CAR_Public/150504.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 88


                             Headlines


AIR METHODS: Defending Against Helmick and Williams Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: "Wunsch" Suit Moved From Maryland to New York
AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Bar on Ascertainability Requirement Lowered
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Faces "Petersen" Suit Over Shares of YPF
ARIAD PHARMA: Mass. Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action

ASUS COMPUTER: Accused of Monopolizing Cellular, Wireless Markets
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Equal Pay Act, FMLA
BASUNDHURA INC: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violations
BILLABONG: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Market Disclosures
BLUE CROSS: Removes "Wickens" Suit to California District Court

CASHFORIPHONES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch-Scam
CHELSEA CORPORATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action
CHEMICAL & MINING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CHEMICAL & MINING: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Hearing Held in Royalty Class Suit

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: To Defend Against Suit by 2019 Noteholders
CHEVRON USA: Faces "Roberton" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury
CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Nicklaw" Suit Moved From Missouri to Florida
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: All Settlement Funds Paid to Plaintiff Counsel
DELHAIZE AMERICA: Settles FCRA Background Screening Class Action

DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Court Rejects $3MM Investor Class Action
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO: Accused of Discrimination Due to Age & Gender
DIRECT TV: Supreme Court to Decide on Calif. Arbitration Issue
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Sued in S.D. Florida for Violating FDCPA
DOLAN CO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over BofA Ties

DRESSER-RAND: Settlement Subject to Final Documentation, Court OK
DURHAM & DURHAM: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
EXPEDIA: Judge to Impose Fines in Bag Fee lawsuit
FIDELITY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over 401(k) Float Practices
FREDERICK J HANNA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Groups Drop Chemical Spill Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: "Brightbill" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
GOLDMAN SACHS: Pension Fund Seeks Cert. of RMBS Class Action
HEALTH NET: Defending Against MFLCs Class and Collective Actions
HERBALIFE LTD: Former Distributors Object to Class Action Deal

HERTZ CORP: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court
HOLEM GROUP: Sued in Florida Over Alleged Job Discrimination
HOME DEPOT: Denies Employer Status in Wage Class Action
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating TCPA in N.D. Georgia
HYUNDAI MOTOR: McCuneWright Sues Over Blue Link Telematics System

INDIANA: Bus Service Not Required for Public Schools
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
JAMBA JUICE: Settles Class Action Over "All Natural" Claim Label
JIANGBO PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal
KAYE SCHOLER: Moves "Zahn" Suit to Southern District of New York

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Defendants Opposed Motion to Expand Class Period
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Held in Jefferies Accord
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Parties in Sykes v. Mel Harris Drafting Deal
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Held in Haverhill Case
LIFE CARE: "Johnson" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 4 New Yorkers File Flooring Class Action
MANPOWER US: Removes "Stimpson" Class Suit to S.D. California
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Faces Suit in New Jersey District Court
MGIC INVESTMENT: Three Cases Dismissed with Prejudice
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH: Kids-for-Cash Settlement Likely in Danger

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: First Trial for Direct Purchaser Began March 31
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Deal in Hi! Neighbor Case Not Yet Finalized
MYER: Mark Elliott Launches Class Action Over Profit Downgrade
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Concussion Class Action
NELNET INC: "Yaakov" Settlement Finalized and Received Approval

NELNET INC: "Zaw" Case Settlement Finalized and Received Approval
NELNET INC: Court Has Not Established Class in "Keating" Case
NEUTROGENA CORP: Judge Tosses Some Claims in Sunscreen Suit
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Notice to Class Members in "Davida" Case Okayed
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Conditional Cert. Bid Filed in "Christiansen"

NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss and Discovery Held
ORTHOTOUCH: Investors Join Class Suit Over Scheme of Arrangement
PALM-AIRE RESORT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PAYPAL INC: Judge Rejects $3.2MM Class Action Settlement

PDC ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $37.5 Million
PFIZER INC: $400MM Deal in Principle Reached in Securities Suit
PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
PFIZER INC: Neurontin Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval
PFIZER INC: MDL Plaintiffs Appealed Lipitor Claims Dismissal

PFIZER INC: Court Granted Motions to Consolidate Celebrex Cases
PFIZER INC: Time to File Certiorari Petition Expired
POKERSTARS: Illinois Judge Dismisses Class Action
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Engel" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Yeager" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation

REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Coggia" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Blankman" ETP Merger Shareholder Suit
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Bazini" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Hinnau" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Weaver" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation

REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Dieckman" ETP Merger Shareholder Suit
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Berlin" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Faces PVR Shareholder Litigation
REGENCY ENERGY: Claims in Eagle Rock Shareholder Suit Dismissed
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Removes "St. Pierre" Suit to D.N.J.

RICELAND FOODS: Court Certifies Class Action Over Work Product
RIGHTCHOICE MANAGED: Removes "Noble" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
RNC INVESTMENT: Removes "Rivero" Suit to Florida District Court
SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless People Sue Rancho Cordova Police
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Jones" Suit Arising From Sale of Shape-ups

SPACE EXPLORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mass Layoff Class Action
SPIRIT REALTY: All Claims in Merger Class Action Dismissed
ST-HILAIRE COLLEGE: Former Student Files Sexual Abuse Class Action
STRATASYS LTD: Hollywood PORS Suit Moved From N.Y. to Minnesota
STRATASYS LTD: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action

SUNWATER: Responds to Possible Callide Dam Class Action
TD BANK: "Hurel" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
TD BANK: "Klein" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
TD BANK: "Ucciferri" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft MDL
TD BANK: "Austin" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL

TD BANK: "Padilla" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Case Filed by EEOC in Discovery
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: "Goodall" Suit Included in Overdraft MDL
TOWN SPORTS: Class & Merits Discovery in "Labbe" Case Bifurcated
TOZZER LTD: Accused of Discriminating Against Disabled Persons

VCA INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Duran" Action
VCA INC: Agreement Reached in "Lopez" Action
VCA INC: "Graham" Action in Early Procedural Stage
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Biasi" Suit to New York District Court
WAL-MART STORES: Glucosamine Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay

WISCONSIN ENERGY: Stipulation Presented for Approval
YELP INC: 9th Cir. Denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing
YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Actions
YOUKU TUDOU: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

* Arizona Refuses De-segregration Spending Audits
* Contact Lens Retailers Oppose Bill on Minimum Pricing Policies
* Employers May Face Class Actions Over Shorter Work Hours


                            *********


AIR METHODS: Defending Against Helmick and Williams Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Air Methods Corporation is vigorously defending against the class
action lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods Corporation,
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 January 30, 2013, we were served with a purported class action
lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods Corporation, filed in
Superior Court in Alameda County, California," the Company said.
"The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of
such breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business
practices and unfair competition within the jurisdiction of the
state of California. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and
other applicable statutory damages, penalties and wages under the
Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs."

"We continue to evaluate the merits of the lawsuit and are
vigorously defending against this suit. However, we cannot predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or whether we may be required to pay
damages, settlement costs, or legal costs."


AMERICAN REALTY: "Wunsch" Suit Moved From Maryland to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wunsch v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04007, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02934-UA to the proceeding.

Mr. Wunsch accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act
of 1933.  The class action is brought on behalf of all persons,
who acquired the common stock of ARCP pursuant or traceable to the
false and defective Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Cole Real Estate Investments,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Smith, Esq.
          DEHAY & ELLISTON L.L.P.
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1300
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 783-7019
          Facsimile: (410) 783-7221
          E-mail: psmith@dehay.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  edwardgerard@gmail.com
                  jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

Defendant American Realty Capital Properties Inc. is represented
by:

          Laurie B. Goon, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          111 S Calvert St., Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 949-2900
          Facsimile: (410) 949-2901
          E-mail: lbgoon@duanemorris.com


AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Bar on Ascertainability Requirement Lowered
------------------------------------------------------------
Robin A. Achen, Esq., of Sheppard Mullin, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that in Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 073059, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 214 (Cal. Ct. App.
Feb. 11, 2015), a California Court of Appeal reversed the denial
of certification of a putative class alleging violation of Civil
Code Section 1747.08 of California's Song Beverly Credit Card Act.
The trial court had denied certification because the plaintiff did
not show the ability to identify, locate, and notify class
members.  The court of appeal rejected that standard, and found
that the class was, in fact, ascertainable because (1) the class
definition contained a set of "common characteristics" that would
allow class members to self-identify themselves, and (2) because
the plaintiff had suggested an objective method for identifying
class members.  This decision clarifies the standard for
ascertainability in California state court class actions.

Plaintiff Aguirre, on behalf of a putative class of California
citizens, filed a class action complaint alleging that the
defendant had violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song
Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting and recording "personal
identification information" in the form of zip codes from credit
card customers at the point of sale.

The defendant moved to strike and dismiss plaintiff's class
allegations, and to deny class certification, in relevant part on
the grounds that the class was not ascertainable because there was
no means of identifying or locating potential class members.  The
defendant did not possess documents identifying the names or
addresses of customers who paid with credit cards or provided
their zip codes to the defendant.  The plaintiff opposed the
motion, arguing, in relevant part, that she was not required to
establish a means for identifying or locating potential class
members at the certification stage.  The plaintiff noted that
customers' receipts or credit card statements could be cross-
referenced with the defendant's records to determine whether a
customer's zip code was actually recorded.  The trial court
granted defendant's motion to deny class certification, holding
that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the class was
ascertainable.

The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court's
decision was improperly based on the plaintiff's inability to
"identify, locate and notify" class members.  Contrary to the
trial court's order, a class representative "need not identify,
much less locate, individual class members" to satisfy the
ascertainability requirement.  The class representative similarly
need not establish how class notice will be disseminated to the
class members.  At the certification stage, the class
representative need only show that the class is ascertainable,
meaning that there was objective evidence of class membership,
namely the sales receipts or credit card statements that could be
cross-referenced with the defendant's records to determine class
membership.  The court noted that while a defendant's records
often provide a means for identifying class members, the absence
of those records does not preclude finding the class
ascertainable.

The court relied on California Supreme Court precedent, noting
that if the existence of an ascertainable class has been shown,
individual class members need not be identified at the
certification stage.  The fact that class members are not
identifiable at the certification stage does not preclude a
determination of class-wide issues.  The court distinguished other
case law relied on by the defendant, noting that in this case, the
class members' claims were not so separate and distinct that each
must present individual proof of all facts, and that objective
evidence indicating class membership existed here.  The court
further noted that requiring a plaintiff to establish a means of
providing personal notice of the action at the certification stage
was "inconsistent" with the liberal notice provisions of
California Rules of Court Rule 3.766, which permits forms of
notice that are "reasonably calculated to apprise the class
members of the pendency of the action. . . ."  Additionally, the
fact that class members must come forward and establish their
membership in the class did not render the class unascertainable.
Finally, the court rejected the defendant's attempt to rely on the
Third Circuit's decision in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300
(3d Cir. 2013), noting both that it had been roundly criticized by
district courts within the Ninth Circuit, and that it was
distinguishable from the case at hand because class members in
Carrera did not have verifiable records of class membership.

Amscan is another in a line of recent cases struggling with the
ascertainability requirement of class certification. Courts
continue to differ in their application of the ascertainability
requirement.  Amscan, however, indicates that in California state
court class actions, the ascertainability argument may be more
difficult to for defendants to win.


ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Faces "Petersen" Suit Over Shares of YPF
------------------------------------------------------------
Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. and Petersen Energia, S.A.U. v.
Argentine Republic, and YPF S.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-02739-UA
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2015) seeks to enforce contractual commitments
that Argentina and YPF made in their commercial capacities during
their sale of YPF shares to the public.

The case is the successor action to Repsol YPF, S.A. v. Republic
of Argentina, No. 12-CV-3877 (TPG), filed in the Court.  Petersen
was included within the putative class definition in the prior
action, but Repsol and the other named plaintiff settled
individually after briefing and oral argument but before any class
was certified, and the prior action was voluntarily dismissed.

The Plaintiffs now pursue their claims directly through this
individual action.  The claims relate to unlawful conduct by YPF
S.A., an Argentine public company registered with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission and traded on the New
York Stock Exchange, and by the Argentine Republic with respect to
the shares of YPF.

The Argentine Republic is a foreign state organized as a
federation of 23 provinces and an independent federal city (Buenos
Aires).  Currently, Argentina is the controlling shareholder of
YPF.  Prior to the 1993 IPO of YPF, Argentina was the sole owner
of YPF, and it participated in that offering, including the SEC-
registered offering of YPF shares, as the Company's sole and
selling shareholder.  Subsequent to the IPO, YPF was owned,
managed, and controlled by private shareholders.

Based in Buenos Aires, YPF is a publicly-held limited liability
stock company {sociedad anonima) organized under the laws of
Argentina.  YPF is currently an instrumentality of Argentina,
which owns a majority and controlling interest therein.  Prior to
1993, it was an exclusively state-owned, monopolist oil and gas
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark C. Hansen, Esq.
          Derek T. Ho, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD EVANS & FIGEL P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202)326-7900
          Facsimile: (202)326-7999
          E-mail: mhansen@khhte.com
                  dho@khhte.com

               - and -

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue ofthe Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2114
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
          E-mail: idahan@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Reginald R. Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1100 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-3200
          Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
          E-mail: rsmith@kslaw.com


ARIAD PHARMA: Mass. Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
According to RTTNews.com, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced
that the District Court of Massachusetts has dismissed the
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in late 2013 in connection
with the events leading up to the temporary suspension of the
marketing and commercial distribution of Iclusig (ponatinib) on
October 31, 2013, and subsequent re-launch in January 2014.

The suit alleged that certain of the company defendants made a
series of false and misleading statements regarding the safety,
efficacy and commercial prospects of Iclusig.  The company said
the Court has granted its motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that any such
statements violated the company's disclosure obligations.


ASUS COMPUTER: Accused of Monopolizing Cellular, Wireless Markets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASUS Computer International; and ASUSTek Computer Incorporated v.
InterDigital, Inc.; InterDigital Communications, Inc; InterDigital
Technology Corporation; IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital
Patent Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01716-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
April 15, 2015) arises from:

   (1) IDC's unlawful monopolization of the Cellular and Wireless
       Markets through empty, misleading commitments to standard
       setting organizations, including the European
       Telecommunications Standardization Institute and the
       Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
       Standards Association, that it would license its Standard
       Essential Patents on fair, reasonable, and
       non-discriminatory terms;

   (2) IDC's demand for royalties, and other terms, from ASUS
       that violate IDC's irrevocable commitment to license its
       SEPs on FRAND terms; and

   (3) IDC's fraudulent inducement of ASUS to enter a license.

ASUS Computer International is a wholly-owned United States
subsidiary of ASUSTeK organized under the laws of California, with
its principal place of business located in Fremont.  ASUSTeK
Computer, Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation headquartered in Taipei.

ASUS is a leading technology company that employs over 11,000
people around the world.  Through extensive research, design, and
development, ASUS now produces two lines of smartphones, the
ZenFone and PadFone.  In addition to smartphones, ASUS designs and
develops a broad array of information technology products,
including PC components and peripherals, notebooks, tablets, and
servers.

InterDigital Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Prussia, Pennsylvania.  InterDigital
Communications, Inc. acquired Tantivy Communications, Inc, a
Delaware corporation.  InterDigital Technology Corporation is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
InterDigital Technology is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
InterDigital Communications.  InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington.  IPR
Licensing, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Wilmington.

The IDC does not manufacture mobile devices.  Indeed, IDC's
business strategy centers on acquiring and growing its portfolio
of patents to generate licensing revenue for itself, the
Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs add that IDC promotes its
patented technologies at SSOs, seeking to expand its revenue.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian R. Nester, Esq.
          Anna M. Weinberg, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
          E-mail: bnester@sidley.com
                  aweinberg@sidley.com

               - and -

          M. Patricia Thayer, Esq.
          Ezekiel L. Rauscher, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
          E-mail: pthayer@sidley.com
                  erauscher@sidley.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Cederoth, Esq.
          David C. Giardina, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: rcederoth@sidley.com
                  dgiardina@sidley.com


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Equal Pay Act, FMLA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy L. Garofalo v. B. Riley Financial, Inc.; Great American
Group, Inc.; Great American Group, LLC; GAC Strategic Advisors,
LLC; GA Keen Realty Advisors, LLC; and Matthew Bordwin and Harold
Bordwin, Case No. 1:15-cv-02758-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2015) is
brought to redress and enjoin the alleged employment practices of
the Defendants that violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Stacy Garofalo was a female "employee" at GAC Strategic Advisors,
LLC and GA Keen Realty Advisors, LLC, both divisions of Great
American Group, LLC, which subsequently combined with B. Riley
Financial, Inc.

Great American Group, LLC is a nationwide and multi-national
corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great American
Group, Inc. that combined with Defendant B. Riley Financial, Inc.
in November 2014 all of which are headquartered in California with
offices in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are co-CEOs
and Presidents of GAK Realty and GAC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW OFFICE
          30 Wall St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (347) 683-2505
          Facsimile: (212) 898-1231
          E-mail: skaplan@lawkaplan.com


BASUNDHURA INC: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Basundhura, Inc. d/b/a Allen St.
Deli, a New York for Profit entity, Case No. 1:15-cv-02799-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2015) is an action for injunctive relief for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act entitling the
Plaintiff to attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs
expended in pursuing this action.

Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and is
confined to a wheelchair.

Basundhura, Inc., doing business as Allen St. Deli, is the
operator of a bar and dining establishment located in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


BILLABONG: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Market Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that struggling surf-wear retailer Billabong said
on March 26 it received notice of a shareholder class action
lawsuit over market disclosures it made four years ago.

The Federal Court of Australia online register said law firm
Slater & Gordon filed a statement of claim a day earlier.   A
Slater & Gordon spokesperson was not immediately available for
comment.

The law firm said a year ago that it planned to seek compensation
for shareholders, alleging the company gave earnings guidance for
the 2012 financial year that lacked reasonable grounds.

Billabong forecast on August 19, 2011 that it would achieve strong
earnings growth in financial year 2012, but it withdrew the
guidance a few months later and said earnings would fall, sending
its shares down over 50 per cent over the following days, Slater &
Gordon said.

The retailer was saved in 2013 by a refinancing deal from US
private equity firms Centerbridge Partners and Oaktree Capital
Management, which replaced its leadership.  The company posted a
half-year profit in February, its first profit in three years.

In a statement, Billabong said it "wholly rejects and intends to
vigorously defend the claim", which seeks unspecified declarations
and unquantified damages.  The retailer said its board has
appointed a subcommittee to handle the lawsuit and its management
"remain absolutely focused on the ongoing turnaround of the
company's operations globally".


BLUE CROSS: Removes "Wickens" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Wickens v. Blue Cross of
California, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-00008775-CU-CO-NC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, North Division, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00834-LAB-JMA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the class action against Defendants due to
their alleged failure to secure and safeguard the personal
identifying information of the Plaintiff and members of the
proposed class.  On February 4, 2015, Anthem revealed that its
information technology system had been, exposing the name,
personal information, birthday, Social Security number, healthcare
ID number, income data, employment data, street address, e-mail
addresses, and other personal details of about 80 million current
and former customers and employees, making it the largest data
breach ever disclosed by a healthcare company.  The exposed data
included the PII of Blue Cross and Blue Cross Life customers,
including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Klitzke, Esq.
          453 13th Street #130
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 733-0569
          E-mail: Mklitzke13@gmail.com

               - and -

          John H. Gomez, Esq.
          Hohn P. Fiske, Esq.
          Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
          GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490
          Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
          E-mail: john@thegomezfirm.com
                  Fiske@TheGomezFirm.com
                  ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL, 60613
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  Kshamberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com


CASHFORIPHONES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch-Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Philadelphia law firm has filed a class action lawsuit in
California federal court that alleges a website that offers cash
for old iPhones is running a bait-and-switch scam.

Plaintiff Helaina Washington filed the lawsuit March 19 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California through
attorneys at Milstein Adelman in Santa Monica, Calif., and Golomb
& Honik in Philadelphia.

The lawsuit says Cashforiphones.com targets owners of used iPhones
with Internet ads and ultimately offers an amount much lower than
it quoted to those who take part in the exchange.

"The website goes on to 'guarantee top dollar' for these old
iPhones, claiming that it 'gives awesome offers for any iPhone in
any condition,'" the complaint says.

