CAR_Public/150430.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 86


                             Headlines


2C COMMERCIAL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
A10 NETWORKS: Has Issued False & Misleading Statements, Suit Says
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing Held to Approve Deal in Pacchia Case
ALORICA INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
AMC NETWORK: Court Directs Class to Amend "Austin-Spearman" Suit

AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chemical Spill Suit Denied
ADT CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
AG PROFESSIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard
ALBERT AND CAROL: M.D. Pa. Judge Allows Case to be Remanded
AMAZON.COM INC: "Chavez" Class Suit Challenges Wage Deductions

ATLAS PIPELINE: Defendants in Consolidated ATLS Suit Reached Deal
AUTOMOTIVE FLEETSERVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Futures Traders for Operating FX Cartel
BANGKOK CAFE: "Contreras" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BARRICK GOLD: Judge Narrows Securities Suit; May 4 Conference Set

BLUE CROSS: Court Okays Class Action Deal in Shane Group Case
BOCK EVANS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over High Risk Investment Practices
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations
BUCKLEY'S GREAT: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Foley" Suit
CACH LLC: Judge Finally Certifies "Morris" Case as Class Action

CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Ask 2nd Circuit for Re-Hearing
CIGNA CORP: Franco Plaintiffs Appeal District Court Decisions
CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders
COMCAST CORP: Settlement in Philadelphia Cluster Case Okayed

COMCAST CORP: Refiled Motion to Compel Arbitration
CONSECO INC: Did Not Breach Insurance Policies, Court Says
COOK COUNTY, IL: Judge Denies Inmate's Preliminary Injunction Bid
CYCLE GEAR: Recalls Wheelies Semi-Truck Due to Lead
DEVERE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued Over Misleading Advertisement Campaign
ECOLOGICAL PAPER: Faces "Kinlock" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
EDUCATION SERVICE: Faces "Blanton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Upright Vacuum Cleaners
EVERYBODY FITNESS: Ohio Appeals Court Trims "Brogley" Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Illegal Use of Members' Biometric Info
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
GENA ACCESSORIES: Recalls Silk Scarves Due to Burn Hazard
GEORGIA: Appeals Court Revives Unit Cerebral Palsy Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 15 Class Suits on Avandia Pending in Canada

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 3 Paxil Trials Scheduled in 2015
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Trial in Canada Paxil Case in Oct. 2016
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: No Trials This Year "Acts of Violence" Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: LAA Discharged Public Certificate
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Poligrip Claims Still Pending

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pretrial Activities Continue in Avandia Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Resolved Native American Tribes Suits
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Claims re Paxil Purchases by Minors Pending
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Lamictal Indirect Purchase Suit Suspended
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dispositive Bids Due in Wellbutrin XL Case

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: August 2015Trial in Remaining Stiefel Case
GOOCHIE GOO: Recalls Sensory Blankets Due to Laceration Hazard
GORSUCH LTD: Recalls Ertlrenz Ski Boot Liners Due to Fire Hazard
HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums
HONEY SOLUTIONS: Importers and Suppliers Earn Sweet Dismissal

INTERTHINX INC: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
J. CREW: Recalls Baby Coveralls Due to Choking Hazard
J&K ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Won't Allow Separate Arbitrations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Finance Charge
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment

KIND LLC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Product Misbranding
LAND OF LINCOLN: Overcharges for Health Insurance, Ill. Suit Says
LENOVO INC: Recalls Notebook Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeals in "Bezich" Case Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending Action by Lehman Special Financing

LMS INTELLIBOUND: "Kutzback" Case Wins Conditional Certification
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
MAIL MEDIA: Faces "Forbes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Prelim. OK of M273 Engine Gears Suit Deal
MERCADOLIBRE INC: Filed Defense in Class Action

MERCHANT FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pearl" Suit Says
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Former Employee Plan Account Balances
METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Westland Police Action
METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Birmingham Retirement Action
METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed to Ninth Circuit

METLIFE INC: MLIC Moved to Dismiss "Owens" Action
METLIFE INC: Fauley Court Will Hold Final Approval Hearing
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" and IAMAW Actions
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Intoccia" Suit Over Shadow Insurance
MICHIGAN: Judge Won't Transfer Prisoner to New Facility

MINISTRY HEALTH: June 12 Fairness Hearing on "Dexter" Accord
NEW BUBBLE: Faces "Carillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEW JERSEY DEVILS: Restrains Sale of Game Tickets, Suit Claims
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GeForce GTX 970, Suit Claims
OMAHA, NE: Judge Strikes Down "Swift" Plaintiff's Motions

OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums Due to Burn Risk
PETSMART INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Setback in Two Tobacco Cases in Florida
PLATINUM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
POLYCOM INC: Securities Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules

PRECISION OPINION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Christopherson" Suit Over Data Breach
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Flushes Bid to Dismiss "Belfiore" Suit
S & K EXPRESS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAFI-G INC: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SNACK FACTORY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Seidman" Suit
SAN PEDRO MANUFACTURING: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
SCIARETTI SITE: "Pierce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Gives Patient Chance to Re-Plead Claims
SONORA QUEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shields" Suit Claims

ST. TAMMANY: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STRIPE A ZONE: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUMO JAPANESE: "Mayfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU in BB&T Merger Action

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Named
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Preliminary Motions Pending in LBSF Case
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Filed Answer in "Struett" Class Action
TEXTRON INC: Ohio Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss UAW Suit
TIME WARNER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Action Claims

TOMMIE COPPER: Falsely Marketed Copper Apparels, Suit Says
TORO COMPANY: Recalls Powers Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Trek Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Case Entered Into MOU
TURNEY BROS: Faces "Burd' Suit Over Failure to Give Layoff Notice

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Refuses to Junk "Alexander" Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Lawsuit by VA Workers
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued for Charging High Electricity Premium Rate
WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks

WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cross" Suit Claims
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Murray' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Viking VI Models Due to Injury Hazard
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settled Meridian Funds Case


                            *********


2C COMMERCIAL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 2C Commercial Services, LLC and Casey Huff, Case No.
4:15-cv-01035 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operates a landscaping company doing
business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


A10 NETWORKS: Has Issued False & Misleading Statements, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that A10 Networks stock sank from
$15 a share at its IPO to $4.33 when its false and misleading
statements were revealed, shareholders claim in Santa Clara County
Court.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing Held to Approve Deal in Pacchia Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery was to hold a hearing on March 4,
2015, to consider approval of the Stipulation in the Pacchia
matter, Activision Blizzard, 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.

"On August 14, 2013, we received a letter dated August 9, 2013,
from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records
of the Company to ascertain whether the Purchase Transaction and
Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company. In
response to that request, we provided the stockholder with certain
materials under a confidentiality agreement," the Company said.

"On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the
same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-
VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16,
2013. The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar
to the allegations in the above referenced matter filed on August
1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint
under seal. The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an
alleged class of Activision stockholders other than the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in
ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC.
The added class claims are against the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi affiliated directors, the
members of the special committee of the Board of Directors formed
in connection with the Company's consideration of the transactions
with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of fiduciary duty,
as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against
ASAC. The amended complaint removed the derivative claims for
waste of corporate assets and disgorgement but continued to allege
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended
complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a class,
damages, reformation of the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any
alleged profits received by the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
Chairman and ASAC.

On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the
Pacchia case with the Hayes case.  On November 2, 2013, the Court
of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered
the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining
lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On
December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff.

Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013, and
Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January
31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On
February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under
seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended
complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint.

On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of
contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended
complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but
with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the
matter. ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of
contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response
to the fourth amended complaint.

On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint
names our Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, the ASAC Entities,
Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis") and Fidelity Management &
Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal
defendant.

"The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain
provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the
Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our
stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates);
that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary
duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi
violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the
Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our
Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate
opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and
Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors
and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and
FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of
Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and
our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly
enriched through the Private Sale.

"The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the
Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of
all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private
Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the
alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order
requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC
Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by
which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged
damages sustained by the class and the Company. In addition, the
stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the
defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the
Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval.

"Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining
order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a
preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending
(a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits;
(b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on
the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement
under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction
order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court.

"On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order
issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the
Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme
Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On
September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal
of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's
motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis.

"Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary
injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was
not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that
would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders
under the charter.

"On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October
29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with
the Pacchia case.  On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.

"Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter
from another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton
Pfeiffer, seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company
to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection
with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement. On November 11,
2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing
claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller. The Company answered
on November 27, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Court of Chancery
entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal.

"On December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark
Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company
pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
Benston is represented by the same law firm as Pfeiffer. On
January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220
containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller.
The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014,
the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order
of dismissal.

"On March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston
v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims
similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants
and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain
of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court
of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead
counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim
as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014,
the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership
role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia
continues to serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
cases.

"Certain of defendants filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
contract claim set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Pacchia
obtained leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, which adds
additional color to his allegations of wrongdoing based on
information learned in discovery, including with respect to the
appointment and subsequent election of several of the directors to
our Board of Directors. For the most part, fact and expert
discovery was completed in the Pacchia matter, including the
exchange of expert damage and other reports. Pacchia's expert's
reports allege damages to the Company in excess of $540 million
and to the purported class in excess of $640 million, in addition
to disgorgement claims, which could, in theory, exceed $1 billion.
Defendants' experts' reports maintain there are no damages to the
Company or to the purported class because the Purchase Transaction
and the Private Sale were the best transactions available to the
parties and the alternate transactions hypothesized by the
plaintiff were inferior.

"For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, we accrued a loss
contingency in our consolidated financial statements in connection
with this matter. The accrual related to potential liabilities
associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services
already received prior to the quarter's end, where such fees,
costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the quarter's end, and
the Company's potential contribution toward the potential
settlement of the matter. Although the Company has D&O insurance
in connection with the consolidated litigation in a total amount
up to $200 million, various insurers have raised arguments that
they believe give them the right to deny coverage for a portion of
these fees, costs and expenses, as well as for all or a portion of
the ultimate liability which may occur in settlement or at trial.
Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
certain agreements with members of our Board of Directors, the
Company has indemnification obligations to the director defendants
to advance fees, costs and expenses and to pay liabilities which
arise in connection with their service to the Company, in each
case, to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. In light of
these indemnification obligations and the positions taken by the
parties and the various insurers, we determined that a liability
was probable and estimable, and accordingly, an accrual was
required, as of the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

"On November 19, 2014, the Company announced that an agreement had
been reached to settle the Pacchia matter. The Company believes
the settlement agreement, which acknowledges no wrongdoing on the
part of any party, is in the best interest of the Company and all
of its shareholders. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
multiple insurance companies, along with various defendants, will
pay $275 million to a settlement fund ("Settlement Fund"). Payment
of reasonable and customary fees and costs of plaintiff's
attorney, likely not to exceed $72.5 million, will be made from
the Settlement Fund. The remaining balance of the Settlement Fund,
likely to be at least $202.5 million, will be paid to the Company
and will be recorded within "Shareholders' equity" in our
consolidated balance sheet.

"Other terms of the settlement agreement include the addition of
two unaffiliated persons to the Company's Board of Directors, an
adjustment of certain voting rights and a global release of claims
against the defendants. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K, describing and attaching the
Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, which was filed with the
Delaware Chancery Court with respect to the settlement of the
Pacchia matter (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation,
the Company has notified the applicable shareholders of the
settlement agreement. Applicable shareholders are provided an
opportunity to object to the settlement, which is subject to
approval by the Delaware Chancery Court.

"Objections to the Stipulation have been filed by several
shareholders. The plaintiff in the Hayes matter has objected to
the settlement on the grounds that a portion of the $275 million
Settlement Fund should be reallocated to the members of the class,
that the amount of any attorney's fee award should be reduced and
that the court should deny any "special award" to the plaintiff in
the Pacchia matter. In the absence of such a reallocation, Hayes
argues the court should deny approval of the settlement and
appoint Hayes and his counsel to lead the class-based claims.
Hayes also contends the notice of settlement provided by the
Company is inadequate. The Company disputes this allegation. The
plaintiffs in the Benston and Pfeiffer matters have also filed
applications to the court requesting that their counsel receive an
attorney's fee award of $7.25 million to be paid out of the
attorneys' fees contemplated by the proposed Settlement. Certain
defendants have also filed objections to the $50,000 "special
award" requested by the Pacchia plaintiff. The Delaware Court of
Chancery will hold a hearing on March 4, 2015, to consider the
approval of the Stipulation, and a decision by the court is
expected thereafter.

"Since the Stipulation does not require the Company to pay any
liability on behalf of its defendant directors, the Company has
reversed the accrual described above as of December 31, 2014. The
reversal of the accrual is partially offset by a new accrual for
liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for
services already received prior to the year's end, where such
fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the year's end.

"Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
possibility, that the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the
Stipulation, other potential outcomes are reasonably possible,
including outcomes which could include an increase in the
Company's liability. The Company believes the possibility that
this lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity
is remote. However, if this assessment is incorrect, then an
unfavorable resolution of this lawsuit could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operation or liquidity, particularly in the period in
which any potential liabilities may be recognized.

"We believe that the defendants have meritorious defenses. If the
Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation and the
parties are not otherwise able to settle the matter subsequently,
then we believe the defendants intend to defend the lawsuit and
other related cases vigorously at trial. However, these lawsuits
and any other lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and
the actual outcome and costs will depend upon many unknown
factors. The outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and
the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense of these lawsuits and the Company and the defendants may
not prevail. The Company also may be subject to additional claims
in connection with the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale.
Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time consuming
for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus
our internal resources on our business."


ALORICA INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Pickens, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alorica, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00622
(E.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to obtain class members' written authorization prior to
procuring a consumer report for employment purposes.

Alorica, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates
call centers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lenden F. Webb, Esq.
      WEBB & BORDSON, APC
      A Professional Corporation
      466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102
      Telephone: (559) 431-4888
      Facsimile: (559) 821-4500
      E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
      OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
      A Professional Corporation
      1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 550-9352
      Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
      E-mail: CAOlsen@CAOlsenLawOffices.com


AMC NETWORK: Court Directs Class to Amend "Austin-Spearman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class must amend claims that AMC Networks collects the viewing
habits of those who visit its Web site, and illegally sends such
personal information to Facebook, not a party to the lawsuit,
which uses it for targeted ads, reports Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Wurgaft, Esq.
          KRAVIS & FILE, P.C.
          1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
          East Rutherford, NY 07073

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          Alicia E. Hwang, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60655
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  ahwang@edelson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sandra D. Hauser, Esq.
          Natalie J. Spears, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 768-6802
          E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com
                  natalie.spears@dentons.com

The case is Ethel Austin-Spearman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMC Network Entertainment LLC,
and AMC Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06840-NRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chemical Spill Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the Southern District of
West Virginia, Charleston, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in
the case CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent and next friend
of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S. and MELISSA JOHNSON,
individually and as parent of her unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN
GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER, WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER
and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA
BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT,
INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC, and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/a
DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN
CHEMICAL COMPANY and WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P.
FARRELL, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-01374 (SDW Va.)

Approximately 300,000 residents in the Charleston and surrounding
area suffered an interruption in their water supply. The
interruption was caused by a spill into the Elk River of a coal
processing chemical mixture sold and distributed exclusively by
Eastman Chemical Company. The mixture was at the time owned by and
being stored in a facility owned and operated by Freedom
Industries, Inc. Crude MCHM infiltrated the WV American water
treatment plant in Charleston.

Plaintiffs assert that the water company defendants could have
prevented the incident with better precautions, regulatory
compliance, and use of reasonable care.

Plaintiffs allege in the first amended consolidated class action
complaint that defendant American Water Works Company, Inc.
(American) bears legal responsibility for the damages stemming
from the contamination of the water supply. Its acts and omissions
include its failure to require, capitalize, and fund the
development of an alternate water supply and to properly oversee
and manage its wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries, namely,
West Virginia American Water American Water Works Service Company.

American filed a motion to dismiss and challenges the exercise of
personal jurisdiction. It asserts there is no basis for general
jurisdiction.  It also contends it has no contacts with West
Virginia.

American also asserts that plaintiffs cannot impute the West
Virginia contacts of WV American to American unless they first
allege facts sufficient to support piercing of the corporate veil.

Judge Copenhaver denied defendants' motion to dismiss and of the
expression that the forum has personal jurisdiction over American
Water.

A copy of Judge Copenhaver's memorandum opinion and order dated
April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/BamNmifrom Leagle.com

Crystal Good, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin
W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD &
PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL
GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson,
LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON,Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen
H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO
DELGIUDICE & LAFON,Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT
& D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE

Melissa Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

T.A.J., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,
Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G.
Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY
JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG,
Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,
Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch,
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Joan Green, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Summer Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael
J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag,
SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON,
Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart
Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy
J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT
FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Mary Lacy, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Wendy Renee Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Kimberly Ogier, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Roy J. McNeal, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Georgia Hamra, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael
J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag,
SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON,
Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart
Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy
J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT
FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Maddie Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Brenda Baisden, 2:14-cv-11011, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy
Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,
Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G.
Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY
JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH
STAG,Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH
STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON, Van Bunch,
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT &David R. Barney, Jr.,
THOMPSON BARNEY

Aladdin Restaurant, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

R.G. Gunnoe Farms LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Dunbar Plaza, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dunbar Plaza, Inc.,
Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher
Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON
BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,
Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F.
Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del
Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH
STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean
Cassidy, SMITH STAG,Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J.
LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT
FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

American Water Works Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY,Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian
R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert
O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas
J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY

American Water Works Service Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS,
Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY,
Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS,
Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON
KELLY

Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Lance D.
Leisure, BLANK ROME, Marc E. Williams, NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, Melissa Foster Bird, NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, Robert L. Massie, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH
& Robert Scott, BLANK ROME

West Virginia-American Water Company, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant,
represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo,
BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, L. Jill McIntyre,
JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O.
Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS & Thomas J.
Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY

Gary Southern, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant, represented by Erin J.
Webb, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Luci R. Wellborn, KAY CASTO & CHANEY,
Pamela C. Deem, KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert B. Allen, KAY CASTO &
CHANEY

Dennis P. Farrell, Defendant, represented by David R. Pogue, CAREY
SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER,Michael W. Carey, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS &
KESSLER & S. Benjamin Bryant, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER


ADT CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Barrett, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. The ADT Corporation f/k/a ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01348-GCS-NMK (S.D. Ohio, April 21, 2015), seeks to put an
end on the Defendant's unscrupulous telemarketing practices using
a prerecorded messages.

The ADT Corporation provides residential and small business
electronic security, fire protection and other related alarm
monitoring services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 488-0400
      Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

         - and -

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
              anthony@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

         - and -

      Alexander E. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


AG PROFESSIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
AG Professional Hair Care Products Ltd., of Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,100
Sweet Heat Hair Dryers. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hair dryers do not have an immersion protection device, which
guards against electrocution or shock if the dryer is immersed in
water.

This recall involves Sweet Heat handheld hair dryers. The hair
dryers are white and have the words "Sweet Heat" printed in black
near the blower nozzle. "AG Hair" is printed in grey and black on
the back of the blower nozzle, above the handle.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/dMCjsj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at ULTA
Beauty and other beauty supply stores and hair salons nationwide
from May 2013 through March 2015 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled
hair dryers and contact AG Hair to request a pre-paid mailing
label and packaging in order to return the hair dryer for a full
refund.


