CAR_Public/150505.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 89


                             Headlines


AARON'S: Third Circuit Clarifies Class Ascertainability Standard
AETNA INC: "Mayer" Suit Transferred From California to New Jersey
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Motion Due June 22
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Bristol Suit Pending
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Suit for $27.5MM
APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of ioS Storage Capacity Class Action
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal
AUSTRALIA: Seabird Residents Mull Suit Over Erosion Problem
AUTOMATIC DATA: Removes JS Downey Class Suit to S.D. California

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Forex Rate Manipulation
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Woman Sues Law Firms Over Mirena Suit Dismissal
BIOSCRIP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
BOSTANY LAW: Faces "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BP PLC: June 8 Deadline Set for Filing Economic, Property Claims

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wins Sanctions in Students' Class Action
CANADA: To Overhaul Issue of Lump Sum Payment to Wounded Veterans
CHEROKEE CTY, GA: County and Sheriff Sued Under Civil Rights Act
COMCAST CORP: Customers Can Claim Class Action Settlement Refund
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Adams" Suit Moved From Washington to Alabama

CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Ruling Expected on Bid to Authorize Arrow Suit
DAGGETT STREET: Tenants Mull Class Suit Over Building Violations
DINOSAUR BAR-B-QUE: Faces Wage Class Action in New York
DOUBLE DOWN: Accused of Running "Camouflaged" Gambling Apps
DUKE ENERGY: Parties in Progress Merger Suit Executed MOU

DUKE ENERGY: Oral Argument Held in Price Reporting Cases
ESSEX PROPERTY: Paid $500,000 in Class Action Settlement
ESSEX PROPERTY: Faces "Foster" Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Pay-Per-Click Marketers Seek to Revive Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Class Action Over Minors' Contracts

FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Goes to European Court of Justice
FORD MOTOR: Judge Remands Freestyle Engine Suit to District Court
FORT COLLINS, CO: Nears Settlement of Panhandling Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Defect Suits Pile Up
GOOGLE INC: Taps Cleary Gottlieb, Allen & Overy as Antitrust Atty

GOOGLE INC: May Face Safari Privacy Class Action in UK
GREYSTONE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products
GUESS? INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
GUSANO'S CHICAGO: Employees Can't Challenge Arbitration Deals
GUTHY-RENKER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product

HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of "All Natural" Suit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Financial Institutions Dismiss Claims
HI-TECH PHARMA: Judges Receptive to Appeal in Supplement Suit
HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Flawed Reimbursement Policy
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Urges 3rd Circuit to Preserve Settlement

HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Consolidated BCBS Identity Theft Suit Junked
HOSPIRA INC: Preservative-Free Bupivacaine HCl Injections
IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Suit Over Safety of Fitness Product Dismissed
INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Defense Department's Class Action Pending
INVENTURE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Vegetable & Smoothie Products

J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Action
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Free-Vychine Action
JENI'S SPLENDID: Recalls Ice Cream, Yogurts & Sorbets Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Dismisses Baby Powder Class Action
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Bailey" Class Action Stayed

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Status Conference in Wilkie Action on June 22
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Awaits Documentation
KINROSS GOLD: Settles Securities Class Action for $33 Million
KOHL'S CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unwanted Phone Calls
KRAFT FOODS: Accused of Manipulating Price of Wheat Futures

LEE'S SUMMIT, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Warrant Fees"
LIBERTY SILVER: July 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LIFE TIME: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held in TCPA Settlement
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Flooring Class Action
MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Has Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Suit for Improperly Applying Deductions
MIAMI-DADE, FL: DDA Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes
MICHAELS STORES: Accused of Doing Credit Checks w/o Permission
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements Dismissed
MILO's KITCHEN: Access to Unredacted Facebook Data Denied

MINE SAFETY: "Iverson" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court
MINNESOTA: Dormant Asset Law Violates Due-Process, Suit Says
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: September Trial Set for Inmate Suicide Suit
MOTIVA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over From Benzene-Related Injuries
MYLAN NV: Recalls Multiple Injectable Products Due to Particulate

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Delaware Supreme Court Overturned Judgment
NEW YORK, NY: Accused of Racial and Gender Discrimination
NORTEK INC: Class Actions in Their Initial Stages
NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters' Class Action in Early Stage
NU SKIN: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

OHIO: Employers Must Wait for $420MM Workers Comp Settlement
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack Rodos Files Class Action in Calif.
PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Somaxon Pharmaceuticals Litigation Dismissed
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Pomerantz Files Amended Class Action