"However, Cashforiphones.com is actually running a fraudulent
bait-and-switch scam on its customers."

After the iPhone owner requests it, Cashforiphones.com sends he or
she an initial quote, as well as a box and shipping label for the
phone to be mailed to it, the complaint says.

"Once the company has the phone in its possession, it makes the
consumer a revised offer which is a lowball offer that is
generally 10 times less than the 'initial quote,'" the complaint
says.

Cashforiphones.com only allows three days for the customer to
contact its purchasing department to reject the new offer, the
complaint says.

Doing so is impossible, Washington claims, because no one in the
purchasing department is available to answer calls. Also, she
says, emails to the company come back with error messages.

"In reality, the three-day return policy is a lie," the complaint
says.

"Cashforiphones.com has no intention of returning the iPhones it
receives. Instead, it regularly, deliberately and systematically
makes contacting the Purchasing Department impossible so that
customers simply cannot reject their offers and get their phones
back."

Ruben Honik, Kenneth Grunfeld and Tammi Markowitz are the three
Golomb & Honik attorneys representing Washington.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:15-cv-00627


CHELSEA CORPORATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Cristin Severance, writing for ABC10, reports that a problem first
exposed by Team 10 of HOA's and apartment complexes not letting
children play outside may be even more widespread in San Diego
County.

Team 10 uncovered a class action lawsuit that claims these rules
are discrimination against families.

Landon Whitby is the lead plaintiff on the suit against the
Chelsea Corporation.  Mr. Whitby said he always hoped his four
kids would grow up like he did.  California is different than his
home state of Utah but he still pictured them playing outside.

"I grew up where kids had space, independence.  Where they could
create games, enjoy friendships," said Mr. Whitby.

Mr. Whitby said kids aren't allowed to play or be anywhere outside
in the Winwood Village Complex in San Diego.

"No kids on the grass, the sidewalk. Only place kids could play
was the playground," said Mr. Whitby.

The rules state someone over 18 has to be with the children at all
times.

"I had to be out there inside the gated area for them at all times
for them to be in the playground," said Carolina Whitby.

The Whitby's said they tried to complain but they were always told
the rules are rules.

"The manager would say, you signed the lease agreement. You agreed
to these rules," said Carolina Whitby.

If the kids were caught outside alone, the family said they would
get a three-day eviction notice.

"I felt guilty. I felt frustration.  I would see the three-day
notice and I would wad it up. Increasingly, I wanted a way to get
out," said Landon Whitby.

Mr. Whitby said there was nowhere else to go.  He was getting his
PHD at the Scripps Research Institute and the family was living on
his $27,000.  Another low-income housing complex could take six
years to get into.

"If we get evicted from here, we are homeless," said Landon
Whitby.

Mr. Whitby researched their options until an attorney said it
sounded like discrimination against families -- a violation of
federal and state law.

The Whitby's and more than one dozen other families filed a class
action lawsuit against the Chelsea Corporation.

"Basically it alleges that families with children were
discriminated against," said attorney Melanie Kramer who worked on
the case.

Something the Mr. Whitby's wish they would have done sooner.

"They really robbed my kids of their childhood," said Carolina
Whitby.

An attorney for the Chelsea Corporation released this statement to
Team 10:

"It is unfortunate the defendants even have to respond to these
kinds of allegations.  Very simply, it is categorically false that
any of the defendants have engaged in discrimination against
families with children.  To the contrary, families with children
are welcomed, supported, and a valued part of the Chelsea
communities.   Though it is tempting to discuss the evidence in
greater detail, to provide a flavor for what this case is really
about, out of respect for the legal process and the court, and
because the lawsuit is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to
comment any further at this time."


CHEMICAL & MINING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on March 20
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
purchasers of Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. stock between
March 4, 2014 through January 17, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for SQM investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the SQM class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-551.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.  YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
The lawsuit alleges that SQM made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) money from SQM was
channeled illicitly to electoral campaigns for the Independent
Democratic Union ("UDI"), Chile's largest conservative party; (2)
SQM lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  When the true details entered the market, the suit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
18, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-551.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CHEMICAL & MINING: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 19 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-02106, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased SQM securities between March 4, 2014 and
March 17, 2015, inclusive.   This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased SQM securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 18, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

SQM is engaged in the production and distribution of specialty
plant nutrients, iodine and its derivatives, lithium and its
derivatives, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, industrial
chemicals, and other commodity fertilizers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) money from SQM was channeled
illicitly to electoral campaigns for the Independent Democratic
Union ("UDI"), Chile's largest conservative party; (2) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Chile's Attorney General announced on February 24, 2015 that he
would lead the investigation into the escalating bribery and tax
evasion scandal involving the financial firm Banco Penta ("Penta"
or the "Penta Group"), a corruption scandal which has embroiled
numerous politicians across the country's political spectrum.
According to charges later lodged against Carlos Alberto Delano
and Carlos Eugenio Lavin, the two Penta founders used fake expense
receipts from family members to lower their taxable income and
allegedly made illegal payments to parliamentary candidates and a
deputy minister.

On February 26, 2015, SQM issued the first of a series of
disclosures, which, for the first time, publicly linked the
Company to the ongoing UDI contribution scandal and ultimately
culminated in the termination of the Chief Executive Officer and
resignation of three SQM Board members.  The Company disclosed in
a press release that, at the request of the Chairman of the Board
of SQM, an extraordinary Board meeting was held to analyze the
ongoing political scandal in and the Attorney General's
investigation.  In such meeting, the Board resolved to establish a
special committee comprising of Board members Wolf Von Appen, Jose
Maria Eyzaguirre Baeza, and Juan Antonio Guzman Molinari.

On March 11, 2015, SQM disclosed that its Board of Directors would
meet the next day to evaluate the request by the Public Prosecutor
for delivery of certain information pertaining to the alleged
bribery scandal.

On March 16, 2015, the Company announced that it had turned over
all of the information requested by the Public Prosecutor in the
March 6, 2015 Letter to the Chilean Internal Revenue Service for
the last six years, which the Company purported was the proper
authority to review such information.  Moreover, the Company also
announced that the Board had agreed to terminate CEO Patricio
Contesse effectively immediately.  In the prior weeks, Mr.
Contesse had attempted to block the Company's decision to turn
over the documents.

As a result of these partial disclosures, SQM stock consistently
traded downward, from a closing price of $26.17 per share on
February 25, 2015, to close at $22.10 per share on March 17, 2015,
a decline of 15.55% on unusually heavy trading volume during that
period.

On March 18, 2015, SQM issued a press release indicating that the
three representatives on its Board from Canadian stakeholder
Potash Corporation, SQM Vice Chairman Wayne Brownlee, who also
serves as the Chief Financial Officer of Potash Corporation, and
directors Jose Maria Eyzaguirre and Alejandro Montero, had
resigned the prior day.

As a result of this news, shares of SQM fell an additional $3.45
per share, or more than 15.6%, on extremely heavy volume, to close
at $18.65 per share on March 18, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Hearing Held in Royalty Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation 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 a fairness
hearing on the settlement in the royalty class action has been
scheduled for April 17, 2015.

Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective
leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state. Royalty
owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal
effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations, an
issue in a putative class action filed in November 2010 in the
District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma on behalf of Oklahoma
royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004. In July 2014,
this case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
following the reversal on appeal of certification of a statewide
class.

"We and the named plaintiff participated in mediation concerning
the claims asserted in the putative class action litigation and
have negotiated a settlement requiring the Company to pay $119
million cash to compensate the putative settlement class for
alleged past royalty underpayments in exchange for the release of
claims for the ten-year period ended December 31, 2014," the
Company said. "The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement on January 2, 2015. The Company has
accrued a loss contingency for the settlement amount in the 2014
consolidated statement of operations. A fairness hearing on the
settlement has been scheduled for April 17, 2015."

"Although Chesapeake believes that its royalty calculation and
payment methodologies are appropriate under Oklahoma oil and gas
law and denies that it committed any acts or omissions giving rise
to any liability, it also believes that settlement is in the best
interest of the Company considering the questions of law and fact
involved and the uncertainty of continued litigation. There can be
no assurance the court will approve the settlement, however, and
the final resolution of the Oklahoma royalty claims could differ
from the amount accrued."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: To Defend Against Suit by 2019 Noteholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation intends to defend itself against the
class action by six former holders of 2019 Notes, 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 December 30, 2014, six former holders of the 2019 Notes filed a
putative class action against the Company on behalf of all former
holders who sold the 2019 Notes after the Company issued the
notice of early redemption in March 2013 but before the notes were
redeemed at par in May 2013. These former holders allege that the
Company breached the indenture by issuing a wrongful notice of
special early redemption, and that this breach caused the market
value of the notes to decline, injuring them when they sold their
2019 Notes.  This suit has been assigned to the same District
Court judge as the royalty suit filed in the District Court of
Beaver County, Oklahoma. The Company intends to defend itself
against this claim vigorously.


CHEVRON USA: Faces "Roberton" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Roberton, individually, and as the legal representative of
James Roberton, Sr. and James Roberton Jr. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01106-KDE-KWR (E.D. La., April 8, 2015) alleges
that the Defendant knew or should have known about the causal
relationship between benzene and cancer-related illnesses.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to warn Mr.
Roberton and other similarly situated workers about the health
hazards associated with benzene.

James Roberton, Sr., worked for Brown & Root as a machinist at the
Alliance Refinery from 1970 through 1986.  Gulf Oil Corporation
was the owner and operator of the Alliance Refinery and merged
into Chevron USA, Inc. Chevron USA, Inc.  Gulf Oil Corp. operated
the Alliance Refinery in Belle Chasse Louisiana from 1970 through
1986.  From 1970-1986, Mr. Roberton washed his hands and tools
with benzene on a daily basis.  He was diagnosed with CLL Leukemia
on August 5, 2010, due to his alleged exposure to benzene and
benzene-containing products.  He filed the lawsuit within one year
of learning of the connection between his CLL and benzene.  He
died of CLL on September 16, 2014.

Chevron USA, Inc., successor in interest to Gulf Oil Corporation,
is a foreign corporation incorporated in Pennsylvania and with its
principal place of business in California.  Chevron is a
manufacturer, distributor, seller, supplier, or large industrial
consumer of benzene or benzene-containing products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC
          433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net


CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Nicklaw" Suit Moved From Missouri to Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01795, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-14125-RLR
to the proceeding.


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: All Settlement Funds Paid to Plaintiff Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Williams Energy, 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 all settlement
funds in a class action lawsuit were paid to plaintiffs' counsel
in January 2015.

Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR") is a defendant in a suit filed
in April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where
the plaintiffs initially sought in excess of $8 million for the
costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which operations
were commenced in the 1930s. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and
the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million,
of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement,
the case was converted to a class action, and each member of the
class was offered the right to either participate or opt out of
the class and continue a separate action for damages. One
plaintiff opted out and will be subject to all previous rulings of
the court, including an order dismissing certain claims on the
basis that such claims were time barred. A loss on settlement of
$0.7 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2013 in
connection with this proposed settlement. The settlement was
entered by the Court on December 19, 2014, and all settlement
funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case
against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015.


DELHAIZE AMERICA: Settles FCRA Background Screening Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings, Esq., Tim J. St. George, Esq., and Alan D.
Wingfield, Esq., of Troutman Sanders report that on March 2, the
plaintiff's counsel in Brown v. Delhaize America, LLC submitted an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval, seeking Court approval
of another Fair Credit Reporting Act class action settlement.
Employers should treat this settlement as another reminder to
verify their compliance with the FCRA.

According to the parties' settlement paperwork, the Brown case
involved two claims that appear frequently in FCRA-based
background check litigation.  In Brown, the plaintiff claimed that
the defendants failed to provide class members with a clear and
conspicuous disclosure, consisting solely of the disclosure that a
consumer report would be obtained for employment purposes, prior
to obtaining the consumer report.  Additionally, the plaintiff
claimed that the defendants frequently took adverse employment
action against their employees based on their background checks
without providing those employees with a pre-adverse action notice
required by the FCRA.

After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the parties
engaged in a two-day mediation, the parties reached a $3 million
settlement.  This settlement covers approximately 57,000 class
members in the improper disclosure class and 2,500 class members
in the adverse action class.  Under this settlement, the improper
disclosure class members will receive a gross payment of $48, and
the adverse action class will receive a gross amount of $96.
After deducting attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the
settlement fund, in addition to other expenses, these amounts drop
to $31 and $61, respectively.

Because of the risk of statutory damages and attorneys' fees, and
the potential for very large class sizes, employers in FCRA class
actions often find themselves exposed to significant liability.
This exposure can be unpalatable for legal departments and
business leaders, despite the fact that employers frequently have
significant arguments against liability.  Because of this
exposure, the Food Lion settlement is just one of many significant
FCRA class settlements we have seen in recent years.


DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Court Rejects $3MM Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Patane, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
the long legal battle between Donald DeWaay and disgruntled
investors looks to be headed for the Iowa Supreme Court.

An Iowa Court of Appeals ruling handed down on March 25 rejects a
$3 million class-action lawsuit request that would have settled
claims against Mr. DeWaay's now-defunct Clive financial services
firm, DeWaay Financial Network.

The appeals court ruling overturns a decision by Decatur County
District Judge John Lloyd, who had approved the class-action
lawsuit.

Steve Wandro, an attorney representing Mr. DeWaay, said it's
likely the case will go to the state Supreme Court on appeal.

"We've got to go for the tiebreaker now," Mr. Wandro told the
Register on March 25.

Complaints against Mr. DeWaay and the legal battle go back to
before 2012.

Lawsuits filed against DeWaay Financial claim company officials
allowed investors to place their money in unsuitable investments
and misrepresented risks.

The suits circle around DeWaay Financial's sale of private
placement investments from Delaware-based DBSI Inc., which
packaged real estate deals and oil-and-gas-development deals for
Provident Royalties LLC and subsidiaries.

The district court-approved suit would not have allowed individual
investors to opt out, meaning they would not have been permitted
to file their own suits.

Attorneys for Mr. DeWaay contend the class-action was the only way
investors with complaints could receive any sort of payment.
Mr. DeWaay's finances, they said, would not have been able to
handle the multitude of individual complaints.

"This is a good deal for these investors," Mr. Wandro said.  "They
will not get that money if they go out and try to sue
(individually).  There simply isn't enough money to go around."

Some DeWaay investors intervened in the case, appealing the
ruling.  Gail Bolivar, an attorney representing the intervenors,
said the non-opt-out class-action would be an unusual move for
Iowa cases.

Ms. Bolivar also said the class-action would have resulted in
pennies on the dollar results for investors.

"We didn't think that was very economic for anybody," he said.

Both Ms. Bolivar and Mr. Wandro said not to expect a quick
resolution.

Mr. DeWaay is registered as an investment adviser with DeWaay
Capital Management with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.

DeWaay Financial Network relinquished its broker-dealer license
with FINRA in November 2012.


DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO: Accused of Discrimination Due to Age & Gender
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gingher v. Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Robert Dickerson,
Jeffrey K. Sherwood, Steven Weisburd, Michael Nannes, James Kelly,
& Deborah Skakel (are sued in their individual capacities Pursuant
to NYEL Section296(6), Case No. 1:15-cv-02706-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April
8, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as the New York Executive Law, in regard to the Defendants'
alleged discrimination against the Plaintiff due to his age,
gender, national origin and sexual orientation.

Dickstein was incorporated in Washington D.C. with its principal
place of business located in Washington, but was doing business in
the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Michael Mishkin, Esq.
          SCOTT MICHAEL MISHKIN PC
          One Suffolk Square, Suite 240
          Islandia, NY 11749
          Telephone: (631) 234-1154
          Facsimile: (631) 234-5048
          E-mail: mishkinesq@optonline.net


DIRECT TV: Supreme Court to Decide on Calif. Arbitration Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq., Mark J. Levin, Esq., Scott Pearson, Esq.
of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on
March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in DirecTV,
Inc. v. Imburgia, agreeing to resolve a split between the Ninth
Circuit and California state courts on how to interpret the same
DirecTV arbitration agreement. Although the issue before the Court
is narrow, it nevertheless is important for companies whose
arbitration clauses do not clearly require the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), rather than state law, to govern the agreement.

Before the Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
ruling that the FAA preempts state law that would invalidate class
action waivers on unconscionability grounds, it was common to
include "blow-up" severability clauses to prevent courts from
invalidating class action waivers and then ordering class-wide
arbitration.  These clauses provide that the entire arbitration
clause is to be stricken if the class action waiver is invalid.
The DirecTV agreement had such a severability clause, but it
provided that the entire arbitration agreement would be
unenforceable if "the law of your state would find this agreement
to dispense with class arbitration procedures unenforceable."

In the case now before the Supreme Court, the California Court of
Appeal concluded that "law of your state" meant only California
state law, excluding federal laws such as the FAA.  Thus, because
California deems some class action waivers to be unconscionable,
the court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
In doing so, it diverged from a 2013 Ninth Circuit decision in
Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc. -- involving the same agreement -- holding
that "federal law is the law of every state," and therefore
California unconscionability law was preempted.

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Imburgia will have
limited application, it may give the Court an opportunity to
define further the parameters of FAA preemption, a subject it has
addressed on several occasions over the past few years.  In
addition, it highlights the importance of expressly and
unambiguously requiring the FAA to govern arbitration agreements.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Sued in S.D. Florida for Violating FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Florian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14128-KAM (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2015) is brought
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


DOLAN CO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over BofA Ties
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota federal
judge on March 25 dismissed a proposed class action against former
executives of business information provider Dolan Co. accusing
them of misleading investors over the company's deteriorating
relationship with one of its largest customers, Bank of America
Corp., ahead of its March 2014 bankruptcy.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Magnuson approved the defendant's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, saying plaintiffs failed
to establish scienter on the only two "plausibly pled misleadingly
false statements."  The lawsuit, which was dismissed with
prejudice, had targeted the company's former CEO and president
James P. Dolan and former CFO Vicki J. Duncomb.

Judge Magnuson noted that at least two of the plaintiffs,
including lead plaintiff Rand-Heart of New York Inc., purchased
their shares after a November 2013 announcement that revealed the
deterioration of the relationship with BofA and sent the company's
share prices tumbling.  He also addressed arguments that
statements made in August 2013 were misleading because they
omitted details about the BofA troubles on the horizon, saying
they were instead "backward-looking" and should have been treated
as a "statement of historical fact, not a forecast for the
future."

"It may be that the company suspected increased liquidity pressure
in the third quarter because of the issues with Bank of America,
but the challenged statement was reporting on the company's
results for the second quarter," Judge Magnuson said.  "There is
no allegation that the Bank of America situation had any effect on
the company's liquidity in the second quarter."

Dolan Co. worked with BofA through its litigation support business
called DiscoverReady, but the banking giant grew vocally concerned
with Dolan Co.'s financial situation in June or early July 2013
and gave company officers the impression that they would need to
resolve financial problems to continue to do business with the
bank, court documents said.  At the time Dolan did mortgage
default processing, and that side of the business was faltering.

Responding to arguments that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements in an August 2013 press release
announcing the company's second-quarter results in 2013 when they
said that recent operating trends were continuing and the
e-discovery business posted "very strong growth," among other
statements, Judge Magnuson said those reports were "undoubtedly
true."

"DiscoverReady posted strong results, and plaintiffs do not assert
that the financial information was overstated in any way," Judge
Magnuson said.  "Plantiffs' theory, instead, is that by failing to
warn the market about DiscoverReady's likely lower third-quarter
results, the statements regarding the business's second-quarter
results were misleading."

Judge also said that statements made to investors in November 2013
describing the deterioration of its relationship with Bank of
America were true and unactionable, despite plaintiffs' claims
that they omitted key details and were delivered in an
inappropriately positive light.

"Given the fact that the company's stock price plummeted nearly 50
percent after the Nov. 12, 2013 release of the company's third-
quarter results, it is difficult to say that the market needed
more information regarding DiscoverReady's difficulties," Judge
Magnuson said.

Plaintiffs were represented by Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- and Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-
law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston, Shawn M. Perry of Perry &
Perry PLLP, Gregg M. Fishbein and Vernon J. Vander Weide --
vjvanderweide@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
James M. Ficaro -- jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- of The Weiser Law Firm
PC, Avraham Noam Wagner of the Wagner Firm, Robert V. Prongay of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Carolyn G. Anderson and June
Pineda Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed
PLLP.

