-02025-AWI-MJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Intravenous Solutions
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
select lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user
level due to the potential presence of particulate matter.
Intravenous administration of a solution containing sterile
particulate matter may lead to adverse health consequences. The
extent and severity of harm depends on the size, number, and
composition of the foreign material, and patient's underlying
medical condition. In the absence of in-line filtration, these
particles may cause: local vein irritation, inflammatory reaction,
aggravation of preexisting infections, allergic reactions, and
systemic embolization. In high-risk patients this may lead to
serious adverse health consequences.

While Baxter manufacturing personnel were performing routine
maintenance, particulate matter was detected and identified as
material from a solution transmission system pump. There have been
no adverse events or product complaints associated with this issue
reported to Baxter.

Products affected by this recall are listed in the following
table:

  Product   NDC     Product     Lot     Manufacturing  Expiration
  Code      Number  Name        Number  Date           Date
  -------   ------  -------     ------  -------------  ----------
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C965038  01/20/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C965293  1/22/2015     07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C963785  01/09/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C963884  01/10/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C963660  01/08/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C964320  01/14/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C964486  01/15/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B1322Q     0338-   0.9% Sodium C964890  01/19/2015    07/31/2016
            0049-02 Chloride
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B0162Q     0338-   10% Dextrose C965558 01/24/2015    07/31/2016
            0023-02 Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B0162Q     0338-   10% Dextrose C963520 01/07/2015    07/31/2016
            0023-02 Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B0062Q     0338-   5% Dextrose  C963413 01/06/2015    07/31/2016
            0017-02 Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B0062Q     0338-   5% Dextrose C963413A 01/06/2015    07/31/2016
            0017-02 Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B2322Q     0338-   Lactated    C964619  01/16/2015    07/31/2016
            0117-02 Ringer's
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B2322Q     0338-   Lactated    C964056  01/12/2015    07/31/2016
            0117-02 Ringer's
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)
2B2322Q     0338-   Lactated    C964163  01/13/2015    07/31/2016
            0117-02 Ringer's
                    Injection,
                    USP (250mL)

Sodium Chloride Injection, USP is indicated as a source of water
and electrolytes and for use as a priming solution in hemodialysis
procedures. Dextrose Injection, USP is indicated as a source of
water and calories. Lactated Ringer's Injection, USP is indicated
as a source of water and electrolytes, or as an alkalinizing
agent. The lots being recalled were distributed to customers and
distributors in the United States and Bermuda between January 14,
2015 and March 5, 2015.

Baxter began the customer notification process on March 24, 2015.
Customers have been directed not to use products from the recalled
lots. Recalled products should be returned to Baxter for credit by
contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001,
Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Central Time. Unaffected lots of product are available for
replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using these drug products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, cancer, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions. As a global, diversified healthcare company,
Baxter applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Improperly Charges Sales Tax in Fla., Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club improperly charges its Florida members sales
tax on amounts that are not properly taxable, a class action
claims, reports Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service.

BJ's has about 31 stores in the state of Florida where they serve
thousands of customers or "members," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Laura Bugliaro says that as a BJ's member she
received discounts provided by BJ's and used them for her
purchases at its stores.  These special discounts under Florida
law are known as "dealer's reductions."

In such situations, "Florida law requires dealer retailers like
BJ's to collect sales tax on only the discounted price . . . as
opposed to collecting sales time on the item's full, undiscounted
price," the complaint says.

But in a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County circuit court,
Bugliaro claims that BJ's charged Florida customers who use it
discounts the sales tax on the full item price.

On November 22, 2014, Bugliaro says that she purchased a 55-inch
Samsung television at one of BJ's South Florida stores located in
Cutler Bay for a discounted sales price of $769.99 without tax.
However, she claims that BJ's inappropriately charged and
collected from her sales tax on the full retail price of the
television which was $1,399.99.

She alleges that the same situation occurred on November 30, 2014,
when she went to another BJ's Wholesale Club location in Miami and
bought a different Samsung television.  The original price of the
item was $529.99, and she paid the promotional price of $329.99,
but BJ's once again charged her sales tax on the full price.

Bugliaro claims that since BJ's only has to report the sales tax
on the discounted price to the state, the wholesaler is
effectively pocketing the excess sales tax collected.

Plaintiff claims that BJ's acts were fraudulent and deliberately
done to induce her and other similarly situated individuals to pay
more money than it was legally due when they purchased an item
with a dealer discount.

Bugliaro seeks unspecified damages on claims of violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve I. Silverman, Esq.
          KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE PL
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 27th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 379-3428
          E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com


BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Appeal in Catskills Annexation Deemed Untimely
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that a local
coalition challenged the annexation of land for a Catskills
housing project too late, a New York appellate judge ruled.

Shalom Lamm and Kenneth Nakdimen and their development companies
have been pursuing a townhouse project in the Village of
Bloomingburg since 2006, and they were able to get a piece of land
annexed, which Bloomingburg and the Town of Mamakating both agreed
to, according to the ruling.

Bloomingburg and Mamakating are rural communities in the foothills
of the Catskill Mountains and were two of the Borscht Belt
vacation sports frequented by New York City Jews in the 1940's,
50's and 60's, an era later recalled by the movie "Dirty Dancing."
Both municipalities are located in Sullivan County.

A group of Hasidic Jews filed a class action against the Sullivan
County Board of Elections last month, claiming the board is trying
to disenfranchise them by not allowing them to vote on housing,
school and other projects.

The class action alleges that a group called the Rural Community
Coalition was formed to oppose the 396-unit townhouse project
after it was rumored to have drawn substantial interest among
local Hasidic Jews.

"Simply stated, this action is not about borders, it is about
development approvals given well after the annexation that the
municipalities now regret granting, and which allegedly may have
been obtained as a result of chicancery or worse conduct," wrote
Judge John Lahtinen of the New York Supreme Court Appellate
Division.

In July, the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of those
opposing the townhouse project, holding that a local law
authorizing the annexation was void.

But the appellate division reversed on April 2, finding that the
challenge to the local law allowing the 2006 annexation was
untimely.

"We conclude that the challenge to the annexation -- commenced
over seven years after it was completed -- is barred by the
statute of limitations," Lahtinen wrote for a four-judge panel.
"The developer defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' cause of
action and the town's cross claims based upon the purportedly
defective annexation should have been granted."

Mamakating's attorney said in a statement that the town will
appeal April 2's decision.

"On behalf of the Town of Mamakating, we are very disappointed in
the court's decision.  In particular, the court did not address
the primary issue in the case, which is that the state
constitution explicitly states that there shall be no annexation
of territory until a special election is held for the voters who
reside in that territory," Mamakating Town Attorney Benjamin
Gailey said.  "The constitutionally mandated election was not held
in this case.  We intend to appeal the decision to the Court of
Appeals."

Lahtinen addressed the special election issue in April 2's ruling,
saying that it does not represent "an ongoing or continuous
wrong."

"Here, the failure to conduct a secret ballot of residents on the
annexation gave rise to a single, discrete wrong, which could have
been challenged in a timely fashion," the judge wrote.

Mamakating officials are also disputing the March 18 election of a
Hasidic Jew to the Bloomingburg Board of Trustees, citing voter
fraud.  Aaron Rabiner beat incumbent Katherine Roemer for one open
seat and the county elections board certified those results April
1, according to a Jewish Political News & Update report.

A town press release says the elections board failed to implement
the purge of 250 voters who were clearly not residents in time for
the election.

"At this point, the Village of Bloomingburg, which falls within
the Town of Mamakating, will be taking the next steps necessary
through legal action to overturn the invalid election, in order to
protect the democratic process and preserve the integrity of
governmental institutions," said Mamakating Town Supervisor Bill
Herrmann in a statement April 3.

The Appellants-Respondents are represented by:

          John J. Henry, Esq.
          WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA, LLP
          Albany Office
          One Commerce Plaza
          Albany, NY 12260
          Telephone: (518) 487-7600
          Facsimile: (518) 487-7777
          E-mail: JHenry@woh.com

The Respondents-Appellants are represented by:

          Kurt E. Johnson, Esq.
          MONTALBANO, CONDON & FRANK, PC
          67 North Main Street, Third Floor
          New City, NY 10956
          Telephone: (845) 521-7108
          Facsimile: (845) 634-8993

The Respondents are represented by:

          J. Benjamin Gailey, Esq.
          JACOBOWITZ & GUBITS, LLP
          158 Orange Avenue
          Walden, NY 12586
          Telephone: (845) 764-4285
          Facsimile: (845) 778-5173
          E-mail: jbg@Jacobowitz.Com

The appellate case is Rural Community Coalition, Inc., et al.,
Respondents-Appellants v. Village of Bloomingburg, et al.,
Defendants; Town of Mamakating, et al., Respondents; and Shalom
Lamm, et al., Appellants-Respondents, Case No. 519346, in the
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third
Judicial Department.


BOULDER BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss California Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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's motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the California class
action lawsuit is pending.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R)
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and
deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint and substituted a new plaintiff. The Company
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is
pending.


BOULDER BRANDS: All Activity in New York Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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 a substantially similar
class action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of
Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on
August 9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of
its similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of
New York stayed all activity in that case pending a decision in
the California Case on class certification.


CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Court Ruling on Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. is awaiting the Court's ruling of the
settlement in a class action lawsuit, the Company 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.

On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, later renamed Kirk Dahl
v. Bain Capital Partners LLC). The complaint alleged, among other
things, that certain global alternative asset firms, including the
Partnership, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming
multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively
in company buyout transactions in certain going private
transactions and agreeing not to submit topping bids once such a
consortium had announced a signed deal, which the plaintiffs
allege constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade."

To avoid the risk and cost associated with continuing the
litigation through trial, Carlyle entered into an agreement with
plaintiffs on August 29, 2014 to settle all claims against Carlyle
without any admission of liability. All of Carlyle's codefendants
also reached settlement agreements with plaintiffs. The Court
granted preliminary approval of all the defendants' settlements,
including Carlyle's, on September 29, 2014. A hearing on final
approval of the settlements was held on February 11, 2015 and the
Company is awaiting the Court's ruling. Carlyle Partners IV, L.P.
("CP IV") and its affiliates will bear the costs of the settlement
not covered by insurance. As a result, Carlyle's performance fees
from CP IV were reduced by $19.3 million.


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Related to Initial Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that in the 13
months since Castlight Health went public, shares in the provider
of cloud-based software have declined by more than 50 percent, a
class of investors claims in the San Mateo County Superior Court.

On its way to the market, according to the April 2 complaint filed
in San Mateo County Superior Court, Castlight purported that its
Enterprise Healthcare Cloud software could lower the health care
spending of enterprises with which it did business by employing
"risk reassessments, lower health care premiums, and cash kept
through punitive-premium-reimbursement programs."

Firerock Global Opportunity Fund LP claims that idea was an
attractive one as federal health care reform drove up costs and
"provided large companies with incentives to cut costs through
benefits spending cuts, aggressive wellness programs, and
increased reimbursement limits."

When San Francisco-based Castlight went public on March 13, 2014,
its "stock skyrocketed 145% on its first day of trading, closing
near $40 per share -- and valuing the company at more than $4
billion," Firerock claims.

Firerock says Castlight negligently prepared the prospectus that
it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, however,
because it concealed that the company's "backlog was growing
because of implementation delays which reflected significant
obstacles to scalability."

The company had previously estimated that its "total backlog,
which we define as including cancellable and non-cancellable
portions of our customer agreements for which we have not yet
billed, was $108.7 million as of December 31, 2013, compared to
$44.0 million as of December 31, 2012," according to the
complaint.

Though Castlight had touted 109 percent "net dollar retention
rate," Firerock says this statement failed to account for the
"significant churn" that the company was experience with customers
"not renewing at a high rate, let alone at an increasing rate."

Castlight's upsells also "were not sufficient to offset the
revenues lost from churn, as the company's net dollar retention
rate materially declined from the 109% reported as of
December 31, 2013."

Firerock names as defendants in the complaint Castlight's
underwriters: Venrock Partners LP; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; and
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.

These underwriters received $ 14.3 million in fees from the $204.2
million that the $204.2 million that the initial public offering
generated in gross proceeds for the company, according to the
complaint.

"At the time of the filing of this action, Castlight stock is
trading in the range of $7 -$8 per share, a decline of over 50%
from the IPO price," the complaint states (emphasis in original).

The class seeks rescission and damages for violations of the
Securities Act.

The class is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


CHAUFFEURED EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Negron, Harrison Osondu Iheke, Andres Morales, and Oleg
Borukhov v. Chauffeured Executive Transportation LLC, and
Benjamin Osiashvili, and Tom Osiashvili, Case No. 1:15-cv-02216
(E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing transportation
services to customers in the New York City and Tri-state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued Over Damages Caused by Banana Production
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02860 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
failed to disclose material information to consumers that its'
bananas are produced in a way that destroys natural ecosystems,
contaminates the drinking water of local communities, and poisons
local residents.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. is New Jersey Corporation that
is known to be one of the world's largest producers and marketers
of high quality fresh fruits and fresh vegetables.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Tyler S. Weaver, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              tyler@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


CORELOGIC INC: Final Fairness Hearing Held in RESPA Case Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, 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 final fairness
hearing is set for April 24, 2015, in the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act Class Action.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014 the
defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the
class. On September 16, 2014 the trial court granted summary
judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the
other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated
trial into two phases with the first phase to begin November 24,
2014. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation
and subsequently reached agreement, subject to court approval, to
settle the case for a total of $9.9 million inclusive of attorney
fees. This amount has been reserved and recorded within loss from
discontinued operations, net of tax for the year ended December
31, 2014.

On December 12, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Notice to the class is underway and the final fairness
hearing was set for April 24, 2015.


CRICKET WIRELESS: Misled Consumers Into Buying Phones, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples at Courthouse News Service reports that
consumers were misled into buying cellphones from Cricket Wireless
when the company knew those services would be rendered useless
once its pending acquisition by AT&T became final, a class action
claims.

In a lawsuit filed in Baltimore Federal Court, lead plaintiff Tim
Bond claims that when AT&T announced its agreement to acquire
Cricket on July 12, 2013, it already knew it was going to
discontinue all of the smaller firm's services and require its
customers to use AT&T cellular network.

Bond says Cricket had to have known this, but nevertheless failed
to tell consumers that its handsets had an "artificially limited
useful life" and would soon be rendered inoperable.

His lawsuit claims the January 2015 phase out announcement
prompted angry responses on an AT&T online forum.  It quotes one
Cricket customer wrote "AT&T is screwing over thousands of Cricket
customers and they DON'T CARE ONE BIT!"

The complaint goes on to say that many customers who had purchased
expensive smartphones less than a year ago are now seeing their
phones turned off for good.

Along with Cricket customers in Maryland, customers in other major
cities including Washington, D.C.; Little Rock, Fayetteville and
Fort Smith, Arkansas; Wilmington, DE; Chicago; Atlantic City;
Buffalo, NY and Philadelphia will see their service switched this
month.

The suit does not cite how many customers bought phones after July
2013, but said the names and addresses of all class members can be
identified in the business records maintained by AT&T.

Bond seeks actual and punitive damages and the free replacement of
now defunct Cricket phones on behalf of himself and the class on
claims of Breach of Implied Warranty, fraudulent concealment,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and
violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          301 Main St., Suite 2-D
          Reisterstown, MD 21136
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Suit Alleging Wage Suppression Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed a consolidated class action that accused
DreamWorks, Disney, Pixar and other animation studios of
conspiring to suppress wages, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuits, brought by former animators and other employees,
claimed the companies stifled competition by agreeing not to cold
call each others' employees and by setting wage and salary ranges
among themselves.

The lawsuits are similar to a 2010 class action against Apple,
Google and others, including Disney subsidiaries LucasFilm and
Pixar, that claimed their CEOs made "gentleman's agreements" to
eliminate competition by not poaching each others' employees.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who is also overseeing the cartoon
studio cases, preliminarily approved a $415 million settlement for
the 2010 class in March.

The defendants in the latest consolidated class action were
DreamWorks Animation, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm, Pixar,
ImageMovers, Two Pic fka ImageMovers Digital, Sony Pictures
Animation, Sony Pictures Imageworks and Blue Sky Studios.

In a joint motion to dismiss, they argued among other things that
the plaintiffs' claims have expired due to statute of limitations.