ALBERT AND CAROL: M.D. Pa. Judge Allows Case to be Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit
entitled NIGEL KING, BRANDON LEWIS, TAYLOR TRISCHETTA, and ERIC
LEWIS Plaintiffs, v. ALBERT AND CAROL MUELLER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
ALBERT MUELLER, CAROL MUELLER, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-1641 (M.D.
Pa.)

The defendants Albert Mueller, Carol Mueller, and the Albert and
Carol Mueller Partnership (the Partnership) operate McDonald's
franchises in Pennsylvania. The Partnership and JPMorgan Chase,
N.A. (Chase) entered into a Card Issuance Agreement, through which
the Mueller Defendants would be able to pay employees with payroll
debit cards, or paycards, issued by Chase.

A putative class filed a class action lawsuit against the Mueller
defendants in July, 2013 in the Luzerne Court of Common Pleas, in
which they allege a violation of Pennsylvania's Wage and Payment
Law and Unjust Enrichment. Gunshannon, et al. v. Albert Mueller,
et al., No. 2013-07010. On July 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
their complaint for this case in the Luzerne County Court of
Common Pleas, approximately one year after Gunshannon. On August
22, 2014, the Mueller defendants removed the case to federal court
pursuant to CAFA. On August 28, 2014 Chase filed a joinder request
describing additional grounds to support removal under CAFA. On
August 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to state
court on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction under CAFA.

Judge Mannion granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit to the
state court.

A copy of the Court's March 25, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/THTk15from Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

David S. Senoff, Esq.
Lauren C. Fantini, Esq.
William R. Caroselli, Esq.
CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY LLC
20 Stanwix St, Seventh Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-567-21232
Facsimile: 412-391-7453

     - and -

Michael J. Cefalo, Esq.
CEFALO & ASSOCIATES
309 Wyoming Avenue
West Pittston, PA 18643
Telephone: 570-655-5555
Facsimile: 570-655-5100

Albert and Carol Mueller Limited Partnership, Albert Mueller and
Carol Mueller, Defendants, represented by Matthew J Hank --
mhank@littler.com -- Rachel F. Satinsky -- rsatinsky@littler.com
-- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.

     - and -

Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
Nicholas F. Kravitz, Esq.
MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, LLP
425 Spruce St, Suite 200
P.O. Box 551
Scranton, PA 18501
Telephone: 570-342-6100
Facsimile: 570-342-6147

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendants,
represented by Jamie S Dycus -- jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com --
Joseph J Yu -- joseph.yu@wilmerhale.com -- Noah Adam Levine --
noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, LLP; Patrick J. Boland, III -- pjboland@mdwcg.com -- at
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin


AMAZON.COM INC: "Chavez" Class Suit Challenges Wage Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com warehouse workers say in a class action that the
company docks them 30 minutes of pay when crowds at the punch
clock make them three minutes late, reports Dave Tartre at
Courthouse News Service.

Hundreds of "pickers" and "packers" at Amazon's California
warehouses are given a three-minute grace period when they start
their shifts and after lunch breaks, but security checks and too
few punch clocks regularly result in lost vacation time, smaller
paychecks and termination, lead plaintiff Eric Chavez say in the
April 6 complaint in Superior Court.

"The trail of terminated employees is littered with those who
simply could not make it to the clock, even if it was in eyeshot,"
Chavez says in the lawsuit.

He claims that Amazon has "a uniform set of specific policies that
impeded an employee's ability to timely clock in," and that,
"despite all precautions, Chavez and hundred of other employees
could not always clock in within the 3-minute 'grace' period."
They have no choice but to clock in and work without pay for 26
minutes, "in order to please the employer and maintain their
employment," Chavez says.

Amazon calls its more than 50 U.S. warehouses "order fulfillment
centers."  Pickers and packers retrieve and package products for
delivery.  Chavez describes the work as "productive and labor-
intense."  He says that in a "typical scenario" of "wage theft," a
worker might clock in more than three but less than 30 minutes
late.

If an employee is five minutes late to clock in for his or her
shift and then five minutes late returning from the mandatory
lunch break, he says Amazon's "punch-clock algorithm" would deduct
50 minutes for 10 minutes of missed work.

To account for the logjam in security lines and at the punch
clocks, and to avoid accumulating points toward automatic
termination, Chavez says, "most employees arrived well before the
start of their shifts, unpaid, and many left their breaks long
before 30 minutes of duty-free break-time was provided."

But even that, he says, does not always save them from the unfair
deductions.

Chavez claims that Amazon and its co-defendant subsidiary Golden
State FC, which signs the paychecks, "often engage in a uniform
set of specific policies that impeded an employee's ability to
timely clock in, resulting in lost wages or non-compliant breaks
without any fault on the part of the employee."  He says it would
be all right if Amazon used a point-based discipline system for
employees who clock in after the three-minute grace period, but
that California law does not allow a company to "also penalize
employees by confiscating earned wages."  He seeks class
certification, restitution and damages for unfair and deceptive
business practices and other labor law violations, including
improper deductions from wages and forfeiture of unused vacation
wages.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN, KHOURY & SINGER
          605 "C" Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (888) 808-8358
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com


ATLAS PIPELINE: Defendants in Consolidated ATLS Suit Reached Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants
in the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs regarding a settlement of that action.

"On October 13, 2014, we announced the transactions (the "Merger")
contemplated by the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") between Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC (our
"General Partner"), Atlas Energy, L.P. ("ATLS"), Targa Resources
Corp. ("TRC"), Targa Resources Partners LP ("TRP"), certain other
parties and us. Concurrently with the Merger Agreement, ATLS
announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with TRC, pursuant to which TRC agreed to acquire ATLS through a
merger of a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of TRC with and
into ATLS (the "ATLS Merger," and, together with the Merger, the
"Atlas Mergers")," the Company said.

"Following announcement of the Atlas Mergers, five (5) of our
public unitholders filed putative class action lawsuits against
us, the other parties to the Merger Agreement and certain of their
managers. These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family
Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et
al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma; (the "Tulsa
Lawsuit") (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum
lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit"). The Tulsa Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on
February 4, 2015.

"Following announcement of the Atlas Mergers, two (2) public
unitholders of ATLS also filed putative class action lawsuits
against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP LLC, its managers, TRC and Trident GP
Merger Sub LLC. These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas
Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P.,
et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. These lawsuits were consolidated as In re Atlas
Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the
Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the
"Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit"), although the Kane lawsuit has since
been voluntarily dismissed.

"The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by,
among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the
ATLS and our unitholders in, respectively, each of the ATLS Merger
and the Merger, agreeing to certain terms in each of the merger
agreements that allegedly restrict the defendants' ability to
obtain a more favorable offer, favoring their self-interests over
the interests of ATLS and our unitholders, and omitting material
information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits further allege
that those breaches were aided and abetted by some combination of
ATLS, TRC, TRP, us or various affiliates of those entities named
above. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's
fees, other expenses, and costs.

"Additionally, a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit, captioned Inspired Investors v. Perkins et. al., Cause
No. 2015-04961, was filed purportedly on behalf of TRC
shareholders in the District Court of Harris County, Texas on
January 28, 2015 and amended on February 23, 2015. The lawsuit
names ATLS and the individual members of the board of directors of
TRC as defendants and TRC as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit
generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the ATLS
Merger, omitting purportedly material information from the
registration statement on Form S-4 that TRC initially filed with
the SEC on November 20, 2014 and most recently amended on January
22, 2015. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, compensatory and rescissory damages, attorney's fees,
interest and costs.

"On February 9, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated APL
Lawsuit reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a
settlement of that action. That agreement is reflected in a
Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the terms of the
parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which
were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit,
and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the
Memorandum of Understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk,
burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting
or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under
any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Memorandum of
Understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including judicial approval of the proposed settlement
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, following notice
to our unitholders. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
court will approve the settlement, that the settlement will not be
terminated according to its terms, or that some unitholders will
not opt-out of the settlement.

"In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement.
If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it is
anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all
claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any
member of the putative class of our unitholders that they purport
to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to
the Transactions, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in
connection with the Transactions or any agreements, disclosures,
or events related thereto, and that the Consolidated APL Lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in connection with
the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs'
counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which the defendants may oppose. We or our successor
will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the court. The settlement will not affect the
consideration to be paid to our unitholders in connection with the
Merger.

"On February 9, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated ATLS
Lawsuit reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a
settlement of that action. That agreement is reflected in a
Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the terms of the
parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which
were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit,
and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the
Memorandum of Understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk,
burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting
or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under
any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Memorandum of
Understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including judicial approval of the proposed settlement
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, following notice
to ATLS unitholders. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
court will approve the settlement, that the settlement will not be
terminated according to its terms, or that some unitholders will
not opt-out of the settlement.

"In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement.
If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it is
anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all
claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any
member of the putative class of ATLS unitholders that they purport
to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to
the Transactions, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in
connection with the Transactions or any agreements, disclosures,
or events related thereto, and that the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in connection with
the proposed settlement the parties contemplate that plaintiffs'
counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which the defendants may oppose. ATLS or its successor
will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the court. The settlement will not affect, among other
things, the consideration to be paid to ATLS's unitholders in
connection with the ATLS Merger."


AUTOMOTIVE FLEETSERVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn M. Bradley, Brandon W. Glazner and Cody J. Paul v.
Automotive Fleetserve, LLC, Fleetserve, LLC, Fleetserve One, LLC
and Michael T. Curtis, Case No. 4:15-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex., April
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate as a single enterprise that provides on-
site preventative maintenance services for heavy equipment
including, but not limited to, oil and gas well equipment across
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James David Apple, Esq.
      APPLE & FINK LLP
      735 Plaza Blvd, Ste 200
      Coppell, TX 75019
      Telephone: (972) 315-1900
      Facsimile: (972) 315-1955
      E-mail: jdapple@applefinklaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Futures Traders for Operating FX Cartel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Barclays Bank and other
banking giants operated a cartel to manipulate foreign-exchange
rates for 12 years, in trillions of dollars of trades, a class of
FX futures traders claims, echoing earlier claims.

The case is Jeffrey & Kimberly Sterk; Michael Melissinos v. Bank
of America Corp.; Barclays Bank PLC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


BANGKOK CAFE: "Contreras" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Contreras and Jose Agustin Contreras, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated v. Bangkok Cafe, Inc.,
d/b/a Rohm Thai Restaurant and Anek Pooviriyakul, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03088-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 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 restaurant located at 27 East 201
Street, New York, NY 10003.

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


BARRICK GOLD: Judge Narrows Securities Suit; May 4 Conference Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case entitled IN RE BARRICK GOLD SECURITIES
LITIGATION, NO. 13 CIV.3851 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)

Barrick Gold Corporation is one of the world's largest gold mining
companies, with a business focus on growing its base of low-cost
gold production and gold reserves. In 1994, Barrick acquired
Pascua-Lama, an untapped gold mine spanning the border between
Chile and Argentina.

Lead plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AB and LRI Invest
S.A. bring an action on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated against Barrick, Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-
Joundi, Peter Kinver, Igor Gonzales, and George Potter and Sybil
Veenman. The putative class consists of all persons and entities
who purchased or acquired Barrick common stock during the period
May 7, 2009 through and including November 1, 2013 and who were
allegedly damaged thereby. Plaintiffs assert three causes of
action for: violations of Section 1O(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 1Ob-5 promulgated thereunder against Barrick; violations of
Section 1O(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule I Ob-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Individual Defendants; and violations of
Section 20( a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants and Veenman.

Plaintiffs allege four main categories of actionable
misstatements: statements regarding cost and schedule including
statements that Pascua-Lama was a low-cost project, statements
regarding compliance with environmental regulations, statements
regarding internal controls and accounting for capital costs, and
statements concerning accounting for the project.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants
now move to dismiss all claims.

Judge Scheindlin granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss and a conference is scheduled for May 4, 2015 at
4:30 p.m.

A copy of Judge Scheindlin's opinion and order dated April 1,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/UKesWlfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs represented by, Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. --
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- David P. Abel, Esq. --
dabel@motleyrice.com -- James M. Hughes, Esq. --
jhughes@motleyrice.com -- William H. Narwold, Esq. --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; Jonathan M. Plasse,
Esq. -- Serena Pia Hallowell, Esq. -- shallowell@labaton.com --
Christopher J. Keller, Esq. -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Joel H.
Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Jonathan Gardner,
Esq. -- jgardner@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow; Brian P.
Murray, Esq. -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Michael Goldberg, Esq. --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Robert V. Prongay, Esq. --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Ira M.
Press, Esq. -- ipress@kmllp.com -- at Kirby McInerney LLP; Jeffrey
A. Barrack, Esq. -- jbarrack@barrack.com -- at Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine

Defendants, represented by Ada Fernandez Johnson, Esq. --
afjohnso@debevoise.com -- Jonathan Rosser Tuttle, Esq. --
jrtuttle@debevoise.com -- Bruce E. Yannett, Esq. --
beyannet@debevoise.com -- Elliot Greenfield, Esq. --
egreenfi@debevoise.com -- at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP


BLUE CROSS: Court Okays Class Action Deal in Shane Group Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Page Hood of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the
case THE SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-CV-14360 (E.D. Mich.)

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan nonprofit
healthcare corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Blue
Cross provides, directly and through its subsidiaries, health
insurance and administrative services, including preferred
provider organization (PPO) health insurance products and health
maintenance organization (HMO) health insurance products.

On June 22, 2012, a Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint
was filed against Defendant alleging: Unlawful Agreement in
Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the Rule of Reason
(Count I); Unlawful Agreements in Violation of Section 2 of the
Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, M.C.L. Section 445.772 (Count II).

The class action seeks to recover overcharges paid by purchasers
of Hospital Healthcare Services directly to hospitals in Michigan.
The parties informed the court that they have resolved the issues
before the court and after a hearing was held on the matter, the
court entered an order granting preliminary approval to proposed
class settlement on June 26, 2014.

Timely objections to  or letters regarding the proposed class
action settlement were filed by John Kunitzer, Christopher
Andrews,  Scott Mancinelli  and, ADAC Automotive and others 26
class members, represented by the Varnum law firm, seek to
intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing records and
adjourning the fairness hearing.

Blue Cross and plaintiffs oppose the motion asserting that the
motion to intervene is untimely and that the 26 class members have
not shown they are entitled or required to review the sealed
documents to evaluate whether the proposed settlement is fair.
Certain Third-Party Hospitals and other organizations seek to
intervene in order to respond in opposition to the 26 class
members' motion to unseal certain records.

Plaintiffs seek final approval of the settlement and plan
allocation. Also before the court is class counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and payment of
incentive awards to class representatives.

Judge Hood finds that the settlement and the plan of allocation is
fair, reasonable and adequate to the interest of the class
members. The motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses
and payment of incentive awards to class representative is
granted. The motions to intervene for the Limited Purpose of
Unsealing Records and Adjourning Fairness Hearing are denied while
the motion for final approval of settlement and plan of allocation
is granted.

A copy of Judge Hood's opinion and order dated March 31, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/bHkzP2from Leagle.com.

The Shane Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Casey A. Fry, Miller Law Firm,
P.C., Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small,
Cohen, Milstein, Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Jennifer E. Frushour, Miller Law
Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Jane Fait,
Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC &
David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

Bradley A. Veneberg, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Casey A. Fry, Miller Law Firm,
P.C., Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small,
Cohen, Milstein, Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Jennifer E. Frushour, Miller Law
Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Jane Fait,
Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC &
David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

Scott Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver

Scott Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Anne T. Regan, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Hedlund,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, David M.
Cialkowski, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC,
Erin C. Burns, NastLaw LLC, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm

Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein,
Michael A. Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm

Abatement Workers National Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Michael A.
Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler,
Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm

Monroe Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 671 Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Michael A.
Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler,
Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Donald Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Michelle L. Alamo,
Dickinson Wright, Michelle R. Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B.
Green, Dickinson Wright, Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright &Todd M. Stenerson,
Hunton & Williams LLP

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Donald Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Alan N. Harris,
Bodman, Carl T. Rashid, Bodman PLC, Farayha J. Arrine, Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Jason R. Gourley, Bodman LLP, Joseph A. Fink,
Dickinson Wright, Michelle L. Alamo, Dickinson Wright, Michelle R.
Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B. Green, Dickinson Wright,
Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Thomas G. McNeill,
Dickinson Wright, Todd M. Stenerson, Hunton & Williams LLP, Donald
Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Farayha J. Arrine, Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Joseph A. Fink, Dickinson Wright, Michelle L. Alamo,
Dickinson Wright, Michelle R. Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B.
Green, Dickinson Wright, Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright & Todd M. Stenerson,
Hunton & Williams LLP

Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Alyson Oliver, Interested Party, represented by Alyson L. Oliver

Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David
A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger,
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Jonathan F.
Jorissen, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco, Michael R. Shumaker,
Jones Day & Thomas Demitrack, Jones Day

Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Sparrow Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Richard C.
Kraus, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C.

Munson Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Richard C.
Kraus, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C.

United States of America, United States of America, Interested
Party, represented by Ryan Danks, U.S. Department of Justice

Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Bradley A. Veneberg, Interested Party, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer
P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

The Shane Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer
P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David
A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger,
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Michael R.
Shumaker, Jones Day

Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Ryan
Danks, U.S. Department of Justice

The Shane Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer
P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

Bradley A. Veneberg, Interested Party, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer
P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law

Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Alyson Oliver, Interested Party, represented by Alyson L. Oliver

Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David
A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger,
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Michael R.
Shumaker, Jones Day

Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Borgess Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Jonathan
F. Jorissen, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Thomas Demitrack,
Jones Day

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Ryan
Danks, U.S. Department of Justice

Jeffrey Connolly, Interested Party, represented by Daniel J.
McGlynn, McGlynn Associates, PLC

Covenant Medical Center, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Metropolitan Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A.
Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

CHE Trinity, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger,
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Interested Party,
represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and
Cohn LLP

Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

University of Michigan Health System, Interested Party,
represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and
Cohn LLP

Prime Healthcare Services - Garden City, LLC, Interested Party,
represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and
Cohn LLP

McLaren Health Care Corporation, Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Health Alliance Plan of Michigan, Interested Party, represented by
David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Alpena Regional Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by
Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Caro Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S.
Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Henry Ford Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S.
Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation, Interested Party,
represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital, Interested Party, represented
by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital, Interested Party, represented by
Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Henry Ford Health System, Interested Party, represented by Noah S.
Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

National Surgical Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah
S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Oakwood Healthcare System, Interested Party, represented by Noah
S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Noah S.
Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Oakwood Annapolis Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah
S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Oakwood Heritage Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah
S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Oakwood Southshore Medical Center, Interested Party, represented
by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC

Charlevoix Area Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David
A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

DLP Marquette General Hospital, LLC, Interested Party, represented
by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Scott Mancinelli, Objector, Pro Se

ADAC Automotive, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Alma Products Company, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Baker College, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum,
Riddering

Borroughs Corporation, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Eagle Alloy, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Fisher & Company, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Four Winds Casino Resort, Objector, represented by Bryan R.
Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R.
Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Gemini Group, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Gill-Roy's Hardware/Morgan Properties LLC, Objector, represented
by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Objector,
represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Hi-Lex Corporation, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering.