Defendants were represented by Justin P. Krypel --
justin.krypel@FaegreBD.com -- and Wendy J. Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

The case is Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., et al v. Dolan et al.,
case number 0:14-cv-03011, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.


DRESSER-RAND: Settlement Subject to Final Documentation, Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dresser-Rand Group 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 settlement in
the class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with
Siemens Energy, Inc. remains subject to final documentation and
court approval.

A putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger
with Siemens Energy, Inc. was filed on September 24, 2014 on
behalf of Dresser-Rand Group Inc. stockholders in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  The action is captioned Soffer v. Volpe et
al., C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.) (the "Soffer Action").  The
complaint in the Soffer Action alleged that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by
engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to sell the Company
for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal
protection terms in the Merger Agreement.  In addition, the
lawsuit alleged that the Company, Siemens and Dynamo Acquisition
Corporation, the Delaware subsidiary formed by Siemens in
connection with the transaction, aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit sought, among other
things, an injunction barring the merger.

On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege as
additional basis for relief that the directors of the Company
engaged in self-dealing because they will benefit from their
compensation arrangements and/or the sale of their personal stakes
in the Company and that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company on October 9, 2014, fails to provide stockholders with
material information about the transaction and/or is materially
misleading.  On October 24, 2014, Construction Industry & Laborers
Union Local 872 Pension A Trust v. Dresser-Rand Group, Inc., et
al, C.A. No. 10285-CB (Del. Ch.) (the "Labor Union Action") was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  This complaint contained
claims and allegations similar to those in the pre-amendment
Soffer complaint and sought similar relief on behalf of the same
putative class.  The Company believes that the lawsuits are
without merit.

On November 10, 2014, the Soffer Action and the Labor Union Action
were consolidated under the caption In re Dresser Rand Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.) (the
"Consolidated Case").  On November 14, 2014, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Case in
exchange for the Company's making certain additional disclosures.
Those disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC
on November 17, 2014.  The settlement remains subject to final
documentation and court approval.


DURHAM & DURHAM: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randell Matthews, On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Durham & Durham, LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-01176-SCJ-AJB
(N.D. Ga., April 15, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
          570 Piedmont Road, N.E.
          Box 54840
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 365-4460
          Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
          E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com


EXPEDIA: Judge to Impose Fines in Bag Fee lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Tricia Duryee, writing for GeekWire, reports that paying for bag
fees has apparently struck a nerve with a federal judge, who has
turned down Expedia's request to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses
the online travel agency of failing to waive fees for checked bags
after claiming they would be free with purchase.

In an order, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones also said he
was considering sanctioning Expedia to the tune of $1,000 a day if
it did not respond appropriately to discovery requests by the
plaintiff.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, was filed in
King County Superior Court in July.  The plaintiff is Ohio
resident Jeffrey Weidenhamer, who is being represented by Badgley
Mullins Turner of Shoreline, Wash.

An Expedia spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.

In addition to seeking a refund for luggage fees, Mr. Weidenhamer
also alleges that Expedia was deceptive about offering a 5 percent
discount for making a purchase from its mobile application, but
did not honor the discount.

As for the baggage fees, the plaintiff claims that Expedia said
there would be no fees for the first checked bag.  But upon
arrival at the airport, he incurred round-trip charges of $650 for
the four tickets booked.  Additionally, Mr. Weidenhamer says he
did not receive the 5 percent discount on his purchase until he
complained to the Ohio Attorney General.  Once he did so, he
received a refund of $79.66, reflecting the discount.


FIDELITY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over 401(k) Float Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Condon, Esq., Alison Douglas, Esq., and Jamie Fleckner,
Esq., of Goodwin Procter, in an article for JDSupra, report that
in In re Fidelity ERISA Float Litigation, Case No. 13-10222 (D.
Mass. Mar. 11, 2015), the district court rejected an ERISA
challenge to a 401(k) plan service provider's float practices.

Background

In In re Fidelity ERISA Float Litigation, Case No. 13-10222 (D.
Mass. Mar. 11, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss claims under ERISA
challenging a 401(k) plan service provider's practice with respect
to its handling of redemptions from client plan investment
options.

The plaintiffs, six plan participants and one plan administrator,
filed four separate lawsuits in 2013, which were subsequently
consolidated.  They purported to assert claims on behalf of a
class of thousands of plans serviced by the defendants, affiliated
entities that provided services to the plans and/or its
investments.  The consolidated complaint alleged that the
defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions because they invested money in the process
of being redeemed from the plans' investment options -- known as
"float" -- on an overnight basis, but did not distribute the
income from those overnight investments directly to the plans.

In granting the motion to dismiss, the court held that the
plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that income earned on float
is a plan asset under ERISA.  The court followed an earlier
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in
Tussey et al. v. ABB, Inc. et al., 746 F.3d 327 (8th Cir. 2014),
in which the appellate court rejected similar claims against the
same provider.  The district court also held that, even if float
were an ERISA plan asset, the provider was not acting as a
fiduciary to the plans when it invested the float, and, thus, the
conduct that the plaintiffs challenged was not subject to ERISA.
The court also recognized that the provider's float practices
complied with the terms of its service contracts with the plans
and with the governing plan documents.

Goodwin Procter represented the defendants in this matter.


FREDERICK J HANNA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Sawyer, on behalf of myself and all others similarly
situated v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., a Georgia
Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-14127-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
April 10, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Groups Drop Chemical Spill Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that lawyers for businesses and people
affected by a massive chemical spill last year say a settlement to
fund community projects is no longer being considered.

In June 2014, lawyers for groups affected by the Freedom
Industries spill proposed the money go toward projects benefitting
the public, like health monitoring or more water testing.

Lawyers wrote that the plan has been abandoned. Ex-Freedom
executives opposed it, saying the insurance should cover their
legal costs.

The Charleston Gazette reports that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ronald
Pearson approved a $3.2 million insurance settlement without the
public projects.

Freedom chief restructuring officer Mark Welch says he hopes to
use the money to pay creditors other than spill victims.

The January 2014 spill contaminated drinking water for 300,000
people for days.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Brightbill" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brightbill, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00741, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-21416-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Pension Fund Seeks Cert. of RMBS Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Batchelor and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report
that a union pension fund has asked a New York federal judge to
certify a class action against Goldman Sachs & Co. over the sale
of $6 billion in shoddy residential mortgage-backed securities,
arguing that hundreds of investors were similarly misled in
several offerings.

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund on March 23 asked U.S. District
Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum to certify a class of at least 405
investors in securities issued by GS Mortgage Securities Corp.
through seven offerings, saying that each investor was similarly
duped by nearly identical misstatements about the loans underlying
each offering.

"Plaintiff and all other class members assert identical legal
theories arising from the same course of conduct by defendants:
namely, defendants' systematic acquisition and securitization of
shoddy loans and the offering documents' misstatements about the
loans underlying the certificates," the motion said.

NECA filed this, the fourth iteration of its long-running RMBS
suit, in November 2012.  The union pension fund alleged that
Goldman, GS Mortgage and three executives gave out registration
statements and prospectuses that "contained identical
misrepresentations about the quality of the loans and the
underwriting of those loans" for several offerings.

Several class actions presenting similar issues have been
certified in the Southern District of New York in the past few
years, NECA argues in the motion.

In 2012, for example, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave certification to
a class of investors in a suit accusing a number of banks, a unit
of now-defunct IndyMac Bank and several IndyMac executives of
failing to disclose risks associated with 10 offerings, the motion
said.  In September 2014, the banks and lead plaintiffs proposed a
$340 million settlement in the case.

Similarly, Judge J. Paul Oetken last September gave partial
certification in a suit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co. falsely
representing underwriting standards for nine offerings of MBS
worth $10 billion, according to the motion.

NECA seeks certification in the present case for both
institutional and individual investors who invested in one of
seven GSAA Home Equity Trust 2007 offerings.  Goldman Sachs sold
$6 billion worth of certificates in these offerings, the motion
says.

The union also asked the judge to appoint it lead plaintiff and
name Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in the case.

Previous versions of the complaint had been dismissed, but the
Second Circuit in September 2012 partially reinstated the proposed
class action, finding that NECA alleged a cognizable injury and
appropriately represented all potential plaintiffs who purchased
certificates from seven of 17 separate offerings.

Judge Cedarbaum in July pared seven offerings from the suit and
struck down NECA's challenge to the decision in January.

Goldman Sachs announced in a February regulatory filing that it
learned late last year of its involvement in a federal probe into
residential mortgage-backed securities and may soon face civil
charges as a result.

NECA is represented Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Goldman is represented by Richard H. Klapper --
klapperr@sullcrom.com -- Theodore Edelman -- edelmant@sullcrom.com
-- Michael T. Tomaino Jr. of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Goldman
Sachs & Co. et al., case number 1:08-cv-10783, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


HEALTH NET: Defending Against MFLCs Class and Collective Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. continues to defend against military and family
life counseling program putative class and collective actions, 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.

"We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Northern District of California") relating to the
independent contractor classification of counselors ("MFLCs") who
contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc.
("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at U.S.
military installations throughout the country under our Military
and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life
Consultants) program," the Company said.

"On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. We moved to compel the
case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September
30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On
February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act.

"On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

"The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the
Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion
on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8,
2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to
allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The
court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth
Circuit appeal. On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth
Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision denying our
motion to compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned
for rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition
on February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
granted our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings
will remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme
Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari.

"On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred
to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two
FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the
suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two
alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to
arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court
granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative
motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties."


HERBALIFE LTD: Former Distributors Object to Class Action Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that
eighteen former Herbalife distributors on March 24 objected to a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit that accused the multi-level
marketer (MLM) of operating a pyramid scheme, calling the
financial compensation "grossly inadequate" and arguing the terms
will not prevent future harm.

The USD $15-million cash settlement in the lawsuit only represents
between 1 and 2 percent of what the plaintiffs could recover at
trial, lawyers for the distributors argued in court papers.
Douglas Brooks and Heather McKeon, the attorneys, calculated
classwide damages of $1.12 billion if 280,000 supervisors in the
class lost $4,000 on average, or $700 million if the supervisors
lost $2,500 on average.

Under a settlement that has received preliminary court approval,
Herbalife agreed to set aside $15 million in cash for affected
distributors and other expenses, $2.5 million for product refunds
and abide by 13 corporate policies that are intended to address
claims in the lawsuit.

"The $15-million Settlement Fund reflects about 2.3 percent of
Herbalife's cash on hand, and about 4.8 percent of Herbalife's net
after tax income for 2014," Mr. Brooks and Ms. McKeon wrote in a
64-page filing.  "It does not reflect the strengths of the case,
notwithstanding the risks of continued litigation."

Herbalife, whose business is under investigation by state and
federal regulators, declined to comment on the objections.

Truth in Advertising Inc. (TINA), a consumer advocacy
organization, contended that the settlement will result in a
windfall of $5.25 million to plaintiffs' counsel and likely leaves
most class members with less than $20 each in recovery.  It also
requested permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief.

The fact that objections have been filed doesn't guarantee U.S.
District Judge Beverly O'Connell will deny final approval of the
settlement. She has already tentatively concluded the agreement is
adequate and fair.

But in a recent phone interview, Georgene Vairo, a professor at
law with Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said district courts
are becoming increasingly "careful about rubber-stamping deals
plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants' counsel have reached."

"The courts of appeals are telling the district courts, 'you can't
rubber stamp these things. You have to look carefully,'" she said.

In a separate filing on March 25, the deadline for filing
objections to the settlement, the National Consumers League Inc.
expressed concerns with the agreement and requested the court's
permission to file a brief.  The Washington-based nonprofit said
many of the corporate policies Herbalife agreed to abide by
provided little relief to the 1.55 million class members because
the policies were largely in effect before the lawsuit was filed.

"Significant changes to Herbalife's business model that would
address Plaintiffs' complaint -- such as ending the practice of
allowing distributors to maintain an infinite number of levels in
their 'downlines' -- are not contemplated in the proposed
injunctive relief," attorneys representing the National Consumers
League wrote.

Eighteen former Herbalife distributors who claimed to have lost
money in the MLM's business filed separate declarations with
O'Connell, objecting to the settlement.

"I am objecting to the settlement because the settlement fund is
too small to compensate victims of Herbalife and the changes that
Herbalife is promising to make will not prevent it from harming
other people," each distributor stated in the declarations.

Some former Herbalife distributors said they didn't understand
that they could claim money under the class-action settlement and
also object to it.

Julie Contreras of the League of United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC) told the court that many Latinos didn't understand the
notice of the class-action settlement and that there should have
been an outreach effort targeting the undocumented community.

"Based on my experience and knowledge of the Latino immigrant
community, I believe that the class-action notice program was
inappropriate and inadequate in that it failed to acknowledge the
reality of differences in the culture, language and understanding
of the legal system, as well as the impact of the undocumented
status of many of the victims," Ms. Contreras wrote.

The distributors' declarations touched upon the chief allegations
in the lawsuit and that have been raised by the hedge-fund
billionaire Bill Ackman in his more than two-year campaign against
the MLM.

The distributors, many of whom have Latino roots and operated
nutrition clubs, claimed various losses in Herbalife's business --
ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $100,000 -- and
said they have filed grievances with the FTC and attorneys general
in Illinois, Connecticut and Nevada.

Some distributors who objected to the settlement said they were
promised wealth by investing in Herbalife's products and
recruiting members.  Instead, they described substantial losses
and problems with their marital relationships due to the financial
havoc.

In reliance on a survey from Lieberman Research Worldwide that was
conducted in June 2013, Herbalife reported that the majority of
its distributors -- now called members -- purchase products for
their own consumption rather than to earn income.  The company
also says it is transparent about the average compensation of its
members and has a corporate policy that discourages members from
incurring debt.

Mr. Brooks and Ms. McKeon contend other surveys undermine
Herbalife's premise.  For instance, they referenced an industry-
wide survey by the Direct Selling Association, which showed more
distributors join an MLM for the business opportunity rather than
to score a discount on products.  The lawyers also cited an
Actionable Research survey that Herbalife commissioned in 2011 --
before Mr. Ackman famously accused Herbalife of running a pyramid
scheme in a December 2012 presentation -- in which 44 percent of
respondents said they joined the MLM to supplement their income.

Herbalife is under investigation by FTC, Securities and Exchange
Commission and attorneys general, whom have discussed the class-
action settlement with private attorneys in the case to ensure it
doesn't interfere with their probes.  The National Consumers
League expressed concern that Herbalife will quickly submit final
approval of the settlement to "federal and state law enforcement
agencies engaged in ongoing investigations of the company's
business practices . . .  as evidence that it is not engaging in
unfair or deceptive business practices."

Final approval of the settlement -- following a May 11 hearing in
O'Connell's Los Angeles courtroom -- would continue a string of
positive developments for Herbalife.  As the Wall Street Journal
recently reported, federal prosecutors and the FBI are
investigating whether individuals including people hired by Ackman
made false statements about Herbalife in order to incite probes
into the MLM and lower its stock price.  In another development
that buoyed Herbalife, a federal judge dismissed a securities
lawsuit against the company.

Finally, while Herbalife is said to be under investigation by
numerous attorneys general, at least one state regulator found no
cause for alarm, as the Wall Street Journal first reported in its
March 12 article.

Jaclyn Falkowski, a spokeswoman with the Office of the Connecticut
Attorney General, said her office received 27 complaints regarding
Herbalife and met with various parties, including Ackman and
Herbalife.  One of the complaints was unrelated to the pyramid
scheme allegations.

"While some consumers did express dissatisfaction with products or
services in our follow-up contact, we have been unable to
substantiate allegations that Herbalife is operating a pyramid
scheme," she said in an emailed statement.  "We will continue to
follow up on any new complaints, and we will continue to attempt
to address any individual consumer issues as they are brought to
our attention.  At this time, however, we do not have an active
investigation into Herbalife."


HERTZ CORP: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Fischler and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that
The Hertz Corp. on March 25 asked to transfer to California
federal court an $11.5 million class action that accuses the
company of not paying employees for working through breaks because
the suit is too expansive for state court.

The rental car giant said the suit should go to federal court
because the class could contain 2,000 current and former
employees, easily meeting the 100-member threshold for a class in
federal court, Hertz said in a brief asking U.S. District Judge
William Q. Hayes to hear the case.

With back pay for the entire substantial class potentially at
stake, Hertz estimated the suit could be worth $11.5 million, also
easily meeting the requirement that the suit have more than $5
million at stake.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 also requires a federal
district court to have original jurisdiction because the Florida-
based company is being sued by a citizen of another state, Hertz
said.

Former Hertz manager-in-training Philip Lo Cascio brought the suit
on behalf of all current and former hourly, non-overtime-exempt
California employees of Hertz Local Edition Corp. in state court
in San Diego late last year, accusing the rental car giant of
encouraging employees to work through meal and rest breaks and not
paying them for that work.  He's seeking to represent all other
management trainees and those similarly situated, employed by HLE
between December 2010 and December 2015.

Mr. Lo Cascio is seeking putative damages, including back pay, and
injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed class.

The request for removal to federal court did not indicate Hertz
agreed that class certification is proper, the company said in the
document.

Last year, Hertz dodged a class action when the Ninth Circuit
affirmed a lower court's decision not to grant class certification
to a group of employees alleging the company denied them overtime
pay.

The three-judge panel found U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney
properly considered the group's bid for certification under the
strict protocols required when she determined that the would-be
class members' roles in the company weren't similar enough to move
forward as a group.

The appellate court wrote that Judge Chesney had properly
considered the evidence presented by the group in finding that
they didn't share enough characteristics, ultimately determining
that the policies cited by the employees that would lead to
illegally unpaid overtime didn't necessarily affect everyone in
the proposed class.

Bob Dolinko of Nixon Peabody LLP, who is representing Hertz, told
Law360 the federal court venue wouldn't be an advantage to either
side but noted that the 2011 case that ended favorably for Hertz
was in federal court.

"We had a similar case that we removed to federal court," he said.
"The court denied class certification in that case, which we think
is similar."

Mr. Lo Cascio is represented by William D. Turley of the Turley
Law Firm APLC.

Hertz is represented by Robert A. Dolinko and Oswald B. Cousins of
Nixon Peabody LLP.

The case is Lo Cascio v. Hertz Local Edition, et al, case number
3:15-cv-00667 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


HOLEM GROUP: Sued in Florida Over Alleged Job Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard Deon Simms and other similarly situated individuals v.
Holem Group, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation; Franz Melo,
individually; and Hans L. Melo, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-
21355-JAL (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2015) asserts claims of job
discrimination due to race.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: Denies Employer Status in Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that Home Depot USA
Inc. has fired back in a putative class action in New Jersey state
court accusing the home improvement giant of failing to pay
cleaning workers proper wages, contending that it hasn't employed
the would-be class members in the litigation.

Home Depot filed a March 17 answer to the suit that Denis Miranda-
Rivera brought in Middlesex County Superior Court against the
company and Piscataway, New Jersey-based TK Cleaning Corp. for
allegedly violating the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating TCPA in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Etzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hooters of America, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01055-LMM
(N.D. Ga., April 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
          W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
          W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W., Building 10
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 442-9000
          Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
          E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com
                  pcarr@wpcarr.com

               - and -

          David E. Ghattas, Esq.
          DAVID E. GHATTAS, P.C.
          1265 Seven Springs Circle
          Marietta, GA 30068
          Telephone: (404) 643-1249
          Facsimile: (770) 422-5262
          E-mail: dghattas1@aol.com

               - and -

          Nancy Foster Rigby, Esq.
          Nicholas Peter Panayotopoulos, Esq.
          WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC
          3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 876-2700
          Facsimile: (404) 875-9433
          E-mail: nrigby@wwhgd.com
                  npanayo@wwhgd.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: McCuneWright Sues Over Blue Link Telematics System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP on March 26 disclosed that it
has filed a national class action lawsuit against Hyundai Motor on
behalf of six class representatives who are among the thousands of
Hyundai owners of select 2012-2015 models equipped with the
Hyundai Blue Link Telematics System.