Koh granted the motion, concluding that "the four-year statute of
limitations ran on plaintiff's claims as early as 2008, and at
best in 2011."  She also found that the plaintiffs failed to
"allege an essential element of fraudulent concealment."  She gave
the plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Animation Workers
Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 14-CV-04062-LHK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division.


ENTERGY CORP: Parties in Texas Power Price Lawsuit Await Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy 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 parties in the Texas
Power Price Lawsuit are awaiting the court ruling on the
Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en
banc.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994
to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation,
Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp.,
and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named
defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court
granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in
the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system
suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation
so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources
instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The
Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs'
expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the
requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.
In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.
The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals -
First District and oral argument was held in May 2013.

In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District
reversed the state district court's class certification order and
dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc.
The Entergy defendants filed responsive briefings, and the parties
are awaiting rulings by the Court.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessilyn Infante, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts
Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-02049-JNE-SER (D. Minn., April
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Express Scripts, Inc.is a Delaware corporation that is one of the
nation's leading pharmacy benefit managers, managing prescription
benefits for tens of millions of Americans on behalf of thousands
of clients, including health plans and plan sponsors.

Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. owns and operates a pharmacy with
its principal address at 6625 West 78th Street, Bloomington,
Minnesota 55439.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
               jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              jthompson@sommerspc.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit for Illegally Acquiring Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Facebook violated its users' privacy to acquire the largest
privately held stash of biometric face-recognition data in the
world, a class action claims in Illinois Chancery Court.

Lead plaintiff Carlo Licata claims Facebook began violating the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy act of 2008 in 2010, in a
"purported attempt to make the process of tagging friends easier."

Through its "tag suggestions" program, Facebook scans all pictures
uploaded by users and identifies any Facebook friends they may
want to tag, according to the April 1 lawsuit in Cook County
Court.

Facebook got its facial recognition technology from the Israeli
company Face.com, which Facebook later bought.  Face.com is not a
party to the lawsuit.

Though it may seem at times that a major purpose of Facebook is to
allow people to share too much information about themselves,
Licata says this form of data mining violates users' privacy.

He calls it a "brazen disregard for its users' privacy rights,"
through which Facebook has "secretly amassed the world's largest
privately held database of consumer biometrics data."

Sen. Al Franken, among others, has criticized Facebook for this,
according to the complaint.

The company identifies Facebook friends in photos by scanning
their faces, extracting facial feature data and comparing it
against their "faceprint database," or what it calls templates.

But Licata claims Facebook "actively conceals" this from its users
and "doesn't disclose its wholesale biometrics data collection
practices in its privacy policies, nor does it even ask users to
acknowledge them."

That's illegal in Illinois, Licata says. The Illinois Biometrics
Information Privacy Act made it unlawful to collect biometric data
without written notice to the subject stating the purpose and
length of the data collection, and without obtaining the subject's
written release.

The Federal Trade commission suggested that for private companies
to use biometric data that they should provide clear notice of how
the technology works, what they are collecting and why, and get
consent.  But this, Licata says, "is precisely what Facebook did
not do when it rolled out its facial recognition program."

Facebook "automatically enrolled its users into its facial
recognition program to collect their biometric identifiers -- a
practice that continues to this day," according to the complaint.

Licata claims that Facebook was "calculatedly elusive" in
explaining the program.

At a 2012 Senate hearing on biometric technology, Facebook privacy
and public policy manager Robert Sherman testified that the "tag
suggestions" program is merely a "convenience feature" and that
users' data is secure.

The company's faceprint database works only with its own software,
and "alone, the templates are useless bits of data," Sherman said.
He said that users can opt out of the feature and their data will
be deleted.

Licata claims that due to lack of informed consent, users can opt
out only after they have been unwittingly opted in.

At the hearing, the panel discussed the fact that "Americans
cannot take precautions to prevent the collection of their image,"
and that data can be used to identify and track people anywhere
they go.

"Your face is a conduit to an incredible amount of information
about you," Sen. Franken said, adding that unlike a password, a
face cannot be replaced or changed.

"Unless you turn it off, it's already been used on you," Franken
said of the Facebook program.

Licata claims in the lawsuit that in 2011 the FTC worried about a
"third party maliciously breaching a database of biometric
information," and that because a person's face cannot be changed,
"once exposed, a victim has no recourse to prevent becoming victim
to misconduct like identity theft and unauthorized tracking."

Licata seeks class certification and an injunction requiring
Facebook to comply with the Illinois law, to "put a stop to its
surreptitious collection, use and storage" of users' biometric
data.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Mogannam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Financial Merchant Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00827 (E.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of contacting the class members' cellular
telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff in using Defendant's
services using an automatic telephone dialing system.

First Financial Merchant Services owns and operates credit and
debit card processing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FMS INVESTMENT: Sued Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Montoya, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FMS Investment Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-01758
(N.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making calls on the class members'
cellular telephone for non-emergency purpose using an automatic
dialing system.

FMS Investment Corp. is a Maryland corporation that provides
receivables management solutions to financial service institutions
in the government and private sector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ForceField Energy Inc., David Natan, Jason Williams,
Richard St-Julien, The Dream Team Group, and Mission Investor
Relations d/b/a Missionir, Case No. 1:15-cv-03020 (S.D.N.Y., April
17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operational and compliance policies.

ForceField Energy Inc. is a Nevada corporation, which is a
designer, distributor and licensee of alternative energy products
and solutions.

The Dream Team Group and Mission Investor Relations are securities
advertisers and investor relations firms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREDERICKSBURG CARE: Malpractice Arbitration Raises Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the thought
of moving medical malpractice litigation away from Texas state
district courts and into arbitration disturbs some plaintiff and
defense lawyers alike.

Plaintiff lawyers fear the unseemly prospect of health care
providers requiring patients to give up the right to a trial by
jury before receiving treatment.  And defense attorneys worry
doctors could give up far too much in the way of their appellate
rights if an arbitrator misapplies the state tort reform laws
designed to protect their clients.

Those are just some of the reasons why organizations representing
both sides of the bar are now calling on the Texas Supreme Court
to reconsider a recent decision they believe could open up those
possibilities.

The case that concerns the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the
Texas Association of Defense Counsel and the Texas Chapter of the
American Board of Trial Advocates is Fredericksburg Care Company
v. Perez.

In that March 6 decision, the high court reversed two lower
rulings denying a nursing home defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in a wrongful death case -- even though an arbitration
agreement between the defense and the plaintiffs did not comply
with a notice provision found in Sec. 74.451 of the Texas Civil
Practices & Remedies Code.

That notice provision is part of the Texas Medical Liability Act,
the 2003 omnibus tort reform law passed by the Texas Legislature.
Specifically, Sec. 74.451 states that for an agreement to
arbitrate a heath care liability claim to be valid, it must
contain a warning in bold, 10-point type that it must be signed by
an attorney of the patient's choosing.

The high court ruled unanimously in Fredericksburg Care that the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which has no such notice provision,
preempts Sec. 74.451.

To arrive at his decision, Justice Paul Green rejected the
plaintiffs' contention that the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act
(MFA) applies in Fredericksburg Care.  The MFA provides an
exemption to federal preemption if a state statute was enacted for
the "purpose of regulating the business of insurance."

"Section 74.451 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code was
not a law enacted by the Texas Legislature for the purpose of
regulating the business of insurance," Justice Green wrote.  "It
simply applies to agreements to arbitrate health care liability
claims between patients and health care providers.  Accordingly,
the MFA does not exempt Sec. 74.451 from preemption by the FAA,
and the trial court should have granted Fredericksburg's motion to
compel arbitration."

The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing in Fredericksburg Care
on March 24.  It urges the court to follow a Colorado Supreme
Court decision that reached the opposite conclusion about the
MFA's application to Colorado's health maintenance organizations.
The Texas Supreme Court has yet to rule on the motion for
rehearing.

The rehearing motion has drawn the amici support of both the Texas
Association of Defense Counsel and TEX-ABOTA (Texas Chapters of
the American Board of Trial Advocates), an organization comprised
of both plaintiff and defense lawyers dedicated to the
preservation of the right to a jury trial.

TEX-ABOTA's March 27 amici brief argues that few patients can
appreciate the effect of signing a pre-dispute arbitration clause
when seeking health care and Fredericksburg Care "effectively
sanctioned the unknowing waiver of Texas consumer's constitutional
right to a jury trial."

While Fredericksburg Care concerns a nursing home, Joe Hood --
hood@windlehood.com -- a partner in El Paso's Windle Hood Norton
Brittain & Jay who wrote TEX-ABOTA's brief, fears the decision
will encourage other health care providers -- such as doctors and
hospitals -- to place arbitration agreements in their patient
contracts to keep potential medical malpractice cases out of state
court.

"It will encourage a lot of providers to go in that direction.
They perceive, incorrectly, that they are better off going to
arbitration," said Mr. Hood, an appellate lawyer who defends
medical malpractice cases.  "But the reality is, when you go to
arbitration you're going to have to live by it."

David Chamberlain, the president of TEX-ABOTA and former president
of the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, agrees with Mr. Hood.
He filed his own brief before the high court urging it to withdraw
the Fredericksburg Care decision.

The Texas Legislature passed the 2003 tort reform measure as a way
to reduce skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums, said
Chamberlain, something he heard over and over as he monitored that
legislation while serving as president of the defense counsel bar
group.

"To say Chapter 74 had nothing to do with the regulation of
insurance is just flat wrong.  It's like almost no one on the
court was around at that time," said Mr. Chamberlain, a medical
malpractice defense attorney and partner in Austin's Chamberlain
McHaney.

While doctors and hospitals may be tempted to sign arbitration
agreements to keep litigation with patients out of a courtroom,
that's not always a good idea, Mr. Chamberlain said.

"A defense attorney will tell you there are a lot of protections
in Chapter 74 that can be applied in arbitration and sometimes
they're not," he said.  "And then the physician has no right to
appeal."

Peter Kelly wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Texas Trial
Lawyers Association before the high court decided Fredericksburg
Care advocating that the court reject the motion to compel
arbitration.  Now he represents the plaintiffs in Fredericksburg
Care, and filed the motion for rehearing.

Mr. Kelly said he is encouraged by the amici support the motion
for rehearing has received.

"On one hand the defense lawyers want to have the procedural
protections for their doctor clients.  And plaintiff lawyers want
the procedural protections for their clients," said Mr. Kelly, a
partner in Kelly, Durham & Pittard.  "And all of these
organizations . . . are deeply committed to the principle of a
trial by jury."

Shawn Golden, a partner in San Antonio's Golden & Barrera who
represents Fredericksburg Care, said the amici are missing the
point of the high court's decision.

"I get where they're coming from, but this isn't a public policy
case.  It's a statutory interpretation case," Mr. Golden said.
"Whether or not arbitration should be favored as a matter of
public policy is not an issue that's before the court.  Whether or
not arbitration is a good or bad thing is not the issue before the
court."

He added, "And you know, it really is an issue of federal
importance.  If these people have a problem with arbitration,
maybe they need to talk to Congress about the Federal Arbitration
Act."


G4S SECURE: Face "Lubin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Lubin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03027-WHP (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. owns and operates a security
company with a principle place of business located at 1395
University Blvd., Jupiter, Florida 33458.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq.
      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: lobban@peltonlaw.com
              pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


GOGO LLC: Consumers Can Pursue Suit Over Automatic Renewals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
consumers who bought Wi-Fi connections on domestic air flights
from the company "Gogo" can pursue their claim that they were
tricked into automatic monthly renewals billed to their credit
cards, a federal judge has ruled.

Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein also said that plaintiffs
seeking to prosecute a class action are not bound by mandatory
arbitration and waiver of venue provisions merely because they
signed up on the Gogo website to use the service.

"Sometimes forgotten in the Internet Age, where contracts of
adhesion are often the rule for online consumers, is the essential
element of contract formation: mutual manifestation of assent,"
Judge Weinstein said in Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 14-CV-1199

Plaintiffs Adam Berkson and Kerry Welsh said the graphics and text
in Gogo's website misled them into believing they were only
signing up for one month when they bought the service.  They were
allegedly notified of the duration of their signup, and the
provisions on venue and arbitration, when the "terms of use" came
up while they were signing onto or logging into the website.

Judge Weinstein agreed with the plaintiffs that they were not
given effective notice that would have prompted a reasonable
person to inquire further.  The judge's ruling set the stage for a
hearing on class certification on July 9.

Judge Weinstein said the case raised important policy questions,
including "how should courts deal with hybrid versions of 'browser
wrap' and 'clickwrap' electronic contracts of adhesion" which he
referred to as "sign-in wraps" that "do not provide Internet users
with a compelling reason to examine terms favoring defendants?"

The judge made his ruling after inferring the plaintiffs "average
capacity and understanding as Internet users when they order
Gogo's services," after relying on sociological research on
average Internet users, "limited empirical studies conducted by
legal scholars and economists and somewhat arbitrary assumptions
by the court itself about the average Internet user."

Included in his reference points were color-coded representations
of the "eye-tracking tendencies" of the average user perusing a
website page, the differences in reading comprehension between the
printed page and computer screen and how the average user
interacts with privacy policies, web-based advertisements and
hyperlinks.

Judge Weinstein also quoted comedian John Oliver on his HBO show
"Last Week With John Oliver" as saying "If Apple put the entire
text of Mein Kampf in their user agreement, you'd still click
agree."

The average Internet user, Judge Weinstein concluded, "would not
have been informed, in the circumstances presented in this case,
that he was binding himself to a sign-in-wrap."

Gogo dominates the airline Wi-Fi market in the United States by
providing exclusive service on 80 percent of flights.  It charges
about $40 per month and about $10 per day for the service.

When Berkson and Kerry filed their lawsuit in 2014 alleging
violations of various consumer protection statutes and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Gogo moved to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative,
change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois.

Judge Weinstein went through the four kinds of electronic adhesion
contracts: browser wrap, where assent is given by merely using the
site; clickwrap, where the user must click "I agree"; scrollwrap,
where the user has to scroll down and click a separate "I agree"
button; and sign-in-wrap, which "couples assent to the terms of a
website with signing up for use of the site's services." and is
the one used by Gogo.

The judge called sign-in-wrap a "questionable form of Internet
contracting" and noted that it is better to have "hard-edged rules
of adhesion," because they reduce litigation costs.

"But, until useful consumer studies demonstrate that average
consumers using the computer understand what contract terms are
being accepted when a purchase is made, preemptive rules in favor
of vendors who do not forcefully draw purchasers' attention to
terms disadvantageous to them should be rejected," Weinstein said.

In this case, he said, "Neither Berkson nor Welsh can, at this
stage of the litigation, be considered to have knowingly bound
themselves to the purported terms of an agreement adverse to
them."

Berkson and Welsh are represented by George Granade and Michael
Reese of Reese LLP.

Gogo is represented by Anthony Laura -- alaura@ebglaw.com -- a
member of Epstein Becker & Green.


GOOGLE INC: Settles for $8.5MM With Class in Privacy Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google will pay $8.5 million, most of it to nonprofit
organizations, to settle a class action that claimed that it
illegally divulged users' search information to third parties,
reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila granted final approval to the
settlement on March 31, finding that distributing the money to
nonprofits instead of class members was appropriate.  Davila also
found that the settlement was reasonable even though Google will
not have to stop disclosing search queries.

The consolidated class action accused Google of routinely passing
on private information through "referrer headers," which provided
the website the user was visiting with the URL of the referring
page.  The URL included the search terms typed in by the user.

Personal information passed on through these referrer headers
could include users' names, IP addresses, their confidential
medical information, their race, or information about their
religious beliefs and sexual orientation, according to the
complaint.  Such transmissions to third parties could involve
millions of search queries a day.

It was anticipated that the class would be consist of about 129
million people.  Under the settlement, Google will pay $8.5
million for distributions to cy pres recipients, attorney fees and
costs, incentive awards to the named plaintiffs, and
administration costs.

The nonprofit cy pres recipients are Carnegie Mellon University,
the World Privacy Forum, Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for
Information, Society and Policy, the Stanford Center for Internet
Society, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard
University, and the AARP Foundation.

Objectors to the settlement argued that the class should be
decertified because class members will not receive any form of
direct monetary compensation.  The objectors claimed that if it is
too costly to distribute settlement funds to class members, then a
class action is not the best method of resolution.