Huizenga Group, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum,
Riddering

Kent Companies, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

LaBelle Management, Incorporated, Objector, represented by Bryan
R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Master Automatic Machine Company, Incorporated, Objector,
represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Petoskey Plastics, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R.
Walters, Varnum, Riddering

SAF-Holland USA, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Star of the West Milling Company, Objector, represented by Bryan
R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Tarus Products, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Terryberry Company, LLC, Objector, represented by Bryan R.
Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Thelen Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum,
Riddering

Trillium Staffing Solutions, Objector, represented by Bryan R.
Walters, Varnum, Riddering

Truss Technologies, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering

Wade Trim Group Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters,
Varnum, Riddering.
Morbark, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum,
Riddering

Christopher Andrews, Objector, Pro Se

Priority Health Insurance Company, Intervenor, represented by
Brian J. Masternak, Warner, Norcross

Spectrum Health Systems, Intervenor, represented by Brian J.
Masternak, Warner, Norcross

Holland Community Hospital, Intervenor, represented by Brian J.
Masternak, Warner, Norcross & Katherine Lynn Pullen, Warner
Norcross & Judd LLP

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Intervenor, represented by Iain
R. McPhie, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


BOCK EVANS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over High Risk Investment Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte B. Milliner, as trustee of the Charlotte B. Milliner
Trust dated January 30, 1997, and as owner and holder of the
Charlotte B. Milliner Sep Ira, Joanne Brem, as Trustee of the Van
Santen-Brem Revocable Trust, for themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01763-LB (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for breach of its fiduciary duty of care,
specifically by failing to diversify its clients' investment
portfolio's by placing 100% or nearly 100% of their assets in high
risk and highly speculative foreign mining stocks.

Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. is a Registered Investment
Advisor doing business in California with its principal place of
business in Denver, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Sturgeon-Garcia. Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA
      1042 Country Club Drive, Suite 1A
      Moraga, CA 94556
      Telephone: (925) 235-7290
      Facsimile: (925) 235-7319

          - and -

      Charles D. Marshall, Esq.
      MARSHALL LAW FIRM
      2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
      Walnut Creek, CA 92596
      Telephone: (925) 575-7105
      Facsimile: (855) 575-7105
      E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division, granted defendant's motion for
summary judgment in the case entitled IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING CASE: Nancy B. Fleming & Gary
Fleming v. Boston Scientific Corp., NO. 2:12-CV-5131 (S.D.W. Va.)

Nancy Fleming was surgically implanted with Pinnacle Pelvic Floor
Repair Kit, a product manufactured by Boston Scientific Corp.
(BSC), to treat pelvic organ prolapsed. On April 17, 2008, Ms.
Fleming underwent a procedure to remove exposed mesh. Ms. Fleming
was surgically implanted with the Obtryx Transobturator Mid-
Urethral Sling System. She received both surgeries at a hospital
in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Fleming claims that as a result of
implantation of the Pinnacle mesh product, she has experienced
multiple complications. In her complaint, she brings the following
claims against BSC as to both the Pinnacle and the Obtryx: strict
liability for design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to
warn; negligence; breaches of express and implied warranties; and
punitive damages. Mr. Fleming brings a claim for loss of
consortium.

BSC filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that all of the
plaintiffs' claims are barred by Florida's statute of limitations,
and consequently, the court should grant summary judgment in favor
of BSC and dismiss the entire case.

Judge Goodwin granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Goodwin's memorandum opinion and order dated March
26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AKYtAdfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Ami Rebecca Romanelli, Esq.
Joseph A. Osborne, Esq.
BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LECLAINCHE
1641 Worthington Rd, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: 561-684-2500
Facsimile: 561-684-6308

     - and -

Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
D. Renee Baggett, Esq.
Douglass Alan Kreis, Esq.
Patty Ann Trantham, Esq.
AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: 850-202-1010
Facsimile: 850-916-7449

     - and -

James E. Messer, Jr., Esq.
FONVIELLE LEWIS FOOTE & MESSER
3375 Capital Cir NE # A
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Telephone: 850-391-6712

     - and -

Katharine Gale Krottinger, Esq.
Douglas C. Monsour, Esq.
THE MONSOUR LAW FIRM
404 N. Green St.
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: 903-758-5757
Facsimile: 903-230-5010

Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by A.
Bradley Bodamer -- bbodamer@shb.com -- Eva Marie Mannoia Weiler --
eweiler@shb.com -- Hildy M. Sastre -- hsastre@shb.com -- Jon A.
Strongman -- jstrongman@shb.com -- Matthew D. Keenan --
mkeenan@shb.com -- Mihai Marian Vrasmasu -- mvrasmasu@shb.com --
Rebecca A Ocariz -- rocariz@shb.com -- Robert T. Adams --
rtadams@shb.com -- Steven D. Soden -- ssoden@shb.com -- at SHOOK
HARDY & BACON; Lindsey M. Saad -- lsaad@fsblaw.com -- Michael
Bonasso -- mbonasso@fsblaw.com -- at FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO


BUCKLEY'S GREAT: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Foley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Landya McCafferty of the District of New Hampshire
denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case
Margaret Foley on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc.; and Michael Timothy's
Dining Group, Inc., CIVIL NO. 14-CV-063-LM (D.N.H.)

Foley claims that defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1681c(g)(1), a section of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003, when Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc. issued
approximately 32,000 electronically printed point-of-sale credit-
card receipts that included the card's expiration date.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification asking the court
to certify a class of "All persons to whom, on or after February
6, 2012, defendants provided a receipt that has the person's full
name, the last four digits of the credit card or debit card's
numbers and the full credit card or debit card's expiration date."
After plaintiff filed her motion for class certification, but
before the deadline for objecting, the parties filed a notice of
settlement, and submitted a settlement agreement for approval by
the court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Judge McCafferty denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

A copy of Judge McCafferty's order dated April 9, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/PSgAcVfrom Leagle.com

Margaret Foley, Plaintiff, represented by:

Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
LYONS LAW FIRM, PA
367 Commerce Ct.
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: 651-770-9707

     - and -

Roger B. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE
104 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: 603-225-2767

Defendants, represented by:

John M. Edwards, Esq.
David K. Pinsonneault, Esq.
WINER & BENNETT LLP
111 Concord Street
P.O. Box 488
Nashua, NH 03061-0488
Telephone: 603-882-5157
Facsimile: 603-882-2694


CACH LLC: Judge Finally Certifies "Morris" Case as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District of Nevada granted
certification in the case RODNEY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CACH, LLC, a
Colorado Limited Liability Company; SQUARETWO FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-cv-
270-APG-GWF (D. Nev.)

On March 12, 2015, a final fairness hearing was held pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 23 to determine whether the litigation satisfies
the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment and
whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interest of the class members and should
be fully and finally approved by the court. The parties have
requested final certification of the settlement class under FED.
R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) and final approval of the proposed class
action settlement.

Judge Gordon finally certified as a class action on behalf of the
following Settlement Classes:

"CLASS 1" is defined as: All individual consumers with Nevada
addresses whose accounts are owned by CACH, LLC and who:
(a) within four years prior to the filing of this action; (b) were
sent a collection letter on a debt owned by CACH; (c) in a form
materially identical or substantially similar to the letter sent
to the Plaintiff, wherein the amount claimed to be owed was not
itemized; and (d) the letter was not returned by the postal
service as undelivered.

"CLASS 2" is defined as: All individual consumers with Nevada
addresses whose accounts are owned by CACH, LLC and who:

(a) within one year prior to the filing of this action;

(b) were sent a collection letter on a debt owned by CACH;

(c) in a form materially identical or substantially similar to the
letter sent to the Plaintiff, wherein the amount claimed to be
owed was not itemized; and

(d) the letter was not returned by the postal service as
undelivered.

Class 2 is a subset of Class 1.
Excluded from these Classes are:

-- Any person who is already subject to an existing general
release;

-- any person who is deceased;

-- any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under Title
11 of the United States Code on or after the start of the Class 2
period; and

-- any Class Member who timely mails a request for exclusion.

Excluded from the Class are:

a. any person who is already subject to an existing release;

b. any person who is deceased;

c. any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under Title
11 of the United States Code on or after February 28, 2012; and

d. any Class Member who timely mails a request for exclusion.

The Court certifies plaintiff Rodney Morris as the Class
Representative and Craig B. Friedberg and Brian L. Bromberg as
Class Counsel for the Class Members.

The Court finds that the Litigation satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under FED. R. CIV. P. 23,
namely:

a. the Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of them
in the Litigation is impracticable;

b. there are questions of law and fact common to the Class
Members, which predominate over any individual questions;

c. the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the
Class Members;

d. the Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and protected the interests of all of the Class
Members; and

e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and
manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial
economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods
for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

A copy of Judge Gordon's final order and judgment dated March 25,
2015 is available at http://is.gd/KgzIxEfrom Leagle.com

Rodney Morris, Plaintiff, represented by:

Brian L Bromberg, Esq.
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
26 Broadway, 21st Floor (cor. of Beaver Street)
Manhattan, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-248-7906

     - and -

Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG
4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Telephone: 702.435.7968
Email: cbfriedberg@justice.com

CACH, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Christopher Jorgensen --
CJorgensen@LRRLaw.com -- at Lewis Roca Rothgerber


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Francis J. Bonanno, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., Wei Cao,
and Tony Liu, Case No. 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 21,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal executive offices located at 530 University Avenue,
Suite 17, Palo Alto, CA 94301. It focuses on developing and
marketing cell-based therapies to treat serious chronic and
degenerative diseases, such as cancer, osteoarthritis, tissue
damage, various inflammatory diseases, and metabolic diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              cdberger@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Ask 2nd Circuit for Re-Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Amara cash balance pension plan litigation filed
a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit, Cigna
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.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated participants in the Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The
plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations, including, that the
Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees;
that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-
conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit);
and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) found for plaintiffs on the
disclosure claim only; (2) affirmed the Company's right to convert
to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit
upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the
lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the
District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the
same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's
motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with
the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their
request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and
Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the
denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the
Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second
Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its
position.


CIGNA CORP: Franco Plaintiffs Appeal District Court Decisions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna 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 plaintiffs in the case
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the
Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third
Circuit.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco
v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January
2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate
motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of
subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor
of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the
Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its
position.


CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Civia Cycles, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,000 Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fender mounting bracket can break or bend, posing a fall
hazard to the rider.

This recall includes all Civia aluminum fenders sold separately as
aftermarket sets and all Civia Hyland bicycles sold with the
fenders as original equipment. The recalled fenders are round,
designed for use with 700c wheels and tires and have the Civia
logo on the front and rear sides of each fender.  Fender sets came
in black, blue, green, olive, red and silver. Hyland bicycles came
in blue, green, olive and red. The bikes have "Hyland" on the top
tube, "Civia" on the down tube and the Civia logo on the seat
tube.

Civia has received one report in which a consumer stated that a
bracket broke and resulted in the consumer suffering a cervical
spine injury and nerve damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/ITDwgA

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Independent bicycle retailers nationwide and online from April
2008 through March 2013 for about $60 per Civia fender set and
between $1,200 and $4,500 for Civia Hyland bicycles.

Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles with the
recalled fenders and contact an authorized Civia Cycles dealer to
receive a $60 credit.


COMCAST CORP: Settlement in Philadelphia Cluster Case Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC said in their Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a District Court has granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster antitrust case.

"We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed
in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the
District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania," the Company said.  "The potential class in the
Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
our customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as
those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the
plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with
other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market
restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust
statutes, including treble damages."

"Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers
were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We
appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class
certification in August 2011. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling and in March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the class
had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the
Third Circuit. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia
Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class, which we
opposed in January 2014. The parties have been discussing possible
resolution of the Philadelphia Cluster case. Accordingly, in
February 2014, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to stay the
case, which the District Court granted.

"In April 2014, the District Court granted our unopposed motion to
de-certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as to dismiss claims
relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead counsel for
the Boston Cluster cases withdrew, and in June 2014, new counsel
requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to the federal
court in Boston, which we have opposed. The District Court denied
the request and dismissed the case, though the Boston plaintiffs
have appealed both rulings. In December 2014, the District Court
granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the Philadelphia
Cluster case, which contains no admission or finding of liability.
We do not expect the settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster case
to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows
or financial position."


COMCAST CORP: Refiled Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC said in their Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company has refiled its motion to compel arbitration in a
consolidated class action lawsuit.

"We are the defendant in 23 putative class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the country. All of these
actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings,"
the Company said.

"In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the
provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and
Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment
and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium
cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium
cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania
and Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of
the plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive
trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California and Washington.

"In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the
plaintiffs' claims and to stay the remaining claims pending
arbitration. The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a
complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that
we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision
of digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia
Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection
Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States
District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation. A comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases
that had been submitted to the District Court for preliminary
approval in June 2013 was withdrawn in October 2014, and we
refiled our motion to compel arbitration. We do not expect these
cases to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash
flows or financial position."


CONSECO INC: Did Not Breach Insurance Policies, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case WILLIAM
BURNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSECO, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 10-MD-02124-SI (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs William Burnett and Joe Camp are former owners of
LifeTrend 3 and LifeTrend 4 life insurance policies that were
administered by Conseco's then-indirect corporate parent,
defendant CNO Financial Group, Inc. and defendant CNO Services,
LLC, a subsidiary of CNO Financial Group.

Plaintiffs allege that by the early 2000s, Conseco was losing
money on the LifeTrend policies. In October 2008, Conseco issued a
letter demanding shortfall payments amounting to several years'
worth of retroactively imposed annual premiums. Plaintiffs allege
that Conseco's provision of inaccurate information in the October
2008 letter breached the policies irrespective of whether Conseco
ultimately paid or intended to pay correctly calculated death
benefits and account surrender values. According to plaintiffs,
Conseco expected and intended thousands of LifeTrend policyholders
to respond to the shock of the massive increases by surrendering
their policies or letting them lapse.

Plaintiffs filed a suit and alleged that defendants breached the
terms of the LifeTrend 3 and 4 policies; and plaintiffs and class
members are entitled to money damages.  Plaintiffs further seek a
declaration that Conseco's actions violated the terms of the
policies. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have also moved for sanctions.

Judge Illston granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice
and denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.  A copy of Judge
Illston's order dated April 9, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Yxsb51from Leagle.com


Plaintiffs, represented by:

Barbara Louise Lyons, Esq.
The Davis Law Firm
625 Market Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-278-1400
Facsimile: 415-278-1401

- and -

Neesa Sethi, Esq.
Weisbrod Matteis Copley PLLC
1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-499-7900
Facsimile: 202-478-1795

Defendants, represented by Raoul D Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP


COOK COUNTY, IL: Judge Denies Inmate's Preliminary Injunction Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of
Illinois ruled on the parties' motions in the case TYLON HUDSON,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. TONI PRECKWINKLE, et al., Defendants, NO.
13 C8752 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiff Tylon Hudson is a detainee of Cook County Jail. On
December 6, 2013, Hudson filed a pro se complaint alleging that
correctional officers at the jail coordinated an attack on him by
another inmate and failed to intervene while he was being attacked
in the Division X law library. The complaint also included aMonell
claim. Hudson sought compensatory and punitive monetary damages to
redress his injuries as well as attorneys' fees. On December 27,
2014, Judge Shadur granted Hudson's application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and recruited an attorney to represent
him.

The recruited attorney's tenure was short. On February 27, 2014,
Locke Bowman and David Shapiro of the MacArthur Justice Center at
Northwestern University filed appearances on behalf of Hudson and
the recruited attorney withdrew. The new attorneys filed an
amended complaint, adding four named plaintiffs and class claims.

The amended complaint sought injunctive relief on behalf of the
class in the form of an order preventing the defendants, their
agents, employees, and all persons under their control from
subjecting plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent from
the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in the
amended complaint. Plaintiffs quickly moved for the entry of a
preliminary injunction.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Cook County filed
a motion to dismiss arguing that they cannot be held liable for
the actions of those who have direct responsibility for operating
the Jail. Named in their official capacities, Cook County Sheriff
Tom Dart, Executive Director of the Cook County Department of
Corrections Cara Smith, Superintendent of Division X E. Greer,
Superintendent of Division IX V. Thomas, as well as Officer
Campbell, Sergeant Lewis, Officer Wilson, and Lieutenant Johnson,
who were named individually, have separately moved to dismiss the
amended complaint arguing that the injunctive relief sought
already exists in the form of an agreed order in United States v.
Cook County (10 C 2946) and that the amended complaint fails to
state a claim for damages.

Judge Kendall denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction. President Preckwinkle and Cook County's motion to
dismiss is denied. The Sheriff's Office defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The amended
complaint is dismissed as to Lieutenant Lewis, but the remainder
of the motion is denied. Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs'
submission related to the preliminary injunction hearing is
denied.

A copy of Judge Kendall's memorandum opinion and order dated March
31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/CQkydKfrom Leagle.com

Tylon Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan S. Mills, Uptown
People's Law Center, Alexa Van Brunt, Roderick Macarthur Justice
Center, Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J.
Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, David M. Shapiro, Roderick Macarthur
Justice Center/Northwestern University, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff
Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Locke E. Bowman,
III, MacArthur Justice Center, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp,
Sheila A Bedi, Roderick Macarthur Justice Center &Steve Weil,
MacArthur Justice Center

Laton Stubblefield, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis
Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block
LLP, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner
& Block Llp, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil,
MacArthur Justice Center

Angelo Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick,
Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A
Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp,
Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice
Center

Jermaine Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick,
Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A
Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp,
Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice
Center

Anton Carter, on behalf themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick,
Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A
Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp,
Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice
Center

Toni Preckwinkle, Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Meador,
Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County
State's Attorney & Thomas Edward Nowinski, Cook County State's
Attorneys Office

Tom Dart, Sheriff/Warden, Defendant, represented by James Matthias
Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson,Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray -
Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude
Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Cara Smith, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the
Cook County Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude
Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

E. Greer, Superintendent of Division X, in his official capacity,
Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC,
Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Lisa Marie
Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook
County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP

Thomas, Superintendent of Division IX, V., in his official
capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw
& Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC,
Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,Lisa Marie
Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook
County State's Attorney,Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP

The County of Cook, Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Meador,
Cook County State's Attorney &Thomas Edward Nowinski, Cook County
State's Attorneys Office

Officer Campbell, in his individual capacity, Defendant,
represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert
Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP

Sargeant Lewis, in her individual capacity, Defendant, represented
by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas
Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Officer Wilson, in her individual capacity, Defendant, represented
by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas
Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Lieutenant Johnson, in her individual capacity, Defendant,
represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert
Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP

Susan McCampbell, Respondent, represented by Catherine Macneil
Barber, Rock Fusco & Connelly, Llc, John Joseph Rock, Rock Fusco &
Connelly, LLC & Stacy Ann Benjamin, Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC


CYCLE GEAR: Recalls Wheelies Semi-Truck Due to Lead
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cycle Gear Inc., of Benicia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 155 Wheelies semi-truck with six motorcycles and push-
along motorcycle with rider. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The toys contain excessive levels of lead, which is a violation of
the federal standard for lead content.

This recall involves plastic Wheelies semi-truck with six
motorcycles toy and Wheelies push-along motorcycle toys. The semi-
truck has a dual-level trailer that carries six motorcycles and
comes in red and purple with multi-colored motorcycles. The truck
with the trailer attached measures 18 inches long by 7 inches
tall. The truck has the item number Item # TAG66767 and SKU#
752249 printed on the packaging.  The Wheelies push-along
motorcycle is red with a rider in black with silver accents. The
product has item # TBG04323 and SKU# 752251 printed on the
package.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/VE9vXn

The recalled products were manufactured in China by ShanTou
MeiTian Trading Co, Ltd, AmerEuro Trading Limited and sold at
Cycle Gear stores and online at www.cyclegear.com from November
2014 through December 2014 for about $10 for Push Along Motorcycle
and $20 for Semi-Truck with six motorcycles.

Consumers should immediately take away from children and stop
using the recalled toys and contact Cycle Gear Inc. for a full
refund. Cycle Gear Inc. is contacting consumers directly.