Beginning in 2011, Hyundai introduced the Hyundai Blue Link
Telematics System in select models, including the popular Hyundai
Sonata.  With Blue Link, Hyundai customers get automatic emergency
assistance in the event of a collision, point-of-interest search
and navigation assistance, the ability to remotely operate various
vehicle features, and self-diagnostic vehicle reports.  Though
Hyundai owners must subscribe in order to receive the benefits of
the Blue Link system, all necessary hardware for the Blue Link
system is included as a "standard feature" of Blue Link equipped
Hyundai vehicles.  If Hyundai owners either did not subscribe to
Blue Link or thereafter allowed their subscription to lapse,
Hyundai provided a telephone number that the vehicle owner, or any
subsequent owner of that vehicle, could call in order to
reactivate the Blue Link service for a nominal connection fee.

But beginning in 2015, Hyundai notified owners of its Blue Link
equipped vehicles whose Blue Link subscription services had been
inactive for more than one year, that "[i]f you do not reactivate
your Blue Link services by January 15, 2015, your current Blue
Link system in your vehicle will be permanently disabled."  In the
same notice, Hyundai informed the owners that "[r]eactivating your
Blue Link services after it is disabled will require a hardware
change, dealer-assisted installation, and will cost a minimum of
$500 to replace the telematics unit plus any applicable
subscription fees."

The lawsuit alleges that that the permanent disabling of unused
Hyundai Blue Link Telematics Systems constitutes a breach of the
contract terms of the sale of Blue Link equipped Hyundai vehicles,
a breach of Hyundai's express and implied warranties, and an
unfair business practice.

McCuneWright attorney, David Wright states, "For Hyundai to
threaten the permanent disabling of Hyundai Blue Link Telematics
Systems that they have already sold to their customers unless
those customers agree to pay the additional Blue Link subscription
service fee constitutes an unfair and illegal business practice.
It is no different than if an auto manufacturer were to sell a
vehicle with an XM radio receiver, but then to later permanently
disable that receiver if the owner did not subscribe to the XM
service."

The lawsuit seeks to prevent Hyundai from the future disabling of
Blue Link Systems, to reimburse the subscription fees for those
owners who subscribed to the Blue Link service after receiving
notice that their Blue Link system would be disabled, and to
reimburse those customers whose cars have been devalued as a
result of the disabling of their Blue Link systems.


INDIANA: Bus Service Not Required for Public Schools
----------------------------------------------------
Kris Turner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Indiana Supreme Court ruled on March 24 that public schools are
not constitutionally required to bus students to and from school.

The ruling further clarifies state law, which already permitted
public school corporations to opt out of providing transportation
services.

The case stems from a decision by Franklin Township Community
Schools to discontinue free bus service in the 2011-12 school
year.  Parents, upset by the district's action, filed a class-
action lawsuit based on the premise that students had a
constitutional right to bus service.

The district, which was facing severe financial difficulties, cut
its free busing program because it could no longer afford it,
Franklin Township Superintendent Flora Reichanadter said.  It
reinstated the program the following year after changes to state
law allowed the district to restructure its debt.

Last June, the Indiana Court of Appeals found the school district
violated the constitution when it stopped providing transportation
to and from school.  But the Supreme Court justices rejected that,
saying that although the constitution refers to a free public
education, "the framers did not intend for every aspect of public
education to be free."

"This court does not dispute that being present at school is
necessary to avail oneself of the benefits of the education
offered there.  However, that does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that the school corporation alone must provide
transportation under the Education Clause," Justice Steven David
wrote.

The unanimous ruling said the court has "neither the ability nor
the duty" to establish requirements for school systems, a duty
that falls to lawmakers and state code.

"It will inevitably require some families to make alternative
accommodations, but it will not close the schoolhouse doors,"
Justice David wrote of the March 24 decision.

"Obviously, it affirms our case that we indeed were not acting in
an unconstitutional way when we had to make the tough decision to
eliminate bus service," Ms. Reichanadter said.

Lora Hoagland, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said she
worries that the ruling opens the door for public school districts
to be fiscally irresponsible.

"Prior to the ruling, there were many districts that were talking
about discontinuing busing, and they were waiting for the ruling
to do so," she said.

Under state law, schools can discontinue transportation services
if they provide three years notice to the public or are granted a
waiver by the Indiana Department of Education.

In Franklin Township's case, the district switched to a pay-for-
service bus system that was later barred under state law. School
corporations that provide busing must do so free of charge.

Although the district brought back busing, Ms. Reichanadter said,
it will continue to face fiscal pressure -- like many others
across the state -- because of state-mandated property tax caps.
The school corporation is short $18 million a year because of the
caps, she said.

Local property tax revenues pay for school districts'
transportation and facilities costs.

"It will continue to be a struggle for us," Ms. Reichanadter said.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders Foundation, Inc. on March 25 disclosed that an
investor, who purchased shares of International Business Machines
Corp. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities
Laws by International Business Machines Corp. in connection with
certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between.

Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of
International Business Machines Corp. between April 17, 2014 and
October 17, 2014, have certain options and for certain investors
are short and strict deadlines running.  Deadline: May 01, 2015.
NYSE:IBM investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779-1554.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of
purchasers of International Business Machines Corp. common shares
between April 17, 2014 and October 17, 2014, that the defendants
violated Federal Securities Laws.

More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between April 17,
2014 and October 17, 2014 defendants issued allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or allegedly omitted adverse facts
regarding the true value of International Business Machines'
micro-chip manufacturing operations, known as its Microelectronics
business.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to record an
impairment in the value of International Business Machines'
Microelectronics business in conformity with applicable accounting
standards, which allegedly materially inflated International
Business Machines' earnings between April 17, 2014 and October 17,
2014 and rendered International Business Machines' 2014 earnings
guidance materially false and misleading.

The plaintiff says that Defendants' statements and/or omissions
between April 17, 2014 and October 17, 2014 caused NYSE:IBM's
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, reaching a
high of over $196 per share.

On October 20, 2014, International Business Machines Corp.
announced that International Business Machines Corp. and
GLOBALFOUNDRIES have signed an agreement under which
GLOBALFOUNDRIES plans to acquire International Business Machines'
global commercial semiconductor technology business, including
intellectual property, world-class technologists and technologies
related to IBM Microelectronics, subject to completion of
applicable regulatory reviews.  International Business Machines
Corp said that it will reflect a pre-tax charge of $4.7 billion in
its financial results for the third quarter of 2014, which
includes an asset impairment, estimated costs to sell the IBM
microelectronics business, and cash consideration to
GLOBALFOUNDRIES. Cash consideration of $1.5 billion is expected to
be paid to GLOBALFOUNDRIES by IBM over the next three years.

The plaintiff says that Defendants also updated International
Business Machines' 2014 guidance, stating that rather than the
Company's earlier guidance of $18 per share, operating earnings
per share for 2014 would decline between 2% and 4% compared to
$16.64 per share in 2013.

On March 24, 2015, NYSE:IBM shares closed at $163.00 per share.

Those who purchased shares of International Business Machines
Corp. have certain options and should contact the Shareholders
Foundation.


JAMBA JUICE: Settles Class Action Over "All Natural" Claim Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Lo, writing for The Daily Meal, reports that California
class-action lawsuit accusing Jamba Juice of having misled
consumers with the packaging of its smoothie kits, which
identified them as "all natural," has been settled, though the
company will not have to pay any damages, reports Food Navigator.

Both plaintiffs originally noted that the representation of the
products as "all natural" contributed to their decision to
purchase the smoothie kits.

The terms of the deal stipulate that Jamba Juice will have to stop
labeling the smoothie kits, which contain ascorbic acid, xanthan
gum, gelatin, and steviol glycosides as "all-natural" as of
March 31, and cover the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The lawsuit applies to Jamba Juice's smoothie kit line that
includes Mango-a-go-go, Strawberries Wild, Caribbean Passion,
Orange Dream Machine, and Razzmatazz.

However, the company will not have to admit liability, and will
not be responsible for paying damages to customers, because the
plaintiffs were reportedly unable to provide a method of
calculating the appropriate level of damages.


JIANGBO PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that
the Eleventh Circuit on March 25 upheld a lower court's dismissal
of claims against the former chief financial officer of Chinese
drugmaker Jiangbo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and a former auditing firm
for the company from a securities class action, finding the
plaintiffs' theory of fraud was too vague.

The suit, which accuses the company of securities fraud based on a
series of illegitimate public filings, seeks damages for hundreds
and possibly thousands of investors.  The plaintiffs say the
stock's value plummeted after the company refused to cooperate
with a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation,
leading to a suspension of trading by Nasdaq in 2011, less than a
year after the stock started trading there.

A district judge dismissed claims against U.S.-based ex-CFO Elsa
Sung and outside auditor Frazer LLC after concluding that the
plaintiffs' pleadings failed to provide sufficient evidence that
they acted knowingly or with severe recklessness to establish
scienter.

On March 25, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed
that decision, saying while the allegations against Sung and
Frazer might survive motions to dismiss under a less burdensome
pleading standard, the heightened pleading standard of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act imposes a high bar.

"The investors fail to allege a theory of fraud that is specific
enough in its scope or its connection to Ms. Sung or Frazer to
support a strong inference of scienter," said Circuit Judge Jill
Pryor, writing for the unanimous panel.

The plaintiffs had accused Ms. Sung and Frazer of misrepresenting
the company's cash balances and failing to disclose a $31 million
transfer to Shandong Hilead Biotechnology Co. Ltd., a company
controlled by Jiangbo chairman Cao Wubo, who was also named as a
defendant in the underlying case.

The investors claimed the lower court's ruling regarding Sung is
"fundamentally inconsistent" with the obligations and
responsibilities of a chief financial officer and Frazer's conduct
was essentially equal to no audit having been conducted.

But the panel wasn't persuaded that red flags about the company's
financial condition -- the SEC investigation and deficiencies in
Jiangbo's financial reporting -- would have made Jiangbo's fraud
obvious to Sung, saying the complaint doesn't explain how these
red flags should have put Sung on notice.

The appeals court noted that the mere existence of an SEC
investigation doesn't provide a court with an explanation of what
inferences might be drawn beyond a general suspicion of
wrongdoing, a limitation that also applies to the investors'
allegations of lax internal controls.

"With no explanation as to how these vaguely defined problems
would have affected financial reporting or how Sung would have
known about them, we cannot rely on them to add much weight to an
inference of scienter," Judge Pryor said.

An attorney for Ms. Sung, Louise McAlpin --
louise.mcalpin@hklaw.com -- of Holland & Knight LLP, told Law360
they are pleased with the panel's decision.

"As we pointed out in our briefs, and as the court below held, the
appellant had failed to state a cognizable claim for securities
fraud against our client," Ms. McAlpin said in an email.  "The
Eleventh Circuit agreed, thereby vindicating Ms. Sung from the
baseless claims against her."

As for Frazer, the panel found that the investors had likewise
failed to articulate a theory of the fraud with any particularity.

"There is no allegation that Frazer had extensive involvement with
the company beyond what was required to conduct a single audit,
and there is no connection between the fact of an SEC
investigation and Frazer's state of mind that a reviewing court
may reasonably draw on the face of the complaint," Judge Pryor
said.

Apart from Ms. Sung and Frazer, the district court entered default
judgments against Jiangbo, which was incorporated in Florida to
facilitate the U.S. stock offering, and several executives in
China, who never responded to the lawsuit.

Jiangbo purportedly made pharmaceuticals, as well as Chinese
herbal remedies, in Laiyang City, Shandong Province. In 2013, it
was the subject of a successful petition to push it into
involuntary Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings.

In addition to Judge Pryor, Circuit Judges Gerald Bard Tjoflat and
Peter T. Fay sat on the panel for the Eleventh Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ethan D. Wohl --
ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- of Wohl & Fruchter LLP and Brett M.
Amron -- bamron@bastamron.com -- of Bast Amron LLP.

Ms. Sung is represented by Tracy A. Nichols --
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com -- Louise McAlpin and Rebecca M. Plasencia
of Holland & Knight LLP.

Frazer is represented by Kathryn L. Smith --
katie.smith@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott & Kissane PA.

The case is Brophy et al v. Jiangbo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.,
case number 14-10213, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.


KAYE SCHOLER: Moves "Zahn" Suit to Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Zahn v. Kaye Scholer LLP, Case No.
152625/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02926-LGS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges 25 counts of claim against Defendant,
including unlawful discrimination, wrongful termination, unlawful
retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to investigate
the Plaintiff's complaint of discrimination in violation of the
federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica T. Kagan, Esq.
          THE KURLAND GROUP
          160 Broadway, East Building, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 253-6911
          Facsimile: (212) 614-2532
          E-mail: kagan@kurlandassociates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick W. Shea, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          75 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 318-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
          E-mail: patrickshea@paulhastings.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Defendants Opposed Motion to Expand Class Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. 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 have
filed their opposition to the motion to expand the class period in
the consolidated Fosbre and Combs cases.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to
the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed
their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period. On February 3, 2014, the judge agreed to
the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of
expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a
decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. On September 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to expand the class period without prejudice to
re-filing a similar motion. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the
Halliburton case on June 23, 2014, and, on October 3, 2014, the
parties stipulated to a case management schedule wherein they
agree to a briefing schedule on class certification.

On November 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the class
period and on January 9, 2015, defendants filed their opposition
to the motion. This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage
and management has determined that based on proceedings to date,
it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome
of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.
The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Held in Jefferies Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation 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 a hearing was
scheduled for March 25, 2015 to consider final approval of the
settlement in the class-action lawsuits by Jefferies Group's
stockholders.

"Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group LLC became our wholly-owned subsidiary," the Company said.
"The class actions named as defendants the Company, Jefferies
Group, certain members of our board of directors, certain members
of Jefferies board of directors and, in certain of the actions,
certain transaction-related subsidiaries."

"On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that agreement, which are
subject to court approval, provide for an aggregate payment of
$70.0 million to certain former equity holders of Jefferies Group,
other than the defendants and certain of their affiliates, along
with attorneys' fees to be determined and approved by the court;
we have accrued for this aggregate payment and attorneys' fees.
The agreement further provides that the settlement will be paid,
at the Company's option, in either cash or the Company's common
shares.

"If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all of the
class-action claims in Delaware, and release the claims brought in
New York. While the defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the defendants have
entered into the agreement solely to settle and resolve their
disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation and
to avoid further distractions to our management. A hearing has
been scheduled for March 25, 2015 to consider final approval of
the settlement as well as an award of legal fees and reimbursement
to plaintiffs' counsel in an aggregate amount not to exceed $27.5
million in fees and $1.1 million in expenses."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Parties in Sykes v. Mel Harris Drafting Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation 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 parties in
the case Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, are in the process
of drafting a formal settlement agreement consistent with the term
sheet.

"We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers are named as
defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel
Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the
Company said.  "The named defendants also include the Mel Harris
law firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law
firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its
employees.  The complaint alleges that default judgments obtained
by the law firm against approximately 124,000 individuals in New
York City Civil Court with respect to consumer debt purchased by
our subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New
York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged
only as to the law firm).  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated. We asserted that we were an
investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and
were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt
collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged
illegal debt collection activities."

"On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against our officers).
On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  Neither of the decisions issued by the Court
addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
permitted us to appeal the District Court's March 28, 2013 class
certification and the District Court granted a stay of the
proceedings pending the Court of Appeals' decision. On February
10, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the certification of the
class.

"On December 14, 2014, we and plaintiffs executed a binding term
sheet to settle the matter pursuant to which we expensed $3.2
million in the fourth quarter, which is in addition to the $20.0
million previously accrued for this matter and the $22.8 million
in deferred revenue.  The parties are in the process of drafting a
formal settlement agreement consistent with the term sheet.  The
settlement is subject to the District Court's approval."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Held in Haverhill Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation 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 a settlement
hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2015, in the case filed by
Haverhill Retirement System.

"On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System
("Haverhill")  filed an amended putative class action and
derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint") entitled Haverhill Retirement
System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") against Harbinger Capital
Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Harbinger
Funds"), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group,
Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as
Leucadia," the Company said.  "The Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase of
preferred securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that
were exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the
Harbinger Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the
special committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia."

"On April 1, 2014, the Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion
for expedited proceedings associated with the complaint originally
filed by Haverhill on March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended
complaint on May 2, 2014.  On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against Leucadia. With respect
to remedies sought, the amended complaint no longer sought an
injunction against installing Leucadia designees as Board members
and no longer sought rescission of Leucadia's right to select the
director class to which one of its designees would be appointed.
A settlement has been agreed by the parties that does not provide
for any payment by the Company and includes, among other things,
additional disclosures by Harbinger.   A term sheet reflecting the
settlement was signed on October 15, 2014.  On December 19, 2014,
final settlement papers were submitted to the Court.  A settlement
hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2015."


LIFE CARE: "Johnson" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnson, et al. v. Life Care
Centers of America, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02611, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02594-MMM-PLA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action against the Defendant to
recover for, among other things, failure to pay wages and overtime
compensation, failure to pay timely wages due at the end of
employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to provide legally-compliant meal and rest periods (or
compensation in lieu thereof), unfair business practices,
declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Care Centers of America, Inc., is in the healthcare business and
owns and operates 11 healthcare facilities in California primarily
caring for the aged, who are unable to care for themselves, who
also reside at the facilities, two of which are located in San
Diego County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Jay Belong, Esq.
          HOGUE AND BELONG APC
          430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 238-4720
          Facsimile: (619) 270-2534
          E-mail: tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Wilson, Esq.
          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          LITTLER AND MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
                  mrapoport@littler.com

               - and -

          John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          LITTLER AND MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 4 New Yorkers File Flooring Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lia Eustachewich, writing for The New York Post, reports that four
New Yorkers have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
Lumber Liquidators, the nation's largest hardwood flooring
company, over the cancer-causing formaldehyde in its Chinese-made
laminate flooring.

The suit, filed in Manhattan Federal Court, said the Virginia-
based company failed to warn its customers about the potentially
deadly chemical, found in the flooring glue, and even lied that it
was compliant with California Air Resources Board (CARB)
standards.

One plaintiff, Paul Said, plunked down $3,000 to have 1,000 square
feet of "Dream Home 8mm Nirvana French Oak" laminate flooring from
Lumber Liquidators installed throughout his Upper West Side home.
He purchased the flooring from the company's Hackensack, NJ store.
During installation, he suffered an asthma attack and was
hospitalized for a day -- even though he didn't have history of
asthma, despite working on construction sites, according to court
papers.

"He needs to use asthma medications and an inhaler whenever he is
inside his home," the suit said.  "His medical doctor told him
that dust from the flooring installation is causing the asthma."
The new suit comes the same week the Consumer Product Safety
Commission announced it is investigating the company for high
levels of formaldehyde in its products.

Other plaintiffs in the suit include a Bayonne, NJ resident and
Frank Graham, who lives in North Richland Hills, Texas.

Mr. Graham's wife, Melanie, developed respiratory problems after
350 square feet of the "Kensington Manor" flooring was installed
in the couple's master bedroom last December, the suit said.

Mr. Graham learned of the toxic gas in his floors after a stunning
CBS "60 Minutes" report revealed earlier in March that just one of
the 31 samples of Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring it tested
was compliant with formaldehyde emissions standards.

While some levels of formaldehyde are allowed in laminate
flooring, some samples emitted as much as 13 times the limit, the
show found.

"Lumber Liquidators is committed to providing our customers with
safe, high-quality products.  We intend to defend ourselves
vigorously against the claims asserted in this suit," a spokesman
for the company said.


MANPOWER US: Removes "Stimpson" Class Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Stimpson v. Manpower US Inc., et
al., Case No. 37-2015-00008432-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00829-GPC-JMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.  The complaint seeks
to collect unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4762
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

Defendant Manpower US Inc. is represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Faces Suit in New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Town & Country Jewelers, LLC, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. and
John Doe (1-10), Case No. 3:15-cv-02519-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., April 8,
2015) is brought under the federal Communications Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: Three Cases Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation 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 of the remaining
five cases, three were dismissed with prejudice in February 2015
pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiffs.

Seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, were involved in
litigation alleging that "inflated" captive reinsurance premiums
were paid in violation of RESPA. MGIC's settlement of this class
action litigation against it became final in October 2003. Since
December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a
number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.

Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts.  The complaints in all of the cases allege
various causes of action related to the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that
the lenders' captive reinsurers received excessive premiums in
relation to the risk assumed by those captives, thereby violating
RESPA. Seven of those cases had been dismissed prior to February
2015 without any further opportunity to appeal.

Of the remaining five cases, three were dismissed with prejudice
in February 2015 pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the
plaintiffs, and the remaining two cases are expected to be
dismissed with prejudice in connection with plaintiffs'
stipulations in such cases.

"There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA or that the outcome of any such litigation,
including the lawsuits mentioned, would not have a material
adverse effect on us," the Company said.


MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH: Kids-for-Cash Settlement Likely in Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Halpin, writing for The Standard Speaker, reports that
Infighting among defendants in the kids-for-cash class-action
lawsuit has endangered the $4.75 million settlement Robert J. Mr.
Powell reached earlier in March with juveniles improperly jailed
in a detention center he co-owned.

Powell, a 55-year-old former Drums-based lawyer, admitted to
bribing two judges who funneled juveniles to his detention center
and reached the settlement with the child victims March 10,
seemingly resolving the 6-year-old case.

But the owners and operators of three involved detention centers
-- Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp., PA Child Care LLC and
Western PA Child Care LLC -- filed a brief opposing the
settlement, saying the agreement Powell reached with the
plaintiffs violates an agreement he reached with them, potentially
exposing the facilities to further litigation.

In 2013, the detention centers reached a $2.5 million settlement
with the plaintiffs.

"Their argument is that it might lead to more damages because then
the concept is open that we may make another claim against the
detention centers," plaintiff's attorney Michael J. Cefalo said.
"But in all honesty, I think that those agreements have been
locked down, and I think they're solidified as to what the terms
are."

In the brief, defense attorney Bernard M. Schneider alleged the
proposed Powell settlement "encourages" Mr. Powell to continue
litigation against the detention centers for the benefit of the
plaintiffs.  The facilities on March 24 filed a motion calling for
enforcement of a previous settlement agreement or to suspend their
obligations -- they are required to pay $1.9 million this year.

In a letter to Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo dated
on March 23, plaintiffs' attorney David S. Senoff requested an in-
person status conference, citing the detention centers' concern
that the settlement is a breach of the settlement they previously
reached.

"It is now evident that both (Powell) and the (detention centers)
are attempting to use the various class action settlements in
these matters as leverage to gain a litigation advantage in their
three currently pending cases against one another," Mr. Senoff
wrote.

Mr. Cefalo said the recent moves by the defense have muddied the
waters in an already convoluted case, but that he remained
confident the victims would get what they deserve.

"We're all confident on the plaintiff's side that it will be
resolved finally and conclusively in very short order," Mr. Cefalo
said.

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

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

Mr. Powell served an 18-month prison sentence after admitting he
paid more than $700,000 in bribes to former Luzerne County Judges
Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, who shipped
children to his facility.  Ciavarella is serving 28 years in
federal prison, while Conahan is imprisoned for 17« years.

Under Mr. Powell's proposed settlement, the total monetary damages
might increase from $4.75 million, depending on his net worth as
of Dec. 21, 2016, or 30 days after two legal actions Powell is
involved in are settled and he receives all fees and expenses
which he is awarded.

One of those actions is the settlement of Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko
Petroleum Corp., in which Powell represented plaintiffs in an
environmental contamination case involving a Kerr-McGee creosote
plant near Avoca.

The other legal action concerns dueling lawsuits that Mr. Powell
and his former business partner Gregory Zappala filed against each
other.

In February, Judge Caputo stayed two lawsuits between Messrs.
Powell and Zappala, pending settlement negotiations between them.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: First Trial for Direct Purchaser Began March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, 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 first trial for
the direct purchaser class action is scheduled to begin on March
31, 2015.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result
of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products
from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class
currently claims damages from all of the defendants named in the
lawsuit of up to approximately $867 million which amount may be
reduced further by the value of claims made by plaintiffs that opt
out of the class. Any damages actually awarded at trial are
subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of
damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been
specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and
injunctive relief against future violations.

In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011,
the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect
purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants'
motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the
direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought
permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014,
and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014. The Company has appealed the
District Court's certification order to the United States Supreme
Court; this appeal is pending. Fact discovery in almost all cases
is now complete and, in August 2014, the Company and other
defendants filed motions for summary judgment against the direct
purchaser class. In February 2015, the Court denied all summary
judgment motions. The first trial (for the direct purchaser class
action) was scheduled to begin on March 31, 2015.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Deal in Hi! Neighbor Case Not Yet Finalized
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Canadian Class action by Hi! Neighbor Floor
Covering Co. Limited has not yet been finalized, Mohawk
Industries, 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.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company
denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously
defend itself. The Company has reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Canadian actions, but the settlement has not yet
been finalized.


MYER: Mark Elliott Launches Class Action Over Profit Downgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that serial class action litigant Mark Elliott, who is now
taking on retail giant Myer, says he is just trying to help
punters from unfairly losing their money.

Despite being thrown out of the Victorian Court of Appeal over a
class action against Treasury Wine Estates in February, the former
Minter Ellison partner and Computershare executive let corporate
Australia know he was back on March 26 after launching a class
action against Myer over a recent profit downgrade which sent
their share price tumbling.

But in an emailed response to The Australian Financial Review,
Mr. Elliott took exception to his class actions being described as
a "business model".

"There is no business model," he wrote.  "I am just trying to help
the market work more efficiently so the punters don't lose their
money."

Mr. Elliott has brought class actions against Treasury, Leighton
Holdings, Banksia Securities and Worley Parsons through his
private company Melbourne City Investments (MCI).  But in a
scathing 2 to 1 majority decision in February, the Victorian Court
of Appeal dismissed Mr. Elliott's legal action as bringing the
court process into disrepute by trying to intimidate large
companies with deep pockets into reaching a settlement.
Mr. Elliott is seeking leave to appeal that decision to the High
Court.

Mr. Elliott has been accused in previous court cases of trawling
public companies and buying small parcels of shares with a view to
waiting for failures in market disclosure.  MCI had bought about
$700 of shares in Treasury, Leighton and Worley Parsons and
Mr. Elliott, the sole shareholder and director of MCI, acted for
MCI in each of those proceedings.

"Investors are feverishly chasing yield as bank deposits are so
disappointing," Mr. Elliott said.  "If investors unwittingly buy
shares at 'inflated' prices because the market is not fully
informed, then buyers will unfairly lose their capital to
sellers".

According to court documents, MCI bought 400 shares in Myer on
November 14 last year, paying $1.78 a share.  The Myer writ was
filed by Portfolio Law on behalf of MCI and has been drafted by
prominent barrister Norman O'Bryan.

When Myer's 2014 results were released, chief executive Bernie
Brookes reassured investors the department chain would return to
profit growth for the first time in five years, and net profits
would exceed $98.5 million.  But new CEO Richard Umbers warned
underlying net profit was expected to fall to between $75 million
and $80 million this year, well below market forecasts of about
$90 million.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Concussion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that The National
Hockey League on March 25 failed to persuade a Minnesota federal
judge to dismiss the proposed class action against it by former
players alleging that the league never warned them about the
serious long-term effects of concussive blows, with the court
finding that they had sufficiently pled their claims.

U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson denied the NHL's motion to
dismiss the suit by former players, including David Christian, who
played with teams including the Chicago Blackhawks, finding that
the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged their claims that the NHL
had acted to hide the impacts of concussions.

The league had argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs had
not sufficiently pled their claims for fraudulent concealment.
But Judge Nelson found that the plaintiffs had made detailed
enough allegations that referred to the league's alleged
collection of game injury reports, analysis of injury data and
enlistment of medical consultants for those claims to move
forward.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
the NHL took affirmative actions to conceal the dangers of
concussions, subconcussive impacts and head trauma; that the NHL
was silent when confronted with a duty to disclose such
information; and that the fact that some information is publicly
available does not foreclose a finding of concealment,"
Judge Nelson wrote in her opinion.

The NHL had also argued that the players' claims are time-barred
because they accrued from the time they suffered their respective
injuries, but Judge Nelson disagreed.  She found that since the
injuries that the plaintiffs are suing over were not "discrete
head injuries" but the "increased risk and development of
permanent degenerative brain diseases that resulted from the
repeated head injuries," it is not obvious whether the statute of
limitations on those claims has run.

"We are pleased the court has confirmed the validity of our claims
and found the NHL's arguments insufficient to warrant dismissal of
this case," the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel in the litigation said
in a statement on March 25.  "It is time for the NHL to be held
accountable for deliberately ignoring and concealing the risks of
repeated head impacts, and finally provide security and care to
retired players whom the league has depended on for its success."

The retired hockey players, like the former football players in
the separate concussion litigation against the National Football
League, had accused the hockey league of hiding its knowledge
about the connection between repeated blows to the head and long-
term cognitive ailments, including chronic traumatic
encephalopathy.

The former players filed their consolidated complaint in October

The players are represented by Stuart A. Davidson --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Andrew G. Slutkin -- aslutkin@mdattorney.com -- Andrew C. White --
awhite@mdattorney.com -- William N. Sinclair, Steven D. Silverman
and Joseph F. Murphy Jr. of Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White LLC
and Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed PLLP, among others.

The NHL is represented by John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com
-- Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Matthew M.
Martino, Jessica Davidson Miller and James A. Keyte --
james.keyte@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Joseph Baumgarten -- jbaumgarten@proskauer.com -- and Adam M.
Lupion of Proskauer Rose LLP and by Dan Connolly --
daniel.connolly@FaegreBD.com -- Joe Price, Linda Svitak and Aaron
Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

The case is In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion
Injury Litigation, case number MDL 2551, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.


NELNET INC: "Yaakov" Settlement Finalized and Received Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, 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 settlement agreement
in principle in the case, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v.
Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, was finalized and received court approval
on January 26, 2015.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was filed
in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint alleged that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes
to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were not the result of
express invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff and did
not include certain opt out language. The complaint also alleged
that such faxes violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes. The complaint further alleged that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations. The complaint sought to establish a class action. On
January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without admitting
any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit,
including potential class action claims, for payment of an
immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle was
finalized and received court approval on January 26, 2015.


NELNET INC: "Zaw" Case Settlement Finalized and Received Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, 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 settlement agreement
in principle in the case, Than Zaw v. Nelnet, Inc., was finalized
and received court approval on November 13, 2014.

On January 18, 2013, a Third Amended Complaint was served on
Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet
(erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business
Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Contra Costa County. The case was subsequently moved to the U.S.
Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit was originally instituted on December 30, 2010, and
alleged that Nelnet violated the California Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in its interactions with the plaintiff, a California
resident. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint added additional
allegations claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the
California Penal Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone
calls to the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, and sought
$5,000 in statutory damages per alleged violation. The Third
Amended Complaint further alleged that Nelnet improperly recorded
telephone calls to other California residents without such
persons' consent, and sought to establish a class action with
respect to the California Section 632 claim. On October 16, 2013,
Nelnet and the named plaintiff reached an agreement in principle
whereby Nelnet would, without admitting any wrongdoing or
liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit, including potential
class action claims, for payment of an immaterial amount. The
settlement agreement in principle was finalized and received court
approval on November 13, 2014.


NELNET INC: Court Has Not Established Class in "Keating" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, 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 Ohio District Court
has not established, recognized, or certified a class in the case,
Grant Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's,
CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on
Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating Defendants"), in connection
with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the U.S. Federal District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court"). The
lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and alleges
that the Keating Defendants sent an advertising text message to
the named plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic telephone
dialing system, and without the plaintiff's express consent. The
complaint also alleges that this text message violated the TCPA,
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful
violation. The complaint further alleges that the Keating
Defendants sent putative class members similar text messages using
an automatic telephone dialing system, without such purported
class members' consent. The complaint seeks to establish a class
action.

On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted
the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the case. On September 8, 2014, the named plaintiff filed an
appeal brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 22,
2014, the Keating Defendants filed a responsive brief. As of the
filing date of Form 10-K report, the Ohio District Court has not
established, recognized, or certified a class. The Keating
Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in
this lawsuit.


NEUTROGENA CORP: Judge Tosses Some Claims in Sunscreen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that
the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action accusing Neutrogena
Corp. of misleading consumers about the effectiveness of several
"high sun protection factor" sunscreens isn't entitled to an
injunction because the company has already removed the alleged
misstatements from its packaging, a Florida federal judge ruled on
March 25.

U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke said plaintiff Nathan Dapeer
couldn't allege any threat of future harm because Neutrogena
removed the "water + sun barrier" claim from labels on its Beach
Defense line of sunscreens.  While the judge declined to dismiss
Mr. Dapeer's claims that the high-SPF products don't provide
greater sun protection than cheaper products, she cautioned the
plaintiff not to read too much into her decision.

"Plaintiff should not place a great amount of faith in my decision
to allow his high SPF claims to proceed," Judge Cooke said.
"There remain a great number of questions regarding the viability
of plaintiff's claims and the relief he seeks that will not be as
easily overlooked as this case proceeds."

Neutrogena had argued in its motion to dismiss that Mr. Dapeer
lacked standing to sue over many of the products at issue in the
case because he'd never actually purchased them, and the judge
agreed.

Mr. Dapeer had purchased Neutrogena's Ultra Sheer Body Mist SPF 30
and Beach Defense Broad Spectrum SPF 70 Lotion but brought claims
against all Neutrogena Beach Defense sunscreens, as well as all
the company's other sunscreens with an SPF of more than 50,
according to the March 25 order.

Judge Cooke dismissed all of Mr. Dapeer's claims relating to
products he never bought, noting that the Eleventh Circuit's
prevailing case law says at least one named plaintiff has to be
able to establish standing for each subclaim, and as the only
named plaintiff in the case, Mr. Dapeer can't do so.

However, the judge hesitantly rejected Neutrogena's argument that
Mr. Dapeer's high-SPF claims were preempted because they attempted
to impose labeling requirements different from those handed down
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. Dapeer argued otherwise, claiming that he was actually just
attempting to stop Neutrogena from suggesting to consumers that a
higher SPF provides greater protection from the sun's ultraviolet
radiation.

Judge Cooke accepted that argument and said that if Mr. Dapeer is
ultimately successful, Neutrogena's labeling requirements would
"technically" remain unchanged.

Neutrogena also attempted to dismiss the high-SPF claims by
arguing that since the FDA is currently evaluating the benefits of
sunscreens with an SPF of 50 or higher, the court's decision in
the case could result in inconsistent rulings.  But the judge
disagreed, stating that Mr. Dapeer's claims center around
Neutrogena's marketing rather than SPF standards.

Andrea Gold, an attorney for Mr. Dapeer, told Law360 she was
pleased with the decision.

"We will continue to work hard to obtain redress for the thousands
of sunscreen consumers who spend their hard-earned money to buy
sunscreens that do not provide the so-called superior protection
that Neutrogena charges them extra for," Mr. Gold said.

Mr. Dapeer is represented by Jason Henry Alperstein --
alperstein@kolawyers.com -- Scott Adam Edelsberg --
edelsberg@kolawyers.com -- Jeffrey Miles Ostrow and Jonathan Marc
Streisfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA and Andrea R. Gold and Hassan
A. Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Neutrogena is represented by Jaclyn Blankenship and Amy J.
Laurendeau of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Samuel Alberto Danon and
Abigail M. Lyle of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The case is Nathan Dapeer v. Neutrogena Corp., case number 14-cv-
22113, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Notice to Class Members in "Davida" Case Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, 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 Court approved
the form of the notice to be sent to the class members in the
case, Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC.

On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service
employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an
hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on
his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees. In the interim since the filing of the
litigation, 18 additional former employees of the Company have
joined the case.

On January 6, 2015, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
"conditionally" certify the class of fluid service technicians
that have worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids over the past three
years (approximately 675 individuals), and on February 17, 2015,
the Court approved the form of the notice to be sent to the class
members.  In order to participate in the litigation, these
employees and former employees must "opt-in" to the case within
sixty days of notification.

"Notwithstanding, the conditional certification of the class, we
have a number of defenses we can assert against these claims;
including a request to decertify the class and that these
employee's are properly classified as exempt employees. Until the
number of plaintiffs joining the case has been determined and
their individual work histories assessed, a determination of our
potential liability exposure cannot be determined. We have
retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and
intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Conditional Cert. Bid Filed in "Christiansen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, 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 plaintiff filed
a motion to conditionally certify a class in the case Christiansen
v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC.

On November 11, 2014, Christiansen filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties
for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify him as an
employee rather than an independent contractor; properly classify
its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and,
pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime) and seeks damages
and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to pay him and the
others in the proposed class on an hourly basis (including
overtime). Since the filing of this lawsuit, five additional
plaintiffs have joined the proceedings. The plaintiff seeks
recovery on his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of
similarly situated individuals and on February 2, 2015, filed a
motion to conditionally certify such a class.

"We have retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature,
and intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company
said.


NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation 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 five of the eight
defendants in a class action have reached court approved
settlements with the plaintiffs.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs
allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, eight
steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Five of the eight
defendants have reached court approved settlements with the
plaintiffs.

"Although we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend against them, we cannot at this time
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of
Nucor's potential exposure. Nucor has not recorded any reserves or
contingencies related to this legal matter," the Company said.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss and Discovery Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 a hearing
to consider the motions to dismiss putative class actions and the
plaintiffs' request to expedite discovery was scheduled for
February 27, 2015.

Four putative class actions have been filed by purported
stockholders of Aviv against Aviv, its directors, the Company and
Merger Sub challenging the Merger. The lawsuits seek injunctive
relief preventing the parties from consummating the Merger,
rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the
class upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants,
compensatory damages, and litigation costs including attorneys'
fees. The four cases have been transferred to the Business and
Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court, Baltimore
City, Maryland. The plaintiffs in each case amended their
complaints to add allegations that the disclosures in the Form S-4
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5,
2015 in connection with the Merger, are inadequate to allow Aviv
shareholders to make an informed decision whether to approve the
Merger.

On January 28, 2015, the court entered a stipulated consolidation
order consolidating the four lawsuits into a single proceeding
styled In re Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-
14-006352. On February 6, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation
providing that the Second Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff
Andrew Wolf shall serve as the operative consolidated complaint.
On the same date, (1) Aviv, the Aviv Partnership and the Aviv
directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
(2) the Company, Merger Sub and the Omega Operating Partnership
separately moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint as to them.
The plaintiffs have moved to expedite the discovery period. A
hearing to consider the motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs'
request to expedite discovery has been scheduled for February 27,
2015.


ORTHOTOUCH: Investors Join Class Suit Over Scheme of Arrangement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Barry, writing for Moneyweb, reports that The Highveld
Syndications Action Group (HSAG) says it has applied to have the
Orthotouch Scheme of Arrangement rescinded on the grounds that it
does not comply with the Companies Act.

The South Gauteng High Court sanctioned the new Orthotouch Scheme
in November last year, effectively restructuring the interest
payments of the 18 300 investors in the Highveld Syndications (HS)
Companies -- eight different property syndication schemes.

Orthotouch, a property management company headed by Nic Georgiou,
bought properties in the HS Companies in 2011 on the condition
that it would pay investors for the properties over five years.

However, investors' monthly interest payments began drying up
until late last year Orthotouch moved to restructure the business
in order to sustain it in the longer term, according to
Orthotouch, and equitably address the claims and interests of
creditors.

As a means to recover their historical investments in the HS
Companies, investors were given a choice between three
alternatives.  By accepting any one or a combination of the
alternatives investors made an acceptance in "full and final
settlement" of all their claims, according to a synopsis of the
arrangement.

Investors were given an opportunity to vote and accept or decline
the scheme of arrangement at a meeting on November 12.

Declining the arrangement, investors were told, would lead to the
liquidation of Orthotouch, leaving them with "a liquidation
dividend of only some 13,64 cents in the rand, which will become
payable many years from now, upon the conclusion of the
liquidation process and with no payment of any income to the HS
Investors during that period".

Not enough votes

Theron & Partners, a Stellenbosch-based law firm that is also
instrumental in the HSAG bringing the class action application on
behalf of HS investors, says it has applied to either be given
leave to appeal the order sanctioning the scheme of arrangement,
or have it set aside.

The application will be heard on May 19 in the South Gauteng High
Court.