However, "the alternatives to a class action are not preferable
since they involve either thousands of individual cases or a
complete abandonment of millions of claims," Davila ruled.
"Moreover, a class-wide resolution is not rendered inferior simply
because the settlement agreement calls for an indirect rather than
a direct benefit to the class."

Davila found that a cy pres remedy is the "next best" result in
this case.

"First, the settlement fund, while sizeable, is 'non-
distributable.'  Since the amount of potential class members
exceeds one hundred million individuals, requiring proofs of claim
from this many people would undeniably impose a significant burden
to distribute, review and then verify.  Similarly, the cost of
sending out very small payments to millions of class members would
exceed the total monetary benefit obtained by the class," Davila
wrote.

The cy pres distribution also accounts for the nature of the
lawsuits, meets the objectives of the class action and furthers
the interests of class members, the judge said.

The organizations receiving the money have a record of promoting
privacy protection on the Internet and are capable of using the
money to educate the class about online privacy risks.

Google also will have to post disclosures on its website
concerning user search queries, including information about
whether users' search queries are transmitted to third parties.
The disclosures must appear on Google's FAQs page, Key Terms page,
and Privacy FAQ for Google Web History page.

But Google will not be required to make changes to its homepage,
google.com, or to practices of functionality of Google Search,
Google AdWords, Google Analytics or Google Web History.

Davila noted that this relief is not the best result, since the
class sought to stop Google from disclosing search queries
altogether.

"At the same time, a class action settlement does not need to
embody the best possible result to be approved.  The court's role
is not to advocate for any particular relief, but instead to
determine whether the settlement terms fall within a reasonable
range of possible settlements," Davila wrote.

He found the compromise reasonable because the plaintiffs might
not have obtained the result they wanted if the case were to
proceed, and Google did agree to provide the privacy disclosures,
Davila said.  He awarded class counsel to $2.125 million in fees,
25 percent of the settlement fund.

Counsel took the case on a contingent basis and spent considerable
time and money with no guarantee of payment.  The settlement was
not reached easily and counsel had to defend the claims against
three motions to dismiss.

Furthermore, the requested award is not disproportionate to the
class benefit and is comparable to awards approved in similar
Internet privacy class actions, Davila said.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Google Referrer Header
Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division.


GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Parents' App Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google's multimillion-dollar settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission over kids' inadvertent in-app purchases without
parental permission dooms class certification in a companion
lawsuit, reports William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Late last year, Google agreed to cough up no less than $19 million
in refunds to customers whose children made in-app purchases
without permission.  The FTC had found that Google had been
billing customers for inadvertent purchases made without passwords
or any other form of authorization since 2011.

Even after implementing a password requirement, the FTC said that
Google never told parents that entering a password would open a
30-minute window during which children could make unlimited
purchases -- often without parents' permission.

Google has begun notifying its customers of the settlement, which
requires the company to give refunds for all unauthorized in-app
purchases made by children and to modify its billing practices to
get express consent from customers before charging them for future
purchases.

But before the FTC intervened, New York resident Ilana Imber-Gluck
slapped Google with a putative class action after discovering that
one of her sons spent $70 to buy in-app currency for the 99-cent
game "Run Jump Smash."  Other parents have since joined the
federal case, which was filed this past March in San Jose.

Earlier this year, Google argued that Imber-Gluck's class couldn't
be certified because the FTC settlement "affords plaintiffs all of
the relief to which they would have been entitled if they
succeeded in the litigation."

But while Imber-Gluck countered that the FTC settlement didn't
give them punitive damages they would have been entitled to in a
jury trial on California consumer-law claims, U.S. District Judge
Ronald Whyte found on April 3 that the agreement gave the class
"nearly all, if not all, of the possible relief sought in the
complaint."

Whyte also dismissed claims that Google's notification and refund
process was inadequate, cumbersome and therefore flawed. "These
complaints appear unfounded given that Google has already refunded
over $30 million to class members, and the settlement period
continues through December 2015," Whyte wrote.  "Furthermore, it
is unlikely that a class notice and claims process achieved
through this litigation would be much different than that under
the FTC settlement.  Notice would likely involve email notice and
an online claim form, just as in the FTC settlement.  Plaintiffs'
suggestion that their notice would include a better email subject
line than the FTC email is not sufficient to the superiority
requirement."

The case is Ilana Imber-Gluck, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-01070-RMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT: "Cardine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Caradine, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Government Support Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00129-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., April 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Government Support Services, Inc. is a Kentucky-based company that
provides a wide-range of logistics management support services to
both government and commercial clients for multiple job locations
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq.
      LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA
      P.O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39532
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces 8 Class Actions on Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc., 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 since the December 3, 2014
announcement of the merger agreement, eight purported class action
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
for the State of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against
HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one complaint), the individual
directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The
lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15,
2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the
Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein
Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn
v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-
12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v.
Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the
Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson
Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).
On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel.

On February 13, 2015, the Court held a hearing on this motion. On
January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily dismissed.
Thereafter, the same alleged stockholder plaintiff filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the individual
directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The
lawsuit is captioned as Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.
et al., 15-cv-00029-JMS-KSC (January 27, 2015) (the Cohn Federal
Action).

All eight actions allege, among other things, that members of
HEI's Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an
unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and
contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI,
NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors'
fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from
consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger
to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. In addition, the
Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of directors
violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by
omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form
S-4.

HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations of the
complaints are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Reznik" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Reznik, Dian Lathan, Timothy Johnson, and Randall Johnson
v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-00648 (E.D. Mo., April 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of managing and oversees the
operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United
States airports and other travel facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
      THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      800 Market Street, Suite 1700
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-2929
      Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
      E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com


INTERNAL REVENUE: Asked to Reveal Who Applied for Tax-Exempt
------------------------------------------------------------
Accused of unfairly scrutinizing Tea Partiers, the Internal
Revenue Service must reveal what groups applied for tax-exempt
status and when, reports David Wells at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott's order April 1 comes in an
ongoing class action against the IRS led by California-based
NorCal Tea Party Patriots, which says the agency singled out
groups like them based upon their names and political positions
after they applied for tax-exempt status.

For the IRS, political-sounding names that seemed to identify with
the Tea Party "such as 'We the People' or 'Take Back the Country'"
raised major red flags, according to the complaint.

After considering the latest version of the complaint last year,
the court has advanced claims that the IRS violated the First and
Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 6103 of
Title 26, a statute that protects the confidentiality of tax-
return information.

With the IRS having presented a list of 298 applicants for tax-
exempt status to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, the Tea Partiers seek to certify a class of "all
dissenting groups targeted for additional scrutiny by the IRS from
January 20, 2009, through July 15, 2013."

The IRS has balked during discovery, however, claiming that the
documents that the plaintiffs need to identify potential class
members are exempt from discovery because the records appear on
tax forms containing the very material that Section 6103 protects.

Disagreeing that they are seeking the application files
themselves, the plaintiffs said they only want the spreadsheets
that the IRS created to track applicants.

Judge Dlott agreed April 1 that such information is important to
the proceedings and not exempt.

"The Court concludes that the return information sought is
directly related to the issue of class certification in this
federal court proceeding," the ruling states.  "Plaintiffs seek
the return information of the putative class members to prove to
the court that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)
requirements such as typicality, commonality, and whether the IRS
acted on a grounds that applied generally to the putative class
are satisfied."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Langdon, Esq.
          LANGDON LAW LLC
          8913 Cincinnati Dayton Rd.
          West Chester, OH 45069
          Telephone: (513) 733-1038
          Facsimile: (513) 577-7383

The case is NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. The Internal
Revenue Service, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00341-SJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Class Action in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company 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 Tennessee
class action is in a preliminary stage.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint
alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through
November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International
Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court
in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper
violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix
the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.
Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes
the allegations made and is vigorously defending each action.

"However, because the federal action is in the discovery stage and
the Tennessee action is in a preliminary stage, we are unable to
predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Executed Settlement in Gypsum Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company 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
executed a definitive settlement agreement in the Gypsum class
action, which is subject to court approval.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 to the present; (2) avoid price
erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3)
restrict supply through downtime and limiting order fulfillment.
The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board
and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any
defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble
actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011.

"In September 2014, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
these cases for an immaterial amount. In February 2015, we
executed a definitive settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Class Actions in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company 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 Canadian
class action cases are in a preliminary stage.

In September 2013, similar purported class actions were filed in
courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking
damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the
allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation.

"Because these Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, we are
unable to predict an outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably
possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss
is probable," the COmpany said.


INTERTHINX INC: "Weber" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Weber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00646 (E.D. Mo., April 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Interthinx, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in California. It provides risk mitigation
solutions focusing on mortgage fraud, collateral risk and
valuation, regulatory compliance, forensic loan audit services,
loss mitigation, and loss forecasting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC
      10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
      Leawood, MO 66206
      Telephone: (913) 766-5585
      Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
      E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


KARESH GLASS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Karesh Glass, LLC, and
Jorge Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-03432 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a glass installation and
fabrication company located at 400 Frontier Way, Bensenville,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIND LLC: Faces "Kaufer" Suit Over Products Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Kaufer, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Kind, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02878 (C.D.
Cal., April 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's marketing
campaign claiming that its snack bars are healthy or contain
healthy nutrients or ingredients. However, the products do not
meet the requirements established by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration because they contain elevated levels of saturated
fat, not enough nutrients to bear the terms +, plus, or other
health related terms, and other ingredients or elements that
indicate the product are not truly healthy.

Kind, LLC is an international manufacturer, distributor, and
seller of various snack products, including fruit & nut bars and
granola bars with its principal place of business located in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIND LLC: Faces "McDonald" Suit in Cal. Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie McDonald and Benjamin Karter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and the general public v. Kind,
LLC, 8:15-cv-00615-CJC-E (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's marketing campaign claiming that its snack bars
are healthy or contain healthy nutrients or ingredients. However,
the products do not meet the requirements established by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration because they contain elevated levels
of saturated fat, not enough nutrients to bear the terms +, plus,
or other health related terms, and other ingredients or elements
that indicate the product are not truly healthy.

Kind, LLC is an international manufacturer, distributor, and
seller of various snack products, including fruit & nut bars and
granola bars with its principal place of business located in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com


LA GUADALUPANA: Recalls Hot Chicken, Hot Pork & Vegan Tamales
-------------------------------------------------------------
La Guadalupana Wholesale, a long time Mexican food producer based
in Chicago, has taken an important action to protect its consumers
in the Midwest. "April 8, 2015, we have issued a voluntary recall
for our Hot Chicken, Hot Pork and Salsa Verde Vegan tamales sold
throughout the Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana between January 16,
2015 and April 8, 2015" said the Alejandro Castro, Vice-President
of La Guadalupana.

The measure came after finding the existence of the wrong corn
starch in La Guadalupana's Salsa Verde Sauce that includes Egg
white powder, which could affect a small segment of the population
allergic to this ingredient. "We want to make it clear that this
incident occurred when the company which provides us with the corn
starch sent us the wrong corn starch that includes Egg white
powder" said Alejandro Castro.

Accordingly, our labels do not show that Egg white powder is in
our Hot Chicken, Hot Pork and Salsa Verde Vegan tamales. "The
inclusion of the egg white powder will only cause a health concern
for those who are allergic to eggs. We do not want to take any
chances." concluded Alejandro Castro.

This recall only affects the Hot Chicken, Hot Pork and Salsa Verde
Vegan Tamales, all other La Guadalupana products do not contain
egg in it. We can assure you that our products are wholesome and
clean. We can do this because of all the documentation that we do
to assure this to our USDA inspector on a daily basis. Moreover,
our last third party audit we scored a Superior rating, 98.46% out
of 100%. All these records are open for review as well as our USDA
factory if you may need to look over any additional support.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm442190.htm


LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling Yet on US Direct Purchaser Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated has not yet received a ruling on the
settlement in the U.S. direct purchaser class action cases, the
Company 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.

"We were named as a defendant in three pending direct purchaser
class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) on behalf of a
class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products. The
direct purchaser class action cases were all filed in or were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196," the Company said.

"The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct
purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly
suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of
polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each
plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future
violations. We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser
class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to
state a legally valid claim, which were denied by the Ohio Court.
A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the direct
purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court
certified the direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for
Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied.
The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with
a mediator of their choosing.

"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct purchaser
class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an
aggregate amount of $39.8 million, inclusive of plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all allegations in
the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid
the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The
settlement is subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8
million (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter
2014. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 million to the
Court related to the tentative settlement. Since the accrual is
partially attributable to our former Prime Foam Products business,
which was sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 million of
expense is reflected in discontinued operations. The deadline for
direct purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation and
settlement classes was January 26, 2015. A final fairness hearing
was held on February 3, 2015, but we have not yet received a
ruling."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Ordered Non-Binding Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 Ohio Court
ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a
mediator of their choosing in the U.S. indirect purchaser class
action cases.

"We were named as a defendant in an indirect purchaser class
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and were
subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed
on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196," the Company said.

"The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of
indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various states'
antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are seeking three
times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of
alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products
from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks
attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court
costs, and injunctive relief against future violations.

"We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action,
for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied
the motions to dismiss. Discovery is substantially complete in
this case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of
the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the
Court certified the indirect purchaser class. We filed a Petition
for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was
denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court where it remains pending. The
Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation
with a mediator of their choosing."


LEGGETT & PLATT: US Direct Purchaser Cases to Be Tried in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 once pretrial
practice concludes, some of the individual direct purchaser cases
are scheduled to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

"We have been named as a defendant in 35 individual direct
purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013,
which were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196," the Company
said.  "The claims in the individual direct purchaser cases are
generally the same as those asserted in the direct purchaser class
action case, with the exception of one case that also alleges an
indirect purchaser claim. Additionally, several individual direct
purchaser plaintiffs bring state claims under individual states'
consumer protection and/or antitrust statutes in addition to their
federal claims. Once pretrial practice concludes, some of the
individual direct purchaser cases are scheduled to be tried in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and others
will be remanded back to the federal district courts where the
cases were originally filed for trial."


LEGGETT & PLATT: "Restraint of Trade Act" Cases to Be Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 once pretrial
practice concludes, the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act Cases will
be remanded back to the District of Kansas federal district court
for trial.

"We have been named as a defendant in two individual cases
alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the
other on April 11, 2013," the Company said.

"These two cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas and then transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The
claims and allegations of these plaintiffs are generally the same
as the other direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs, with the
exception that the Kansas plaintiffs seek full consideration
damages (their total purchase amounts for the allegedly price-
fixed polyurethane foam products). Once pretrial practice
concludes, this case will be remanded back to the District of
Kansas federal district court for trial."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Provides Update on Canadian Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 no certification
motions will be brought in the Ontario actions until after the
British Columbia motions for certification have been determined.

"We were named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and
indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the
name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November
2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011)," the Company
said.

"In each of these Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100 million,
punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The
first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of
polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of
purchasers of carpet underlay. We are not yet required to file our
defenses in these or any other Canadian actions.

"In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers
of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which
was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification,
which has been postponed indefinitely.

"We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as
parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those
proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one
proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic
Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362
Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of
carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver
Registry). The motion to add us as parties to these actions has
been scheduled to be heard with the motions for certification in
the two actions in April 2015.

"The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers
only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian
purchasers. No certification motions will be brought in the
Ontario actions until after the British Columbia motions for
certification have been determined."


LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling Yet on Class Cert Bid in Missouri Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated has yet to receive any ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Missouri Class
Action Case, the Company 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.

"On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to a lawsuit brought in
the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case
Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class
of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State
of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of
flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of
reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this
action, which was denied. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff
has filed a motion for class certification. A hearing on the
motion was held but we have yet to receive any ruling," the
Company said.


LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fees Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, 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 that date,
the Company has accrued $34.9 million related to the settlement in
the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part
and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a
revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court
in April 2014. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company has accrued $34.9 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


LONG ISLAND: "Guan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Lan Guan, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Long Island Business Institute, Inc. and Monica Foote,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02215 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Long Island Business Institute, Inc.is a two-year, for-profit
college of business and Career College, offering certificate and
associate degree programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


MACHINE ZONE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Mobile Application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Mason, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Machine Zone, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01107 (D. Md.,
April 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's Game of War mobile
application that is alleged to be a slot machine or device because
it is a machine, apparatus, or device that has been adapted for
use in a way that is operated through the insertion of money by
electronic means, and by reason of chance the users may receive a
thing of value that may be given in trade for money, credit,
allowance, or a thing or value.