DEVERE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foti Karastamatis and Pete Quimby, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated current and former employees v.
Devere Construction Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02263 (W.D.
Tenn., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Devere Construction Company, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation with
its principal executive office located at 1030 DeVere Drive,
Alpena, Michigan 49707-8163, which operates a construction company
performing general contracting as well as construction management
and design/build services in the education, healthcare,
government, correctional, residential and manufacturing sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Cordova, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued Over Misleading Advertisement Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Hemrich and Cooper Ogburn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00445 (S.D. Ill., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
deceptive advertising claims that lead a reasonable consumer to
believe that he or she will immediately receive and be able to use
100% of the initial deposit in DraftKings' games.

Draftkings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 125 Summer St., 5th Floor, Boston
Massachusetts 02110. It is in the business of offering paid
fantasy sports contests for cash prizes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-5799
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
      E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

         - and -

      Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
      Anthony S. Bruning Jr., Esq.
      LERITZ, PLUNKERT & BRUNING, P.C.
      555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (314) 231-9480
      E-mail: ajbruning@leritzlaw.com


ECOLOGICAL PAPER: Faces "Kinlock" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton P. Kinlock, Willie D. Palmer, individually and other
similarly-situated individuals v. Manuela Flores, Jose Flores,
Sr., Maria Perez, and Jose Flores, Case No. 1:15-cv-21499-JLK
(S.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Individual Defendants are supervisors, directors, and owners
of Ecological Paper Recycling, Inc.

Ecological Paper Recycling, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
owns and operates a recycling center in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Reiner II, Esq.
      REINER & REINER PA
      9100 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901
      Miami, FL 33156-7815
      Telephone: (305) 670-8282
      Facsimile: (305) 670-8989
      E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.com


EDUCATION SERVICE: Faces "Blanton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Blanton v. Education Service Center Region 11 and Dr.
Clyde W. Steelman Jr., Case No. 4:15-cv-00303-O (N.D. Tex., April
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Education Service Center Region 11 is a state agency in the
Northern District of Texas.

Dr. Clyde W. Steelman Jr. is the Executive Director for Education
Service Center Region 11.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kalandra Nicole Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROB WILEY PC
      1825 Market Center Blvd, Suite 385
      Dallas, TX 75207
      Telephone: (214) 528-6500
      Facsimile: (214) 528-6511
      E-mail: kwheeler@robwiley.com


EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Upright Vacuum Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Euro-Pro Operating LLC, of Newton, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of about 142,000 Upright vacuum cleaners in the United
States and about 650 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The aluminum wand can disconnect from the vacuum cleaners' handle
and remain energized with electricity, posing a risk of electric
shock.

This recall involves four models of Shark(R) brand Rotator(R)
Powered Lift-Away(R) series upright vacuum cleaners. They are
either maroon or purple in color and have a clear plastic middle
section. Shark and Rotator are printed on the front of the vacuum
cleaners. They measure about 45 inches tall by 12 inches wide.
Recalled model numbers include NV650W, NV651, NV652 and NV660. The
model number is printed on a silver sticker on the upper right-
hand corner of the back of the unit.

Models NV650W and NV652 are maroon. Model NV650W is sold directly
to consumers by Euro-Pro and model NV652 is sold at retail stores.
Models NV651 and NV660 are purple and are sold at retail stores.
The date code is printed on the metal prong of the power plug and
shows the week and year of manufacture in the WWYY format.
Recalled units have date codes beginning with the number 48 or
lower and ending with 14. Vacuum cleaners marked with a dimple or
green circle sticker on the outside of the plastic cuff that holds
the aluminum wand have been inspected by the firm and are not
included in this recall.

The firm has received 62 reports of incidents in which the
aluminum wand disconnected from the vacuum cleaner's handle.  No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/HyFYK8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, Kohl's, Lowes, Target and other stores
nationwide, online at www.sharkclean.com and through television
infomercials from August 2014 through March 2015 for between $250
and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuum
cleaners and contact Euro-Pro to receive a free replacement wand.


EVERYBODY FITNESS: Ohio Appeals Court Trims "Brogley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary E. Donovan of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second
District, Montgomery County, affirmed in part and reversed in part
the trial court's judgment in the appealed case entitled JASON
BROGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVERYBODY FITNESS, LLC, Defendant-
Appellant, C.A. No. 26453 (Ohio Ct. App.)

Plaintiff Jason Brogley filed a complaint against Everybody
Fitness, LLC (EBF) and Wesley Harrell, alleging that on December
15, 2012, Brogley entered into a 36 month contract for access to a
fitness center located at 7355 Troy Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio
45424, owned and operated by defendants. Brogley asserted that the
contract required him to pay a $100.00 enrollment fee before he
could use the fitness center that was the subject of the contract,
and that he was also required to pay $48.10 per month beginning on
January 15, 2013, and an annual fee of $41.73 beginning on July 1,
2013. Brogley asserted that he, through counsel, sent EBF a letter
cancelling the contract via certified mail to EBFs According to
the complaint, in the letter, Brogley requested EBF refund all
payments Mr. Brogley made under the contract, less $10.00,
requested the cancellation and return of any evidence of
indebtedness executed by Mr. Brogley in connection with the
contract, requested notification of whether EBF intended to
repossess or abandon any evidence of membership or other goods
provided to Mr. Brogley by EBF, requested that EBF pay Mr. Brogley
$1,000.00 for Mr. Brogley's attorney's fees, and requested EBF pay
Mr. Brogley $500.00 for Mr. Brogley's damages.

EBF and Harrell answered the complaint on June 19, 2014. Brogley
filed a motion for summary judgment against EBF on August 18,
2014, and asserted that he was entitled to a notice of
cancellation that complied with the requirements of R.C.
1345.44(B) because the contract was a prepaid entertainment
contract. Brogley asserted that EBF violated the CSPA by including
impermissible terms in the contract.

The court favors the plaintiff and against the defendant. The
court by separate entry set the matter for a hearing on October 6,
2014 on the issue of attorney fees. On October 1, 2014, EBF filed
Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Entry of Final Judgment, asserting that the claims against Harrell
are still pending, and that a hearing on attorneys' fees incurred
through October 6, 2014 will only needlessly increase litigation
fees and expert witness fees and will not result in reaching a
final resolution on that issue. EBF further asserted, in the
alternative, if the court is not inclined to grant defendant's
requested stay, defendants move for the issuance of an order which
amends the September 12, 2014 Judgment Entry to include an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay, as required
by Civ.R. 54(B) and thus providing defendants with an immediate
right to appeal the judgment entry, in advance of the 14 day
deadline expressed in the judgment entry and also in advance of
the October 6, 2014 hearing on attorney's fees. On October 1,
2014, the court granted the motion, which Brogley opposed on
October 3, 2014. In its amended judgment entry, the court enters
final judgment upon the claims and expressly determines that there
is no jus reason for delay. Defendant appealed.

Judge Donovan affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment
on the trial court and remanded the suit for modification of the
judgment to Montgomery County Municipal Court, Eastern Division.

A copy of Judge Donovan's opinion dated April 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/9rTLtHfrom Leagle.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee:

Karl W. Snyder, Esq.
Daniel A. Yarmesch, Esq.
DOUCET & ASSOCIATES, CO., L.P.A.
700 Stonehenge Parkway, Suite 2B,
Dublin, OH 43017
Telephone: 614-944-5219
Facsimile: 818-638-5548

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:

Luke J. Busam, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
3300 Great American Tower
301 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: 513-651-6800
Facsimile: 513-651-6981

The Appellate Court panel consists of Presiding Judge Jeffrey E.
Froelich and Judges Mary E. Donovan and Jeffrey M. Welbaum


FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Illegal Use of Members' Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Pezen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03484 (N.D. Ill.,
April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's misuse of
personally identifying biometric information that the they
collected from its members, without informed consent. More
specifically, the Defendant extracts geometric data from photos
uploaded by Facebook members to create a highly detailed geometric
map of the user's face. These data are used under its facial
biometric system, which is integrated into Facebook's Photo Tag
Suggest program.

Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1601
Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. It operates the largest
social media network in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
      LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.,
      351 W. Hubbard St., Suite 401
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 634-0057
      E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com
              newton@laskyrifkind.com

         - and -

      Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
      Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
      Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com
              crhodes@labaton.com
              rkamhi@labaton.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Forcefield Energy Inc., David Natan, Jason Williams,
Richard St-Julien, The Dreamteam Group, and Mission Investor
Relations d/b/a Missionir, Case No. 1:15-cv-03141-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Forcefield Energy Inc. is a designer, distributor and licensee of
alternative energy products and solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENA ACCESSORIES: Recalls Silk Scarves Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gena Accessories Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 9,400 Silk scarves. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scarves fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel and pose a burn hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Gena Accessories women's silk scarves. The
recalled scarves measure 64 inches long by 18 inches wide and were
sold in the colors black, brown, burgundy, camel, fuchsia, green,
grey, lavender, light blue, light green, light pink, orange, red,
turquoise, white and yellow.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/Lt8hjX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Specialty accessory boutiques in New York City and online at
Amazon.com, GenaAccessories.com and Scarfand.com from January 2007
through February 2015 for about $12.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and
contact Gena Accessories Inc. for a full refund.


GEORGIA: Appeals Court Revives Unit Cerebral Palsy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher McFadden of the Court of Appeals of Georgia
reversed the Superior Court's judgment in granting defendant's
motion in the appealed case entitled UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF
GEORGIA, INC., et al., v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al., A14A1548, A14A1549 (Ga. Ct.
App.)

The plaintiffs are nonprofit corporations that provide services to
Georgia Medicaid patients with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (providers), the patients who receive those services
(recipients), and the recipients' family representatives.

The defendants Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and
Developmental Disabilities, the Georgia Department of Community
Health are the state agencies that administer the Medicaid program
in Georgia and those agencies' commissioners.

In 2007, the federal government approved two waiver programs, the
New Options Waiver Program, which the parties refer to as NOW, and
the Comprehensive Supports Waiver Program, which the parties refer
to as COMP. NOW and COMP allow the defendants to permit the
providers to furnish services to recipients in home and community-
based settings rather than in institutions. The waiver programs
became part of Georgia's Medicaid plan and were incorporated into
a provision of the contracts known as statements of participation
between the defendants and the providers.

According to the plaintiffs, since 2008, the defendants have not
paid the providers the approved rates and have limited the amount
of services recipients can receive, sometimes to below the amount
that is medically necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made these reductions without public notice and comment
as required by federal and state law and without giving the
providers or recipients proper notice in violation of their rights
to due process and contrary to the terms of the statements of
participation.

The plaintiffs filed suit, asserting claims for breach of
contract, violation of their rights to administrative remedies
under OCGA Section 49-4-153 (b) (1), and violation of their
constitutional rights. The trial court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the suit for the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
their administrative remedies. The plaintiffs appealed arguing
that they were excused from the exhaustion requirement because the
defendants did not give them required notice of the adverse action
at issue.

Judge McFadden agreed with the plaintiffs and reversed the
judgment made by the trial court granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A copy of Judge McFadden's judgment dated March 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/nuV7U9from Leagle.com

The Appeals Court panel consists of Presiding Judge Gary Blaylock
Andrews and Judges Christopher J. McFadden and William M. Ray, II.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 15 Class Suits on Avandia Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 2015, the
Group has reached agreements to settle the substantial majority of
federal and state cases on Avandia pending in the US, and 15
purported class actions on Avandia are pending in Canada.

The Group has been named in product liability lawsuits on behalf
of individuals asserting personal injury claims arising out of the
use of Avandia. The federal cases filed against the Group are part
of a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the 'MDL Court'). Cases have also been filed in a number of state
courts.

As of February 2015, the Group has reached agreements to settle
the substantial majority of federal and state cases pending in the
US. 15 purported class actions on Avandia are pending in Canada.
The Group has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
single purported consumer class action in Israel, which has now
been approved by the Court. In the UK, litigation against the
Group has ended following the formal discontinuance of the claims
of the majority of the claimants and a court order striking the
claims of the remaining claimants.

There are four purported class actions seeking economic damages on
behalf of third party payers asserting claims arising under
various state and federal laws, including the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state unfair trade practices
and/or consumer protection laws. The MDL Court denied the Group's
motion to dismiss three of the third party payer actions, and the
fourth action has been stayed. The Group has appealed the decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. One
consumer class action brought on behalf of Missouri residents
remains pending in the MDL Court. Humana Medical Group (Humana)
has brought two separate subrogation actions, one as a purported
class action in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has denied class
certification. United Health Group, Inc. has brought a separate
subrogation action against the Group.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 3 Paxil Trials Scheduled in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------
Three trials are scheduled in 2015 related to lawsuits and claims
on the use of Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR during pregnancy,
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that
use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most
of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of
Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth
defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged
that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit
suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on
discontinuing treatment with Paxil.

The Group has reached agreements to settle the substantial
majority of the US claims relating to the use of Paxil during
pregnancy as of February 2015, but a number of claims related to
use during pregnancy are still pending in various courts in the
US. Other matters have been dismissed without payment. Currently,
there are three trials scheduled in 2015.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Trial in Canada Paxil Case in Oct. 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
The case in Canada related to lawsuits and claims on the use of
Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR during pregnancy is scheduled to be
tried in October 2016, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that
use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most
of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of
Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth
defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged
that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit
suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on
discontinuing treatment with Paxil.

There are two proposed, and one certified, class actions in
Canada. The action that has been certified as a national class
action is in British Columbia and relates to cardiovascular
defects. An appeal from that certification decision was dismissed
in October 2013, and the case is scheduled to be tried in October
2016.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: No Trials This Year "Acts of Violence" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are no trials scheduled for 2015 on lawsuits and claims that
alleged that patients who took Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR
committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence,
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that
use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most
of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of
Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth
defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged
that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit
suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on
discontinuing treatment with Paxil.

As of February 2015, there were eight pending matters, including
one lawsuit on appeal (pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) concerning allegations that
patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide
or acts of violence. Currently, there are no trials scheduled for
2015.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: LAA Discharged Public Certificate
------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has discharged public certificate,
effectively ending the group action related that alleged that
patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with
Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form
20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that
use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most
of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of
Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth
defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged
that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit
suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on
discontinuing treatment with Paxil.

In the UK, in late 2010, public funding was withdrawn from the
claimants who had received funding to pursue litigation alleging
that Paxil/Seroxat had caused them to suffer from withdrawal
reactions and dependency. The majority of the claimants
discontinued their claims.

In June 2013, the Group was informed that the Legal Aid Agency
(LAA) (formerly the Legal Services Commission) was considering
whether to discharge the public funding certificate following the
recommendation of its Special Cases Review Panel that the case has
poor prospects of success. On January 29, 2015, the LAA discharged
the public certificate, effectively ending the group action.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Poligrip Claims Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Product liability lawsuits and claims over Super Poligrip are
pending, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Beginning in 2005, a number of product liability lawsuits and
claims were filed against the Group in both state and federal
courts in the USA, including purported class actions, alleging
that the zinc in Super Poligrip causes copper depletion and
permanent neurologic injury. The federal cases were consolidated
in the Denture Cream Adhesive multi-district litigation (MDL) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida which was established in June 2009. The original four
putative class actions in the MDL have been dismissed. In 2013, a
putative class action was filed in Puerto Rico, which was removed
to federal court and transferred to the MDL where it remains
pending as of February 2015.

With two current exceptions (one state court case in Pennsylvania,
and one state court case in small claims court in Tennessee), all
other state court cases were consolidated in the Philadelphia
state court Mass Tort Program (MTP). As of February 2015, there
are no cases currently pending against GSK in the Philadelphia
MTP. The vast majority of individual cases have been dismissed,
with seven active individual cases and one putative class action
in the MDL, and two state court cases, still pending against the
Group in the USA.

In Canada, one individual lawsuit and five purported class actions
asserting consumer fraud claims have also been filed. Of those,
the individual lawsuit and one putative class action have been
dismissed. In addition, there are a few filed and unfiled claims
in Turkey, the UK and elsewhere. The Group voluntarily withdrew
all zinc-containing formulations of Super Poligrip from the market
in early 2010.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pretrial Activities Continue in Avandia Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Group is defending
an action by the County of Santa Clara, California, which was
brought under California's consumer protection laws seeking civil
penalties and restitution as a result of the Group's marketing of
Avandia. Pre-trial activities are continuing. If the case proceeds
to trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (the 'MDL Court') will send the case back
to California federal court for a bench trial.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Resolved Native American Tribes Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that seven lawsuits were
filed on behalf of Native American tribes relating to the sale and
marketing of Avandia and other Group products. The Group resolved
all claims by and against these groups in December 2014.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Claims re Paxil Purchases by Minors Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there remains a similar
purported class action in Canada seeking economic damages on
behalf of individuals who purchased Paxil for use by patients
under the age of 18.

In 2004, the Group settled a lawsuit filed by the New York State
Attorney General's office alleging that the Group failed to
disclose data on the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. In
2007 and 2008, the Group made class settlements of lawsuits
brought by consumers and third-party payers, respectively, for
economic damages allegedly resulting from prescriptions of Paxil
to children and adolescents. The Group denied liability in these
settlements. In 2010, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a similar
purported class action filed on behalf of governmental entities
that paid for prescriptions of Paxil to minors.

There remains a similar purported class action in Canada seeking
economic damages on behalf of individuals who purchased Paxil for
use by patients under the age of 18. The certification application
as part of this purported class action was adjourned in 2012 to
permit the filing of further evidence and is likely to resume in
2015.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Lamictal Indirect Purchase Suit Suspended
--------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the action by purported
indirect purchase class related to Lamictal has been suspended
pending a decision on the direct purchasers' appeal.

Purported direct and indirect purchaser class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging that the Group and Teva Pharmaceuticals unlawfully
conspired to delay generic competition for Lamictal, resulting in
their being overcharged. A separate count accuses the Group of
monopolising the market. The District Court denied the motion of
the purported direct purchaser class for reconsideration of the
order granting the Group's motion to dismiss in December 2012.

"The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and oral argument was
heard on 18 November 2014. We await decision by the Third Circuit.
The action by the purported indirect purchase class has been
suspended pending a decision on the direct purchasers' appeal,"
the Company said.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dispositive Bids Due in Wellbutrin XL Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that dispositive motions in
connection with the remaining issue in the case related to
Wellbutrin XL were due on March 20, 2015.

Actions have been filed against Biovail Corporation (Biovail) and
the Group in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania by purported classes of direct and
indirect purchasers who allege unlawful monopolisation and other
anti-trust violations related to the enforcement of Biovail's
patents for Wellbutrin XL and the filing, by Biovail, of citizen
petitions. Both direct and indirect purchaser classes have been
certified, although a motion to decertify the indirect purchaser
class remains pending. The District Court granted the Group's
motion for partial summary judgment primarily on immunity grounds.

The sole remaining claim relates to plaintiffs' allegations that
the Group entered into an anti-competitive reverse payment
settlement to resolve the patent infringement litigation.
Dispositive motions in connection with the remaining issue in the
case were due on March 20, 2015.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: August 2015Trial in Remaining Stiefel Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the remaining Stiefel
Securities/ERISA class action in Florida (Martinolich) is
scheduled for trial in August 2015.