The law firm bases this application on a number of grounds,
including the fact that a large number of investors did not
receive notice of the meeting held on November 12 and therefore
were not present for the vote.

According to Jacques Theron, investors who were present at the
meeting requested that the voting be postponed but were ignored by
meeting chair, Derek Cohen.

In addition to the questionable voting process, Mr. Theron
maintains that Orthotouch was under an obligation to bring certain
material information before the court (such as the class action
application being brought by the HSAG) when applying for the
scheme to be sanctioned, as this may have influenced the court's
ultimate decision.

Mr. Theron says the court order should never have been granted,
based on the fact that the scheme of arrangement is "flawed in
several respects".

"It is true that the scheme of arrangement, on the face of it,
purports to thwart the class action.  It is therefore prudent to
approach the court to set aside the order sanctioning the scheme
of arrangement insofar as it can be interpreted to be binding on
individual investors," Mr. Theron explains.

Roughly 7 000 investors have joined the class action application
against the HS Companies, although they have not all paid the R1
000 registration fee to participate in the action.


PALM-AIRE RESORT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Friday, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Palm-aire Resort Owners Association, Inc. and Aspen
National Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aspen National Collections, Case
No. 0:15-cv-60774-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER, PA
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


PAYPAL INC: Judge Rejects $3.2MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on March 25 rejected a settlement to resolve a
putative class action brought by PayPal Inc. customers claiming
the online payments processor improperly placed holds on funds in
their accounts, saying there were obvious deficiencies in the
proposed settlement.

Plaintiffs allege that PayPal placed holds or reserves on funds
held in their accounts without notice and when there was no
legitimate reason to do so, which customers say are violations of
PayPal's customer agreement, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
PayPal's 2004 class settlement in a similar action.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong had denied a previous
motion for approval of a $1.4 million settlement in February 2014,
saying the class definition was overbroad and questioned the
benefit of the settlement to class members as well as the scope of
the claims released.

The revised settlement agreement, submitted for approval last
August, called for the creation of two classes, an injunctive
relief class made up of approximately 100 million PayPal account
holders and a claims relief class made up of about 10.5 million
account holders, according to court documents.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members would receive
$3.2 million without the release of claims for damages for certain
class members.  Plaintiffs also asked for provisional
certification of the two classes.

Judge Armstrong said that although the revised deal addressed a
number of her concerns, there were still a number of problems with
it and denied approval.

"Because of these deficiencies, the court is not persuaded that
the settlement would ultimately pass muster as 'fair, reasonable
and adequate' . . .  particularly under heightened scrutiny to
which pre-certification settlements are subject," the judge wrote
in the order.  "In light of this decision, the court need not
reach plaintiffs' remaining request to conditionally certify a
settlement class."

The judge questioned whether the court could settle the case,
given plaintiffs' allegations that PayPal violated the 2004
settlement in In re: PayPal Litigation (Comb).

"The court has concerns regarding whether it is appropriate for
plaintiffs to allege -- or the parties to settle -- a claim based
on a breach of the Comb settlement agreement, particularly where,
as here, the settlement agreement contemplates that disputes over
the settlement will be raised in that action," Judge Armstrong
wrote.

In addition, the judge said the parties did not explain why the
classes included PayPal account holders since 2006 given that the
disputed conduct began in 2008.

PayPal, a unit of eBay Inc., is expected to be spun off from the
online auction giant later this year.

The plaintiffs are represented by Garrett Skelly of Garrett Skelly
Attorney At Law, Mark N. Todzo of Lexington Law Group and Jeffrey
A. Leon of Quantum Legal LLC.

PayPal is represented by Benjamin Taylor Potter --
bpotter@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Wesley Michael Griffith and David
Wesley Moon of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti
-- simonetti@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price LLP and George
Stephen Azadian of The Mathews Law Group.

The case is Moises Zepeda v. Paypal Inc., case number 4:10-cv-
02500, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


PDC ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $37.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that after years
of intense litigation, a case pitting PDC Energy against a group
of investors who claimed they were "duped" into approving a cash-
out merger of their interests in 12 O&G limited partnerships for a
fraction of their true value was finally resolved.

A class composed of more than 7,000 limited partners who had
invested in the O&G limited partnerships sponsored by PDC Energy
(formerly Petroleum Development Corp.) recently succeeded in
reaching a multimillion-dollar settlement with the Colorado-based
independent O&G company.  The law firms of Susman Godfrey and co-
counsel Foley, Bezek, Behle & Curtis and Goode Wildman recently
obtained final approval for a $37.5 million class action
settlement in Schulein v. Petroleum Development.

Susman Godfrey and its co-counsel represented a nationwide class
of limited partners who invested millions of dollars in limited
drilling partnerships managed by PDC Energy, a large, publicly
traded domestic oil company.

William R. Merrill -- bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com -- a partner with
Susman Godfrey's Houston office, said, "The plaintiffs in the case
alleged they were not paid fair value for their limited
partnership's interests when they were cashed out of their
investments as a result of a series of mergers."

On behalf of its clients, Susman Godfrey and its co-counsel filed
a class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Central
District of California against defendants PDC Energy and DP 2004
Merger Sub LLC, for violations of federal securities laws and for
breach of fiduciary duty.

According to the plaintiffs' pleadings, the plaintiffs class
collectively invested $294 million in 12 limited partnerships.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, in an effort to
reacquire the partnership interests, "duped" the plaintiffs into
approving a cash-out merger.  In addition, the plaintiffs alleged
that the proxy materials issued by defendants, gaining approval of
the mergers, were false and misleading.  The plaintiffs further
stated that as a result of defendants' such actions, the
plaintiffs agreed to an artificially low cash-out merger price.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the proxies misrepresented or
omitted material information about the value of oil and gas
reserves, and material information about the partnerships'
financing structure.  A majority of investors approved the
mergers, and defendant PDC paid $102 million for the partnership
interests, according to the plaintiffs' pleadings.

"After nearly three years of litigation, the parties reached a
settlement, which was preliminarily approved last December and
granted final approval recently by the court," Mr. Merrill said.

In December 2014, the court preliminarily approved the class
action settlement.  On March 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their
motion for final approval of class action settlement and plan of
allocation, and the defendants did not oppose the motion.  The
court recently signed the order granting final approval of class
settlement and awarding attorney fees and expenses.

"We are very pleased with the settlement," said Susman Godfrey
partner Marc Seltzer -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

"The settlement was reached on the eve of trial following intense
litigation of many challenging legal and factual issues."

The plaintiffs were represented by the following Susman Godfrey
attorneys: Merrill, Seltzer, James Southwick --
jsouthwick@susmangodfrey.com -- Davida Brook and Krysta Kauble
Pachman.  In addition, Tom Foley -- tfoley@foleybezek.com -- of
Foley, Bezek, Behle & Curtis and John Stillman of Goode Wildman
represented the plaintiffs.

The defendants were represented by the following Irell & Manella
attorneys: David Siegel -- dsiegel@irell.com -- Charles Elder --
celder@irell.com -- Melissa R. McCormick -- mmccormick@irell.com
-- Bruce Wessel, Caleb Bartel, Holley C. Horrell, and Colin Roth.

Mr. Elder, counsel at Irell & Manella's Los Angeles office,
declined to comment about the case.


PFIZER INC: $400MM Deal in Principle Reached in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 parties in a
class action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
matter for $400 million.

"In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer and several of our current and former officers," the
Company said. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false
statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail
to disclose material information concerning the alleged off-label
promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to
physicians to promote the sale of those products and government
investigations related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount. In March 2012, the court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the
U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and
January 23, 2009 and were damaged as a result of the decline in
the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the
claimed violations. In January 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the matter for $400 million. The
agreement is subject to court approval and other conditions.


PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 motions to
dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining
claims.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing
certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation
settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect
to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for
itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative
class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the
end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Neurontin Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 District
Court granted final approval of the settlement related to the
class action over Neurontin.

"A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have
been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging
claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin," the
Company said. "The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek
to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting
of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee
benefit plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly
was used for indications other than those included in the product
labeling approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending
in federal courts, including individual actions as well as
purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-
1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts."

In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions
by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer
proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the
District Court for further consideration, including
reconsideration of class certification.

In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for
certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision
reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class
action. In April 2014, we and the attorneys for the proposed class
representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual
actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
third-party payer purported class action, subject to court
approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party
payers, for an aggregate of $325 million. In November 2014, the
District Court granted final approval of the settlement.
Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to dismiss with prejudice all
Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers, including the purported
statewide consumer class actions in California and Illinois. Some
counsel have advised that certain plaintiffs can no longer be
located.


PFIZER INC: MDL Plaintiffs Appealed Lipitor Claims Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 MDL plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's decision to dismiss their claims
relating to Lipitor to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among
others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the
actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of
Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from
March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly
unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay
in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant
to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation
involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a
generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying
dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or
enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during
the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed
against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among
others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that
are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions. These various actions have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed the
claims by direct purchasers. In October 2014, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs: (i) filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave
to amend their complaint and (ii) appealed the District Court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. In October and November 2014, the District Court
dismissed the claims of all other MDL plaintiffs, who subsequently
appealed in November and December 2014 the District Court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


PFIZER INC: Court Granted Motions to Consolidate Celebrex Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 District
Court has granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the
direct purchaser and end-payor cases related to Celebrex.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to
Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or
multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly
purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of,
Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation
of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs
allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of
federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer
protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact
of sham litigation through settlement activity that further
delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court
granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct
purchaser and end-payor cases, and consolidation will be sought
for cases in accordance with that order.


PFIZER INC: Time to File Certiorari Petition Expired
----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., said in an exhibit to 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 plaintiff's time
to file a petition for certiorari requesting a review by the U.S.
Supreme Court expired in September 2014 in the case related to
Bapineuzumab.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as
successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The
complaint alleged that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through
July 2008 and sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of
the putative class.

In February 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. In April 2013,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the District
Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the
complaint. The plaintiff's time to file a petition for certiorari
requesting a review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired in September
2014.


POKERSTARS: Illinois Judge Dismisses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for FlushDraw, reports that in a matching
pair of legal decisions handed down by Southern District of
Illinois judge David R. Herndon on March 24, nearly identical
class-action lawsuits against PokerStars, Full Tilt, the pre-2011
parent companies of those sites, and a handful of members of the
old Team Full Tilt, have been dismissed.

Attorney Bill Niehoff of the Belleville, IL (near St. Louis, MO)
legal firm of Mathis, Marifian & Richter, represented PokerStars
and Full Tilt against the class-action suit brought against the
former US-facing sites.

The lawsuits filed on behalf of two (later four) plaintiffs,
sought to extract millions in trebled damages under the terms of
the antiquated, 19th-century Illinois Loss Recovery Act (LRA), an
anti-gambling statute that allowed third parties to sue for
recovery of illegal gambling losses on behalf of other primary
losers, given that the primary loser doesn't file his own claim
within six months of the illegal gambling activity.

In siding with PokerStars and Full Tilt, however, Judge Herndon
agreed with the defendants on several different points, most
notably by confirming that Stars and Tilt weren't the "winners" in
the poker games in question.  Instead, the sites served as third-
party service providers for a fixed fee, the rake charged at the
tables.

Wrote Judge Herndon, citing an application of the law from a case
way back in 1894, Ranney v. Flinn:

"It is the winner, not the keeper of the house, who is liable to
respond to the loser, or if he does not sue within six months, to
whoever may sue."

Judge Herndon further clarified that rake charged does not equal
"winnings," writing approximately the same text within both recent
decisions.  According to Herndon, as taken from the PokerStars-
related case:

"Defendants [] argue that the assertion that they derived profits
from collecting commissions in the form of 'rake' or 'take' is not
probative of whether defendants can be construed to be 'winners.'
Plaintiffs counter that they have adequately alleged that
defendants are winners in that the second amended complaint
alleges that defendants won money directly from Illinois gamblers
in the form of a 'rake' from the games.  Specifically, plaintiffs
allege '[t]he Defendants, acting in concert, won money from
Illinois gamblers by taking a percentage of the amount bet, won or
lost as the 'rake,' 'take out,' or commission for hosting the
games.' [citation] The Court agrees with defendants and finds that
the plaintiffs have not alleged winners sufficiently to withstand
the motion to dismiss."

Previously, the plaintiffs had seen a part of their case against
PokerStars dismissed for lack of cause, and were ordered to file
an amended complaint that met the needs of the LRA.  At the same
time, the plaintiffs in the Full Tilt case were given leave to
file an amended complaint in an attempt to address the same legal
shortcomings.

Judge Herndon, however, wrote in the decisions for both cases that
the revised complaints still failed to meet the needed legal
thresholds, including failing to cite any specific "winning
players" and dates on which the alleged losses occurred.

Instead, a bombastic and general claim as made in first amended
complaint in both cases illustrated the filing attorney's intended
reach, before being dealt with finality in the decisions.  As
referred to by Judge Herndon:

"That complaint purported to be a class action for 'hundreds of
thousands -- possibly millions -- of Illinois poker players who
lost money to PokerStars and whose close relatives are entitled to
tripled recovery of said losses in accordance with 720 ILCS 5/28-
8.'"

The two cases filed against Stars and Tilt were Kelly Sonnenberg
v. Isai Scheinberg, et. al. (the PokerStars case) and Judy Fahrner
v. Ray Bitar, et. al. (the Full Tilt case).  Both individual and
corporate defendants were named in both cases, including Black
Friday PokerStars co-defendants (along with Scheinberg) Nelson
Burtnick and Paul Tate.  On the Full Tilt side, that attempted
class action also named several prominent members of the old Team
Full Tilt, including Howard Lederer, Jennifer Harmon-Traniello and
Erik Seidel.

Secondary plaintiffs, relatives to the original plaintiffs, were
added in 2014 in an attempt to make the case pass muster.
Kelly Sonnenberg's son Casey was added to the Stars complaint;
Casey actually played on Stars before Black Friday, but never
submitted claims of specific losses in connection with the case.
Similarly, co-plaintiff Daniel Farhner was added after the fact in
the Full Tilt-targeting case.

In any event, Judge Herndon ruled that the cases would have had to
have been filed within six months of 2011's Black Friday, the last
possible date on which any of the plaintiffs could have played on
the former US-facing site.  Since the Full Tilt action was filed
in July of 2012 and the Stars action a month later (both cases
were removed in 2013 to Herndon's court), he ruled that any
claims, even if legitimate on all other grounds, were
automatically time-barred.

The twin decisions represent another failure by Illinois class-
action attorneys to extract large settlements from online firms
based on the 19th-century, third-party recovery law.  Another
Illinois attorney, Chris Langone, lost similar actions based on
the LRA that he had brought against daily fantasy sports sites
FanDuel and DraftDay.

Gaming attorney A. Jeff Ifrah, who represented PokerStars and Full
Tilt's interests in the poker-related cases, issued a self-
congratulatory presser regarding the decisions.  Said Mr. Ifrah,
"This is a major victory for PokerStars and instructive for other
online gaming providers facing similar attacks from plaintiffs
seeking unjust windfalls.  Through three amended filings by the
plaintiffs -- alleging many new claims -- we clearly proved that
the plaintiffs' cases lacked any merit."


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Engel" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Partnership unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf
of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on
behalf of the Partnership in the 162nd Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as
defendants the General Partner, the members of the General
Partner's board of directors, ETP, Energy Transfer Partners GP,
LP, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., and, as a nominal party, the
Partnership. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the General
Partner's directors breached duties to the Partnership and the
Partnership's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair
process and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the
General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and
(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Yeager" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Coggia" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Blankman" ETP Merger Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit").
The allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not
allege any derivative claims and includes the Partnership as a
defendant rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one
of the General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was named
in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the
General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
unitholders by failing to maximize the value of the Partnership,
failing to properly value the Partnership, and ignoring conflicts
of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-
director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same
relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Bazini" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Hinnau" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Weaver" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Dieckman" ETP Merger Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the
Dieckman Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces "Berlin" ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported Partnership
unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas,
Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. "We cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership and the
other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions," the Company said.


REGENCY ENERGY: Faces PVR Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 five putative class
action lawsuits challenging the PVR Partners, L.P. acquisition are
currently pending. All of the cases name PVR, PVR GP and the then-
incumbent directors of PVR GP, as well as the Partnership and the
General Partner (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as
defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported
unitholder of PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative
class consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP
breached their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR
GP, PVR and the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors
of PVR GP in the alleged breach of these fiduciary duties, and, as
to the actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP,
and the directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i)
injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional
information concerning the transaction, (iii) rescission or an
award of rescissory damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs
and (v) the accounting for damages allegedly causes by the
defendants to these actions, and, (vi) such further relief as the
court deems just and proper.

The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v.
PVR Partners, L.P., et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al. and Saul
Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., each pending in the Court of
Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen Bushansky
v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al.; and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners,
L.P., et al., pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and
Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs
agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled
Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement
agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation
of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery (which was completed
as of September 5, 2014), class certification and final approval
by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania. If
the Court approves the settlement, the Settled Lawsuits will be
dismissed with prejudice and all defendants will be released from
any and all claims relating to the Settled Lawsuits.

The settlement did not affect any provisions of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR
unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have
entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden,
risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation.


REGENCY ENERGY: Claims in Eagle Rock Shareholder Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP 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 three putative class
action lawsuits challenging the Eagle Rock Midstream Acquisition
were previously filed in federal district court in Houston, Texas.
All cases name Eagle Rock and its current directors, as well as
the Partnership and a subsidiary, as defendants. One of the
lawsuits also names additional Eagle Rock entities as defendants.
Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of
Eagle Rock (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), both individually and
on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of
Eagle Rock. The Plaintiffs in each case seek to rescind the
transaction, claiming, among other things, that it yields
inadequate consideration, was tainted by conflict and constitutes
breaches of common law fiduciary duties or contractually imposed
duties to the shareholders. Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages
and attorneys' fees. The Partnership and its subsidiary are named
as "aiders and abettors" of the allegedly wrongful actions of
Eagle Rock and its board. In November 2014, the US District Court
issued a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of all
claims in this matter.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Removes "St. Pierre" Suit to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc., Case No. OCN-L-626-15, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02596-FLW-DEA to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Alan Venti, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY LLC
          Woodland Falls Corporate Center
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: joeventi@wcblegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: hbeh@hinshawlaw.com


RICELAND FOODS: Court Certifies Class Action Over Work Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Cascino, Esq., and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in
Downing v. Riceland Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:13-CV-321 (E.D. Mo.
Mar. 19, 2015), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri certified a class of
former MDL plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel who brought suit
against one of their co-plaintiffs seeking compensation for MDL
work product that the co-plaintiff had used in other litigation.
While not a workplace class action, this case serves as a warning
that, in certain circumstances, employers could be liable for the
legal fees and costs of co-defendants or co-plaintiffs.  It also
provides employers with a potential tool to recover attorneys'
fees from co-defendants or co-plaintiffs if they use common work
product in other litigation.

Case Background

After Bayer introduced genetically modified rice into the United
States rice supply, rice farmers and others involved in the rice
business brought more than 200 suits against Bayer and other
entities, including Riceland Foods, in state and federal courts.
Id. at 2.  Riceland Foods filed cross-claims against Bayer and
filed two other suits -- one in state court and one in federal
court -- against Bayer. Id. at 3.

The federal cases were consolidated in an MDL. Id. at 2.  To make
the MDL manageable, the MDL court appointed lead counsel and set
up a trust from which attorneys' fees and costs would be paid to
all the MDL plaintiffs' counsel in the event of a recovery against
Bayer. Id. at 3.  The order did not apply to recoveries in state
court cases absent consent or an order by the state court. Id.
Under the order, Riceland Foods was to pay 10% of any recovery
against Bayer to the trust. Id.

Over the course of five years, the MDL plaintiffs' counsel drafted
a consolidated complaint, opposed Bayer's dispositive motions,
reviewed more than 2.8 million pages of documents, and took and
defended a total of 167 depositions. Id. at 3-4.  They then
conducted three bellwether trials, all of which resulted in
plaintiffs' verdicts. Id. at 4.