Machine Zone, Inc. operates the popular Game of War videogame,
which is available on Android and Apple iOS devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria C. Simon, Esq.
      THE GELLER LAW GROUP
      4000 Legato Road, Suite 1100
      Fairfax, Virginia 22033
      Telephone: (703) 679-7067
      Facsimile: (703) 259-8584
      E-mail: msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Amir C. Missaghi, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589.6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589.6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              amissaghi@edelson.com


MARIO'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mario's Pizzeria of Seaford Corp., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02209 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mario's Pizzeria of Seaford Corp. owns and operates a pizzeria
located at 3842 Sunrise Highway, Seaford, New York 11783.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      201 Moreland Road, Suite 10
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Telephone: (631) 240-4355
      Facsimile: (631) 406-4911
      E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Final Hearing Held to Approve "Benner" Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that
a final hearing was scheduled for March 31, 2015, to approve
settlement in the putative class action filed by Jon Benner.

"On December 21, 2012, Jon Benner, an owner of fractional
interests in The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San Francisco
(the "RCC San Francisco"), filed suit in Superior Court for the
State of California, County of San Francisco against us and
certain of our subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all owners of fractional interests at the RCC San
Francisco who allegedly did not receive proper notice of their
payment obligations under the Mello-Roos Act," the Company said.

The plaintiff alleges that the disclosures made about bonds issued
for the project under this Act and the payment obligations of
fractional interest purchasers with respect to such bonds were
inadequate, and this and other alleged statutory violations
constitute intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and
fraudulent concealment. The relief sought includes damages in an
unspecified amount, rescission of the purchases, restitution and
disgorgement of profits. This lawsuit is distinct from the other
lawsuits relating to the RCC San Francisco because the disclosure
process for the sale of fractional interests differs from that
applicable to the sale of whole-ownership units.

"On September 5, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Benner action, which agreement was subject to court
approval because the case is a putative class action. As a result
of the agreement in principle, we recorded a charge of $3 million,
which is included in the Litigation settlement line on the
Statement of Income for the year ended January 2, 2015. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 7, 2014, and a
final hearing is scheduled for March 31, 2015," the Company said.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Partial Judgment Motion Granted in Hoyt Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that
the court granted the Company's motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings clarifying the scope of the single remaining claim in
the case filed by Steven B. Hoyt and Bradley A. Hoyt.

"On December 11, 2012, Steven B. Hoyt and Bradley A. Hoyt,
purchasers of fractional interests in two of The Ritz-Carlton
Destination Club projects, filed suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota against us, certain
of our subsidiaries and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of fractional
interests at The Ritz-Carlton Destination Club projects," the
Company said.

The plaintiffs allege that program changes beginning in 2009
caused an actionable decrease in the value of the fractional
interests purchased. The relief sought includes declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages in an unspecified amount, rescission of
the purchases, restitution, disgorgement of profits, interest and
attorneys' fees.

"In response to our motion to dismiss the original complaint,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In response, we filed a
renewed motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2014, the court issued
an order granting that motion in part and denying it in part. On
November 6, 2014, the court granted our motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings clarifying the scope of the single
remaining claim in the case. We continue to dispute the material
allegations remaining in the amended complaint and intend to
continue to defend against this action vigorously. Given the early
stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at
this time," the Company said.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Dismissed "DeSantis" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case filed
by Salvatore DeSantis.

"On March 27, 2014, Salvatore DeSantis, an owner of a one-week
vacation ownership interest at Marriott's Harbour Lake, a project
within our North America segment, filed a complaint in Orange
County, Florida, Circuit Court against us and certain of our
subsidiaries on behalf of himself and a putative class consisting
of all owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation
ownership interests on June 20, 2010, the date of the launch of
our North America points-based program, Marriott Vacation Club
Destinations(TM) ("MVCD")," the Company said.

The plaintiff alleges that the introduction of the MVCD program
caused an actionable decrease in the value of his vacation
ownership interest. The relief sought includes compensatory and
exemplary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and common-law theories of breach of contract and
breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

"We removed the matter to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. On May 30, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss. In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to
which we responded by filing a renewed motion to dismiss on July
31, 2014. On November 14, 2014, the court granted our motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice," the Company said.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: 9th Cir. Granted Motion to Expedite Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted
the Company's motion to expedite an appeal.

"On May 20, 2014, we received notices of intent to initiate
litigation or arbitration from: Michael and Marla Flynn, owners of
weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership products at
two of our resorts in Hawaii; Norman and Carreen Abramson, owners
of such products at one of our resorts in California; and William
Sterman, an owner of such products at one of our resorts in
Massachusetts," the Company said.

"The claimants, all of whom are represented by a single law firm,
make allegations similar to those alleged by Mr. DeSantis
discussed above that the introduction of the MVCD program caused
an actionable decrease in the value of their vacation ownership
interests. The claimants stated that, if a satisfactory resolution
of their concerns cannot be achieved, they would pursue their
claims through litigation or arbitration, each on behalf of a
putative class consisting of themselves and all others similarly
situated. The notices indicated that the relief that would be
sought would include compensatory and exemplary damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to applicable timeshare and unfair trade practices acts
and common-law theories of breach of contract and breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

"The Flynns and Mr. Sterman filed claims based on the allegations
listed above with the American Arbitration Association on August
6, 2014, and August 19, 2014, respectively. We filed answering
statements in each proceeding, and initiated declaratory judgment
actions in the United States District Courts of Hawaii and the
Middle District of Florida against the Flynns and Mr. Sterman,
respectively, seeking to enjoin the arbitration proceedings. On
December 11, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii ruled that the arbitrability of the Flynns'
claims must be resolved by an arbitrator. We appealed that
decision and on January 16, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to expedite the
appeal. The Flynns' moved to dismiss the appeal, and we have
opposed that motion.

"Also on January 16, 2015, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida ruled that the arbitrability of Mr.
Sterman's claims must be resolved by an arbitrator. On January 29,
2015, the Abramsons filed an action in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California based on the above
allegations. We dispute the material allegations in the
arbitration claims, as well as the allegations in the California
action, and intend to defend against them vigorously. Given the
early stages of the arbitration proceedings and the related
litigation, we cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if
any, at this time."


MICHAELS STORES: Class Actions Over Credit Checks Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
three class-action suits accusing crafts retailer Michaels Stores
of failing to properly disclose to job applicants its use of their
credit reports in employment decisions have been consolidated in
federal court in Newark.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered April 2
that cases from the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District
of Texas and the Western District of Missouri be transferred to
New Jersey, where U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the
District of New Jersey has been hearing another such case.
Michaels, headquartered in Irving, Texas, preferred the Texas
venue but the panel picked New Jersey after noting that the
defendant has a nationwide presence and that the case before
McNulty was filed before the others.

The suits claim that Michaels violates a requirement of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act that requires employers intending to procure
job applicants' credit reports to make "clear and conspicuous"
disclosure of the practice in a stand-alone document that
"consists solely of the disclosure."  Michaels' online job
application fails to comply because the disclosure is embedded in
one long, continuous Web page, according to the suits.

On the Michaels job application, a disclosure about the credit
report being obtained for employment purposes appears on the same
page with "numerous other pieces of extraneous information,"
including several multiparagraph notices relating to various state
laws, the suits allege.  Many of the extraneous pieces of
information surrounding the credit reporting notice on the
Michaels job application "are the subject of longstanding [Federal
Trade Commission] and judicial guidance indicating that their
presence alone is sufficient to render an otherwise compliant
disclosure noncompliant," according to the complaint in the New
Jersey case, Graham v. Michaels Stores.

Michaels' application includes a purported liability waiver, which
is "a particularly well-established violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act," according to the complaint in Graham.  Michaels
violated the act even after the vendor that conducts its
background reports, General Information Services of Chapin, South
Carolina, repeatedly advised its clients that the background check
disclosure must be in a stand-alone document, and Michaels
certified to GIS that it would comply, the Graham complaint
alleges.

The suits seek statutory damages of up to $1,000 per class member,
plus punitive damages and legal fees.

In Graham and in Castro v. Michaels Stores, the case originating
in Texas, the defendant has offered to settle the case with each
named plaintiff for $12,000, plus attorney fees, according to
court documents.  Christina Graham, the New Jersey plaintiff,
rejected the $12,000 offer but Michele Castro, the original Texas
plaintiff, accepted the deal and was replaced with another
plaintiff, Janice Bercut.

Michaels has maintained in court papers that the plaintiffs'
claims are moot under the Offer of Judgment Rule because the
settlement offers fully satisfy plaintiffs' claims.  The company
also filed motions to dismiss in Graham and Castro and has claimed
that its online job application did comply with the FCRA.

The complaints failed to disclose that Michaels' website "included
a clear and conspicuous hyperlink labeled 'click here for a
printable copy of the disclosure form and Fair Credit Reporting
Act.'  The hyperlink is conspicuous and easily seen, as it is set
apart from the paragraphs preceding it, the text is underlined,
appears in blue instead of black like the other text near it," the
defendant's brief states.

Michaels has also argued in the filings that it did not commit a
willful violation of the FCRA and the plaintiffs and class are
therefore not entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees.  The
company also claimed in its motion to dismiss the New Jersey case
that the plaintiff waived her right to sue because the online
application form required her to click a box stating "I agree" and
listing terms of use of the website.  The terms of use state, in
part, that Michaels and the designer of the site may not be held
liable to users of the site.

The lawyers for Michaels, Pamela Devata of Seyfarth Shaw in
Chicago, and Robert Szyba of Seyfarth Shaw in New York, did not
respond to requests for comment about the case.

Jeffrey Gottlieb of Gottlieb & Associates in New York, who
represents the plaintiff in Graham, declined to comment on the
litigation.  Other plaintiffs lawyers in the case did not return
calls.


NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Cullen" ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to Netflix
because the service is not connected to an "actual, physical
place," reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service,
citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered on April 2.

In a short unpublished opinion, the three-judge panel held that
Donald Cullen's claims for ADA violations "fail as a matter of
law."

The panel also ruled that Cullen's putative class action failed to
allege any injury directly resulting from Netflix's business
practices.  It affirmed Northern District of California's
dismissal.

The appellate case is Donald Cullen, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 13-15092, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
District Court case is Donald Cullen, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-
01199-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


NOMAC DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Thompson, Kevin Buck, and Christopher Deaver, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nomac Drilling,
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00526 (E.D. Tex., April 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days'
advance written notice in connection with recent a Mass Layoff and
Plant Closing at the Defendant's Marshall, Texas, El Reno,
Oklahoma and Mount Morris, Pennsylvania sites.

Nomac Drilling, LLC operates drilling rigs in and around El Reno,
Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVAK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Galvan" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Galvan, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Novak Hospitality, Inc., Chiku Enterprises,
Inc., and Jignesh Jagaria, Case No. 1:15-cv-03426 (N.D. Ill.,
April 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVARTIS: Bellwether Suit Over Bone Loss Drug Zometa Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that one of only two cases to go to trial in New Jersey in
litigation involving the bone loss drug Zometa has been settled on
unknown terms just before a state appeals court was scheduled to
issue a ruling.

A three-judge Appellate Division panel had been expected to decide
whether to affirm or reverse the no-cause verdict won by Novartis
against plaintiff Beverly Meng.  The court announced April 9 that
"the issues in the dispute have been amicably resolved."

Attorneys on both sides declined to discuss the settlement terms
in Meng v. Novartis, or the fate of the 119 Zometa/Aredia cases
that remained in New Jersey as of April 1.

The suits were designated as a mass tort in January 2008 and
centralized in Middlesex County Superior Court.

Prior to that, in April 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation had consolidated federal actions around the country in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The plaintiffs claim that the bisphosphonate drugs Aredia and
Zometa, made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., of East Hanover,
which are used to treat osteoporosis, caused osteonecrosis of the
jaw, or "bone death," according to court documents.  They allege
pain and disfigurement as a result, from loss of teeth and the jaw
bone itself, which in some cases has to be surgically removed and
a metal plate or rod inserted.

Similar allegations have been made about another bisphosphonate,
Fosamax, which is manufactured by Merck.  New Jersey's Fosamax
litigation -- comprising 3,158 cases as of April 6 -- is also
centralized in Middlesex County, before the same judge handling
the Zometa/Aredia litigation, Jessica Mayer.

In the recently settled Zometa case, Ms. Meng sued in 2007,
alleging that, except for about six months in mid-2006, she had
monthly intravenous infusions of Zometa from July 2002 until
November 2006, according to court documents.

It was prescribed to control bone metastases from breast cancer
that had spread to her spine, court documents said.  She stopped
the Zometa in November 2006 around the time her dentist noticed
exposed bone in her mouth.  Osteonecrosis was diagnosed in
February 2007.

Before Ms. Meng's case went to trial in the spring of 2013 on a
claim of failure to provide an adequate warning, Ms. Mayer
dismissed other counts -- for strict liability, design defect,
breach of express warranty and consumer fraud -- on a motion for
summary judgment.

Ms. Mayer applied the law of Mississippi, where Ms. Meng lived
while taking Zometa.

In allowing the failure-to-warn claim to proceed, Ms. Mayer
discussed the warnings provided by Novartis regarding the bone
death risk.

The first mention was a September 2003 package insert stating that
there had been reports of osteonecrosis but the condition had
"other well-documented multiple risk factors" and it was not
possible to determine if it was connected to Zometa, court
documents said.  A February 2004 revision of the warning added
that most of the osteonecroses reported were in cancer patients
who had other risk factors such as chemotherapy, corticosteroids,
anemia and infection.  It described those cases as "attendant to a
dental procedure" and concluded "it is prudent to avoid dental
surgery."

An August 2004 update mentioned that the majority of instances
were associated with tooth extraction and many people had signs of
local infection, according to court documents.  The warning
recommended having a dental examination before taking the drug and
avoiding invasive dental procedures while on it.

That warning was the one in effect when Ms. Meng had the dental
procedure that allegedly triggered osteonecrosis, according to
Mayer's summary judgment opinion.

Ms. Mayer found Ms. Meng's evidence sufficient to raise an issue
of fact as to adequacy.

Ms. Meng's labeling expert, Dr. Suzanne Parisian, criticized the
warning as "'misleading'" because of the associations it drew to
other risk factors, according to Mayer.

In addition, Ms. Meng's doctor, Louis Puneky, testified that if he
had better understood the risks, he would have prescribed the
Zometa differently, according to Ms. Mayer.  He said he would not
have kept Ms. Meng on Zometa for four years and probably after two
years would have "'backed down on the dosage to maybe every three
months.'"

Dr. Puneky indicated he would have taken the risk more seriously
if it been a black box warning rather than an adverse event in the
caution section of the label, according to Mayer.

Despite surviving summary judgment, Ms. Meng's failure-to-warn
claim did not convince a jury.

At the end of a 13-day trial, the jury voted 7-1 on May 19, 2013,
to answer "no" to the question: "Did Novartis fail to provide an
adequate warning to Ms. Meng's prescribing physician concerning
the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw from Zometa that Novartis
either knew or in light of the reasonably available knowledge
should have known prior to Ms. Meng discontinuing use of the
drug?"

Novartis likewise prevailed at the first and only other Zometa
trial in New Jersey, where the jury, by a 7-2 vote, answered "no"
to the same question on Oct. 6, 2010.

There, plaintiff Jane Bessemer, also a breast cancer patient with
bone metastases, was treated intravenously with Aredia and Zometa
from May 1999 to April 2004, to reduce the chance of spinal
fracture and degeneration and also to alleviate bone pain,
according to court documents.  She alleged that a June 2000 tooth
extraction triggered osteonecrosis and that dentists and oral
surgeons who tried to help her only made it worse because they
were unaware of the nature and cause of that type of jaw bone
disease, court documents said.

Ms. Bessemer sued under New Jersey's Product Liability and
Consumer Fraud Acts.

In the months leading up to trial, Ms. Mayer held that Novartis
had no duty to warn nonprescribing dentists and oral surgeons and
rejected Bessemer's contention that the learned intermediary
defense should not apply because Novartis advertised directly to
consumers.