PFIZER INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bellwether Zoloft Case
PLATINUM PLUS: Former Exotic Dancers File Minimum Wage Suit
PRA GROUP: TCPA Litigation Remains Stayed
PREMERA BLUE CROSS: Faces Data Breach Class Action
QUANTA SERVICES: Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Cert. Motion Due

RANGE RESOURCES: Must Disclose Chemicals Used at Drill Site
RECKITT BENCKISER: Recalls Multiple OTC Drugs Due to Mislabeling
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Class Actions by Shareholders
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismissed Santarus Shareholder Case
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approved Dismissal of Cosmo Claims

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Feinstein" Class Action
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: DOJ Called to Probe Into Jail Inmate Fights
SHIVA SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Allegations
SM FISH: Recalls Ossie's Pickled Lox & Cream Due to Eggs
SM FISH: Recalls Ossie'd Herring in Sourcream & Pickled Lox Dairy

SOLARCITY: Faces Investigation Over Deceptive Practices
STEEL DYNAMICS: Unclear When Court Will Rule in Class Action
STEINER LEISURE: Facing Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al. Action
STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Have Joined Ideal Image Action
STRATECO LLC: Faces Class Suit in Ala. Alleging Personal Injury

SWEET SAM'S: Recalls Starbucks Black & White Mini Cookies
TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Airbags for $2.4BB
TEXAS A&M: Denies Claims in Suit Over Kyle Field Donor Seats
TFH PUBLICATIONS: Recalls Puppy Starter Kit Due to Salmonella
TRANSNET: Pensioners File Class Action Petition

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gibson Dunn to Handle Wage, Data Breach Suits
UGANDA: Kampala Court Allows Reflexologists to Sue for Losses
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Couture Says MMA Fighters Need to Form Union
UNITED STATES: Motion to Dismiss Water Suits Due

UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Irrigation Water Class Action
UNITED STATES: Groups Win Temporary Relief in Contraceptive Suit
US POSTAL SERVICE: Accused of Discrimination in E.D. Wisconsin
VERIZON WIRELESS: 7th Cir. Affirms Text Monopoly Suit Dismissal
W. P. CAREY: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal in Class Action

WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Hears Arguments in Namenda Antitrust Case
WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Dispute Forced Unionization Law
WHISTLER GROUP: Recalls Portable Power Supplies Due to Fire Risk
WAYMOUTH FARMS: Recalls Raw Pine Nuts Due to Salmonella
YOUKU TUDOU: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

ZUM SCHNEIDER: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
ZYNGA: Must Face Investor Class Action Over Alleged IPO Fraud

* Data Breach Costs Have Minimal Impact to Big Companies
* Dynamic Currency Conversion Scam May Spur Class Actions


                            *********


AARON'S: Third Circuit Clarifies Class Ascertainability Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the Third Circuit reined in runaway readings of its recently
adopted standard for assessing class action cases on April 16.

Although the court clarified that evaluating the ascertainability
of a class requires a narrow inquiry, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell
warned in a concurring opinion that the majority didn't go far
enough.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit adopted the
ascertainability standard for district courts assessing potential
class actions in 2012 with its opinion in Marcus v. BMW of North
America.  A year later, it issued another, more controversial
opinion on the issue, Carrera v. Bayer.

"The ascertainability inquiry is twofold, requiring a plaintiff to
show that: (1) the class is 'defined with reference to objective
criteria'; and (2) there is 'a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members
fall within the class definition,'" Judge D. Brooks Smith said in
the majority's opinion on April 16, quoting from Carrera.

Judge Smith was on the three-judge panel that decided Carrera,
which was a suit brought against Bayer for a diet supplement that
failed to get class certification.

When Gabriel Carrera lost on appeal, he sought a rehearing en
banc, which was denied.  But, several judges, including Judge
Rendell, dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing, saying
that Marcus had "agreed with those 'courts and commentators [who]
have recognized that an essential prerequisite of a class action,
at least with respect to actions under Rule 23(b)(3), is that the
class must be currently and readily ascertainable . . .' Our
court's opinion in Carrera gives the impression to many that we
now carry that requirement too far."

Judge Smith's April 16 opinion, joined by Judge Cheryl Ann Krause,
who joined the appeals court last year, clarified the Third
Circuit's jurisprudence on ascertainability as being narrow.

"Our ascertainability decisions have been consistent and reflect a
relatively simple requirement.  Yet there has been apparent
confusion in the invocation and application of ascertainability in
this circuit," Judge Smith said.