On July 6, 2009, a class action suit brought on behalf of current
and former employees of Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. (Stiefel), a
Group company, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint alleges that
Stiefel and its officers and directors violated the US Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and federal and state
securities laws by inducing Stiefel employees to sell their shares
in the employee stock plan back to Stiefel at a greatly
undervalued price and without disclosing to employees that Stiefel
was about to be sold to the Group. On July 21, 2011, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In October 2011, the District Court granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment, dismissing all but one of the
remaining plaintiffs in the litigation. Trial of claims of that
one plaintiff, Timothy Finnerty, took place in May 2012 and
resulted in a $1.5 million jury verdict in favour of Mr. Finnerty
on his securities claims (separately, the Group settled Mr.
Finnerty's ERISA claims). The Group appealed the verdict, but the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the verdict on
June 30, 2014. A petition for certiorari has been filed with the
US Supreme Court. Additionally, Stiefel won a complete defence
verdict in the Fried case, tried in federal court in Florida in
October 2013. Plaintiff appealed that verdict to the Eleventh
Circuit, and a decision from that Court is pending. Two other
Stiefel cases pending in Florida now have been dismissed: the
Bacon case, settled by the Group in January 2015, and MacKay (in
which summary judgment was granted in favour of the Group, a
ruling that was later upheld by the 11th Circuit). The remaining
case in Florida (Martinolich) is scheduled for trial in August
2015. Discovery continues in the Georgia and New York suits. All
of these lawsuits involve claims similar to those brought in
Finnerty.


GOOCHIE GOO: Recalls Sensory Blankets Due to Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Goochie Goo Garbs LLC, of Scottsdale, Ariz., announced a voluntary
recall of about 125 Sensory Grab Garb Blankets. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Wire-edged ribbon used in the blanket's ribbon tags can become
exposed, posing a laceration hazard to children.

The Sensory Grab Garb blanket is a 6-inch square of soft fabric
with crinkle paper inside and ribbon tags in the middle of each of
the four sides. One side of the blanket contains a white satin
ribbon tag with the words "Goochie Goo Garbs" on it.  The polka-
dot ribbon tags are black, blue, green, pink or red ribbons with
white polka-dots. The blankets come in a variety of child themed
patterns including shapes, animals and superhero themes. Only the
6-inch square Sensory Grab Garb blankets with colored polka-dot
ribbon tags attached to the side of the blanket are included in
the recall.

The firm has received one report of a child that was scratched by
the wire that came out of the ribbon tag.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/d0xmph

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Various children's specialty stores in Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Pennsylvania
from July 2014 through March 2015 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using these Sensory Grab Garb
blankets and return them to the store where purchased for a full
refund or a replacement blanket.


GORSUCH LTD: Recalls Ertlrenz Ski Boot Liners Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gorsuch Ltd., of Avon, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of
about 300 Ertlrenz Trim Heat and Foam Heat ski boot liners.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Liner can overheat when charging, posing a fire hazard.

The ERTLRENZ Trim Heat and Foam Heat are handmade, customized,
black inner heat liners for ski boots. Every product is
accompanied by a charger and a remote control for the heating
system. There also is an accompanying ERTLRENZ instruction manual
supplied with the heat liners at the time of purchase.

Gorsuch received three reports of the heat liners smoldering
during the charging process. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/gYufMj

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and Austria and
sold at Gorsuch Ltd. stores in Aspen, Vail and Beaver Creek from
November 2011 through March 2015 for about $690.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heat liners and return
the product with accessories (charger/remote control) to Gorsuch
LTD or a Gorsuch store for repair or replacement.


HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Homelite Consumer Products Inc., of Anderson, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of About 823,000 Homelite electric blower vacuums
in the United States and 41,000 in Canada. (Models UT42120 and
UT42120A of this product were previously recalled in February
2013.). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The blower vacuum can overheat, spark and catch on fire posing
fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves Homelite 12 amp electric blower vacuums with
model numbers UT42120, UT42120A and UT42121. Model numbers are
located on a label on the left side of the red motor housing. The
blower vacuums are red and black. "Homelite BlowerVac 2 Speed
Powerful 220 MPH" is printed on the side of the motor housing and
on the black plastic blower tube.

Homelite has received 1,369 reports of blower vacuums sparking,
arcing, smoking or burning, including one report of minor injury.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/XoduUf

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Changzhou
Globe Tools Co. Ltd. and Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd., of
China and sold at Home Depot and Direct Tools Factory Outlets
stores nationwide and online at www.homedepot.com from January
2010 through March 2015 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower
vacuums and return them to any Home Depot or Direct Tools Factory
Outlet store for a full refund.


HONEY SOLUTIONS: Importers and Suppliers Earn Sweet Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the
case entitled IN RE HONEY TRANSSHIPPING LITIGATION, CASE NO. 13-
CV-2905 (N.D. Ill.)

Honey Solutions is an industrial honey supplier structured as a
Texas limited partnership with a principal place of business in
Texas. HHI is the general partner of Honey Solutions. From 2003 to
May 2008, Douglas A. Murphy was the Director of Sales at Honey
Solutions. Defendant Urbain Tran is a citizen and resident of
California and served as an agent for Honey Solutions in at least
2006.

Sunland is a privately held wholesale honey import corporation. It
is incorporated in Connecticut and has a principal place of
business in Connecticut. The class plaintiffs allege that Sunland
knowingly sold contaminated honey of Chinese origin to Groeb
Farms, Inc., on several occasions between 2008 and 2010. From
September 2008 to April 2010, Sunland allegedly used labels
indicating that its honey was made in Vietnam, the Ukraine, India,
and Brazil, when the honey actually came from China. In 2010,
United States Customs allegedly imposed a $500,000 duty upon
Sunland, after finding that Sunland sold honey that had entered
the United States illegally from China in 2008 as "Vietnamese
Honey."

Both the class plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs are
domestic commercial beekeepers and packers of honey. They allege
that the defendants' transshipping scheme suppressed the price of
honey in the United States. The lower prices, in turn, undermined
the plaintiffs' competitiveness in the marketplace and caused the
plaintiffs to lose sales and market share. The class plaintiffs
bring suit for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1125, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961, et seq., (RICO)
against the defendants. The individual plaintiffs' complaint
asserts claims arising under RICO and the Illinois common law, but
not under the Lanham Act.

Before the court is Sunland's motion to dismiss the class
complaint, the Honey Solution defendants' motion to dismiss the
class complaint, and the Honey Solution defendants' motion to
dismiss the individual plaintiffs' complaint.

Judge Gottschall granted Sunland's motion to dismiss the class
complaint; and all claims in the class claims complaint are
dismissed without prejudice as to Sunland. The Honey Solutions
defendants' motions to dismiss the class complaint and the
individual plaintiffs' complaint are granted in part and denied in
part.

A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SXCizKfrom
Leagle.com

Chris Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC,
Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow
& Associates, P.C.

Cox Honey of Utah, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow,
Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc.,
PC, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris,
Barnow & Associates, P.C.

Brett Adee, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC,
Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow
& Associates, P.C.

Kelvin Adee, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC,
Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow
& Associates, P.C.

Daniel C. Whitney, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Bauer Honey, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Bee Natural Honey, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow,
Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman
Law Firm

Bernard Casavan, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Blake Shook, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Ruby's Apiaries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow,
Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman
Law Firm

Kallas Honey Farm, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow,
Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman
Law Firm

Wind River Honey Company, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow,
Barnow and Associates, P.C. &Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law
Firm

Heaven's Honey, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Brad Stromme, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Dan's Honey Company, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

McCoy's Sunny South Apiaries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The
Coffman Law Firm

Willow Bee, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

GloryBee Natural Sweeteners, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. &Richard Lyle Coffman, The
Coffman Law Firm

Orange Apiary, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm.
Wee Bee Honey Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Adee Honey Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A.

Bill Rhodes Honey Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Hackenberg Apiaries, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Doan's Honey Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

William H Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm

Ernest L. Groeb, Defendant, represented by Abigail A Clapp,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. & David N. Zacks, Ishbia & Gagleard, P.C.

Troy L. Groeb, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Duffy, Stetler,
Duffy & Rotert, Ltd., Henry M. Baskerville, Stelter, Duffy &
Rotert, Ltd. & William Paul Ziegelmueller, Stetler, Duffy &
Rotert, Ltd.

Horizon Partners, Ltd., Inc., Defendant, represented by James
Peter Fieweger, Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd., Lisa Marie
Noller, Foley & Lardner, Peter C. John, Williams, Montgomery &
John, Ltd., Jonathan William Garlough, Foley & Lardner, Martin J.
Bishop, Foley & Lardner & Rebecca Sklar Bradley, Foley & Lardner
LLP

Groeb Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Noller,
Foley & Lardner, Jonathan William Garlough, Foley & Lardner,
Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner & Rebecca Sklar Bradley, Foley &
Lardner LLP

Robert Feerick, Defendant, represented by James Peter Fieweger,
Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd. &Peter C. John, Williams,
Montgomery & John, Ltd.

Marquette Capital Partners, Defendant, represented by Allan T.
Slagel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,Christopher H. Montana,
Fredrikson & Byron, P.a., Jeffrey M. Schieber, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP &Todd Wind, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

Thomas Jenkins, Defendant, represented by Allan T. Slagel, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Christopher H. Montana, Fredrikson &
Byron, P.a., Jeffrey M. Schieber, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
& Todd Wind, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

Honey Holdings 1, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Darren Brett
Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell & Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson,
Martin & Bell, Llp

HHI Management, Defendant, represented by Darren Brett Watts,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey Scott Becker, Swanson Martin &
Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp &
Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP

Douglas A Murphy, Defendant, represented by Darren Brett Watts,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey Scott Becker, Swanson Martin &
Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp &
Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP

Urbain Tran, Defendant, represented by Bradley C. Graveline,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP &David Mitchell Poell,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP

Sunland Trading, Defendant, represented by Alan S. Madans,
Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP, Daniel A. Cummings, Rothschild,
Barry & Myers LLP, Kenneth P. Taube, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP
& Robin Korman Powers, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP

National Honey, Inc., Defendant, represented by M. H. Cersonsky,
Ceronsky, Rosen & Garcia P.c. & Mark L. Rotert, Stetler, Duffy &
Rotert, Ltd.

Jun Yang, Defendant, represented by M. H. Cersonsky, Ceronsky,
Rosen & Garcia P.c. & Mark L. Rotert, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert,
Ltd.

Honey Holding I, Ltd. d/b/a Honey Solutions, Respondent,
represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey
Scott Becker, Swanson Martin & Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp & Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP

HHI Management, LLC, Respondent, represented by Darren Brett
Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell

Douglas A Murphy, Respondent, represented by Darren Brett Watts,
Swanson, Martin & Bell

Adee Honey Farms, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. &Edmund S Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A.

Bill Rhodes Honey Company, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented
by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Edmund S Aronowitz,
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.

Hackenberg Apiaries, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Edmund S Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A.


INTERTHINX INC: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Failure to Pay 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), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of 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.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New Jersey that is the parent
company and sole shareholder of Interthinx.

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


J. CREW: Recalls Baby Coveralls Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J. Crew Group Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 20,000 Baby Coveralls (8,700 additional baby
coveralls were recalled in May 2014). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Snaps on the coveralls can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.

This recall involves J. Crew baby coveralls in sizes newborn to
2T. The coveralls were sold in various colors and designs
including prints and stripes. A care label sewn into the inside
left seam of the garment lists the PO number, style number and "SU
'14." PO and style numbers included in the recall are:

Style #A8248, PO numbers: 8044696, 8044697, 5046904 and SU '14
Style #A8249, PO numbers: 8044644, 5046905 and SU '14
Style #A8251, PO number: 8044643 and SU '14
Style #A8252, PO numbers: 8044642, 5046906 and SU '14
Style #A8273, PO number: 8044659 and SU '14
Style #A8274, PO numbers: 8044660, 5046909 and SU '14
Style #A8276, PO numbers: 8044661, 5046910 and SU '14
Style #A8341, PO number: 8044663 and SU '14
Style #A8358, PO numbers: 8044662, 5046911 and SU '14
Style #B3605, PO number: 8046744 and SU '14
Style #B3606, PO number: 8046743 and SU '14
Style #B3607, PO numbers: 8046745, 8046746, 5048693 and SU '14
The firm has received 10 reports of snaps detaching. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/K14Jeh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
J.Crew stores in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, D.C.,
online at jcrew.com and the J.Crew catalog from April 2014 to
March 2015 for between $30 and $33.

Consumers should immediately stop using the coveralls and contact
J. Crew for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the garments
online will receive instructions for returning the coveralls,
including a postage-paid shipping label. J.Crew is contacting
consumers who bought the coveralls directly.


J&K ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Won't Allow Separate Arbitrations
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
NEFFERTITI ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. J&K ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND KIMBERLY M. MEYERS Defendants/
Counter-Claimants, v. SANDRA HARRIS, et al., Third Party
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00956-L (N.D. Tex.)

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver,
who entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge on February 17, 2015, recommending
that the court deny defendants' application for order compelling
separate arbitrations, and for appointment of arbitrators, subject
to motion to transfer; granted plaintiffs' motion to compel
arbitration; and granted third party defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

Defendants filed their objection to Magistrate's Finding,
Conclusions, and Recommendation, filed March 3, 2015, contending
that the magistrate judge incorrectly concluded that the
arbitrator, not the court, should decide whether the parties'
arbitration agreement allows for collective arbitration.

Defendants contend that whether the parties must submit to
collective arbitration is a decision for the court, not an
arbitrator. Defendants further argue that the Fifth Circuit
precedent concluding otherwise and relied on by the magistrate
judge was wrongly decided and is not binding on this court base on
the case Pedcor Mgmt. Co., Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nations
Pers. of Texas, Inc., 343 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover,
defendants argue that subsequent Supreme Court precedent compels
this court to grant defendants' objection and decide the issue of
arbitrability based on the contract between the parties base on
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010)
case. Plaintiffs counter that Pedcor is binding upon this court
and has not been overruled, and that defendants' protestations to
the contrary are creative attempts to avoid the application of
binding precedent.

Judge Lindsay denies defendants' application for order compelling
separate arbitrations and for appointment of arbitrators, subject
to motion to transfer Venue; grants plaintiff's motion to compel
arbitration; and grants third party defendants' motion to compel
arbitration. The court determines that, in accordance with the
arbitration agreements signed by plaintiff and each of the third
party defendants, all claims are arbitrable and orders the parties
to arbitrate any dispute between them in accordance with those
agreements. Having determined that all of the issues raised by the
parties must be submitted to binding arbitration, the court
dismisses the action with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Lindsay's memorandum opinion and order dated March
24, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/mKraFwfrom Leagle.com

Neffertiti Robinson, Plaintiff/Defendant, represented by Chris
Richard Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law
Office of Chris R Miltenberger PLLC

J & K Administrative Management Services Inc. and Kimberly M
Meyers, Defendants/Counter Claimants, represented by Eric J
Millner -- emillner@bwwlaw.com -- David J Goodman --
dgoodman@bwwlaw.com -- at Bourland Wall & Wenzel PC

Sandra Harris, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Chris Richard
Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law Office of
Chris R Miltenberger PLLC

J & K Administrative Management Services Inc. and Kimberly M
Meyers, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Eric J Millner --
emillner@bwwlaw.com -- David J Goodman -- dgoodman@bwwlaw.com --
at Bourland Wall & Wenzel PC

Gloria Turner, Joan Stanton and Ann Knight, ThirdParty Defendants,
represented by Chris Richard Miltenberger --
chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law Office of Chris R
Miltenberger PLLC


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Finance Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Keen, Tamra E. Keen, Curt Conyers, Kelly E. Conyers, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-cv-01806-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
properly disclose the finance charge in the finance charge box of
the Borrower's Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. owns and operates a national banking
association with its principal place of business in
Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William McGrane, Esq.
      MCGRANE LLP
      Four Embarcadero Center
      Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 292-4807
      E-mail: ecf@mcgranellp.com


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit did not appeal the Judgment
and this matter is now concluded.

"On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against us and our chief
executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all of our
shareholders (other than the defendants) who acquired our shares
between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG
(S.D.N.Y.). On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit
was filed against us and our chief executive officer as well as
our chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.)," the Company
said.

On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the two
lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The case was styled In
re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:13-CV-0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.). On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint that, in substance,
repeated the claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits.

The Company said, "The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted
claims against (i) us for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) our chief executive officer for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint
were premised on general allegations that we and the individual
defendant participated directly or indirectly in the preparation
and/or issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings
reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements,
which allegedly caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices. On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court
entered an Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The
Court entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014.
The lead plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is
now concluded."


KIND LLC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
Charity Bustamante, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kind LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00891 -JAH-JMA
(S.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false
labels on its KIND bars and snack products that they are All
Natural and Non GMO, when in fact they contain genetically
modified and non-natural, highly processed ingredients including
soy lecithin, soy protein isolate, and canola oil.    

Kind LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business is located in New York. It
manufactures, promotes, markets, and distributes the snack
products to consumers throughout California and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.

      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


LAND OF LINCOLN: Overcharges for Health Insurance, Ill. Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Land of
Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. overcharges for health
insurance by basing premiums on pre-tax income instead of gross
adjusted income, as required by the Affordable Care Act, in Cook
County Chancery Court.


LENOVO INC: Recalls Notebook Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lenovo Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 148,800 ThinkPad notebook computer battery packs in the
United States and 17,700 in Canada (About 34,500 in the United
States and 2,900 in Canada were recalled in March 2014.).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following
ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13, 14, 15, 120, 125,
320, 325, 420, 425, 430, 520, 525 and 530 series; the L412,
L420/421, L512 and L520 series; the T410, T420, T510 and T520
series; the W510 and W520 series; and the X100e, X120e, X121e,
X130e, X200, X200s, X201, X201s, X220 and X220t series.

The battery packs were also sold separately. The black battery
packs measure between 8 to 11 inches long, 1 to 3 inches wide and
about 1 inch high. Recalled battery packs have one of the
following part numbers starting with the fourth digit in a long
series of numbers and letters printed on a white sticker below the
bar code on the battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4740, 42T4798,
42T4804, 42T4812, 42T4816, 42T4822, 42T4826, 42T4828, 42T4834,
42T4840, 42T4862, 42T4868, 42T4874, 42T4880, 42T4890, 42T4944,
42T4948, 42T4954, 42T4958, 45N1022 and 45N1050.

Lenovo has received four reports of incidents of battery packs
overheating and damaging the computers, battery packs and
surrounding property. One incident included a consumer's skin
being reddened and burn marks on the consumer's clothing.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/vMlVbj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Computer and electronics stores, and authorized dealers nationwide
and online at www.lenovo.com from February 2010 through June 2012
for between $350 and $3,000 when sold as part of ThinkPad notebook
computers. The battery packs were also sold separately for between
$80 and $150.

Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook
computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free
replacement battery pack.  Consumers can continue to use their
ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC
adapter and power cord.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeals in "Bezich" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the case Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL") are pending, Lincoln National
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.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County
("Court"), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73,
asserting he was charged a cost of insurance fee that exceeded the
applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms
of the insurance contract.

"We dispute the allegations and are vigorously defending this
matter.  Plaintiff petitioned the Court to certify a class action,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or owned the relevant
insurance product between 1999 and 2009, alleging that:  (i) LNL
breached the contract by including non-mortality factors in cost
of insurance rates; (ii) LNL breached the contract when it charged
administrative expenses in excess of set amount; and (iii) LNL
breached the contract by failing to adjust cost of insurance rates
to reflect improving mortality expectations," the Company said.

On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying certification
on all of the Plaintiff's counts and claims except with respect to
a single legal issue: whether the contract was breached as alleged
in Count III.  However, any damages arising from this alleged
breach would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis.