Those rulings were upheld on appeal on June 13, 2012, and the New
Jersey Supreme Court denied Bessemer's petition for review five
months later.

There have been no New Jersey trials since Ms. Meng's and none are
presently scheduled.

In contrast to plaintiffs' lack of success in New Jersey,
significant verdicts have been won in federal cases that the MDL
judge has sent back to the courts of origin for trial.

For example, in 2012, Herbert Fussman, as administrator for the
estate of his wife, Rita Fussman, was awarded $287,000 in
compensatory damages and $12.6 million in punitive damages in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The judge in that case cut the punitive damages to $861,000
because North Carolina law limits punitives to the greater of
$250,000 or three times the compensatory amount.

The final judgment of about $1.26 million, including prejudgment
interest, was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit on Feb. 8, 2013.

Two other plaintiffs, Dianna Chiles and Nancy Guenther,
respectively, obtained $250,000 and $1 million judgments in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, both of
which Novartis appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

As in Meng, those appeals will not be decided because they were
dismissed at the request of the parties within the last six weeks,
according to court documents.

Novartis' attorneys, Joe Hollingsworth, of Hollingsworth LLP in
Washington, D.C., and Beth Rose -- brose@sillscummis.com -- of
Sills Cummis & Gross in Newark, declined to comment.

Also declining to comment was one of Ms. Meng's lawyers, John
Vecchione of Fairfax, Virginia, who also represented Fussman,
Chiles and Guenther.

Two other lawyers representing Ms. Meng could not be reached: John
Beins -- Jbeins@beinsgoldberg.com -- of Beins Goldberg in Chevy
Chase, Maryland, and Terence Sweeney of Chatham.


OASIS PETROLEUM: To Defend Claims Connected to Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, Oasis 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.

On July 6, 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal, Maine and
Atlantic Railway ("MMA") carrying crude oil (the "Train") derailed
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. In March 2014, Oasis Petroleum Inc. and
OP LLC were added to a group of over fifty named defendants,
including other crude oil producers as well as the Canadian
Pacific Railway, MMA and certain of its affiliates, owners and
transloaders of the crude oil carried by the Train, several
lessors of tank cars, and the Attorney General of Canada, in a
motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize a class-action
lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as costs for claims arising out of the derailment of the
Train (Yannick Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et
al., Case No. 48006000001132). The motion generally alleges
wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the
proper and safe transportation of crude oil.

"We believe that all claims against Oasis Petroleum Inc. and OP
LLC in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against them," the Company said.


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Sued in Iowa Over High Investment Products Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal M. Anderson, and all others similarly situated v.
Principal Life Insurance Company, Benefits Plans Administrative
Committee, Benefits Plans Investment Committee, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00119 (S.D. Iowa, April 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
charge higher fees for investment products and plan administrative
services than is typical of peer mega plans in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Principal Life Insurance Company is a life insurance, retirement
plan recordkeeping, and investment services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kay M. Johansen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF KAY JOHANSEN
      504 First Ave. S.E.
      Mount Vernon, IA 52314
      Telephone: (319) 895-6540
      Facsimile: (319) 895-6560
      E-mail: kay.johansen@kjohansenlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      910 17th Street, Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Suit Claims Denture Cause Neurological Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after chipping
away for years at claims that Procter & Gamble's Fixodent denture
glue can cause neurological damage, P&G's lawyers at Weil, Gotshal
& Manges reached what looked like a breakthrough in late January,
more than half a decade into the case.  That ruling formally
knocked out the last of the claims in the consolidated litigation,
with the last of the dismissals lodged on April 9.

On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami found
that plaintiffs lawyers had offered flawed evidence in support of
a theory that the zinc in Fixodent has a causal link to
neurological damage.  The ruling kept the plaintiffs' causation
expert from testifying and undermined the claims of injury in the
denture cream case, which dates back to June 2009.

It wasn't immediate, but the plaintiffs' lawyers, including Eric
Chaffin of Chaffin Luhana, eventually conceded that without their
causation expert, they didn't have a case. On March 28, the two
sides stipulated that Judge Altonaga's ruling in January was
"case-dispositive."  The stipulation was followed by more than 60
docket entries dismissing individual cases with prejudice.

In a statement, lead P&G counsel Edward Soto of Weil said the
judge's causation ruling gave the plaintiffs no choice.

"Plaintiffs had nowhere to go after Judge Altonaga's well-written
decision," said Mr. Soto.  "They certainly could not have gone to
trial without any admissible general causation experts."

In their March 28 stipulation, the plaintiffs' lawyers reserved
their right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

The dismissal comes in a case that has dragged on for nearly six
years, despite favorable rulings for P&G along the way.

Initially, the multidistrict litigation also targeted
GlaxoSmithKline over its Super Poligrip denture cream.  But GSK
announced in 2010 it would stop using zinc in Poligrip, and later
reached a series of settlements in the denture cream litigation,
worth a reported $120 million.

P&G and its legal team opted to keep fighting the claims.  In June
2011, Weil convinced Judge Altonaga to find against the
plaintiffs' causation theory in a ruling that the Eleventh Circuit
later affirmed.

But that didn't stop the plaintiffs, who insisted that they had
found new evidence to support the claim that Fixodent could cause
neurological damage known as copper deficiency myeloneuropathy.

Judge Altonaga's ruling in January shot down the plaintiffs'
revamped argument, ruling that the new evidence they presented
might be promising on the surface, but was ultimately based on
"factually inaccurate data and unsupported assumptions."

In addition to Soto, Weil's Edward McCarthy and Lara Bach --
lara.bach@weil.com -- represent P&G, joined by lawyers at Dinsmore
& Shohl and Goldberg Segalla.  The lineup for the plaintiffs also
includes Andres Alonso of Alonso Krangle and Melanie Muhlstock of
Parker Waichman.


PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Schroers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Schroers, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated employees v. Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc. d/b/a
Prompt Ambulance Service and Indiana EMS, Gary Miller, Shar
Miller, and Joseph Merry, Case No. 2:15-cv-00153 (N.D. Ind., April
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an ambulance service company that
contracts with municipalities in Northwest Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul E. Luka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA PC
      120 S State St Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 971-7309
      Facsimile: (312) 236-9826
      E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Four Lawsuits Filed on Dai-ichi Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life 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 after the entry
into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits were
filed against the Company, the Company's then current directors,
Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of
alleged Company shareowners.

The Company said, "On June 11, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et
al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-2014-902474.00, was filed in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the
plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint.

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective
Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19,
2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al.
v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB,
filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions under the caption In
re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated
Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the
operative consolidated complaint (the "Delaware Action") and
appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and
Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs.

"These lawsuits allege that our Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to our shareowners, that the Merger involves an
unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers, and
that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July
10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly material information. The
complaints also alleged that the Company, Dai-ichi Life and DL
Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek injunctive
relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.
The Delaware Action also seeks an award of unspecified damages.

"With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the
court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's
Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014,
the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit
in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by
the plaintiff.

"With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi
Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case,
which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a
settlement of the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the
Company, the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL
Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to
eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties
inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties
will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for
the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement
purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners
of shares (excluding the members of the Company's Board and their
immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the
Company's Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in
interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period
beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or
termination of the Merger, including any and all of their
respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in
interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators,
heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any
person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under,
any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and
assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as
set forth in the MOU. As part of the settlement, the Company
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
Merger which are set forth in the Company's Form 8-K filed on
September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained
in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on
August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the
Form 8-K or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the
disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The claims in the Delaware
Action will not be released until the stipulation of settlement is
approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
proposed settlement would have no effect on the consideration
received by Company stockholders in connection with the completion
of the Merger.

"There can be no assurance, however, that the court will approve
the proposed settlement, nor can there be any assurance as to the
size of any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the
plaintiffs' counsel. The Company cannot provide assurances as to
the ultimate settlement of the Delaware Action or with respect to
any lawsuits regarding the Merger that may be filed in the
future."


QC FINANCIAL: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Alleged Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QC Financial Services, Inc. and QC Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02884 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), seeks to
put an end on the Defendant's illegal practice of recording
cellular telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent
of the person being recorded.

The Defendants are full service accounts receivable management
companies in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RCI HOSPITALITY: Settles Labor Suit With Strippers for $15-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that thousands of
strippers represented in a class-action labor lawsuit against New
York's Rick's Cabaret hope to end six years of protracted
litigation by accepting a $15 million settlement.

Filed in 2009, the lawsuit's lead plaintiff Sabrina Hart fought on
behalf of nearly 2,300 current and former dancers who graced the
Midtown Manhattan strip club's stage.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer awarded the class $10.8
million late last year on three of the charges of the lawsuit,
resolving minimum wage violations, unlawfully retained tips, and
improper fees under state law.

That partial judgment, however, did not stop the court wrangling.

The club brought an interlocutory appeal to the 2nd Circuit, and
the remaining claims still faced a trial.

On April 1, the women's lawyer Anna Prakash asked the judge to
approve a settlement between the parties.

"The settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial after
almost six years of hard-fought litigation, full-blown discovery
with over 30 depositions, including expert discovery, abundant
motion practice including summary judgment on liability and
damages, class certification, and pre-trial preparation including
seventeen motions in limine," Prakash noted in a memorandum.

A four-week trial had been slated to start on April 27.

"Given the itinerancy and general makeup of the class," there are
"fraud-protection measures" in place to prevent the wrong people
from claiming their checks, Prakash wrote.

Her co-counsel Michelle Drake, also from the firm Nichols Kaster,
said in a statement that she was "pleased to have reached a fair
and reasonable resolution of this matter."

"This litigation has involved a number of hotly contested legal
battles," she noted.  "Had we not settled, trial and appeal would
have been next and any recovery would have been even further
delayed.  The settlement will provide substantial and immediate
relief to the dancers and we believe it is in the best interest of
the class."

A lawyer for Rick's Cabaret did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Steven Andrew Smith, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Toll-Free: (877) 448-0492
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  smith@nka.com
                  drake@nka.com
                  aprakash@nka.com
                  jalbanese@nka.com

The case is Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class
v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Ricks's Cabaret
International, Inc., RCI Entertainment (New York) Inc., Peregrine
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-03043-PAE-RLE, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC 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 case Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company is now in the discovery phase.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records.  The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California
law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out
the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate
sales associates as independent contractors and all elements of
the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales
associates.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and
a hearing was held on August 28, 2013.  The Court denied the
Demurrer and stated that it would look to the more complex multi-
factor common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was
misclassified.  CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal seeking its discretionary review of
that decision on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013, the
Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's ex parte
application which sought, in part, to invalidate, for purposes of
this litigation, arbitration clauses with class action waivers in
independent contractor agreements executed by some putative
members of the class following the commencement of the litigation.
Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of
Appeal seeking its discretionary review of the Court's decision to
deny plaintiff's application.  On June 2, 2014, the Court of
Appeal summarily denied the petition.  The case is now in the
discovery phase.  The next case status conference was scheduled
for March 2, 2015.

"The case raises significant classification claims that
potentially apply to the real estate industry in general and that
have not been previously challenged in any significant manner in
California or many other jurisdictions.  As with all class action
litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many
uncertainties.  We believe that CBRBC has properly classified the
current and former affiliated sales associates.  There can be no
assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class
is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a
substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies.   Given
the stage of this case, the novel claims and issues presented and
the great uncertainties regarding which sales associates, if any,
may be part of a class, if one is certified, we cannot estimate a
range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation.  The
Company believes it has complied with all applicable laws and
regulations and will vigorously defend this action," the Company
said.


RELIABLE RUNNERS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
William Walker and David Chovanek, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Reliable Runners Courier Service,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00760-PAG (N.D. Ohio, April 19, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, E
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              jfscld@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      Ste. 104
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 973-9000
      Facsimile: (440) 210-4610
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


SABRA DIPPING: Recalls Classic Hummus Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabra Dipping Co., LLC announced that it is voluntarily recalling
approximately 30,000 cases of its Classic Hummus due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. This measure is limited
to five SKUs of Classic Hummus sold nationwide.  To date, no other
Sabra product is affected by this recall.

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

To date, there have been no reports indicating that these products
have caused any illness.

The products being recalled are listed below and were distributed
to retail outlets, including food service accounts and
supermarkets, in the U.S. Consumers can find code and use by dates
on the top of each package.

  UPC/SKU       Item              Use by Dates     Affected Areas
  -------       ----              ------------     --------------
040822011143/   Sabra Classic     3 059 Best            US
300067          Hummus 10 oz      Before/Meilleur
                                  Avant 2015 May 11
                                  3 060 Best
                                  Before/ Meilleur
                                  Avant 2015 May 15
040822014687/   Sabra Classic     3 059 Best            US
300074          Hummus 30 oz      Before/Meilleur
                                  Avant 2015 May 11
040822342049/   Sabra Classic     3 059 Best            US
301216          Hummus without    Before/Meilleur
                Garnish 32oz      Avant 2015 May 11
040822017497/   Sabra Classic     3 058 Best
301290          Hummus 17oz Six   Before/Meilleur       US
                Pack              Avant 2015 May 11
                                  3 059 Best
                                  Before/Meilleur
                                  Avant 2015 May 11
040822342209/   Hummus Dual       3 058 Best            US
301283          Pack Classic/     Before/Meilleur
                Garlic 23.5oz     Avant 2015 May 11

The potential for contamination was discovered when a routine,
random sample collected at a retail location on March 30th, 2015
by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development,
tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
dispose of or return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with any questions may call toll free 1-888-957-
2272, Monday - Friday 9:00AM to 4:30PM Central Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm442098.htm


SKIPPY'S GYROS: Faces "Marquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Marquez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Skippy's Gyros III, Inc. and Gus Volkos,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03422 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMS MARKETING: Sued in N.D. Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Cabalona, individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly situated v. SMS Marketing Services, Inc. d/b/a
Educationahead.Com, Case No. 3:15-cv-01757-EDL (N.D. Cal., April
17, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of
making calls on the class members' cellular telephone for non-
emergency purpose using an automatic dialing system.

SMS Marketing Services, Inc. is a marketing solutions company
headquartered at 777 Terrace Avenue, Suite 401, Hasbrouck Heights,
NJ 07604.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


SPANSION INC: Inks MOU in Class Action Over Cypress Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Spansion Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, that on
December 1, 2014, Spansion Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Spansion"), Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Cypress"), and Mustang Acquisition Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cypress
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger
Sub will merge with and into Spansion (the "Merger"), with
Spansion surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cypress.

On February 6, 2015 Cypress filed, and on February 10, 2015
Spansion filed, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus (the
"Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in connection with
the Merger, which was mailed to the stockholders of each of
Spansion and Cypress on or about February 10, 2015. Spansion is
making this filing in connection with the execution of a
memorandum of understanding, effective February 20, 2015, (the
"MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation arising out
of the announcement of the Merger Agreement.

As disclosed in, among other places, the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, Walter Jeter filed a class action complaint
on December 17, 2014 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274635) against
Spansion Inc., its directors, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation,
and Mustang Acquisition Corporation ("Jeter Action"). On December
24, 2014, Shiva Y. Stein filed a similar class action complaint in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara (No. 114CV274924) against the same defendants ("Stein
Action"). On January 12, 2015, each of the plaintiffs filed
substantially identical amended complaints. Both cases allege that
the proposed merger was the result of a flawed process and
provides insufficient value to Spansion's shareholders, and
further allege that the disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 19, 2014 are materially incomplete and misleading.
Plaintiffs in both cases assert claims against Spansion's
directors for a breach of fiduciary duty and, as to Cypress and
Merger Sub, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Merger Agreement between Spansion
and Cypress which was announced on December 1, 2014, or
alternatively, to rescind the transaction in the event the
defendants are able to consummate it, along with damages, attorney
fees and costs. On January 30, 2015, the court consolidated the
two lawsuits into a single action, captioned Walter Jeter v.
Spansion Inc., et al., Case No. 1-14-CV-274635 (the "Consolidated
Action").