In separate state court litigation, Riceland Foods received $92
million from Bayer in a settlement. Id. at 3. The Downing
plaintiffs sued Riceland Foods to recover ten percent of that
recovery on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit theories,
claiming that Riceland Foods used the work performed by the MDL
plaintiffs' counsel to achieve that settlement. Id. at 3, 5.  They
sought to certify, as a class, all persons and entities that
provided or paid for services in the MDL action. Id. at 5-6.

The Court's Ruling

The Court certified the proposed class action, stating that
"[t]his action is uniquely suitable for class certification." Id.
at 2.  The Court first found that the proposed class was numerous
because it consisted of more than 30 law firms and more than 5,000
MDL plaintiffs. Id. at 7-8.

The Court then found that the proposed class action satisfied the
commonality requirement. Id. at 9. Specifically, the Court
reasoned that the class's claims would face the common legal
question of whether an unjust enrichment and quantum meruit action
could be "based upon the use of an attorney's work product by a
non-client." Id. at *8-9.

The Court found that typicality was established because "each of
the proposed class members would have essentially the same
grievances as the named plaintiffs -- that Riceland had unjustly
benefitted from work for which they had paid or provided." Id. at
*10.  The Court also found that the class representatives and
counsel were adequate. Id.

The Court then turned to deciding whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirements -- that common questions predominate over individual
questions and that class resolution is superior to other available
resolution methods -- were met.  The Court held that common
questions would predominate as to both the unjust enrichment and
quantum meruit claims because the class members jointly incurred
expenses that conferred benefits on Riceland Foods. Id. at 19.
While agreeing that there would need to be "a great number of
factual determinations related to [Riceland Foods's] use of work
product and value received," the Court pointed out that those
inquiries would "focus on what Riceland did and what benefit it
received" which would be "issues that are common to the class."
Id. at 20.

The Court finally determined that class litigation was superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy. Id. at 21.  The Court concluded that the class
members did not have an interest in individually pursuing separate
actions and that "any difficulties in managing th[e] class action
pale in comparison to the alternative." Id.

Implications For Employers

While this case is not a workplace class action, it serves as both
a warning and a notice of a potential opportunity for employers in
multi-plaintiff or multi-defendant litigation.  It serves as a
warning that employers who are co-plaintiffs or co-defendants in
cases could be on the hook for attorneys' fees and expenses when
they use work product from that litigation in related litigation.
While this case involved a co-plaintiff who recovered money in
another lawsuit, the theory of recovery in Downing could apply to
the successful defense of a related lawsuit.  It also provides
notice of a potential opportunity for employers to recover fees
and costs from co-defendants and co-plaintiffs when those co-
defendants and co-plaintiffs use common work product in related
litigation.  It further can be used to show that the class action
mechanism can be used in such suits if there are enough co-
defendants or co-plaintiffs.


RIGHTCHOICE MANAGED: Removes "Noble" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Noble, et al. v. RightChoice
Managed Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 15SL-CC00592, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-00626-DDN to the proceeding.

The action arises from a cyber attack alleged to have compromised
the Plaintiffs' personal information.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frankie J. Forbes, Esq.
          Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
          Quentin M. Templeton, Esq.
          FORBES LAW GROUP
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 840
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 341-8600
          Facsimile: (913) 341-8606
          E-mail: fforbes@forbeslawgroup.com
                  mflemming@forbeslawgroup.com
                  qtempleton@forbeslawgroup.com

               - and -

          William Skepnek, Esq.
          SKEPNEK LAW FIRM
          1 Westwood
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 856-3100
          Facsimile: (785) 856-3099
          E-mail: wskepnek@skepneklaw.com

               - and -

          Brennan P. Fagan, Esq.
          FAGAN EMERT & DAVIS, LLC
          730 New Hampshire, Suite 210
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Telephone: (785) 331-0300
          Facsimile: (785) 331-0303
          E-mail: bfagan@fed-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David W. Gearhart, Esq.
          Neal F. Perryman, Esq.
          Ronald A. Norwood, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE, LLC
          600 Washington, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-1394
          Facsimile: (314) 612-1394
          E-mail: dgearhart@lewisrice.com
                  nperryman@lewisrice.com
                  rnorwood@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com


RNC INVESTMENT: Removes "Rivero" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rivero, et al. v. RNC Investment,
LLC, et al., was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court
in and for Miami Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21369-RNS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGE-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130-6807
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Saunders, Esq.
          Amie Katherine Patty, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW GROUP
          13577 Feather Sound Drive, Suite 500
          Clearwater, FL 33762-5532
          Telephone: (727) 329-1999
          Facsimile: (727) 329-1499
          E-mail: jsaunders@floridalawpartners.com
                  apatty@floridalawpartners.com


SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless People Sue Rancho Cordova Police
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hubert, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that
Rancho Cordova police officers routinely and unlawfully detain,
arrest, harass, threaten and assault homeless people in an effort
to drive them from the city, alleges a civil complaint filed in
Sacramento Superior Court.

The action, filed by Sacramento civil rights attorney Mark Merin
on behalf of a man and a woman living on the streets of Rancho
Cordova, asks for a temporary restraining order to stop police
from engaging in practices that the complaint says represent
violations of constitutional rights.

Rancho Cordova Police Chief Michael Goold said he is "perplexed"
by the lawsuit, insisting that his officers are only responding to
complaints about loitering, panhandling and other issues
associated with homeless people and do not harass them or detain
them without cause.

"We're responding to what our citizens want," he said.  "We're not
doing anything willy-nilly."

The couple named in the lawsuit, Christian J. Frazier and Kasandra
A. Emslander, charge that they are routinely, and without good
cause, stopped and detained by police officers and ordered to
leave the city.  The plaintiffs estimate that at least 100 others
are subject to similar treatment by police.  The complaint asks
the court to certify the matter as a class action, allowing others
to join the lawsuit, and for unspecified damages.

Mr. Frazier "is frequently asked by the police officers, 'Why are
you in my city?' and told that 'You need to leave my city now,' "
according to the complaint, which states that the plaintiff has no
criminal record.  Ms. Emslander, who suffers from epilepsy and has
seizures, routinely gets detained by police officers when she
holds a sign requesting food and hygiene products from passers-by,
the complaint says, even though she has permission to solicit
donations in two locations of the city.

The police actions, the complaint says, violate various federal
and state laws, including constitutional protections against
unlawful detention and arrest and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

"Some cities try to legislate homeless people out of town," said
Mr. Merin.  "Others use police to destroy homeless people's
property.  Others, like Rancho Cordova, instruct their police to
make life so difficult for homeless residents that they will want
to leave the area."

Mr. Goold, the police chief, said his officers "are all for
helping the homeless," and the city has a wide range of services
including transitional housing programs and winter shelter.  But
he said the city is struggling to deal with an increasing number
of homeless people, many from outside the area, who beg for money
in violation of Rancho Cordova's recently enacted ordinance
against aggressive panhandling.

"They'll get money from someone who means well, then they'll go to
the liquor store, buy 40 ounces, get drunk" and pass out or become
disorderly, said Mr. Goold.

"We don't target the homeless, but we do respond to complaints and
enforce the ordinance."

Mr. Merin is a longtime advocate for homeless people in the
Sacramento area.  Most recently he has challenged the
constitutionality of Sacramento's camping ordinance, which he has
argued is enforced only against homeless people.

In February, a federal judicial panel ruled that the camping
ordinance, on its face, is constitutional.  The ordinance states
that it is unlawful for anyone to camp or use "camp paraphernalia"
on any public or private property, with some exceptions.

The court left open only the possibility that the ordinance is not
evenly enforced, to the detriment of the homeless. That would be a
violation of equal protection provisions of the United States and
California constitutions.

Further legal proceedings will focus on that question.


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Jones" Suit Arising From Sale of Shape-ups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Jones v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc.,
II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-00271-TBR (W.D.
Ky., April 15, 2015) alleges that Skechers made numerous
misrepresentations, and continues to make those representations,
regarding the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers conducted
regular and sustained business in Florida by labeling, marketing,
distributing, promoting and selling its products in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com


SPACE EXPLORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mass Layoff Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge on March 26 rejected Space Exploration
Technologies Corp.'s bid to end a putative class action alleging
it laid off hundreds of workers last year without a state-mandated
warning and shorted their final paychecks, ruling the plaintiffs
had sufficiently pled their labor law claims.

At a hearing on March 26, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu
M. Berle found that the plaintiffs had been sufficiently specific
in their allegations that SpaceX laid them off to cut costs, and
that it should have either given the workers 60 days' notice or
paid them for another 60 days when they were let go.

SpaceX attorney Summer Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP
argued at the hearing that the plaintiffs had merely parroted the
language in California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, and that their complaint didn't show that the
company had been short on cash when it shed workers in Hawthorne,
California.  But Judge Berle rejected that argument, saying that
the plaintiffs' allegations were specific enough to withstand
SpaceX's demurrer.

"Plaintiffs specifically do allege . . . that plaintiffs and
others similarly situated were subject to a mass layoff," Judge
Berle said.  "Each was subjected to a separation from employment."

The plaintiffs contended in their complaint that SpaceX violated
state laws when it laid them off without notice.  The Cal WARN Act
requires employers to provide 60 days' written notice to affected
employees of layoffs involving 50 or more employees in a 30-day
period, according to the complaint.  Employers who fail to do so
must pay the affected employees up to 60 days of average regular
rate of compensation or final rate of compensation, whichever is
higher, the plaintiffs said.

SpaceX had said in summer 2014 that it had conducted a review of
its employees, found that some of them were performing below
standard, and let those workers go, according to filings.

Plaintiffs' attorney Leonard Sansanowicz told the judge that
SpaceX had characterized its layoffs as firings for cause to avoid
having to pay workers for another two months, but that the idea
that so many workers were found to be low performers at once was
"absurd."  Instead, he said, the company was trying to conceal a
layoff from potential big-name, big-money investors.

"There was a cost-cutting measure that was considered and
approved, rather than raise a red flag and sound the alarm bells
in a very public way and alert people that they were laying people
off," Mr. Sansanowicz said in the March 26 hearing.  "What
business terminates 200 people because of performance issues? It's
an absurd premise."

Ms. Wynn argued on March 26 that SpaceX is a highly successful
company that builds rockets, conducts research and engineering on
human space travel and has landed lucrative contracts and
investments, including from Google Inc. and NASA.  The company has
high standards for its workers, Ms. Wynn said, and the people who
were let go last year simply weren't up to snuff.

"There were a variety of reasons for terminations, including
finding employees who were not performing and terminating them,"
Wynn told Judge Berle.  "SpaceX lacks neither work nor funds."

The judge on March 26 allowed the plaintiffs' three Cal WARN Act-
related claims to stand, but shut down a defamation claim,
granting leave to amend within three weeks.  The plaintiffs had
claimed that a statement by SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, in
which she characterized the terminations as firings for low
performance rather than as a mass layoff, injured the professional
reputations of all the people who were let go in July 2014, court
records show.

Judge Berle was skeptical of the defamation claim in the March 26
hearing, telling the plaintiffs' attorneys that they may be
distracting from their labor law claims.  The judge ultimately
ruled that Shotwell's statement was too vague to have defamed any
one former SpaceX employee, but allowed the plaintiffs time to
spruce up the claim for another round.

Among the fired workers were plaintiffs Bobby R. Lee and Bron
Gatling, who worked as structural technicians in the company's
Hawthorne facility. They claimed in their August 2014 suit that
SpaceX's failure to pay the fired employees all wages earned
before termination in accordance with the California Labor Code
was willful.  They also accused SpaceX of violating California's
Unfair Competition Law through the alleged conduct.

The suit seeks damages for 60 days' pay and benefits, and the
value of any benefits to which the employees would have been
entitled had they not been let go, up to 60 days or half the
number of days they worked for the company.  The suit also seeks
pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs of the suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lee R. Feldman, Alicia C.
Olivares and Leonard H. Sansanowicz of Feldman Brown Olivares APC.

SpaceX is represented by Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com
-- Michelle C. Doolin and Summer J. Wynn of Cooley LLP.

The case is Bobby R. Lee et al. v. Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., case number BC552901, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


SPIRIT REALTY: All Claims in Merger Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Realty Capital, 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 all asserted
claims in a merger class action have been dismissed.

"On July 17, 2013, we completed the acquisition of Cole Credit
Property Trust II, Inc. ("Cole II") through a transaction in which
our prior legal entity merged into the Cole II legal entity (the
"Merger")," the Company said.

"In connection with the Merger, a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland on March 5, 2013 against and purportedly on behalf
of the Company captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty
Capital, Inc., et al. The complaint named as defendants Spirit,
the members of the board of directors of Spirit, the Operating
Partnership, Cole II and Cole Operating Partnership II, LP ("Cole
Operating Partnership"), and alleged that the directors of Spirit
breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process
leading to the merger agreement, failing to disclose sufficient
material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders to make an
informed decision regarding whether or not to approve the Merger,
agreeing to a merger agreement at an opportunistic and unfair
price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices
in the merger agreement, and engaging in self-interested and
otherwise conflicted actions. The complaint alleged that the
Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
sought a declaration that defendants had breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the merger
agreement was unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
the transactions in the event they were consummated, imposition of
a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief."

"On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants signed
a memorandum of understanding providing for the release and
dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of
Settlement"). Under the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the
court on January 22, 2014 and approved by the court on September
5, 2014, all asserted claims were dismissed with prejudice. The
final terms of the settlement, as approved by the court, did not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position
or results of operations."


ST-HILAIRE COLLEGE: Former Student Files Sexual Abuse Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Meagher, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a former
student at College St-Hilaire has filed a motion in Quebec
Superior Court to authorize a class-action suit on behalf of
individuals allegedly sexually abused by clergyman Jean-Paul
Thibault, a former teacher and principal at the school.

Mr. Thibault, a Catholic brother with the Freres de Notre-Dame de
la Misericorde, was arrested March 17 for sexually assaulting the
former student at the college in the 1980s.  Mr. Thibault, 72, is
accused of indecent assault, sexual assault and incitement to
sexual touching while in a position of authority.  The abuse began
when the victim was 12 years old, said lawyer Robert Kugler of the
law firm Kugler Kandestin, which filed a class-action suit to
include the possibility there are other victims of Brother
Thibault, who was released on $1,000 bail following his arrest.

Following their investigation, Richelieu-St-Laurent police said
they also believe there may be other victims.  Captain Fran‡ois
Cinq-Mars has asked that other victims contact the police
department.

"With one victim coming forward, others may soon follow,"
Mr. Kugler said.  "It always starts with one, the class
representative, and then it usually increases from there."

The assaults at College St-Hilaire allegedly began in 1982 when
the victim was a Secondary I student at the private boarding
school.

"Early on in the boy's stay at the school he was messing around in
class and was sent to the principal's office, like we've all been
before," Mr. Kugler said.

The suit claims Mr. Thibault immediately began engaging the
student in discussions about sex and genitals.

A short time later, the suit alleges Mr. Thibault came to get the
young student at night in the dormitory and brought him to a
little food canteen in the building.  At the beginning, Mr.
Thibault gave him candies and drinks.  But in later encounters at
the candy shop, Mr. Thibault touched his genitals.

The suit claims the abuse escalated over time to include
masturbation and oral sex.

Brother Thibault also came to get other boys at night and bring
them to the canteen, according to the victim's suit.

The suit also alleges Brother Thibault invited the victim to an
apartment to watch pornographic films. He also took him on camping
trips, ski trips to Bromont, and visits to Lac Sergent, where he
was sexually assaulted.  Mr. Thibault demanded the victim perform
oral sex and masturbation. On one occasion, he attempted to
sodomize the victim.

Mr. Kugler has represented sexual abuse victims in the past and
said there are common traits to cases in which an authority figure
abuses a child.

"It is similar to sexual abuse cases where these people are in a
position of authority, literally not only as the principal of the
school, but parents of these children have confided parental
authority over the children to this guy."

"So the kid's view him not only as their principle, but also as a
father figure.  In Quebec society, these people are also God on
earth, so there's that as well."

Mr. Kugler said it is excruciatingly difficult for victims to face
their accusers. (The victim in this case is now in his 40s and has
filed a motion to keep his identity private.)

"The (victims) become extremely confused.  Many victims have told
us they feel responsible for having caused the priest to sin,
which is terrible.

"It results in them bottling everything up.  They feel extremely
ashamed, and have all kinds of problems in their lives.  . .  The
vast majority of victims of sexual abuse never disclose it at all.
They repress it forever."

Mr. Kugler said his client finally came forward after seeing a
local newspaper that paid homage to Mr. Thibault and the
congregation of Freres de Notre-Dame de la Misericorde.

Mr. Thibault, the school and the congregation are named as
defendants in the class-action motion.  The suit is claiming
damages totaling $850,000, including $500,000 in punitive and
exemplary damages.

In light of recent events, Mr. Thibault has been expelled from the
school administration, said college spokesman Claude Choiniere,
who said the staff was "stupefied" by the news of Mr. Thibault's
arrest.

Mr. Choiniere said parents were alerted of the shocking news, but
he also pointed out that the college has not been run by the
Catholic congregation since the late 1980s.  The college is
secular now.

Part of Mr. Thibault's bail conditions is that he not contact the
alleged victim and his family.  He must refrain from going to
public parks or places where children under 16 are present.

He must return to court May 25.


STRATASYS LTD: Hollywood PORS Suit Moved From N.Y. to Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Hollywood Police Officers'
Retirement System v. Stratasys Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00927, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-01909-MJD-JSM to the proceeding.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Stratasys between June 20, 2013, and Feb. 2,
2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Stratasys is a company engaged in the business of additive
manufacturing, more commonly known as three-dimensional printing.
AM systems, including 3D printers, create models used in the
engineering, prototyping, and manufacturing of end parts used in
various industries.  The printers build three-dimensional models
by depositing multiple layers of resin one on top of another based
on data from three-dimensional computer aided design files.

Stratasys has dual headquarters -- in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and
in Rehovot, Israel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinka, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq.
          C. William Margrabe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY l 0036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com
                  jtraystman@trinko.com
                  wmargrabe@trinko.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com


STRATASYS LTD: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Lockridge Grindel Nauen
P.L.L.P. on March 25 filed a class action complaint against
Stratasys Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Stratasys securities between
June 19, 2013 and February 2, 2015 and seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors who purchased Stratasys securities during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action
must move the Court no later than April 6, 2015.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or
your rights, please contact Scott+Scott
-- scottlaw@scott-scott.com --(800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Stratasys is a company engaged in the business of additive
manufacturing ("AM"), more commonly known as three-dimensional
("3D") printing.  Stratasys carries five lines of AM systems,
including the MakerBot Series.  The MakerBot Series consists of
desktop-size printers.  Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made a number of bullish statements touting the benefits of the
MakerBot acquisition, as well as the Company's growth and diverse
product line.

On February 2, 2015, Stratasys stunned the market by warning that
its fourth quarter fiscal 2014 revenue would miss analysts'
expectations, largely based on problems with its MakerBot unit.
The Company stated that expenses and delays related to the
Company's MakerBot 3D platforms caused Stratasys to increase its
impairment charge to the goodwill value of MakerBot to $100
million to $110 million, pointing to slower growth of MakerBot
products and services revenues.

You can view a copy of the complaint filed at:

http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/s+sstratasyscomplaint.pdf

If you wish to discuss the Stratasys litigation, or have questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael
Burnett of Scott+Scott at mburnett@scott-scott.com
800) 404-7770, or (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website
for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


SUNWATER: Responds to Possible Callide Dam Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy McCosker, writing for ABC Rural, reports that lawyers are
visiting flood-affected Callide Valley residents in Queensland, to
discuss a possible class action.

Flooding tore through the Biloela area, south of Rockhampton, in
February after heavy rainfalls followed Cyclone Marcia inland.

Some residents believe the flood was exacerbated by an emergency
release from the Callide Dam.

Dam operator SunWater chief executive Peter Boettcher said he was
not concerned lawyers were meeting with residents.  He said people
should wait to see the findings of the Queensland Government's
independent inquiry into the flooding.

"We think they've probably jumped the gun a little bit," he said.

"The Government has announced an independent review into the
operations of the dam and the flood more broadly.

"We are participating fully in that review.  We have provided a
considerable amount of information already and we expect that when
that information is made available in the public domain, through
the review process, our position will be justified."

Lawyer Brendan Pendergast is in the Callide area to meet with
people affected by the flood and believes there may be a case for
compensation.