"The appellate court granted permission for our interlocutory
appeal of the Court's certification of the single issue class.
The plaintiff has cross-appealed and both appeals are pending,"
the Company said.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending Action by Lehman Special Financing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is vigorously defending the case,
Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.
et al., 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 July 23, 2012, LNL was added as a noteholder defendant to a
putative class action adversary proceeding ("adversary
proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v.
Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and
instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United
States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. seeks to (i)
overturn the application of certain priority of payment provisions
in 47 collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis
such provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and
(ii) recover funds paid out to noteholders in accordance with the
note agreements.


LMS INTELLIBOUND: "Kutzback" Case Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. of the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, adopts the Magistrate Judge's report
and recommendation granting plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify class and to facilitate notice in the case MICHAEL
KUTZBACK, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC., a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, and CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC., a
Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-
2767-JTF-CGC (W.D. Tenn.)

The plaintiff Michael Kutzback brought this action against the
defendants, employers LMS Intellibound, LLC and Capstone
Logistics, LLC, for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
29 U.S.C. Section 207 and for failure to pay wages in violation of
29 U.S.C. Section 206 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a
class of all Uploaders employed by the defendants during the past
three years in 239 or more nationwide locations.

The court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A). On December 16, 2014, the
Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending
that plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the class and to
facilitate notice be granted. The Magistrate Judge also entered an
order denying plaintiff's motion to toll the statute of
limitations.

On December 30, 2014, defendants filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which plaintiff
filed his response in opposition on January 23, 2015. With leave
from the court, defendants filed a reply in support of their
objections to the report and recommendation on February 13, 2015.

Judge Fowlkes adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and
authorizes the plaintiff to obtain discovery of the potential opt-
in plaintiffs contact information, the parties' names, addresses,
telephone numbers and social security numbers. The defendants must
provide this information to plaintiff within 30 days from the
entry of this order. Notice by first class mail will be allowed
using the proposed notice provided in the record. Additional
notice by email will also be permitted. Plaintiff will be allowed
to send one reminder postcard to the potential opt-in plaintiffs
during the opt-in period of 60 days. Finally, the 60-day opt-in
period will begin upon plaintiff's receipt of the potential opt-in
plaintiffs' contact information.

A copy of Judge Fowlkes's order dated March 25, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/7ryw4h from Leagle.com

Michael Kutzback, Plaintiff, represented by:

Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
810 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: 615-490-0944

Defendants, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. --
gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Ashley K. Laken -- alaken@seyfarth.com --
Jennifer A. Riley -- jriley@seyfarth.com -- Laura E. Reasons --
lreasons@seyfarth.com -- Rebecca Sharon Bromet -- at SEYFARTH
SHAW, LLP


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Magnachip Semiconductor
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01797-HSG (N.D. Cal., April
21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, prospects,
operations and financial results, and failed to disclose the
inadequacy of its internal controls and procedures over financial
reporting.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corporation is a South Korea-based
designer and manufacturer of analog and mixed signal semiconductor
products mainly for high-volume consumer, computer and
communication applications, which includes smart phones.

The Plaintiff 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

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


MAIL MEDIA: Faces "Forbes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack A. Forbes, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Mail Media, Inc. and Martin Clarke,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03099 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Mail Media, Inc. is a multinational corporation that owns several
tabloid newspapers and magazines both in print and on the
internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Fingerhut, Esq.
      AXELROD, FINGERHUT & DENNIS
      260 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (732) 491-5263
      E-mail: sfingerhut@afdny.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Prelim. OK of M273 Engine Gears Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on April 8
preliminarily approved a class action settlement that claims M273
engine gears in some models of 2005-07 Mercedes wear out
prematurely.

The case is Majeed Seifi, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC,
Case No. 3:12-cv-05493-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


MERCADOLIBRE INC: Filed Defense in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
MercadoLibre, Inc. has filed its defense on October 3, 2014, in a
class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 13, 2014, the consumer association called "Consumidores
Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa" ("Consumidores
Financieros") filed a class action against the Company's Argentine
subsidiary, MercadoLibre S.R.L. ("MercadoLibre"), in the First
Instance National Court on Commercial Matters Number Four of
Buenos Aires, Argentina (the "Court"). Consumidores Financieros
acts on behalf of customers who have used MercadoPago in Argentina
and claims that MercadoLibre has infringed certain consumer
provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, mostly related to
certain information to be provided to consumers in relation to the
transactions performed through MercadoPago by users holding credit
cards that are not associated to MercadoLibre's promotions, and
charged them excessive interest rates when users paid by
installments. Consumidores Financieros seeks that (i) MercadoLibre
provides clear and complete information about the costs of its
service MercadoPago in Argentina, (ii) MercadoLibre reimburse
users who have used MercadoPago in the last 10 years, an amount
equivalent to the difference between the interest rate actually
charged by MercadoLibre for the users that pay through MercadoPago
by installments and the interest rate set down by the section 36
of the CPA in cases of violation of the duty of information as per
section 36 (average annual rate set down by the Argentine Central
Bank, which is 26.31% as of the date of this report), (iii) the
Court establish the interest rate to be charged in future
transactions where users pay by installments, estimate by
Consumidores Financieros in twice the interest rate charged by the
Banco de la Nacion Argentina in commercial transactions (as of the
date of this report the doubled interest rate is estimated at
50%), and (iv) condemn MercadoLibre to pay punitive damages on the
amount of AR$500 per each transaction performed in alleged
violation to section 36 of the CPA. The Company filed its defense
on October 3, 2014.

"As of the date of this report according to the opinion of our
management and legal counsel, the risk of MercadoLibre losing the
case is remote," the Company said.


MERCHANT FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pearl" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alanna Pearl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Merchant Funding Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00883-
MMA-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice if making telemarketing calls on the class
members' cellular telephone from an auto-dialer using a
prerecorded artificial voice message, without her prior express
consent.

Merchant Funding Group, LLC is a merchant cash advance company
whose primary corporate offices are located at 515 S. Flower St.
Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Former Employee Plan Account Balances
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin E. Davis and Roberto F. Garcia v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-00175 (W.D.N.C, April 20, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all former Merrill Lynch employees who at the time of their
termination had unvested awards in one or more of the Plans or
remaining bonus payments and were not paid their account balances
in the Plans for awards made for production year 2008 and prior.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services holding
company incorporated in Delaware, whose subsidiaries provide
financial and investment services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Meckler, Esq.
      SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
      128 South Tryon Street, Suite 1800
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 375-0057
      Facsimile: (704) 332-1197
      E-mail: smeckler@slk-law.com

         - and -

      Michael S. Taaffe, Esq.
      David L. Wyant, Jr., Esq.
      SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
      240 South Pineapple Ave. - 10th Floor
      Sarasota, FL 34236
      Telephone: (941) 366-6660
      Facsimile: (941) 366-3999
      E-mail: mtaaffe@slk-law.com
              dwyant@slk-law.com


METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Westland Police Action
-----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to face the case City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y.,
filed January 12, 2012), the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of
MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Birmingham Retirement Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to face the case City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D.
Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to
federal court on August 3, 2012), the Company said in its Form 10-
K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants
removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to
remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended
granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants
have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in lawsuits
related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total
Control Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement option for death
benefits.  Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to
federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011) are
putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated,
raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA
to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group
Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

No updates were provided in MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Moved to Dismiss "Owens" Action
-------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has moved to dismiss the case
Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed
April 17, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in lawsuits
related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total
Control Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement option for death
benefits.  Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga.,
filed April 17, 2014) is a putative class action lawsuit that
alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on
accounts owned by members of the putative class. MLIC moved to
dismiss the complaint and intends to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Fauley Court Will Hold Final Approval Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fauley court has
certified a nationwide settlement class and will hold a final
approval hearing.

C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to
S.D. Fla. 2013); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et
al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Ill., July 3, 2014).  Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against
defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services
representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The C-Mart and Cadenasso cases
were voluntarily dismissed. In the Fauley case, the court in
Illinois preliminarily approved a settlement under which MLIC has
agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads
sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the preliminary
approval in August 2014. The Fauley court also certified a
nationwide settlement class and will hold a final approval
hearing.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" and IAMAW Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. intends to defend these actions vigorously: Robainas
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and MetLife, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.,
December 16, 2014); International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed these putative class action lawsuits on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
The complaints allege that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for the Policies. MetLife intends to defend these
actions vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Intoccia" Suit Over Shadow Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Andrew Intoccia, Sr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03061-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant engaged in various shadow insurance transactions in
connection with its life insurance and annuity business, which
were not properly reported on its mandatory statutory annual
statement and not properly disclosed to its principal regulator,
to its credit rating agencies, or to its customers.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a New York insurance
company with its principal place of business located at 200 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0188.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith W. Miller, Esq.
      PERKINS COLE LLP
      30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10112
      Telephone: (212) 262-6900
      Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
      E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com

         - and -

      David J. Harth, Esq.
      John S. Skilton, Esq.
      Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
      Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
      Eric G. Barber, Esq.
      Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
      Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
      PERKINS COLE LLP
      One East Main Street, Suite 201
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 663-7460
      Facsimile: (608) 663-7499
      E-mail: DHarth@perkinscoie.com
              JSkilton@perkinscoie.com
              TBums@perkinscoie.com
              JBowen@perkinscoie.com
              EBarber@perkinscoie.com
              FBowen@perkinscoie.com
              JBair@perkinscoie.com

         - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6518
      Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

         - and -

      William R. Scherer Jr., Esq.
      Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Esq.
      Joshua D. Clark, Esq.
      CONRAD & SCHERER LLP
      633 South Federal Highway, 8th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 462-5500
      Facsimile: (954) 463-9244
      E-mail: wscherer@conradscherer.com
              afrevola@conradscherer.com
              jclark@conradscherer.com

          - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, P A 191 03
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              gabramson@bm.net
              pmadden@bm.net

         - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3278
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com


MICHIGAN: Judge Won't Transfer Prisoner to New Facility
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr. of the Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division made a report and recommendation on
the case of JOSEPH GREGORY DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PRELESNIK,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1100 (W.D. Mich.)

The plaintiff Joseph Gregory Dunbar is a state prisoner
incarcerated at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
(MTU), by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC).

Plaintiff initiated an action by filing a document entitled motion
to file class action which the court construed as plaintiff's
complaint. Plaintiff alleged that he and others who are infected
with Hepatitis C and B, as well as other prisoners who are
infected with HIV, and kidney diseases face an imminent danger to
their health at MTU, where MDOC officials refuse to remedy the
contaminated water which has been continuously coming out of the
fixtures yellowish to dark brown with the smell of raw sewage.
Plaintiff's complaint named defendants Warden John Prelesnik,
Acting Warden Cathleen Stoddard and MDOC Director Daniel H. Heyns
as responsible for the alleged conditions and that it violates his
right to safe drinking water.

Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for preliminary injunction and
restraining order, a one-page letter to the court which the
clerk's office docketed as a motion to transfer to new facility, a
motion for injunctive relief/restraining order, a motion for an
evidentiary hearing and two letters to the court, each of which
the clerk's office docketed as a motion to transfer to new
facility.

Magistrate Judge Brennman recommended that plaintiff's motions be
denied and that any further papers filed by the plaintiff
requesting transfer to a federal facility be rejected.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Brenneman's report and recommendation
dated March 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/3xelAbfrom
Leagle.com

Joseph Gregory Dunbar #129278, plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendant, represented by:

Kevin R. Himebaugh,
MI Dept Attorney General
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottaw St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: 517-373-1110
Facsimile: 517-373-3042


MINISTRY HEALTH: June 12 Fairness Hearing on "Dexter" Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley of the Western District of
Wisconsin granted plaintiffs' motion in the case ROSELYN DEXTER,
ERIKA DORN and REBECCA MADER, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MINISTRY HEALTH CARE and
AFFINITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants NO. 14-CV-087-WMC (W.D. Wis.)

On February 10, 2014, former plaintiff Tammy Dvorak filed a
putative class action, asserting wage and hour claims on behalf of
herself and a group of current and former employees of defendants.
On March 14, an amended complaint added named plaintiffs Roselyn
Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader. Original plaintiff Dvorak's
individual claims were later resolved, and she has been dismissed
from the case.

Plaintiffs Roselyn Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader allege
that defendants failed to pay their employees for all hours
worked, mainly by requiring them to remain on-call or to work
during lunch breaks without compensation. On February 17, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of their
proposed settlement agreement, in which defendants join. For
purposes of settlement, the parties also jointly ask the court to
certify a class of nonexempt professional/technical employees who
worked at defendants' hospital from February 10, 2012, until
February 9, 2014, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).

Judge Conley granted the unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement agreement. The joint stipulation for Rule 23
certification is granted. The court appoints Gill & Gill, S.C. and
The Previant Law Firm, S.C. as class counsel, finding all of the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) met. The court appoints
named plaintiffs Roselyn Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader as
class representatives. The court approves the proposed settlement
notice and directs counsel to ensure distribution of the notice,
consistent with the settlement agreement. The court approves the
following settlement procedure and timeline:

     a. No later than April 15, 2015, class counsel shall arrange
for the mailing of the notices to the class members.

     b. The notices shall provide that class members will have
until May 15, 2015, to exclude themselves from the settlement or
otherwise object.

     c. The court will hold a fairness hearing on June 12, 2015,
at 1:00 p.m.

A copy of Judge Conley's opinion and order dated March 25, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/h70NFPfrom Leagle.com

Roselyn Dexter, Plaintiff, represented by Barry Phillip Gill --
bpgill@gillandgillsc.com -- Gregory B. Gill, Sr. --
gillsr@gillandgillsc.com -- at Gill & Gill SC

Roselyn Dexter, Plaintiff, represented by:

Nathan Dane Eisenberg
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC
1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 888-513-3592
Facsimile: 414-271-6308

Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader, Plaintiffs, represented by Barry
Phillip Gill -- bpgill@gillandgillsc.com -- Gregory B. Gill, Sr.
-- gillsr@gillandgillsc.com -- at Gill & Gill SC

     - and-

Nathan Dane Eisenberg
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC
1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 888-513-3592
Facsimile: 414-271-6308

Ministry Health Care and Affinity Health System, Defendants,
represented by Christopher L. Nickels --
christopher.nickels@quarles.com -- Sean M. Scullen --
sean.scullen@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP

     - and -

Nathan Dane Eisenberg
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC
1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 888-513-3592
Facsimile: 414-271-6308


NEW BUBBLE: Faces "Carillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Cora Carrillo and Cristino Carrillo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Bubble Shop Inc.,
New Golden Village Oriental Supermarket Inc., Fan Hong, Li Ying Li
and John Does #1-3, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-03165
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery located at 365 Central
Park Avenue, Scarsdale, New York 10583.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      Alison G. Lobban, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com
              lobban@peltonlaw.com


NEW JERSEY DEVILS: Restrains Sale of Game Tickets, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rey Olsen, Alex Olsen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New Jersey Devils, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02807-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
restrained competition to its box office sales. Specifically by,
prohibiting season ticket subscribers from selling individual or
blocks of game tickets, imposing extra contractual fees on season
ticket holders, refusing to renew season ticket subscriptions to
season ticket holders who sell individual game tickets into the
secondary market and prohibiting ticker print outs at the
discretion of the season ticket holder.

New Jersey Devils, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company
that operates The New Jersey Devils, a professional hockey
franchise of the National Hockey League.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Olimpio Lee Squitieri
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      2600 Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1K
      Jersey City, NJ 07306
      Telephone: (201) 200-0900
      E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GeForce GTX 970, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Farley and Alexander Montgomery, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01800-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's false and misleading representations of its
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing units, that it operates
with a 4 gigabyte pool of video random access memory (VRAM), 64
Raster Operations Pipelines (ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2
cache capacity. When in reality, the VRAM in the GTX 970 is
divided into two separate pools of memory, with one high
performance pool of 3.5GB VRAM, and a second nearly unusable pool
of 0.5GB VRAM, it contains only 56 ROP, and it only has 1792KB of
L2 cache capacity.

Nvidia Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Santa Clara, California. It is a visual
computing company and is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, selling, and distributing computing equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
      Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              jmann@audetlaw.com
              tchase@audetlaw.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Branda, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 1605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com


OMAHA, NE: Judge Strikes Down "Swift" Plaintiff's Motions
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John M. Gerrard of the District of Nebraska denied
plaintiff's requests in the case CHARLES SWIFT, Plaintiff, v.
RICHARD KYLER, Defendant, NO. 8:14-CV-243 (D. Neb.)

Plaintiff Charles Swift filed a complaint and, with the leave of
the court, had now filed a supplement to the complaint. But before
the court can make any actions, Swift has also, without the leave
of the court, filed a document captioned "Amended Complaint"
outside the time permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), a
"Reply to Answer to Amended Complaint", again without leave to do
so. Swift's "amended complaint" contains several requests, the
first of which is a request to certify a class action, a request
for counsel to be appointed to represent the class and a request
discovery.

Swift also filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Judge Gerrard ordered Swift not to file any amended pleadings, or
supplements to his pleadings, without first getting leave of the
Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and NECivR 15.1.2.
Swift's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.
Swift is ordered not to file another motion for summary judgment
until after the defendant files an answer and the Court enters a
case progression order. Swift's request for class certification is
denied. Swift's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
Swift's request for discovery is denied as premature. Swift is
ordered not to file any discovery motions until after the
defendant files an answer and the court enters a case progression
order. Swift's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied. Swift is ordered to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the local rules of the court.
A copy of Judge Gerrard's order dated March 23, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/RbglUNfrom Leagle.com

Charles Swift, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Kyler, Defendant, represented by Ryan J. Wiesen, CITY OF OMAHA and
Thomas O. Mumgaard, CITY OF OMAHA


OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums Due to Burn Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
OWT Industries Inc., of Pickens, S.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 225,000 Expert Gardener electric blower vacuums in
the United States. (Models 20254EG and 20254EGC of this product
were previously recalled in February 2013.). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The blower vacuum can overheat, spark and catch on fire posing
fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves Expert Gardener 12 amp electric blower
vacuums with model numbers 20254EG, 20254EGA, 20254EGB, 20254EGBC,
20254EGC and 21254EG. Model numbers are located on a label on the
left side of the motor housing. The blower vacuums are green and
black. "Expert Gardener" and "Blower Vac 2 Speed Quiet 150 MPH
Powerful 220 MPH" are printed on the side of the green motor
housing and on the black plastic blower tube.

OWT has received 16 reports of blower vacuums sparking, arcing,
smoking or burning. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/H5SR3K

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Changzhou
Globe Tools Co. Ltd. and Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd., of
China and sold at Walmart stores nationwide and online at
www.walmart.com from January 2012 through March 2015 for about
$40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower
vacuums and return them to any Walmart store for a full refund.


PETSMART INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Federation of the Blind, Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition, Kevan Scott, Yolanda Thompson, Heather Albright,
Kristi Durham, Amy Ruell, and Mark Cadigan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Petsmart, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00839 (D. Colo., April 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide point of sale devices
that have tactile keypad or alternative means of nonvisual access,
in order to purchase merchandise with a debit card, or obtain cash
back through a debit or credit card purchase, that require a blind
or visually impaired customer to disclose his/her private PIN to
the cashier, or to someone else.

Petsmart, Inc. owns and operates 1,311 retail stores throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jana Eisinger, Esq.
      Douglas W. Lambalot, Esq.
      MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
      720 South Colorado Boulevard
      South Tower, Suite 1020
      Denver, CO 80246
      Telephone: (303) 597-4000
      E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com
              lambalot@mlgrouppc.com

         - and -

      Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
      LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1660 South Albion Street, Suite 918
      Denver, CO 80222
      Telephone: (303) 504-5979
      E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin W. Williams, Esq.
      COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION LEGAL PROGRAM
      655 Broadway, Suite 775
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (720) 336-3584
      E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Setback in Two Tobacco Cases in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Sparks at Courthouse News Service reports that dealing
twin blows to Philip Morris, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the
retrial of one case and revived the $6 million verdict in another.