Pursuant to the MOU, Spansion has agreed to make the disclosures
concerning the Merger. The MOU will be replaced by a Stipulation
of Settlement to be negotiated and prepared by the parties, and
submitted for court approval. The Stipulation of Settlement will
include terms proposing the certification of a conditional non-opt
out class for settlement purposes only. In addition, the MOU
provides that, subject to approval by the court after notice to
the members of the Class (the "Class Members"), the parties agree
to the entry of a Final Order and Judgment in the Consolidated
Action that shall provide that the Jeter Action, the Stein Action
and the Consolidated Action are dismissed with prejudice and that
all claims that the Class Members may possess with regard to the
Merger will be released.

In connection with the settlement, the Plaintiff's counsel has
expressed its intention to seek an award by the court of
attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of the award to the
Plaintiff's counsel will ultimately be determined by the court.
This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to
be received by any Spansion stockholder in the Merger. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
definitive settlement agreement or that the court will approve the
settlement. The MOU and the settlement are contingent upon
conditional class certification for the purpose of the settlement
and final approval of the settlement by the court.

The Defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or breaches of duty or engaged in any of the
alleged wrongful acts and the Defendants expressly maintain that
they diligently and fully complied with their fiduciary,
disclosure and other legal duties. Nothing in the MOU, any
settlement agreement or any public filing, including the Current
Report on Form 8-K ("Current Report"), is or shall be deemed to be
an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality
under applicable laws of any of the additional information or in
any public filing associated with the proposed settlement of the
Jeter, Stein and Consolidated Actions.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Millennium Class Action in NY Has Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, 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 several
actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in various
jurisdictions against the Company's subsidiary, GlobeOp Financial
Services S.A. ("GlobeOp"), alleging claims and damages with
respect to a valuation agent services agreement performed by
GlobeOp for the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium
Funds").

These actions include (i) a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "U.S.
Class Action") on behalf of a putative class of investors in the
Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting claims of $844
million (the alleged aggregate value of assets under management by
the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom (the "UK
Arbitration") on behalf of Millennium Global Investments Ltd. and
Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the Millennium Funds' investment
manager and administrative manager, respectively (together, the
"Millennium Managers"), which commenced with a request for
arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million
for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a
separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as
an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the Millennium
Managers in the U.S. Class Action; and (iii) a claim in the same
arbitration proceeding by the liquidators on behalf of the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd. (the "Master
Fund") against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160
million. These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its
contractual obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care
in the performance of services for the Millennium Fund and that,
inter alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a
fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by
the investment manager. The U.S. Class Action also asserts claims
against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in that
action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims
against both the Millennium Managers and the Master Fund for
indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. Class Action.
Hearings in the UK Arbitration were conducted in London in July
and August 2013, September 2014 and December 2014.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement
of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits. Since
2012, GlobeOp has been reimbursed for litigation costs under the
applicable insurance policy.

In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the
plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the
parties (including a separate mutual release between and among
GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on
the other that covers claims asserted in the UK Arbitration). The
settlement agreement was approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2014 and
consummated in August 2014. Accordingly, the U.S. Class Action
matter has been dismissed with prejudice and is now concluded.

GlobeOp's insurers funded the entirety of the settlement amount
contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp. The resolution of the
U.S. Class Action does not affect the claims, counterclaims and/or
defenses as between GlobeOp and the Master Fund that have been
asserted in the UK Arbitration.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the UK Arbitration. The
Company believes that it has strong defenses and is vigorously
contesting the UK Arbitration (as described above, the U.S. Class
Action has been concluded). The amount of any potential loss, if
any at all, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
In addition to the foregoing legal proceedings, from time to time,
the Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims. In
the opinion of the Company's management, the Company is not
involved in any other such litigation or proceedings with third
parties that management believes would have a material adverse
effect on the Company or its business.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that Plaintiffs have scheduled
a hearing for March 12, 2015 seeking the Court's preliminary
approval of the settlement in the March 2010 securities class
action litigation.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown
in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated
orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege
that the defendant's failure to disclose the above information
resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an
artificially inflated price.

In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to
dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in
September 2013. On October 15, 2013, the defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment. A hearing concerning that motion took place
with the Court in January 2014 and the Court issued an order on
August 11, 2014 granting in part and denying in part defendants'
motion for summary judgment. On November 7, 2014, the defendants
filed a motion for leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the
class, and on December 8, 2014, the Court denied that motion.
Based on filings they have made, the class members claimed damages
of approximately $475 million.

On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written
settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to
class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all
of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during
the fourth quarter of 2014. Plaintiffs' have scheduled a hearing
for March 12, 2015 seeking the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement. Concurrent with recording the loss, the Company also
recognized probable insurance recoveries of $30 million. The
Company intends to pursue collection of additional insurance
recoveries from certain of its insurance carriers.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: To File Response to Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. will be filing a response to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and a hearing before the Court on
the plaintiffs' class certification is expected in the third
quarter of 2015 in the December 2012 Securities Litigation, St.
Jude said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended January 3, 2015.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss,
denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On
October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs did not in the second amended complaint assert any
specific amount of compensation that they seek. The plaintiffs'
filed their motion for class certification on January 15, 2015.
The Company will be filing a response and a hearing before the
Court on the plaintiffs' class certification is expected in the
third quarter of 2015. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter.


STERLING JEWELERS: Class Arbitration Allows Disparate Impact
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Estreicher and Kristina A. Yost, writing for Law.com,
report that in March 2008, claimants brought a class arbitration
proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, et seq. and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 206(d), alleging that women working in Sterling Jewelers'
retail stores across the country were systematically denied the
same level of pay and promotion opportunities as their male
counterparts.  At the time Laryssa Jock and others initiated the
class arbitration, they also filed a lawsuit in federal court
against Sterling.

Claimants had entered into alternative dispute resolution
agreements with Sterling in which they agreed to a three-step
alternative dispute resolution program, called "RESOLVE," for
raising employment disputes.  The third step in the RESOLVE
agreements provided for binding arbitration of employment
disputes, with the arbitration to be conducted by the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) and in accordance with AAA rules.

Ultimately, both claimants and Sterling agreed that the RESOLVE
arbitration agreements between them were enforceable, but
disagreed over whether the agreements permitted the arbitrator to
decide certain threshold questions, including whether class
arbitration was available under the agreements.  In July 2008, a
district court issued an order compelling arbitration on the
ground that, under the clear language of the agreements, such
questions were for the arbitrator to decide.

Kathleen A. Roberts, an arbitrator with JAMS and former U.S.
magistrate judge, was designated as the arbitrator.  She
subsequently ruled that the arbitration agreements did not
preclude class arbitration, a ruling that was ultimately upheld
(over Judge Ralph Winter's strong dissent) by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The panel majority distinguished
Jock from Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., which had
found that where an arbitration agreement is silent as to the
availability of class arbitration, an arbitrator could not find
that the agreement permitted class arbitration.  Specifically, the
appeals court determined that while in Stolt-Nielsen, the parties
had agreed that the agreement was silent as to class arbitration,
in Jock, they had not, but had submitted the issue to the
arbitrator and were bound by her finding of authority.

In the proceeding, the claimants sought to represent a class of
approximately 44,000 women who worked in Sterling's retail stores.
After the parties completed discovery and exchanged expert
reports, claimants moved for certification of a class pursuant to
American Arbitration Association (AAA) Supplementary Rule for
Class Arbitration 4 (Supplementary Rule), which allows
certification of a classwide arbitration proceeding if the
plaintiffs meet requirements that generally mimic those set forth
by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with a few
additional requirements, including that each class member had
entered into an agreement containing a similar arbitration clause.
In one of the few arbitral awards to date on class certification,
Arbitrator Roberts ruled that an opt-out class could be certified
pursuant to AAA Supplementary Rule 4 and Federal Rule 23(b)(2) and
(c)(4) for purposes of claimants' Title VII disparate impact
claims, but not for their Title VII disparate treatment or Equal
Pay Act claims.

Claimants' Allegations

The claimants alleged that Sterling's work force data showed that
women were paid less and promoted less frequently than men and
that the disparity could not be attributed to legitimate,
non-discriminatory factors.  More specifically, they claimed that
Sterling based starting pay on at least one non-job-related factor
-- having particular types of managerial job experience, even when
applying for non-management roles -- that had an adverse impact on
women, and, moreover, that subsequent raises were in the form of
percentage increases to base pay, and thus magnified initial
disparities in pay.

Claimants further charged that Sterling's "Succession Planning"
system operated to promote men both more frequently and quickly
than similarly situated female employees.  It was charged that
Sterling did not post vacancies but considered only those
candidates who had expressed interest in promotion. Claimants also
pointed to evidence of inappropriate sexual conduct and
stereotypes.

Standards: Class Certification

Claimants moved for class certification of both their disparate
impact and disparate treatment claims under Title VII and the
Equal Pay Act.  In deciding the class certification motion,
Arbitrator Roberts applied the requirements of AAA Supplementary
Rule 4. Supplementary Rule 4(a) contains the requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy set forth by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and contains two additional requirements: (1)
that "counsel selected to represent the class will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class"; and (2) that "each
class member has entered into an agreement containing an
arbitration clause which is substantially similar to that signed
by the class representative(s) and each of the other class
members."

AAA Supplementary Rule 4 does not have an analog to the issue-
class provision of Federal Rule 23(c)(4).  Despite the absence of
an express provision, it was appropriate to apply Rule 23(c)(4) in
Jock, the arbitrator determined, because Rule 4(a) provides that
the arbitrator must consider "any law or agreement of the parties
the arbitrator determines applies to the arbitration" and "[t]he
AAA has stated that it intended its formulation of the
Supplementary Rules to 'hew closely to Federal Rule 23.'"9

Certification of Title VII Claims
Ms. Roberts proceeded to decide the class certification motion
under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart
Stores v. Dukes.  In Dukes, the plaintiffs had sought
certification of a class of women employed at Wal-Mart nationwide.
The plaintiffs argued that local managers' discretion over pay and
promotion decisions was the unlawful policy that formed the basis
of their Title VII disparate impact and disparate treatment
claims. The Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's approval
of a nationwide class action.  The majority found the
certification void for lack of commonality under Federal Rule
23(b)(2).

In order to establish commonality, Justice Antonin Scalia for the
majority reasoned, plaintiffs' "claims must depend upon a common
contention . . . capable of classwide resolution -- which means
that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke."  In an employment discrimination case seeking company-
wide certification, plaintiffs must show that there is some type
of discriminatory testing procedure or company-wide evaluation
method or there must be "significant proof that an employer
operated under a general policy of discrimination . . ."

Local manager discretion on its own was not a discriminatory
testing procedure or company-wide evaluation method to establish
commonality, nor did plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence from 120
female employees and their expert witnesses' testimony about the
company's culture and personnel practices make out a "general
policy" of discrimination.

In the Jock proceeding, Ms. Roberts found that as to the
claimants' disparate impact claims, the numerosity, typicality,
adequacy and similar arbitration clause requirements were met.
Although commonality is the most difficult of the Rule 23(a)/AAA
Supplementary Rule 4(a) criteria, it, too, was met.  Unlike in
Dukes, the claimants here had identified specific "challenged
policies and procedures" that allegedly caused significant
disparities, and "[c]lasswide adjudication of these questions will
produce answers common to the class that are 'apt to drive the
resolution of the litigation.'"

Ms. Roberts determined that the lawfulness of the policies or
practices of (1) using certain prior experience criteria, such as
prior management experience and non-jewelry sales volume, (2)
awarding merit increases as a percentage of base pay, and (3)
using the Succession Planning program, whereby candidates had to
express interest to be promoted, could "generate answers common to
the class."

On the other hand, the claimants' class-based disparate treatment
showing did not satisfy the commonality requirement as articulated
in Dukes.  For the arbitrator, "[t]he critical element in
Claimants' claim of intentional discrimination is the existence
and influence of a corporate culture demeaning to women" and the
"lynchpin in Claimants' proof of this element is the proposed
expert testimony of Dr. Outtz," who provided testimony that
Sterling's culture could lead to biased employment decisions.  But
the claimants' expert could not "answer the 'essential question'
of what percent of the employment decisions at Sterling are
determined by a gender-discriminatory corporate culture."
Claimants have moved for reconsideration of the decision to deny
certification of their disparate treatment claims, a motion that
is still pending before the arbitrator.

Equal Pay Act Claims
Claimants had also requested that an opt-out class be certified to
address their Equal Pay Act claims. The Equal Pay Act incorporates
the enforcement provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which requires that each potential plaintiff opt in
to an action, rather than the opt-out mechanism provided by
Federal Rule 23.  Nonetheless, the claimants argued, certification
of an opt-out Equal Pay Act class was appropriate given that the
AAA Supplementary Rules did not expressly provide for opt-in
arbitrations and the parties had incorporated the AAA rules in
their agreements.

Ms. Roberts rejected claimants' arguments, however, and denied the
motion to certify an Equal Pay Act opt-out class, without
prejudice to their ability to seek to certify an opt-in class
(which they had not sought in their motion).  Claimants moved to
certify an opt-in class on March 6, 2015, and the motion is now
being briefed.

Standing Question

Sterling also contended that claimants had no standing to
represent putative class members who had not consented to allow
the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreements
allowed class certification.  This argument was premised on
Justice Samuel Alito's concurring opinion in Oxford Health Plans
v. Sutter,17 in which he maintained that "at least where absent
class members have not been required to opt in, it is difficult to
see how an arbitrator's decision to conduct class proceedings
could bind absent class members who have not authorized the
arbitrator to decide on a classwide basis which arbitration
procedures are to be used."  Because the absent class members had
not so agreed, Alito reasoned, they could later argue that they
were not bound by any unfavorable judgment, and, on the other
hand, seek the benefit of a favorable judgment.

Arbitrator Roberts determined that the concerns expressed by Alito
were inapplicable because each of the absent class members had
signed the RESOLVE arbitration agreement, which clearly
incorporated the AAA rules, which in turn provide that the
"arbitrator shall determine whether the applicable arbitration
clause permits the arbitration to proceed on behalf of or against
a class."  Thus, "each of the absent class members agreed that the
arbitrator would determine whether the RESOLVE arbitration
agreement permits class arbitration."

Sterling has filed a motion (still pending) to vacate the
arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator's decision would be
subject to collateral attack by absent class members as outlined
by Alito in Sutter because they had not agreed to allow the
arbitrator to decide whether the agreements permitted class
arbitration.

Implications

Despite the Second Circuit panel ruling in Jock, it is not clear
under what circumstances arbitration agreements will be
interpreted to allow for class arbitration, especially if they
contain express class or collective action waiver provisions.  The
agreements in Jock did not. Nonetheless, Arbitrator Roberts' award
is significant in that it is one of the first to reach the stage
of deciding class certification. It may pave the way for classwide
arbitration in a variety of matters brought under the AAA rules.
If other arbitrators follow her lead on finding that the AAA rules
allow for issue-only certification, it may be easier for
plaintiffs to get certification of classes in arbitration at least
as to limited issues.

Depending on the outcome of Sterling's motion to vacate, other
arbitrators also may follow Roberts' finding that absent class
members consent to the arbitrator's authority to decide whether
the agreement permits classwide arbitration by signing an
agreement that incorporates the AAA rules but without spelling out
whether class or collective actions are waived.


TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, 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 by plaintiffs
in a securities class action lawsuit is pending.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
its CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013.

On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla
and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and
indicated that a formal written order will be forthcoming.
Following the trial court's decision, Tesla and Mr. Musk brought a
motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs, and that motion is
currently pending.  The plaintiffs have also appealed from the
trial court's order, and that appeal is pending, as well.


TEXAS PECAN: Recall Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------
Texas Pecan Company Inc. of Dallas, Texas, is voluntarily
recalling the items stated below; (refer to Table in Paragraph 3),
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled packaged Macadamia Nuts and Gift Tins: The Executive,
Junior Executive, Sweet-N-Salty and Mini Sweet-N-Salty were
distributed nationwide in our retail store and through mail
orders.

The product comes in an 8 ounce and 16 ounce, clear plastic bags
and in our gift tins identified by the name of The Executive,
Junior Executive, Sweet-N-Salty and Mini Sweet-n-Salty, sold in
the months of November and December 2014, with a pack date of
14320 through 14365, located on the bottom left hand corner of the
label.