"It seems to us that the inundation that occurred following the
20th of February event could have been avoided," he said.

"What ought to have happened, we would contend, is that the
(water) levels should have been lowered by opening of the flood
gates and . . . . releasing water 48 hours or so before the heavy
torrential rain arrived with the cyclone.

"We say the situation is aggravated by the fact that in 2013 a
similar chain of events occurred with a similar flood to follow."

Mr. Pendergast said residents who were affected by the flood were
angry and some blamed SunWater.

"I think most of the property owners in this area are angry and
upset and disappointed when . . . it should not have occurred, it
could have been avoided," he said.


TD BANK: "Hurel" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hurel v. TD Bank, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07621, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina (Greenville).  The South
Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-01537-BHH
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Vincent Langone, Esq.
          LANGONE LAW FIRM
          207 Texas Lane
          Ithaca, NY 14850
          Telephone: (607) 216-2836
          E-mail: langonelaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan M. Leming, Esq.
          William M. Tambussi, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854-8900
          E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com
                  wtambuss@brownconnery.com


TD BANK: "Klein" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Klein, et al. v. TD Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00179, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina (Greenville).  The South
Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-01536-BHH
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: josephsauder@chimicles.com
                  mds@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  thomas@kicklawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan M. Leming, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854-8900
          E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TD BANK: "Ucciferri" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ucciferri v. TD Bank, N.A., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00424, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Greenville).  The South Carolina
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-01535-BHH to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan M. Leming, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854-8900
          E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TD BANK: "Austin" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Austin v. TD Bank NA, Case No.
3:15-cv-00088, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Greenville).  The South Carolina
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-01559-BHH to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Lacombe, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          100 Pearl St., Suite 1415
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1577
          Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
          E-mail: emlacombe@duanemorris.com


TD BANK: "Padilla" Suit Included in Debit Card Overdraft Fee MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Padilla, et al. v. TD Bank,
N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-01276, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Greenville).  The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:15-cv-01563-BHH to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
          Debra A. Djupman, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 851-8288
          Facsimile: (215) 851-1420
          E-mail: asoven@reedsmith.com
                  ddjupman@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Frederico, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 488-8100
          E-mail: dfrederico@pierceatwood.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lucus A. Ritchie, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD
          254 Commercial Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-1100
          Facsimile: (207) 791-1350
          E-mail: jdunlap@pierceatwood.com
                  lritchie@pierceatwood.com


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Case Filed by EEOC in Discovery
------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, 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 case filed by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is in discovery.

On September 30, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit styled Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas Roadhouse
Holdings LLC, Texas Roadhouse Management Corp. in the United
States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action
Number 1:11-cv-11732. The complaint alleges that applicants over
the age of 40 were denied employment in our restaurants in
bartender, host, server and server assistant positions due to
their age. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, remedial
actions, payment of damages to the applicants and costs.

"We have filed an answer to the complaint, and the case is in
discovery. We deny liability; however, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time. We cannot estimate the possible amount or
range of loss, if any, associated with this matter," the Company
said.


TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: "Goodall" Suit Included in Overdraft MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Goodall v. Toronto-Dominion
Bank, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00023, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Greenville).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-
01538-BHH to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, MDL No.
6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  All of
the actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following
its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL -- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.
Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Frederick Wagner, Esq.
          Jason Kyle Whittemore, Esq.
          WAGNER, VAUGHAN & MCLAUGHLIN, PA
          601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 225-4000
          Facsimile: (813) 225-4010
          E-mail: alanwagner@wagnerlaw.com
                  jason@wagnerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 960-2214
          E-mail: hwgurland@duanemorris.com


TOWN SPORTS: Class & Merits Discovery in "Labbe" Case Bifurcated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, 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 Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery in the
case James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery.
The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification
document discovery was December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a
class certification motion was March 2, 2015.

"While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to
contest this case vigorously," the Company said.


TOZZER LTD: Accused of Discriminating Against Disabled Persons
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Tozzer, Ltd. d/b/a Niagara, a New
York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02785-GBD (S.D.N.Y.,
April 9, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has and is continuing to
discriminate against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
disabled individuals by failing to provide accessible facilities,
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and is
confined to a wheelchair.

Tozzer, Ltd., doing business as Niagara, is the operator of a bar
and dining establishment located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


VCA INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Duran" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
VCA 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 class certification hearing is
scheduled for April 3, 2015 in the Duran class action.

"On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant at one of our
animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit against us
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc.,
et. al.," the Company said. "The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of current and former veterinary assistants employed by us
in California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and engaged in
unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
4 of the 8 claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. We intend to continue
to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this action.
At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.

"On July 16, 2014, two additional former veterinary assistants
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek vs. Vicar
Operating, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of current and former veterinary assistants, kennel
assistants, and client service representatives employed by us in
California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, improperly failed
to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to reimburse for
certain business-related expenses, and engaged in unfair business
practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and
other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. We currently
expect that these two actions will be consolidated with, or
related before the same judge hearing, the Duran action.

"In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit until class certification is completed in the
Duran case. Plaintiff Duran filed his class certification motion
and supporting documentation in January 2015. A class
certification hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2015. At this
time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on our results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Agreement Reached in "Lopez" Action
--------------------------------------------
VCA 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 parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Carlos Lopez action, on a class-wide
basis, for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000.

"On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services
with respect to our laboratory clients in California filed a
purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose
Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC,
Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. Logistics Delivery Solutions,
LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech
has contracted to provide courier services in California," the
Company said.

"The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of individuals who
were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC to perform such
courier services and alleges, among other allegations, that
Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech Diagnostics improperly
classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors, improperly
failed to pay overtime wages, and improperly failed to provide
proper meal periods. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.
We filed our answer to the complaint on September 13, 2013. On
July 18, 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment, and on
October 3, 2014 the court denied our request for summary judgment.
Although we believed this lawsuit was without merit and have
vigorously defended against the claims, the parties engaged in
mediation on December 18, 2014. As a result of the mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action, on
a class-wide basis, for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay half of the
claim.

"Accordingly, as of December 31, 2014, we have accrued the
remaining fifty percent. The proposed settlement, when and if it
becomes effective, would not be an admission of wrongdoing or
acceptance of fault by any of the defendants named in the
complaint. Antech Diagnostics and Logistics Delivery Solutions
have agreed upon the terms of this proposed settlement to
eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense
associated with protracted litigation. The proposed settlement
remains subject to court approval and class notice administration
before it will be effective."


VCA INC: "Graham" Action in Early Procedural Stage
--------------------------------------------------
The class action by Tony M. Graham is in an early procedural
stage, VCA 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.

"On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and
services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class
action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA
Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc.," the Company said.

"The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and
other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from
our animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly charged such individuals for "biohazard waste
management" in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit
seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts,
and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. VCA
successfully had venue transferred to the Southern District of
California.

"This case is in an early procedural stage and we intend to
vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."


WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Biasi" Suit to New York District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Biasi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 000251/2015, was removed from the New York State
Supreme Court, Montgomery County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00454-GTS-ATB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Finn, Esq.
          E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP
          7 Airport Park Boulevard
          Latham, NY 12110-0104
          Telephone: (518) 213-0115
          Facsimile: (518) 783-8101
          E-mail: rfinn@joneshacker.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
          MCCARTER, ENGLISH LAW FIRM
          185 Asylum Street
          CityPlace I
          Hartford, CT 06103-3495
          Telephone: (860) 275-6700
          Facsimile: (860) 560-5984
          E-mail: tfinn@mccarter.com


WAL-MART STORES: Glucosamine Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in Advertising, Inc. on March 25 disclosed that a federal
judge has given final approval to a class-action settlement that
permanently changes how glucosamine supplements sold by Walmart,
Supervalu, and Walgreens stores across the nation can be labeled.
The approval comes after the parties in the lawsuit renegotiated
the terms following objections by ad watchdog organization,
truthinadvertising.org (TINA.org) and others.

TINA.org filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the
original settlement would not have adequately addressed the
deceptive marketing issues because it only banned the marketers
from using six specific words on the supplement labels for just
two years.  The new settlement approved by a New York federal
judge forever prohibits the marketers from conveying the message
that the supplements, which are manufactured by South Carolina-
based Perrigo, can repair, strengthen, or rebuild cartilage.

Glucosamine, marketed as a relief for joint pain and a cartilage
rebuilder, is one of the most popular non-vitamin dietary
supplements sold in the U.S, with sales topping $700,000 in recent
years.  But scientific studies have shown that glucosamine is no
better than a placebo in reducing the symptoms or progression of
osteoarthritis, nor can it help rebuild cartilage.

"The revised settlement is a victory for the millions of consumers
who have been misled by the deceptive marketing and labeling of
glucosamine products and a warning to other supplement marketers
making health claims without sufficient scientific evidence, "
said Bonnie Patten, Executive Director of TINA.org.

TINA.org's objection was the first of three it has filed regarding
proposed class-action settlements involving deceptive marketing of
glucosamine products.  In February, TINA.org filed a brief
opposing a settlement involving Wellesse Joint Movement and filed
another earlier in March in a case involving Move Free Advanced.

In its continuing effort to fight for consumers in the legal
realm, TINA.org has also objected to unfair settlements in other
deceptive advertising class-actions, including cases against
Herbalife, a multi-level marketing company, and Vitaminwater, a
Coca-Cola beverage subsidiary.

View the details of the revised settlement: http://is.gd/zMTsl9

View all of TINA.org's legal efforts: http://is.gd/KJ3rGd

                        About TINA.org

TINA.org -- http://truthinadvertising.org-- is a non-profit
organization based in Madison, Conn. that uses investigative
journalism, education, and advocacy to empower consumers to
protect themselves and one another against false advertising and
deceptive marketing.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Stipulation Presented for Approval
----------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation anticipates that a Stipulation of
Settlement will be presented to the Court for approval during the
second quarter of 2015 in the litigation relating to the
acquisition of Integrys, Wisconsin Energy 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.

Since the announcement of the proposed acquisition, Integrys and
its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been
named as defendants in ten separate purported class action
lawsuits filed in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases --
Rubin v. Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera
v. Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the
cases -- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.),
Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et
al. and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v.
Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and
Collison v. Integrys, et al.). In the Tri-State Joint Fund case,
Wisconsin Energy's CEO was also named as a defendant. The cases
were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
shareholders of Integrys. The complaints allege, among other
things, that the Integrys board members breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by
Integrys' shareholders, that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus contains material misstatements and
omissions. The complaints seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin
defendants from consummating the acquisition; (b) rescission of
the Merger Agreement; and (c) to direct the defendants to exercise
their fiduciary duties to obtain the highest value possible for
the Integrys shareholders. The Brown County and Cook County cases
have been dismissed in favor of the Milwaukee County actions. On
November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. Wisconsin Energy anticipates that a Stipulation
of Settlement will be presented to the Court for approval during
the second quarter of 2015.


YELP INC: 9th Cir. Denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit denied class action plaintiffs' petition for a
rehearing.

"In February and March 2010, we were sued in two putative class
actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various causes of
action based on claims that we manipulated the ratings and reviews
on our platform to coerce local businesses to buy our advertising
products," the Company said.  "These cases were subsequently
consolidated in an action asserting claims for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, extortion and attempted
extortion based on the conduct they allege and seeking monetary
relief in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.

"In October 2011, the court dismissed this consolidated action
with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the
consolidated action. The plaintiffs submitted a petition to the
Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which was denied on October 28,
2014."


YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 court was scheduled to have a
hearing on the motion to dismiss two putative class action
lawsuits on April 16, 2015.

"In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers," the Company said.
"The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations between October
29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently
consolidated and, in January 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On February 6, 2015, we and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the court is
currently scheduled to have a hearing on the motion on April 16,
2015."


YOUKU TUDOU: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Youku Tudou, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-
2258, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Youku securities between February 27, 2014
and March 19, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Youku securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 25, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Youku operates as an Internet television company in the People's
Republic of China.  Its Internet television platform enables
consumers to search, view, and share video content across various
devices.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly
recognized revenue for multi-element arrangements; (2) the Company
improperly recorded certain nonmonetary transactions to exchange
online broadcasting rights of video content with other online
video broadcasting companies at the carrying values of the
broadcasting rights transacted, instead of the properly-accounted
fair value; (3) the Company improperly accounted for its licensed
content as long-lived assets; (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, the Company announced that it would
release its fourth quarter results on Thursday, March 19, 2015,
raising red flags by giving investors only two days-notice to
prepare for YOKU's earnings announcement.

On March 19, 2015, the red flags materialized as the Company
reported a net loss of $51.3 million, compared to $4 million in
the same quarter of 2013.  Moreover, YOKU disclosed that the SEC
is investigating certain aspects of the Company's past accounting
practices relating to revenue recognition for multi-part deals,
accounting of "non-monetary exchanges of licensed content" and the
classification of licensed content as long-lived assets.  The
Company also announced that it is now "evaluating the impact to
its 2014 and historical financial statements."

In reaction to this news, YOKU's stock price dropped nearly 11%,
from a March 19, 2015 closing price of $15.15 per share, to close
at $13.50 on March 20, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


* Arizona Refuses De-segregration Spending Audits
-------------------------------------------------
Bob Christie, writing for Associated Press, reports that an
Arizona House panel shut down an effort to require audits of
desegregation spending in the Tucson Unified and Phoenix Union
High school districts after hearing from top district officials
that there are already extensively audited.

Rep. Mark Finchem said his proposal was prompted by whistleblowers
who told him that Tucson in particular was misusing some of its
$64 million in yearly desegregation cash.

But the Appropriations Committee shelved the Oro Valley
Republican's plan late on March 25 after the district
superintendents testified that they are already extensively
audited.

Tucson Superintendent H.T. Sanchez said the district's spending is
under federal oversight and audited under supervision of
plaintiffs in a 40-year-old federal case.

"I'd rather spend a half a million dollars getting out from under
this court case," Sanchez said.

Mr. Finchem said he has information that the district has misspent
desegregation money on a larger board meeting room and on a
gymnasium.

But Mr. Sanchez said a federal judge approved the expansion of the
meeting room after another federal agency said the public was
being turned away from meetings and that all other spending was
legal and completely documented.

Efforts to create a racially balanced school system in Tucson date
to 1974.  The district has been under a court desegregation order
for decades after parents of Hispanic and Black students filed
class-action lawsuits.

Democrats on the panel railed at the effort to force the extensive
audits, saying it pulled money better spent on children for no
reason.

"Are we just out here on a witch hunt?" asked Rep. Lela Alston, D-
Phoenix.

The Appropriations Committee chairman, Republican Rep. Justin
Olson, shelved the bill without a vote.


* Contact Lens Retailers Oppose Bill on Minimum Pricing Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Cummings, writing for Herald-Tribune, reports that some of the
nation's largest contact lens retailers would like to lower their
prices.

But they can't.  The retailers, including some large drug store
chains and online contact lens resellers, told Florida lawmakers
that their hands are tied by minimum pricing policies set last
year by manufacturers.

The retailers asked the Florida Senate's Health Policy committee
to vote for a bill, sponsored by Sen. Tom Lee, R-Brandon, that
would stop contact lens manufacturers from enforcing minimum
prices in Florida.  The bill passed the Health Policy committee on
a 6-3 vote on March 23, with two more committees to go.

Similar debates are taking place in Illinois and Oregon, as
manufacturers defend so-called "unilateral pricing policies" that
they say ultimately lower costs. The manufacturers face off in
state legislatures against contact lens retailers seeking to offer
their own discounts.

For consumers, minimum pricing can effectively take away the
ability to shop around for the best deal, according to the bill's
supporters.  That could cost Florida's 2.1 million contact-lens
wearers an extra $125 million each year.

Minimum price policies exist in some industries, including
electronics.  But Mr. Lee said contact lenses are different
because consumers are bound by prescriptions written by
optometrists -- who may also sell contact lenses -- that are
specific to brand.

"Go buy another phone.  You have consumer choice," Mr. Lee said.
"Here's the problem.  There is no other product . . . where the
consumer is forced to buy that product and then is prohibited by
law from shopping for the lowest price. In a free-market society,
sir, that is neither free, nor is it a market."

The bill, SB 1400, is opposed by manufacturers such as Johnson and
Johnson, one of four major companies that control 96 percent of
contact lens production.  Johnson and Johnson has been targeted in
several lawsuits for its price-setting policies.

Eric Helms, a senior manager of pricing strategy at Johnson and
Johnson, said the minimum prices did away with complicated rebate
schemes and actually lowered costs to a majority of consumers.
"We expect even more consumers to pay lower prices going forward,"
he said.

The Florida Optometric Association also opposed the bill. At the
same time, several class-action lawsuits targeting the minimum
pricing policies have been filed in recent weeks, and opponents of
the bill said those should be allowed to run their course.

Sen. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, agreed, saying the bill risked
"stepping into" ongoing litigation.  Mr. Galvano said the bill
might go too far as "an attempt to take away the freedom that a
manufacturer has to determine the value of his or her product."

"I can't participate in that type of new regulation or that type
of divestment of an existing freedom," Mr. Galvano said.

Mr. Galvano's "Innovate Florida" political action committee has
received $25,000 in donations this year from a lobbying arm of the
Florida Optometric Association.  The OD-EYEPAC political committee
first gave $10,000 in donations in February, followed by another
check, for $15,000, the day before the legislative session began.
But those are only two checks among the $400,000 Mr. Galvano has
raised from various special interests, including medical firms,
this year.  Mr. Galvano's power has grown because as he is
expected to be the Florida Senate President in 2019.

Florida has been through several rounds of legislative battling
over eye care before. Supporters of the bill said the lawsuits
could take years, and the Legislature could act more quickly.

Executives from the online retailers 1-800 CONTACTS and Lens. com
said minimum-pricing only served to drive the prices up for
consumers.  Cary Samourkachian, owner of Lens.com, said the policy
had caused price increases of more than 12 percent in some cases.

Denise Mogil, director of professional services for Costco
Optical, said that if Lee's bill passed, "it would allow us to
immediately lower our prices."

The bill remains to be heard in the Senate Commerce and Tourism
committee led by Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice and in the
Appropriations committee, led by Lee. A similar House bill has not
moved.


* Employers May Face Class Actions Over Shorter Work Hours
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Feintzeig, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that The Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama five years
ago, sparked a host of changes.  For some workers, the law's
legacy amounts to fewer hours of paid work.

The law's requirement that larger employers provide affordable
insurance to workers putting in 30-plus hour weeks has led some
companies to cap the number of hours employees can log.  A new
survey out on March 24 from the Society for Human Resource
Management finds that 14% of employers have cut back on hours for
part-time employees, and an additional 6% plan to do so.  The
survey, which included more than 740 human resources
professionals, found that a small subset of companies were
considering reducing hours for full-time employees too.

Firms are playing around with how they classify and schedule
workers, but the strategy comes with risk.  James Napoli, a
partner with Seyfarth Shaw LLP who helps employers comply with the
ACA, says he's seen an uptick in audits focused on compliance with
the health care law by the Department of Labor and the Internal
Revenue Service.  The audits, which began about three years ago,
are starting to become broader, more frequent and more serious, he
said.

A few years ago, the federal agencies "weren't really seeking to
levy heavy fines against employers," he said.  "That tone has
changed a bit."

He's noticed universities and colleges are frequent targets of the
audits these days, and expects to see more retailers and
hospitality companies come under scrutiny too.

Companies can legally cut a worker's hours if business conditions
warrant such a move but if it turns out an employer trimmed hours
just to avoid providing that worker health benefits, the company
could face consequences.  Companies might end up not just in
violation of the ACA but other federal laws too, Mr. Napoli said.
For example, a company could be found to have run afoul of an
anti-discrimination law, if it happens to have primarily cut work
hours for a certain racial or ethnic group. That can open
employers up to class-action lawsuits.

Some companies just aren't aware of the risks when they start
rejiggering hours, Mr. Napoli said.  Others think they can
maneuver in a way to stay on the right side of the law and decide
the potential downside is worth it.

For "some employers, this is a matter of whether they can keep the
doors open or not.  It's that serious," Mr. Napoli said.

As of now, it's not completely clear what strategies companies are
legally allowed to employ.

"This is a very uncomfortable time for employers because they're
asked to make 100% decisions on less than 100% information,"
Mr. Napoli said.


                             *********

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  * * *