The rulings settle a division between the state's intermediate
appeals courts on how the statute of repose applies to claims by
longtime smokers.

Tina Russo is the plaintiff in the first case, standing in for her
mother, Phyllis Frazier, who died of chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease during the case's proceedings.

A trial court in Miami had granted Philip Morris final judgment
against Frazier based on a jury's findings about a four-year
statute of limitations.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in 2012, however,
because it found that Frazier passed the requirement in the
statute of repose to introduce evidence of deceptive statements or
omissions occurring after May 5, 1982.

That date triggered the 12-year statute-of-repose window governing
fraud claims because it is when the class in Engle v. Liggett
Group Inc. filed suit.

Affirming on April 2, the Florida Supreme Court emphasized "that
evidence of reliance need not be established within the fraud
statute of repose period."

"PM USA and R.J. Reynolds' requested jury instruction would have
precluded the jury from considering any evidence of reliance prior
to the repose period," Justice Peggy Quince wrote for the
unanimous court.

The court cited this holding in another opinion April 2 that
reinstates a jury's $6.26 million verdict for Elaine Hess, whose
husband, Stuart Hess, died of lung cancer in 1996.

In holding otherwise, the 4th District Court of Appeal had cited
the jury's finding that Philip Morris defrauded Hess' husband by
an omission before May 5, 1982, predating the 12-year window under
the statute of repose.

The high court's reversal meanwhile says that "it is not necessary
that the smoker relied during the twelve-year repose period."

"Where there is evidence of the defendant's wrongful conduct
within the repose period, the statute of repose will not bar a
plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim," Quince wrote.

Though Hess need not show that her husband relied during the
repose period, she did present "evidence of PM USA's fraudulent
concealment conduct within the statute of repose period," the
ruling states.

"Because we conclude that PM USA was precluded from raising the
fraud statute of repose defense to Mrs. Hess's fraudulent
concealment claim, the jury verdict should not have been disturbed
on appeal," Quince concluded.

Though tobacco companies first hired scientists who linked cancer
to smoking in 1953, they issued "A Frank Statement" shortly
thereafter that said smoking cigarettes was safe.

In 1983, a spokesperson for the Tobacco Industry told a jury, "I
don't think that there has been a causal relationship established
between cigarette smoking and any other disease."

A tobacco spokesperson also said in 1984, "It is not known whether
cigarettes cause cancer."

The surgeon general's 1998 report about nicotine addiction
meanwhile prompted the Tobacco Institute to say "it has not been
established that cigarette smoking produces a physical dependence
to nicotine."

Five years before the tobacco companies admitted in 1999 that
smoking was harmful, tobacco company executives testified under
oath before Congress in 1994 that nicotine was not addictive and
that "it has not been proven that cigarette smoking causes
cancer."

Petitioner Elaine Hess is represented by:

          John Stewart Mills, Esq.
          Courtney Rebecca Brewer, Esq.
          THE MILLS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          203 North Gadsden Street, Suite 1A
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 765-0897
          Facsimile: (850) 270-2474
          E-mail: jmills@mills-appeals.com
                  cbrewer@mills-appeals.com

               - and -

          Gary Mark Paige, Esq.
          TROP & AMEEN, P.A.
          10650 W. State Road 84, Suite 210
          Davie, FL 33324-4235
          Telephone: (954) 433-3333
          Facsimile: (954) 421-7030
          E-mail: garyp216@aol.com

               - and -

          Adam Trop, Esq.
          TROP & AMEEN, P.A.
          3860 W Commercial Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-3326
          Telephone: (954) 981-7150
          Facsimile: (954) 981-7350
          E-mail: adamtrop@aol.com

               - and -

          Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.
          Tara A. Campion, Esq.
          BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A.
          Broward Financial Centre, Suite 1930
          500 East Broward Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 767-8909
          Facsimile: (954) 764-1530
          E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com
                  tcampion@rogowlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex Alvarez, Esq.
          THE ALVAREZ LAW FIRM
          355 Palermo Avenue
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          E-mail: alex@aalvarezlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Marvin Weinstein, Esq.
          777 Arthur Godfrey Rd., Suite 208
          Miami Beach, FL 33140-3449
          Telephone: (305) 673-3000
          Facsimile: (305) 531-1708
          E-mail: michele@gwtatlaw.com

Respondent Philip Morris USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr., Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          PO Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33601-3239
          Telephone: (813) 229-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          E-mail: jlang@cfjblaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Scott Brenner, Esq.
          Patricia Melville, Esq.
          Luis Eduardo Suarez, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131-2124
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
          E-mail: abrenner@bsfllp.com
                  pmelville@bsfllp.com
                  lsuarez@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq.
          John-Paul Rodriguez, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          Southeast Financial Center
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2346
          Telephone: (305) 371-2700
          Facsimile: (305) 358-5744
          E-mail: raoul.cantero@whitecase.com
                  jrodriguez@whitecase.com

Amicus Curiae Engle is represented by:

          Steven L. Brannock, Esq.
          Celene Harrell Humphries, Esq.
          Tyler K. Pitchford, Esq.
          BRANNOCK & HUMPHRIES
          100 S Ashley Dr., Suite 1130
          Tampa, FL 33602-5304
          Telephone: (813) 223-4300
          Facsimile: (813) 262-0604
          E-mail: sbrannock@bhappeals.com
                  chumphries@bhappeals.com
                  tyler.pitchford@gmail.com

The Hess case is Elaine Hess, etc., Petitioner v. Philip Morris
USA, Inc., Respondent, Case No. SC12-2153, in the Supreme Court of
Florida.


PLATINUM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Platinum Communications Co. and Mastec North America,
Inc. a/k/a and d/b/a Mastec Advanced Technologies, Case No. 7:15-
cv-00182 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay their field service technicians
(Service Techs) proper overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Platinum Communications Co. is a regional sales and installation
company that provides satellite and cable installation for
commercial and residential establishments throughout Texas.

Mastec North America, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with its
principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida, that
operates one of the largest DirecTV installation and service
companies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Kevin Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com


POLYCOM INC: Securities Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge partially dismissed, with leave to amend, a
securities class action against Polycom, a San Jose-based telecom.

Lead plaintiff Mark Nathanson's lawsuit, like another one filed by
Polycom shareholders in January, claims that former CEO Andrew
Miller claimed reimbursements for "numerous extravagant business
expenses with no legitimate business purpose."

After auditors reported the improper expenses and Miller resigned,
Polycom's stock price dropped by 15 percent, U.S. District Judge
Samuel Conti wrote in his April 3 order granting in part and
denying in motions to dismiss.

Conti dismissed the January lawsuit because the plaintiffs "failed
to allege demand futility with particularity."

Mark Nathanson "takes a different tack," Conti wrote, by claiming
that Miller and Polycom's CFOs publicly reported false and
misleading operating expenses and made such false statements in
SEC filings.

Conti found that Nathanson rightly claimed that the expense
reports were materially misleading, because public knowledge of
Miller's improper spending would have significantly altered
shareholders' decisions.

But he said that Polycom's allegedly false SEC filings were not
actionable, because the "central thrust" of Nathanson's
allegations "is that Polycom's board failed to correctly assess
the adequacy of its internal controls -- not that it sought to
deceive investors about the quality of those controls."

"In short, these allegations are simply insufficient to give rise
to a claim of securities fraud," Conti wrote.

Conti also found that Nathanson failed to argue that Polycom's
CFOs intentionally misled shareholders, as evidence indicates "not
that they were complicit in Miller's misconduct or misleading
shareholders, but rather that they too were duped by Miller."  He
found that Nathanson's claims on that topic do not allege
"anything more than speculation" about the CFOs' state of mind, so
he dismissed those claims.

Conti also dismissed Nathanson's claims against Polycom as a
company because Miller's deceptive intention cannot be imputed to
the whole corporation.

However, Nathanson sufficiently pleaded that Polycom primarily
violated securities laws and that Miller's misbehavior was the
cause of the company's drop in stock value.  He gave Nathanson 30
days to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith Eggleton, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 320-4893
          Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com

The case is Mark Nathanson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Polycom, Inc., Andrew M. Miller,
Michael R. Kourey, and Eric F. Brown, Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


PRECISION OPINION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Zouras LLP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Precision Opinion, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03507 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

Precision Opinion, Inc. Nevada with its principal place of
business located at 101 Convention Center Drive, Plaza 125, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89109, that operates one of the largest market
research data collection firms in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: isalam@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Christopherson" Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Christopherson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00632
(W.D. Wash., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      IDE LAW OFFICE
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Telephone: (206) 625-1326
      E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Daniel J. Wasserberg, Esq.
      MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP
      845 Third Ave., 11th Flr.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 897-1988
      Facsimile: (646) 432-6887
      E-mail: dw@mwinjurylaw.com

         - and -

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      17 Miles Road
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Telephone: (800) 934-2921
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Flushes Bid to Dismiss "Belfiore" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New
York denied defendant's motions in the case ANTHONY BELFIORE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 14-CV-
4090 (E.D.N.Y.)

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) manufactures bath tissues and
wipes under the Charmin label. The packaging of Freshmates, part
of the Charmin label, advertises Freshmates as flushable wipes,
that are flushable, septic safe and safe for sewer and septic
systems. The packaging provides one suggestion, "for best results,
flush only one or two wipes at a time."

Plaintiff purchased freshmates from a supermarket and he viewed
the package and the price. He flushed one to two freshmates at a
time down the toilet in his Great Neck, New York residence. Toilet
clogging and sewer back-up resulted from flushing the freshmates.
A plumber removed them from the residence's plumbing, charging
$526.83.

Plaintiff filed a case in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau. On July 1, 2014, the case was removed to
the Eastern District of New York, based on jurisdiction pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Plaintiff claims that defendant violated New York General Business
Law section 349 by holding out the product as flushable and septic
safe, plaintiff requests monetary damages and a permanent
injunction to prevent and enjoin defendant from representing
freshmates as flushable. He seeks to represent, as a class, all
persons and entities residing in the State of New York who, at any
time within the applicable statute of limitations purchased
charmin freshmates flushable wipes.

Defendant moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief for lack of
standing, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim and moved to strike plaintiff's class action-related
allegations under Rule 12(f).

Judge Weinstein denied defendant's motions.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's memorandum and order dated March 25,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/nFZuS8from Leagle.com

Anthony Belfiore on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, represented by Lester L. Levy --
llevy@wolfpopper.com -- Michele Fried Raphael --
mraphael@wolfpopper.com -- Roy Herrera -- Matthew Insley-Pruitt --
MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- at Robert Scott Plosky Wolf,
Popper, LLP

The Procter & Gamble Company defendant, represented by Emily Henn
-- ehenn@cov.com -- Andrew D. Schau -- aschau@cov.com -- Claire
Catalano Dean -- ccdean@cov.com -- Cortlin Lannin --
clannin@cov.com -- Sonya Winner -- at Covington & Burling LLP


S & K EXPRESS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S & K Express LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00043 (D.N.D.,
April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

S & K Express LLC owns and operates a freight shipping and
trucking company doing business within the State of North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq.
      ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC
      2603 Augusta, Suite 880
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (713) 780-7100
      E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq.
      Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.
      1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460
      Houston, TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 655-1101
      Facsimile: (713) 655-0062


SAFI-G INC: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberlyn Velasquez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Safi-G, Inc. (d/b/a Caffe Buon Gusto) and
Nasser Ghorchian, Case No. 1:15-cv-03068 (S.D.N.Y., April 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


SNACK FACTORY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Seidman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge James I. Cohn of the Southern District of Florida
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss
in the case JOSHUA SEIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SNACK FACTORY,
LLC, etc., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-62547-CIV-COHN/SELTZER (S.D.
Fla.)

The plaintiff Joshua Seidman purchased defendant's pretzel crisps
approximately 4-5 times from one or more public supermarkets
located in Weston, Broward County, Florida. His purchased included
the Sea Salt and Cracked Pepper and Garlic Parmesan flavors.
Plaintiff sues defendant for trying to pass its products off as
"all natural" even though they are not. Plaintiff alleges that
they contain unnatural, synthetic and/or artificial ingredients,
including but not limited to maltodextrin, soybean oil and in at
least one variety, dextrose and caramel color. Plaintiff alleges
that he paid a price premium for the products because of their
"all natural" ingredients. Had he known the crisps were not truly
natural, he would not have purchased the products.

Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated alleging that defendant violated the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. Sections
501.201, et seq.; Negligent Misrepresentation; Breach of Express
Warranty; Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15
U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.; and Unjust Enrichment. As part of
his FDUTPA claim, plaintiff asks the court for an order enjoining
the wrongful acts and practices.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that all of
plaintiff's claims must fail because he does not plausibly allege
any harm experienced due to defendant's alleged
misrepresentations. Defendant contends that plaintiff's demands
for injunctive and declaratory relief are not proper and defendant
moves to dismiss plaintiff's MMWA claim because the all natural
labels at issue do not constitute an express warranty as the act
requires.

District Judge Cohn granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's class action complaint. Plaintiff's
claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice.
Defendant's arguments concerning class certification are at this
time denied without prejudice and may be reasserted at the class
certification stage. Defendant's Motion is denied in all other
respects.

A copy of Judge Cohn's order dated March 26, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/4zFf5Tfrom Leagle.com

Joshua Seidman, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Pascucci -- MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com -- Joshua Harris Eggnatz --
JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com -- at The Eggnatz Law Firm, P.A.

SNACK FACTORY, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Kiran H. Mehta --
kiran.mehta@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP; Robert
J. Cousins -- rcousins@qpwblaw.com -- at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood
& Boyer


SAN PEDRO MANUFACTURING: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
San Pedro Manufacturing Company, Atlanta, Ga., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,800 Mattresses and Mattresses with
Foundations. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattresses and foundations fail to meet the mandatory federal
open flame standard, posing a fire hazard.

The rebuilt mattresses and mattresses with foundations come in
twin, full, queen and king sizes. They come in a variety of
fabrics and colors, and have a white federal tag and yellow state
tag with "San Pedro Manufacturing Company, 1041 La Grange Blvd,
Atlanta, Georgia 30336" sewn at the foot of the mattress. All
mattresses sold separately and all mattress and foundation sets
are being recalled.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at A1
Mattress and Furniture, Affordable Furniture, Beds Beds Beds,
Bruce Furniture and Thrift, Checkouts, Christian Outreach, Fowlers
Furniture, Greenbrier Furniture, Larry Rhodes, Mattress and
Furniture Outlet, Mattress and Furniture Warehouse, Mattress Barn,
Save Big Mattress and Unclaimed Freight from May 2013 through
January 2014 for between $80 and $400.

Consumers should immediately contact San Pedro Manufacturing
Company and arrange for the mattress to be picked up, rebuilt to
compliant federal flammability standards and returned to consumer.


SCIARETTI SITE: "Pierce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Pierce, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Sciaretti Site Development & Paving Co., Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00524 (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Sciaretti Site Development & Paving Co., Inc. provides a range of
construction services to private and governmental entities
throughout western Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Gives Patient Chance to Re-Plead Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on the parties' motions in the case WALTER
SHUKER, et al. v. SMITH & NEPHEW PLC, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-
6158 (E.D. Pa.)

Defendants design and manufacture medical devices for use in hip
replacement and hip resurfacing procedures. Defendants' hip
replacement systems include the R3 Acetabular System (R3 System).
The R3 System is a Class II medical device which the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has authorized defendants to market in the
United States pursuant to what is known as the Section 510(k)
process. Defendants also manufacture the Birmingham Hip
Resurfacing (BHR) System, a Class III hip resurfacing system.

On April 29, 2009, Walter Shuker underwent right total hip
replacement surgery in which his surgeon, Kevin Terefenko, M.D.,
implanted the product manufactured by defendants.

Approximately 21 months after his surgery, Mr. Shuker began
developing increasing pain and discomfort in his buttocks, groin,
and thigh, limiting his daily activities. On May 23, 2011, he
underwent an aspiration procedure, performed by Dr. Terefenko,
during which a milky brown tinged fluid and metallic debris were
removed from his body. Mr. Shuker underwent two more surgeries
just to alleviate the pain and remove and replace the R3 system.

Almost a year after Mr. Shuker's surgery to replace the metal-on-
metal articulation of the components originally implanted,
defendants announced they had chosen to withdraw the optional
metal liner component within the R3 Acetabular System.

In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. S&N removed the case to
federal court the following month and, after answering the
complaint, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Following
a Rule 16 conference at which plaintiffs indicated their desire to
amend their complaint, the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend
and denied S&N's motion for judgment on the pleadings without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, asserting claims
for negligence/negligence per se, negligence based on violations
of various FDA regulations, strict products liability, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability,
fraud, and loss of consortium. S&N thereafter filed a motion to
dismiss, arguing plaintiffs' claims were expressly preempted by
the preemption provision of the MDA, 21 U.S.C. Section 360k, and
were inadequately pleaded insofar as plaintiffs attempted to
assert a nonpreempted negligence claim premised on violations of
FDA regulations. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The
court, however, amended the scheduling order to permit the parties
to take discovery on the preemption issue, following which S&N
could to renew its preemption argument in a motion for summary
judgment. S&N has now renewed its preemption argument on summary
judgment, asserting plaintiffs' claims are preempted and their
attempt to plead a nonpreempted parallel claim remains unavailing.
After S&N filed its summary judgment motion, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to clarify the
regulatory history and status of the artificial hip implanted in
Mr. Shuker, to refine causes of action based on defendants' active
promotion of off-label uses of their products, and to clarify
their parallel claims.

Judge Sanchez dismissed the second amended complaint, but granted
plaintiffs leave to amend as to their claims based on off-label
promotion.

A copy of Judge Sanchez's memorandum dated March 31, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/umF4MJfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Eric G. Zajac, Esq.
Robert L. Astrachan, Esq.
ZAJAC ARIAS & TRICHON PC
1835 Market Street, 26th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-575-7615
Facsimile: 215-575-7640

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Defendant, represented by CHARLES E.
LEASURE, III --leasurec@pepperlaw.com -- at PEPPER HAMILTON LLP;
DAVID W. O'QUINN --doquinn@irwinllc.com -- JAMES B. IRWIN, V --
jirwin@irwinllc.com -- at IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC;
MICHAEL T. SCOTT -- mscott@reedsmith.com -- JOSEPH J MAHADY --
jmahady@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP


SONORA QUEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shields" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawna Shields, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and RSI Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00723-SPL (D. Ariz., April 21, 2015), seeks
to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing non-emergency
calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, without prior
express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC is an Arizona Limited Liability
Company that provides medical laboratory tests.

RSI Enterprises, Inc. engages in debt collection on behalf of
Sonora Quest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson, Esq.
      David McDevitt, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com
              dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com


ST. TAMMANY: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Cook, an individual v. St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC
and ABC Insurance Co., Case No. 2:15-cv-01297 (E.D. La., April 22,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages, penalties
and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC owns and operates a staffing
agency and runs a halfway house owned by the St. Tammany Parish
Sheriff's Office.