  UPC       PRODUCT NAME            PACK SIZE   PACK DATE
  ---       ------------            ---------   ----------
  031       MACADAMIA, RAW WHOLE    16 OUNCE    14320 THRU 14365
  032       MACADAMIA, RAW WHOLE    8 OUNCE     14320 THRU 14365
  033     MACADAMIA, WHOLE *(R/S)   16 OUNCE    14320 THRU 14365
  034     MACADAMIA, WHOLE *(R/S)   8 OUNCE     14320 THRU 14365
  321-54  THE EXECUTIVE GIFT TIN    1 SECTION   14320 THRU 14365
                                    OF 5 POUND
                                    TIN
  320-34  JUNIOR EXECUTIVE TIN      1 SECTION   14320 THRU 14365
                                    OF 3 POUND
                                    TIN
  337-56  SWEET-N-SALTY TIN         1 SECTION   14320 THRU 14365
                                    OF 5 POUND
                                    TIN
  14320   MINI SWEET-N-SALTY TIN    1 SECTION   14320 THRU 14365
  THRU                              OF 2 POUND
  14365                             TIN

*NOTE: R/S means ROASTED AND SALTED

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem, but we voluntarily ask that you discontinue use of the
product, stated above, per date of this notification.

The potential for contamination was noted after some routine
sampling tests by the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in
the Macadamia Nuts received from our supplier in November and
December 2014.

Production of the product has been suspended while the FDA and our
supplier continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 8 ounce and 16 ounce bags of
Macadamia Nuts, Executive, Junior Executive, Sweet-N-Salty and
Mini Sweet-N-Salty are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 972-241-7878, Monday thru Friday between the hours
of 8:30am to 5:00pm central time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm442043.htm


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs File Opening Brief in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. 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 Plaintiffs in the
Federal securities class action have filed an opening brief to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

"On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean
Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants," the Company
said.  "In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired
company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our
shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the
acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the
proposed class members.  In connection with this action, we are
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  On March 11, 2014,
the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") and filed an
opening brief on December 19, 2014."


TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURES: Homeowners Fight LBJ Highway Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
homeowners and businesses along a massive LBJ Express highway
project in North Dallas claim in a class action that the enormous
excavations are damaging their foundations.

Lead plaintiff Maria Cazares and 20 other homeowners sued 10
construction companies on March 30 in Dallas County Court.

The plaintiffs live along the 13-mile stretch of Interstate 635
that is undergoing a five-year facelift.  When completed, the LBJ
Express will contain eight widened main highway lanes and six
subsurface toll lanes, according to the Texas Department of
Transportation, which is not party to the lawsuit.

"The plaintiffs and class members have endured loss of use and
enjoyment of their properties, nuisance, trespass, loss of market
value, loss of lateral support, and destruction to their homes and
businesses from defendants' construction activities from deep
excavation and ground vibrations affecting the soil that supports
their structures and/or by vibrating the structures," the 17-page
complaint states.  "Defendants' construction activities such as
pile driving, boring, blasting, heavy traffic loads, deep
excavation, and/or dewatering produced differential soil
settlement and strong levels of vibration which caused damage to
the plaintiffs' and the class members' structures and improvements
-- in addition to the loss of lateral support from deep excavation
through the class area and bordering many of the Plaintiffs and
class members' homes."

They claim the project was defectively designed, so that the
defendants "are strictly liable for the losses and damages caused
by their activities -- even if they exercised the utmost care to
prevent the harm."

Named as defendants are Trinity Infrastructures, Ferrovial Agroman
U.S. Corp. and four Ferrovial subsidiaries, Webber LLC; Archer
Western Contractors, Craig Olden Inc. and Texas Shafts Inc.

LBJ Express and Trinity Infrastructure officials did not
immediately respond to a request for comment April 2 evening.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for negligence,
gross negligence, breach of contract, nuisance, trespass and water
code violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Christopher Cowan, Esq.
          THE COWAN LAW FIRM
          One Meadows Building
          5005 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 826-1900


TURN INC: Sued for Using Secret Zombie Cookies in Mobile Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
An online ad company used secret "zombie cookies" to track mobile
device users' activities, a class action claims in California
Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Anthony Henson sued Turn Inc. on April 1, accusing
it of turning Verizon customers' mobile devices into "tracking
beacons" that monitor user behavior.

Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web
information that could be used for personal targeted advertising.

Henson claims that Turn's "zombie cookies" evaded detection and
could not be deleted.

Even if a person deleted Turn's cookie, the company has a process
that will "respawn" the cookie, Henson says.

"Turn's act of surreptitiously tracking people against their
wishes, and of thwarting industry-standard consumer safeguards of
privacy, is unconscionable," the complaint states.

Turn stopped using zombie cookies after a ProPublica report on it
in January.

"It is our absolute desire to honor people's choices," a Turn
spokesman told ProPublica.

Henson seeks class certification, restitution and damages for
trespass to chattels and business law violation.  He also wants
Turn ordered to provide "reasonable notice and choice" to users
about its data collection practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asfike Kolloukian, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02856 (C.D.
Cal., April 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendants practice of
sending numerous unsolicited text messages to the class members'
cellular telephone.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a provider of transportation services
which connects passengers to drivers via a cellular telephone
application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
      K.L. Myles, Bar No. 243272
      KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
      550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Telephone: (818) 547-5000
      Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
      E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
              klm@kpclegal.com

         - and -

      Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
      JOSEPH FARZAM LAWFIRM
      11766 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 280
      Los Angeles, California 90025
      Telephone: (310) 226-6890
      Facsimile: (310) 226-6891
      E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Retains Gibson as New Counsel as Trial Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has retained new counsel in its fight over
whether the company's drivers are employees or independent
contractors.

Lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have replaced Uber's prior
team from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, according to an April 13 filing
in the Northern District of California.

The swap comes a month after Uber lost its bid for summary
judgment before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

Plaintiffs argue Uber denied drivers proper wages and
reimbursements for driving expenses by misclassifying them as
contractors.  Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston-based firm Licthen &
Liss-Riordan represents the plaintiffs.  Uber has argued it is
simply an app that matches independent drivers and customers in
need of a ride -- the drivers don't work for Uber.

Uber's new legal team includes Gibson Dunn partners Joshua
Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- in San Francisco, and
Theodore Boutrous Jr., Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com
-- Marcellus McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- and Theane
Evangelis in Los Angeles.

Gibson Dunn also represents Uber in a case brought by a Delhi
woman who says she was raped by an Uber driver while using the
app.  The plaintiff sued Uber for negligence and fraud in the
Northern District of California.

Uber, a frequent litigation target, has amassed a long and diverse
list of outside counsel.  Littler Mendelson is defending Uber
against allegations that the company discriminated against blind
passengers, Irell & Manella and Clarence Dyer & Cohen are fighting
two sets of claims targeting Uber's driver background checks, and
Fenwick & West represents Uber in a suit challenging the company's
$4 surcharge for some trips to and from San Francisco
International Airport.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.1MM After-Tax Charge From Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 26, 2015, that as reflected on the Supplemental
Schedule, included in the Company's reported results during the
year ended December 31, 2014, "was a net aggregate unfavorable
after-tax impact of approximately $36.4 million, or $.36 per
diluted share, related to:

* an after-tax charge of $27.1 million ($43.2 million pre-tax), or
$.27 per diluted share, incurred in connection with the previously
disclosed $65 million settlement of the Garden City Employees'
Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("Garden City").
This matter was a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2009
against Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI") and certain of its
former officers alleging their violations of federal securities
laws and we assumed the defense and liability of this matter as a
result of our acquisition of PSI in 2010. This charge is net of
approximately $17 million of commercial insurance recoveries that
we were entitled to and a previously recorded estimated reserve."


WAL-MART STORES: Court Refuses to Junk Suit by Assistant Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a labor class
action against Walmart claiming the retail giant doesn't pay its
assistant managers overtime for working over 40 hours per week,
reports Jane Casella at Courthouse News Service.

The case involves a pair of putative class actions -- now
consolidated -- in the Western District of Pennsylvania in which
the now-former assistant managers are seeking to recover overtime
pay under federal and state laws.

Walmart moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the plaintiffs
failed to plead that all assistant managers across Pennsylvania
work more than 40 hours per week and thus entitled to overtime
pay.

But U.S. District Judge Mark Hornak said in a memorandum opinion
issued March 31 that "even a cursory examination of the complaint
reveals that the plaintiffs more than plead a plausible claim for
relief" in their second amended complaint.

"They plead with great detail their personal experiences while
working at Walmart, that the work they did was generally
representative of the work of assistant managers, that such work
was not exempt from the overtime provision of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and that other assistant managers across
Pennsylvania were in the same situation," Hornak wrote.

The judge rejected Walmart's argument that the plaintiffs can't
possibly know the working situations of the more than 1,000
assistant managers in Pennsylvania.

"That is not what the second amended complaint says," Hornak
wrote.  "The complaint pleads that the plaintiffs attended a
number of training and other business meetings of and for Walmart
assistant managers (including them), and it appeared plain as day
(to them) that there was a highly integrated, systemic approach to
store operations as it affected the work of assistant managers
such that it was not only plausible but likely that a single
system of work assignments to them and their peers was in force."

The plaintiffs also showed that Walmart's "comprehensive system"
ensured that assistant managers were scheduled, assigned and paid
in the same ways, the judge added -- noting that at this stage in
the case he has to take the pleadings as true.

"Perhaps, when the issue arrives at the decision point as to
whether these cases can proceed to disposition as class or
collective actions, or on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and
the defendant's defenses, the defendant will prevail," Hornak
wrote.  "At this point, however, that is not the question to be
addressed.  Now, the issue is whether the allegations of the
second amended complaint, if true, are enough to get to the next
step, and past a motion to dismiss.  In the court's estimation,
they are."

The judge also extended a no-contact order forbidding lawyers on
both sides from talking to current assistant managers, after
Walmart's lawyers claimed they viewed them as clients.

"If so, it would appear to the court that this could raise the
specter of the disqualification of all counsel for Walmart in this
action," Hornak wrote, suggesting that Walmart and its attorneys
may eventually find their "prior observations about such matters
were a bit extravagant" after some reflection on the prospect of
being disqualified.

The cases are Andrew Swank v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-01185-MRH, and James Paolicelli v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00267, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.


WEBPRESENCE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Webpresence, Inc. d/b/a Places Profile, Case No. 8:15-
cv-00609 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of contacting the class members' cellular
telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff in using Defendant's
services using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Webpresence, Inc. is in the business of optimizing and maximizing
the web presence for companies who seek services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST EAST: "Mariscal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Francisco Garcia Mariscal, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. West East Food Corp. d/b/a associated
Supermarket, Abdullah Obeidat, and Yasin Abdelaziz, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03009 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket with a principal
place of business at 3 Richman Plaza, Bronx, New York 10453.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


WORLD WIDE GOURMET: Recalls Teriyaki Salmon Jerky Due to Wheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wide Gourmet Foods of Woodinville, WA is recalling 2916
packages of Central Market Teriyaki Salmon Jerky because it may
contain undeclared wheat and soy. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to wheat and soy run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that some
packages were mislabeled on the back side as Central Market Smoked
Salmon Jerky which omits the presence of wheat and soy.

Product was distributed to H.E.B retail stores in Texas between
2/27/15 and 4/3/2015.

Product is identified by a purple Central Market Teriyaki Salmon
Jerky front label with a back label indicating Central Market
Smoked Salmon Jerky with a UPC of 0 41220 34270 9. The affected
best by date is 08/25/2015.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

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

Consumers who have purchased Central Market Teriyaki Salmon Jerky
with a back label Central Market Smoked Salmon Jerky are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-422-0852 from
07:00am to 04:00pm Pacific Standard Time, Monday through Friday.


WPX ENERGY: Royalty Litigation Parties to Seek Stay of New Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, 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 parties in the
Royalty litigation have agreed to seek a stay of a new lawsuit
pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of
Appeals.

"In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the
sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged
certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess
of ad valorem tax obligations," the Company said. "Plaintiffs
sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover
underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to
calculation errors. We entered into a final partial settlement
agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for
certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of
royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules
to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved
claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments,
established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding
in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. We
have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the
first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct
mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease
agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we
are required to have proportionately increased the value of
natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission
lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to
deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in
calculating royalty payments."

"Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs. Trial occurred in December
2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden. Following
that trial, the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs'
proposed standard and accepting our position as to the methodology
to use in determining the standard by which our activity should be
judged. We have completed the accounting process under the
standard and have obtained the court's approval.

"However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have
been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we have appealed this
matter to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have now filed
a second class action lawsuit in the District Court, Garfield
County containing similar allegations but related to subsequent
time periods. The parties have agreed to seek a stay of this new
lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado
Court of Appeals."


WPX ENERGY: Facing Class Action in New Mexico Court
---------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. is facing potential class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by
mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado, WPX Energy
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.

"In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County
of Rio Arriba, New Mexico," the Company said. "The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining
activities relating to production, payments and future reporting.
This matter has been removed to the United States District Court
for New Mexico."

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting
and injunction. At this time, we believe that our royalty
calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the
appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do
not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of
exposure related to these claims."


YOUNG HOSPITALITY: Faces "Venancio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roselio Venancio, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Young Hospitality Staffing, Inc. and Roger
Young, Case No. 1:15-cv-03417 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Plaintiffs Counsel Face Challenge in Filing Arbitration Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that for
plaintiffs attorneys who once made a living on consumer or
employment class actions, arbitration is a dirty word.

They divide the world into two eras -- pre-Concepcion, a happier
time, and post-Concepcion. In the aftermath of that 2011 U.S.
Supreme Court decision, class actions all but dried up and
companies that once looked like rich targets shielded themselves
with agreements providing that disputes with customers and
employees must be resolved through arbitration.  Most lawyers gave
up challenging those agreements once the courts made it clear they
would lose every time.

"Arbitration is just the bane of my existence," said Mark Ankcorn,
a consumer class action attorney based in San Diego.  He said that
11-letter word has "completely eviscerated" his practice area.

To adapt, plaintiffs lawyers say they are targeting new niches and
diversifying their firms away from a focus on consumer class
actions. On the employment side, a few lawyers are trying to beat
companies at their own game by bombarding them with dozens of
individual claims in arbitration.

There are still options for plaintiffs lawyers, said Shannon Liss-
Riordan, a Boston attorney currently litigating wage-and-hour
claims against Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. in California.
"The door has not been completely shut," she said, "though it's
definitely been narrowed."

In California, plaintiffs lawyers find a measure of hope in the
push and pull between the pro-arbitration U.S. Supreme Court and
the California Supreme Court, which takes a more skeptical view.
Earlier this month the state Supreme Court agreed to review in
McGill v. Citibank whether consumers seeking injunctive relief
under California law can be forced into arbitration.  In May the
justices will hear arguments in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding, and
potentially lay out new grounds by which courts can reject unfair
or one-sided arbitration agreements.

The court's newest members, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Leondra
Kruger, haven't yet shown their cards on the issue of arbitration.

Employment lawyer Steven Zieff of plaintiffs firm Rudy, Exelrod,
Zieff & Lowe, said he's hopeful the justices will use the upcoming
cases to stop the law from shifting any further in favor of
companies.

"I like the new appointments," Mr. Zieff said.  "So I think the
odds of getting a more employee-favorable ruling are better now
than they have been."

POST-'CONCEPCION'WORLD

The U.S. Supreme Court made history in 2011 with AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, ruling the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts more
plaintiff-friendly state law.  The ruling nullified California
case law that had prohibited class arbitration bans, and made it
more difficult for plaintiffs lawyers to challenge companies'
arbitration agreements.

In a post-Concepcion world, most banks and credit card companies,
cellphone carriers, and Internet and cable providers have become
largely untouchable for plaintiffs lawyers.  Since customers
aren't required to sign a contract before they tear into a bag of
Doritos or pop open a Coke, some lawyers say it's no coincidence
that cases over "100% Natural" and other food label claims have
since flooded the Northern District of California.

William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- a Morrison & Foerster partner
who represents companies in consumer class actions, said five
years ago almost all his clients were banks. Now he mostly defends
food companies and brick-and-mortar retail stores.

Brian Strange -- lacounsel@earthlink.net -- managing partner of
plaintiffs class action firm Strange & Carpenter in Los Angeles,
pointed out it's still possible to poke holes in a company's
arbitration agreement. Online agreements can be weak, especially
if a consumer isn't required to click to accept the terms.  Last
year Mr. Strange convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to disregard Barnes & Noble Inc.'s agreement in a proposed
class action over online computer purchases.  A link to the
website's terms and conditions was posted at the bottom of the
screen and the court ruled there was no evidence the user had
reviewed it.

Still, Mr. Strange estimated his firm turns away 25 to 30 percent
of potential clients with otherwise strong consumer claims, just
because they're bound by arbitration agreements.  "There's
definitely been a significant drop in revenue for the consumer
side," he said.

As a result, Strange & Carpenter is focusing more on antitrust
law.  The firm recently hired two antitrust lawyers -- Keith
Butler -- kbutler@strangeandcarpenter.com -- formerly of Proskauer
Rose, and Cindy Reichline, who joined from Jones Day about four
months ago.

GOING IT ALONE

Most arbitration agreements expressly prohibit class arbitration,
a further roadblock for plaintiffs lawyers hoping for the
efficiency -- and windfall recoveries -- that can come from
jointly handling claims for hundreds or thousands of individuals.
A class ban often prompts plaintiffs lawyers to abandon the case.

But Ms. Liss-Riordan, the Boston-based employment attorney, is
interpreting the ban as a challenge.  She's filed the first few of
more than 50 individual arbitration actions against Arise Virtual
Solutions, a call-center outsourcing service.  Ms. Liss-Riordan
won the first action earlier this year, securing $11,600 for her
client and $90,000 in attorney fees.  The remaining actions, all
alleging the same wage-and-hour claims, will take her all over the
country.  Arise's employment agreement requires workers to
arbitrate their claims where they live, and the workers, who take
calls from their homes, are spread out nationwide.

Ms. Liss-Riordan is prepared to use the same tactic against Uber
in the Northern District of California. Uber sent a new contract
containing an arbitration agreement to its drivers in 2013,
shortly after lawyers sued the company in Massachusetts and
Illinois for wage-and-hour violations.  Though the timing and
wording of the agreement have already been contested in the
California case, Uber's lawyers haven't yet moved to enforce it.
Expecting they will, Ms. Liss-Riordan has started contacting
drivers to file individual actions in case a federal judge pushes
the case into arbitration.

"We've had hundreds of drivers from around the country sign up
already," she said.  "I'm hoping to get thousands."

Other employment attorneys are using the same strategy.
Jennifer Liu, a San Francisco employment lawyer who left Outten &
Golden to start her own firm in January, said she's in the process
of filing "literally dozens" of arbitration claims against a
Minnesota bank.  The claims against parent company TCF Financial
Corp. all allege the same wage-and-hour violations.

When asked about the challenge of filing individual arbitration
claims, Ms. Liu laughed.  "Oh, where to start?" she asked. "It's
not the most efficient way to seek recovery."

A mass action may be inefficient but doable in the employment
context. But it's often impossible in consumer cases, where
individual damages generally are much smaller.

A recent study of arbitration claims filed in 2010 and 2011
against credit card, pre-paid card and loan companies found the
median relief awarded to consumers came to $2,700.  The median
fees granted to plaintiffs attorneys was $4,800, according to the
report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which looked
at outcomes from the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
Matthew Edling -- medling@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy said the arbitration fees alone are enough to chill
potential claims.  It cost him $400,000 to try a two-week
arbitration before the AAA last year.

"How does an individual have any chance of affording that?" he
asked.

CALIFORNIA CASES

In June the California Supreme Court largely buckled to Concepcion
but carved out an exemption for state labor code actions brought
under the Private Attorney Generals Act.

The ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which buoyed
plaintiffs lawyers, has already sparked a backlash in California's
federal courts, with multiple judges concluding the carve-out is
trumped under Concepcion by the Federal Arbitration Act. Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe secured victories for Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and Kmart Corp. last year, by arguing, as partner Joseph
Liburt put it, that Iskanian was "simply wrong."

With two arbitration cases on the California Supreme Court docket,
both plaintiffs and defense lawyers are watching for signs of
whether the court intends to buck pressure from the U.S. Supreme
Court or step more completely in line with federal rulings.
In May the justices will hear arguments in Sanchez v. Valencia
Holding, a case involving the arbitration provision in a contract
for a car purchase.  The court has asked the lawyers to weigh in
on the current standard for invalidating an arbitration agreement,
and likely will use the case to clarify what makes an arbitration
agreement too unfair or one-sided to enforce.

The case has drawn a host of amici curiae, including the Chamber
of Commerce and Association of Global Automakers, represented by
Mayer Brown; the finance arms of Nissan, Toyota, General Motors
and Volt; and various consumer groups.

In their brief, the Consumer Attorneys of California emphasized
the need for a post-Concepcion safety valve.  "Consider an
arbitration agreement that required the arbitrator to refuse any
evidence and decide all cases in favor of the drafting party," the
lawyers wrote.  "Or consider an arbitration agreement written in
eight-point type in the middle of an adhesive, 30-page employment
contract."

On the other side, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and automaker
associations argue federal law prohibits subjecting arbitration
clauses to more excessive scrutiny than any other contract.
Earlier this month the California Supreme Court granted review of
a Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling in McGill v. Citibank,
which held that the Federal Arbitration Act nullifies California's
Broughton-Cruz rule. The rule, already rejected by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, provided that claims seeking
injunctive relief are exempt from arbitration agreements.

A lot could hinge on the decision, said Orrick partner Robert
Varian.  Even when consumers' damages claims are pushed into
arbitration, he said, keeping even one injunctive relief claim in
court could be a significant win for plaintiffs lawyers.
"That would still give plaintiffs lawyers a lot of leverage," he
said, "to force settlements."


* Recent Tobacco Ruling May Hit Florida Smokers' Tort Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a federal
appeals court's ruling siding with tobacco companies on April 8
could be devastating to Florida smokers' tort lawsuits, says a
Miami law professor following the cases.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
tossed a verdict won against tobacco companies by the estate of a
Florida smoker.  A three-judge panel held that the practice of
using jury findings from an earlier tobacco class action
conflicted with federal law on cigarettes.

When the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 decertified the class and
tossed its $145 billion punitive damages award in Engle v. Liggett
Group Inc., it nonetheless allowed individual plaintiffs to rely
in the future on the class action jury's findings about the
dangers of cigarettes.  Thousands of individuals subsequently
filed suit, basing their claims on the jury findings from the
initial class action.

So the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, that federal law doesn't allow
the use of those findings, "is almost like a neutron bomb for the
Engle-type cases," said Sergio Campos, a law professor at the
University of Miami who is not involved in the cases but has been
following them closely.

Mr. Campos, who is visiting at Harvard Law School right now,
allowed that the Eleventh Circuit decision says plaintiffs may
proceed on their claims as long as they do not rely on the class
jury's findings.  "But," he predicted, "a lot of cases are going
to just disappear."

Gregory Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day's
Washington office, who argued for the defense, said in an email on
April 8, "We are very pleased that our position was vindicated in
such a strong opinion, and we are in the process of analyzing the
opinion and our options."
Jerome Mayer-Cantu of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San
Francisco argued for the plaintiff at the Eleventh Circuit. He
couldn't be reached.

New York University law professor Samuel Issacharoff, who is part
of the team of lawyers representing the various plaintiffs, said
the lawyers would seek the full Eleventh Circuit's review of the
decision.  "This is an unprecedented overreach in federal power,"
said Mr. Issacharoff.  "It is quite a departure from pre-emption
as we know it."

Plaintiffs' lawyers in February announced they had reached a $100
million aggregate settlement with several tobacco companies for a
subset of the Engle-progeny cases, approximately 400 that were
pending in federal district court.  According to Robert Nelson, a
partner at Lieff Cabraser, that settlement included all of the
cases pending in federal court that are yet to be tried.  He said
about a dozen cases that have been tried to verdict in federal
court are on appeal, and the verdicts in four of those were based
only on strict liability and negligence claims, the claims
affected directly by the Eleventh Circuit ruling.  He said
additional cases pending in Florida state court may be affected,
as well.

Florida state appeals courts decertified the initial class on the
grounds that individual determinations of specific causation and
damages couldn't be established on a classwide basis.  Attempting
to avoid re-trying all liability issues in thousands of cases,
however, the Florida Supreme Court found what it called a
"pragmatic solution." The watershed 2006 decision, Engle v.
Liggett Group Inc., permitted certain findings from the verdict to
be retained in follow-on damage actions.

Among those findings were:

   -- the jury's determination that the tobacco companies marketed
cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous;

  -- that they concealed or omitted material information about the
health and addictive effects of smoking;

  -- and that they failed to exercise the degree of care that a
"reasonable cigarette manufacturer" would have exercised under
similar circumstances.

In previous cases, the Eleventh Circuit has rejected tobacco
companies' arguments that using those findings in the subsequent
individual trials violated their due process rights, and the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to take up the issue on certiorari.  But
the tobacco makers had another argument in their pockets, that
imposing tort liability based on the Engle findings was pre-empted
by federal law.  Their reason: Congress for decades had elected to
regulate, but not ban, the sale of tobacco products, despite their
known health risks and addictive properties -- so a jury couldn't
be forced to accept findings such as the cigarettes were
unreasonably dangerous.

The issue came to the Eleventh Circuit in the case brought by the
estate of Faye Graham, which was tried to a jury in a federal
court in Jacksonville in 2013.  In accordance with instructions by
the Florida Supreme Court, jurors were told that they had to
accept, based on the Engle jury's findings, that the defendants
were negligent and had put a defective, unreasonably dangerous
product on the market.  Jurors were told to decide whether smoking
cigarettes manufactured by each of the defendants was a legal
cause of Graham's death.

The jury awarded Graham's widower $2.75 million in damages, which
was reduced to a verdict of $550,000 against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. and $275,000 against Phillip Morris USA based on the jury's
findings that Graham was 70 percent responsible for her own death.
U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell of Macon, who presided over the
trial sitting by designation, denied the defendants' motion for
judgment as a matter of law.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit --
Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Jill Pryor and Senior Judge Emmett
Ripley Cox -- reversed that decision on April 8, the appellate
judges basing their ruling on the companies' pre-emption argument.

Writing for the panel, Judge Tjoflat said that, as a consequence
of the Florida Supreme Court's instructions on how to apply the
Engle jury's findings combined with the Eleventh Circuit's ruling
on due process, "the necessary basis for Graham's Engle-progeny
strict-liability and negligence claims is that all cigarettes sold
during the class period were defective as a matter of law.  This,
in turn, imposed a common-law duty on cigarette manufacturers that
they necessarily breached every time they placed a cigarette on
the market.  Such a duty operates, in essence, as a ban on
cigarettes.  Accordingly, it conflicts with Congress's clear
purpose and objective of regulating -- not banning -- cigarettes,
thereby leaving to adult consumers the choice whether to smoke
cigarettes or to abstain."

Judge Tjoflat rejected the plaintiff's argument that applying pre-
emption to do away with his strict liability and negligence claims
would leave Engle-progeny plaintiffs without a remedy.  He said
the court was expressing no opinion on the validity of "other
Engle claims," such as fraudulent concealment or conspiracy to
conceal.  He said the ruling did not necessarily prevent Engle-
progeny plaintiffs from bringing state law strict-liability or
negligence claims, as long as they don't rely on the Engle jury
findings to do so.

"The subtext of Graham's legal analysis seems to suggest that his
claims are immune from pre-emption simply because the Engle
litigation has managed to survive for 20 years and has now grown
too big to fail," wrote Judge Tjoflat.  "Thankfully, our
constitution lends credence to no such argument."

Mr. Campos, the Miami law professor, called the decision "very
shocking," saying, "typically in strict liability you only have to
prove causation in order to recover. . . . That has never been
considered a ban, and in fact this type of tort liability is often
seen as an alternative to a flat ban."  He said the ruling "may
require a lot of plaintiffs to reinvent the wheel every single
time" and prove the dangers of cigarettes at each individual
trial.


* Tort Reforms Groups Back Asbestos Litigation Bill
---------------------------------------------------
Texas Lawyer reports that tort reform groups are backing a bill to
reform asbestos litigation procedures, while Bryan Blevins,
president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, is criticizing
it for creating a mismatch between plaintiffs and defendants.

House Bill 1492 author Rep. Doug Miller, R-New Braunfels, told
members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee
there is a loophole in current law: Some asbestos plaintiffs first
file a lawsuit, and, after that suit is resolved, they file a
compensation claim with bankruptcy trusts.  The practice creates
an opportunity for fraud and "double dipping," said Mr. Miller,
adding that his bill would address the issue by requiring a
plaintiff to file a bankruptcy claim first.

The Senate State Affairs Committee scheduled a public hearing on
April 13 for a similar bill, Senate Bill 491, by Sen. Charles
Schwertner, R-Georgetown.

Nathan Horne of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal
Reform represents defendants in asbestos litigation.  He said that
if a defendant knew the amount a plaintiff stood to collect from
bankruptcy trusts, the defendant would use the information in
settlement talks.  The defendant would also learn the plaintiff's
exposure history, helping to show the defendant wasn't totally
responsible for an injury.

But Mr. Blevins, who represents asbestos plaintiffs, said some
asbestos victims die within six to 18 months of diagnosis.  If a
client is dying, his lawyer's focus is to get his day in court, he
said.

The bill would allow a defendant to stop the trial, force a
plaintiff to produce evidence in the bankruptcy trust claims and
allow the defendant to use that evidence against the plaintiff,
said Blevins.

According to the National Cancer Institute at the National
Institutes of Health, asbestos comes from naturally occurring
minerals and is found in construction products like insulation and
ceiling tiles. Asbestos exposure can cause cancer and lung
disorders, among other ailments.

Companies responsible for creating asbestos or silica products
that have gone bankrupt create trusts to compensate people who
became ill due to exposure.

Bill's Provisions

Under Committee Substitute House Bill 1492, a claimant would have
to give notice of trust claims and documentation to each party in
a lawsuit.  If a plaintiff had already won a judgment but didn't
give the notice, then the defendant could ask a court for a
sanction, "including vacating the judgment and ordering a new
trial."

The bill would authorize a defendant to file a motion to stay
proceedings in a court if he thought the claimant could make a
trust claim instead.  If a plaintiff were to argue it would cost
more to make that claim than he stood to recover, the bill would
allow the court to order the plaintiff to "provide the court with
a verified statement of the exposed person's exposure history."

The bill provides that a defendant can use a trust claim and
documentation to argue that something else caused the injury and
that others were responsible.

In cases where a claimant had already won a judgment in court, a
defendant could file a motion for the court to modify the judgment
to subtract any later trust payments, according to the bill.

Testimony

Committee members called for testimony from Multidistrict
Litigation Judge Mark Davidson, who sat in the audience waiting
for another bill's hearing.  He said he would answer questions but
he did not take any position on CSHB 1492.

Committee member Rep. Travis Clardy, R-Nacogdoches, who represents
defendants in asbestos litigation, said he's practiced before
Davidson. In his experience, Mr. Clardy said, if Davidson wanted a
party to produce certain evidence, it happened.  Mr. Clardy asked
Davidson whether there was a problem that the bill would solve.

Judge Davidson said state law mandates a trial within six months
for asbestos cases.  To comply, he created a 40-page case
management order requiring a plaintiff to disclose his work and
health records to start the clock for the six-month trial. The
plaintiff must also disclose trust claims, he added.

Judge Davidson said that allowing a defendant to stay a proceeding
might conflict with the six-month trial requirement.

Part of the bill that allows claims information to prove what
caused an injury seems to overrule a Texas Supreme Court ruling,
BorgWarner v. Flores, which requires plaintiffs to prove their
dose of asbestos exposure.  Judge Davidson said if lawmakers were
trying to overrule BorgWarner, he would appreciate more details
and commentary.

"I will follow your policy but I would simply ask you to give me
some clarification," said Judge Davidson.

Mr. Blevins took issue with the same provision in the bill.  He
explained that BorgWarner makes a plaintiff prove a very high
standard: the number of asbestos fibers that he breathed in from
the defendants' product.  Defendants currently must meet the same
standard to bring in a responsible third party, he said.

But the bill would change the standard for defendants by allowing
them to use trust claims to prove causation, while plaintiffs
would still have to meet the higher standard, said Mr. Blevins.
It would create a great mismatch in the asbestos litigation
system, he said.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the Texas Civil Justice League also
supported the bill in the hearing.


                             *********

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  * * *