ABC Insurance Co. is an insurance company and is known to be the
insurer of St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandra Erna Mora, Esq.
      Walter F. Wolf III, Esq.
      Matthew P. Woodard, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA
      322 Lafayette Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 566-0233
      E-mail: amora@alexmora.com
              wolf@alexamora.com
              woodard@alexamora.com

STRIPE A ZONE: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Adams, Harold Black, and Willard Soils, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Stripe A Zone, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00532 (E.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Stripe A Zone, Inc. is a Texas based parking lot striping company
that specializes in pavement marking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      102 N College, Suite 808
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 593-5588
      Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
      E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Successful Management Corp., 656 Realty, LLC, 370 Manhattan
Avec. Co., LLC, Edwin Algarin, Marc Edelstein, and Susan
Edelstein, Case No. 1:15-cv-03089-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The corporate defendants share a common commercial business
purpose of leasing apartments to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SUMO JAPANESE: "Mayfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Mayfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sumo Japanese Steakhouse and Sushi Bar, Inc.
and Kobe Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00673 -SGC (N.D. Ala.,
April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate hibachi style restaurants within
the State of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Robert J. Camp, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              rcamp@wigginschilds.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Epperson, Esq.
      PO Box 477
      Foley, AL 36536
      Telephone: (251) 943-8870
      E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU in BB&T Merger Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. ("Susquehanna") and BB&T Corporation
("BB&T") on February 25, 2015, entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a
putative consolidated class action captioned In re Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. CI-14-10817 (the
"Actions"), pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania (the "Court"), Susquehanna said in its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015.

The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of November 11, 2014, by and between BB&T and Susquehanna.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Susquehanna and BB&T
agreed to make available additional information to Susquehanna
shareholders. The additional information is contained in the
supplement (the "Supplement") to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of
BB&T and Susquehanna, dated January 21, 2015 (the "Proxy
Statement"). The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement and the documents incorporated by reference
therein. After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the
settlement, the parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may apply
to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to be paid by Susquehanna, its successor in interest
and/or its insurer.

Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants have
agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs,
disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Named
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court appointed interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in the
case In re Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
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 December 1, 2014, Wayne Waldeck, one of the purported
Susquehanna shareholders who sent a Demand Letter, filed a
purported shareholder class action and derivative complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (the
"Court") captioned Waldeck v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-
14-10817 (the "Waldeck Action")," the Company said.  "The Waldeck
Action names as defendants each of the current members of
Susquehanna's board of directors, which we refer to as the
"Director Defendants," BB&T and names Susquehanna as a nominal
defendant. The complaint alleges that the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder
value in connection with Susquehanna's proposed Merger with BB&T
and also alleges that BB&T aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
to prevent the consummation of the Merger or, in the event the
Merger is consummated, monetary damages allegedly resulting from
the alleged wrongful conduct of the Director Defendants and BB&T."

On December 23, 2014, Waldeck filed an amended complaint, adding
allegations that the disclosures in the preliminary Form S-4 filed
by BB&T on December 15, 2014 provides inadequate and/or materially
misleading information. Five additional purported shareholder
class action and derivative complaints challenging the merger have
been filed in the Pennsylvania Court, all by purported
shareholders who sent Demand Letters: Fred Bollinger & Skyles
Calhoun v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-14-11415 (filed Dec.
22, 2014); Linda & Wade Burkholder v. William J. Reuter, et al.,
No. CI-14-11473 (filed Dec. 23, 2014); James Farrell v. William J.
Reuter, et al., No. CI-15-00137 (filed Jan. 8, 2015); William
McGinley v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-15-00135 (filed Jan.
8, 2015); and Dennis Palkon v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-
15-00292 (filed Jan. 15, 2015) (such actions, together with the
Waldeck Action and the Demand Letters, the "Actions").

On December 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Wayne Waldeck and Linda and Wade
Burkholder filed a motion seeking to consolidate their actions and
any other related shareholder actions under the caption In re
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. CI-14-
10817 and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. The
Court granted that motion on January 26, 2015.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Preliminary Motions Pending in LBSF Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are currently pending in the action filed by
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., Susquehanna Bancshares,
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.

In September 2010, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF")
filed suit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain indenture trustees, certain
special-purpose entities (issuers) and a class of noteholders and
trust certificate holders who received distributions from the
trustees, including Susquehanna, to recover funds that were
allegedly improperly paid to the noteholders in forty-seven
separate collateralized debt obligation transactions ("CDO").

"In June 2007, two of our affiliates each purchased $5.0 million
in AAA rated Class A Notes of a CDO offered by Lehman Brothers
Inc. Concurrently with the issuance of the notes, the issuer
entered into a credit swap with LBSF. Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc. ("LBHI") guaranteed LBSF's obligations to the issuer under
the credit swap. When LBHI filed for bankruptcy in September 2008,
an Event of Default under the indenture occurred, and the trustee
declared the notes to be immediately due and payable. Susquehanna
was repaid its principal on the notes in September 2008," the
Company said.

"Preliminary motions are currently pending and the proceeding is
in the early stages of discovery; thus it is not yet possible for
us to estimate potential loss, if any. Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management, after consultation with
legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate
liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, or cash flows;
although, at the present time, management is not in a position to
determine whether such proceeding will have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations in any future quarterly
reporting period," the Company said.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Filed Answer in "Struett" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. filed an answer with affirmative
defenses in the legal proceeding filed by Patricia Struett,
Susquehanna 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 January 14, 2015, Patricia Struett, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 15-cv-00176-JFL. The
Plaintiffs' complaint is a purported collective and class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations. The Plaintiffs
allege the potential collective and class members worked as
Residential Mortgage Bankers who were improperly classified as
exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and state
law and who worked more than 40 hours in any week without
receiving all overtime compensation required by the FLSA and state
law.

This legal proceeding is in its early stages and discovery has not
yet begun. Susquehanna filed an answer with affirmative defenses
and is vigorously defending the claims asserted.

"It is not yet possible for us to estimate potential loss, if any.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of
financial liability with respect to this litigation, management,
after consultation with legal counsel, currently does not
anticipate that the aggregate liability, if any, arising out of
this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our results
of operation, financial position, or cash flows," the Company
said.


TEXTRON INC: Ohio Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss UAW Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David A. Katz of the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEXTRON, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14 CV 2112 (N.D. Ohio)

In 1999, a group of retirees brought suit in this Court against
their former employer defendant Textron, Inc., and the retirees'
pension plans. The case was a purported class action on behalf of
certain retirees of Textron's Lima and Fostoria plants. The
retirees claimed that they met the eligibility requirements for
the Section 2(c) early retirement permanent layoff benefit under
the pension plan at issue. The Section 2(c) benefit is commonly
referred to as the "Mutual and Satisfactory" or "M/S benefit."

As part of the settlement efforts, the parties entered into and
submitted to the court a tolling agreement, wherein the parties
agreed to toll the statute of limitations for related claims of
healthcare or other welfare benefits. The case was resolved
through a settlement agreement, which the parties presented to the
court for approval.

Plaintiffs International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW) and certain named
individuals, bring this action against Textron Inc. and Textron
Master Retirement Plan, alleging they were wrongfully denied life
insurance and reimbursement for premiums paid for Medicare Part B
under their respective pension plans.

Defendants submit that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both res
judicata and a settlement agreement previously entered into by the
parties and approved by the court. Defendants move to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.

Defendants argue that the principles of res judicata and the prior
Settlement Agreement bar Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs argue the
preclusive intent of the parties according to the Settlement
Agreement controls based on Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2004), and their claims are
not barred because they are independent from the prior litigation.

Judge Katz denied defendants motion to dismiss.  A copy of Judge
Katz's memorandum opinion dated March 25, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/rF9qw5from Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Joan Torzewski, Esq.
Harris, Reny & Torzewski
2 Maritime Plaza # 3
Toledo, OH 43604
Telephone: 419-243-1105

Defendant, represented by, Johanna Fabrizio Parker --
jfparker@jonesday.com -- Stanley Weiner -- sweiner@jonesday.com --
at Jones Day


TIME WARNER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shahriar Noorparvar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02946 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendants
unlawful practice if recording telephone conversation without the
knowledge or consent of the other party.

Time Warner Cable, Inc. owns and operates a cable
telecommunications company whose primary corporate address is in
New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite 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

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, 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


TOMMIE COPPER: Falsely Marketed Copper Apparels, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
George Potzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tommie Copper Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03183 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and
deceptive practice of advertising that the copper-infused fabric
used in its athletic apparel releases ions, which may help reduce
the oxidants in the body and is a natural, permanent anti-
bacterial agent with skin benefits and speeds joint and muscle
recovery and offers rejuvenating relief from aches and pains.

Tommie Copper Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Westchester County. It develops,
manufactures, markets and sells a line of sportswear and apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rashelquist@lockJaw.com
              rapeterson@lockJaw.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
              bomarty@hudsonlaw.net

         - and -

      Erica Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com


TORO COMPANY: Recalls Powers Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Toro Company of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 800 Walk behind power mower in the US and 100 in
Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Mowers were assembled with an incorrect blade driver and blade
combination, which can cause the blade to break, resulting in an
injury hazard.

The 2015 22-inch walk-behind power mower has a red base on four
wheels, a black motor and handle, and a white bag attached for
catching the clippings. A black plate on the front of the mower
says "Toro Recycler 22." Model number 20337 and a serial number
are located on a decal affixed to the rear of the machine.
Recalled mowers have serial numbers ranging from 315000101 to
315000983.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Hardware, lawn and garden stores nationwide in February and March
2015 for about $450.

Consumers should stop using the mowers immediately and contact a
Toro dealer to schedule a free repair.


TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Trek Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trek Bicycle Corporation, of Waterloo, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 900,000 Trek bicycles equipped with front disc
brakes in the U.S. and 98,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

An open quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub can
come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, causing the
front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle,
posing a risk of injury to the rider.

This recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from model years
2000 through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or
silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub that opens far
enough to contact the disc brake.  Bicycles with front quick
release levers that do not open a full 180 degrees from the closed
position, are not included in this recall.

Trek reports three incidents, all including injuries. One incident
resulted in quadriplegia.  One incident resulted in facial
injuries.  One incident resulted in a fractured wrist.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/PsjgvL

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold at Bicycle stores nationwide from about September 1999
through April 2015 for between $480 and $1,650.

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact
an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick
release on the front wheel. Trek will provide each owner who
participates in the recall with a $20 coupon that is redeemable by
December 31, 2015 toward any Bontrager merchandise.  (The coupon
has no cash value.)


TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Case Entered Into MOU
-----------------------------------------------------------
TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the parties to the
Missouri lawsuit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with respect to a proposed settlement that will terminate both
Lawsuits upon entry of the final judgment.

Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, Merger Sub,
and the members of the Viasystems Board have been named as
defendants in two putative class action complaints challenging the
Merger. The Missouri Lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri on September 30, 2014, and the Delaware
Lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on October 13, 2014, generally allege that the Merger fails to
properly value Viasystems, that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that
those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and
Viasystems.

The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary
duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate
consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and
management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into
between TTM and certain of Viasystems' significant stockholders
prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a meaningful vote
on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those breaches
of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and
Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges,
among other allegations, that (1) the proposed Merger is unfair
and the consideration to be paid in connection with the Merger is
inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board and Viasystems' management
have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change
in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and
key employees if the Merger is consummated; and (3) the Merger
Agreement contains impermissible deal protection devices.

The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the
terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the
respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks:
(1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative
to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the
plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by
the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a
proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry
of the final judgment. The parties are in the process of
negotiating this settlement agreement. Pursuant to the MOU, the
settlement agreement will provide for payment of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses, and releases of all claims and
relief sought in both Lawsuits.


TURNEY BROS: Faces "Burd' Suit Over Failure to Give Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Burd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Turney Bros Oilfield Services and Pipeline, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00041-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., April 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice
in connection with the recent Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the
Watford City, North Dakota site.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and gas field services
company with its principal place of business located at 401
Oklahoma Avenue, McAlester, Oklahoma 74501.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT, HASSLER, LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry St.
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Refuses to Junk "Alexander" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge April 7
refused to dismiss a class action that claims United Behavioral
Health wrongfully denies claims for mental illness and substance
abuse-related outpatient treatment.

The case is Gary Alexander, et al. v. United Behavioral Health,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Lawsuit by VA Workers
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of
Federal Claims granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the case WALTER H. GARCIA, CRYSTAL McCOURT, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, NO. 13-1024 C (Fed. Cl.)

Prior to the filing of the present case, two precedent cases, the
Adams Class case and the DeMons class case, had been certified by
the United States Federal Claims Court.

On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United
States Court of Federal Claims alleging virtually the same
violations as DeMons. Specifically, the action seeks the recovery
of back pay and interest on behalf of the class of present and
former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who
regularly and customarily were scheduled to receive night and/or
Saturday premium pay in the form of additional pay pursuant to
Section 7454(a) or (b) of title 38 since July 1, 2012 but were not
paid such additional pay whenever they used paid leave instead of
working scheduled shifts which included night and/or Saturday
hours since July 1, 2012.

On September 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
and on February 9, 2015, the court certified a class of
plaintiffs. On March 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an uncontested
motion, informing the court of an error in the class description
and on April 1, 2015, the court struck its February 9, 2015 order.

Judge Braden granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and appoints Mr. Ira M. Lechner as class counsel. The opt-in class
shall consist of persons who meet the following requirements:

All General Schedule employees as defined by section 2105 of Title
5 who were not included in the class certified in Curry v. United
States, 81 Fed. Cl. 328 (2008), and who were employed from July 1,
2012 or thereafter by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the
Veterans Health Administration as one of the following
occupations:

(1) Certified or Registered Respiratory Therapist, Licensed
Physical Therapist, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Licensed
Vocational Nurse (LVN), Pharmacist, Occupational Therapist, or
Graduate Nurse or Nurse Pending Graduation by the Veterans Health
Administration; OR AS: Audiologist, Audiologist-Speech
Pathologist, Speech Pathologist, Biomedical Engineer, Corrective
Therapist, Dental Assistant, Dental Hygienist, Dental
Technologist, Dietitian, Kinesiotherapist, Marriage and/or Family
Therapist, Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor, Medical
Instrument Technician, Medical Records Administrator or
Specialist, Medical Records Technician, Medical Technologist,
Nuclear Medicine Technologist, Nursing Assistant, Occupational
Therapy Assistant, Orthotist or Orthotist-Prosthetist, Pharmacy
AID/Technician, Physical Therapy Assistant, Prosthetic
Representative, Psychologist, Diagnostic Radiologic Technician or
Technologist, Therapeutic Radiologic Technician or Technologist,
Social Worker, Blind Rehabilitation Specialist, or as a Blind
Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialist; and

(2) who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any
part of which was between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and/or
within the period beginning midnight Friday and ending midnight
Saturday (which did not include any Sunday hours); and

(3) who received premium pay of 10% for each such hour of service
between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(a) or
(b), and/or 25% or more pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(a) or
(b) for each such hour of service between midnight Friday and
midnight Saturday; and(4) whose "pay" during periods of authorized
paid leave pursuant to Chapter 63 of Title 5 for any part of such
tour of duty between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., and/or between midnight
Friday to midnight Saturday (which did not include any Sunday
hours) was reduced in amounts equal to the night and/or Saturday
premium pay pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454 to which such
employees would have been paid had they performed their regular
and customary work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and/or on Saturdays
instead of using authorized paid leave.

The parties were directed to file a joint status report indicating
how the case should proceed.

A copy of Judge Braden's memorandum opinion and order dated April
9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/I0xITMfrom Leagle.com

WALTER H. GARCIA, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C.
4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: 202-659-4656

CRYSTAL McCOURT, on behalf of themselves and all others similary
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C.
4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: 202-659-4656

USA, Defendant, represented by:

Hillary Adrienne Stern, Esq.
U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Telephone: 202-514-2000


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rasheme Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Universal Music Group, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02960
(C.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Universal Music Group is a recording company that finds and
develops recording artists, publishes and records music, and
distributes its merchandise all over the world through its various
subsidiaries and maintains its principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, California 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

         - and -

      Maurice Pianko, Esq.
      PIANKO LAW GROUP, PLLC
      30 Broad Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (646) 801-9675
      Facsimile: (646) 381-3612
      E-mail: mpianko@gmail.com


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued for Charging High Electricity Premium Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Steketee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Viridian Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00585 (D.
Conn., April 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants improperly
charges an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity
regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price.

Viridian Energy, Inc. is a Nevada corporation whose principal
place of business is located at 1055 Washington St., Stamford, CT
06901, that supplies of electric power to residential consumers in
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6295
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Waterloo Industries Inc., of Waterloo, Iowa, announced a voluntary
recall of about 105,000 Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Vertical Bike
Hooks in the U.S. and 15,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mounted bike hooks can unexpectedly detach, allowing the bike
to fall. This poses a risk of injury to bystanders.

This recall involves Husky(R) Securelock(TM) vertical bike hooks
used with a Husky Trackwall garage storage system. The 3 by 3.5
inch black metal plate is mounted to the grooves in the Trackwall
and the bike's tire is attached to a hook protruding from the
plate. There are no markings on the hook. The Trackwall has
"Husky" printed on the lower left corner. The hook holds up to a
35 pound bike.

The firm has received 22 reports of the bike hooks falling from
the mounted Trackwall, including 12 reports of property damage to
bicycles and/or nearby vehicles. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/hsDu4y

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold t Home
Depot stores nationwide from April 2011 to March 2015 for about
$9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hooks and
return them to the nearest Home Depot store for a full refund.


WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cross" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenisha Cross, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01270 (N.D. Ga., April
21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of
placing non-emergency calls to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers, without prior express consent, using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
      2300 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: 404-365-4460
      Facsimile: 855-415-2480
      E-mail: www.EhrlichLawOffice.com

         - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      Greenwald Davidson, Esq,
      RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Murray' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Murray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc. and Wyndham
Vacation Ownership, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00634 (M.D. Fla., April
21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling and soliciting time
share properties and vacation packages in the State of Florida and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Viking VI Models Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha Motor Corporation, of Cypress, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of Yamaha Viking VI. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rear wheels can loosen and cause the rear end of the vehicle
to wobble or the rear wheels to come off and cause the vehicle to
crash, resulting an injury or death hazard.

This recall involves 2015 model YXC700DF (Viking VI), YXC700DHFH
(Viking VI Hunter), YXC700PF (Viking VI EPS) and YXC700PHFH
(Viking VI EPS Hunter) side x side vehicles. Model numbers can be
found on the owner's manual. The letter F in the 10th position of
the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) indicates that the vehicle
is 2015 model. The VIN is stamped on the frame behind the left
rear wheel. The "Viking VI" model name is printed on the left side
of the front hood. The vehicles come in Realtree (multicolor),
hunter green, red and steel blue.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://goo.gl/E0IYIR

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Yamaha
side x side dealerships nationwide from June 2014 through March
2015 for $12,800 to $14,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the vehicles and contact
their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair. Yamaha is
contacting all registered owners directly.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settled Meridian Funds Case
-------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation has settled the Meridian Funds case, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "Putative class actions and similar claims that
were outstanding at December 31, 2014 included the following:

* a complaint relating to our banking relationships with customers
that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in
which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award under the
federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al.,
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; and

* a complaint arising from our banking relationships with
Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by him
using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating trustee
for the funds seeks an award from us, on the basis of aiding and
abetting and other claims, for monetary damages suffered by
victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re
Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark
Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation
and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington."

"In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. The
plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit had not ruled on the
appeal as of February 2015. In February 2015, the Company settled
the Meridian Funds case. The settlement award was substantially
covered by our recorded accruals for legal risks as of December
31, 2014 included in our consolidated financial statements."



                             *********

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  * * *