"Not surprisingly, defendants in class actions have seized upon
this lack of precision by invoking the ascertainability
requirement with increasing frequency in order to defeat class
certification," he said.  "We seek here to dispel any confusion."

In this case, a magistrate judge in the Western District of
Pennsylvania had recommended denying the motion for class
certification for lack of ascertainability.  That recommendation
was adopted by the district court judge and brought on an
interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit by the plaintiffs,
Crystal and Brian Byrd.

Crystal Byrd had leased a laptop computer from Aaron's and when
the company claimed that she had fallen behind on payments and
came to repossess the computer, the repossession agent showed her
a screenshot of a poker site that her husband had visited and a
picture of him taken through the computer's camera while he
played.

The company had taken the pictures through spyware installed on
the computer that had accessed the laptop 347 times within a
month, according to the opinion.

The Byrds brought a suit under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act on behalf of the 895 other customers who had laptops
with spyware installed from Aaron's, according to the opinion.
The Third Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class
certification on the grounds that it had misapplied the
ascertainability standard.

"We were careful to specify in Carrera that 'although some
evidence used to satisfy ascertainability, such as corporate
records, will actually identify class members at the certification
stage, ascertainability only requires the plaintiff to show that
class members can be identified,'" Smith said, quoting from the
second footnote in Carrera.  "Accordingly, there is no records
requirement."

Judge Rendell, however, took the view that requiring objective
proof of class membership for class certification goes too far.

"While the majority cites a footnote in Carrera as standing for
the proposition that we have no 'records requirement,' the class
in Carrera failed the ascertainability test because there were no
records from which the class members could be ascertained with
certainty," Judge Rendell said in a footnote.

In low-value consumer class actions, potential class members
aren't likely to have documentary proof of their purchase because
few people keep grocery store receipts, she said.

"We have effectively thwarted small-value consumer class actions
by defining ascertainability in such a way that consumer classes
will necessarily fail to satisfy for lack of adequate
substantiation," Judge Rendell said, adding in a footnote that
those kinds of cases that have been certified in district courts
in other circuits wouldn't "pass muster" in the Third Circuit.

"The policy concerns animating our ascertainability doctrine boil
down to ensuring that there is a surefire way to get damages into
the hands of only those individuals who we can be 100 percent
certain have suffered injury, and out of the hands of those who
may not have," Judge Rendell said.  "However, by disabling
plaintiffs from bringing small-value claims as a class, we have
ensured that other policy goals of class actions -- compensation
of at least some of the injured and deterrence of wrongdoing, for
example -- have been lost.  In small-claims class actions like
Carrera, the real choice for courts is between compensating a few
of the injured, on the one hand, versus compensating none while
allowing corporate malfeasance to go unchecked, on the other."
Frederick Longer -- flonger@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia called the ascertainability
standard that grew out of Carrera "the tail that wagged the dog."

The opinion diminishes that reading of Carrera, Mr. Longer said,
and brings the focus of class certification back to the explicit
rules set for class actions rather than the implicit ones, like
ascertainability.

Mr. Longer argued the case for the Byrds.

Kristine Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird in
Atlanta and Anthony Williott -- ajwilliott@mdwcg.com -- of
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh argued on
behalf of Aaron's, but couldn't be reached for comment.


AETNA INC: "Mayer" Suit Transferred From California to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ralph Mayer, et al. v. Aetna Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08266, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02595 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action to redress Aetna's alleged
repeated violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
resulting from its systematic failure to make benefit payments
that are due and owing to participants and beneficiaries under the
terms of the Aetna Plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          William K. Meyer, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332-0444
          Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
          E-mail: wmeyer@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Olecki, Esq.
          Tim B. Henderson, Esq.
          GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP
          2001 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 210
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 315-3009
          Facsimile: (310) 315-1557
          E-mail: michael@grodsky-olecki.com
                  tim@grodsky-olecki.com

               - and -

          Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
          THE MAUL FIRM, P.C.
          68 Jay Street, Suite 201
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (646) 263-5780
          Facsimile: (866) 488-7936
          E-mail: afmaul@maulfirm.com

               - and -

          Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq.
          John W. Leardi, Esq.
          Paul D. Werner, Esq.
          BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC
          103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-5150
          Facsimile: (609) 799-5180
          E-mail: vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com
                  jwleardi@buttacilaw.com
                  pdwerner@buttacilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7409
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6409
          E-mail: hrichardson@gibsondunn.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Motion Due June 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
plaintiff in the class action filed by Physicians Healthsource,
Inc. must file a motion for class certification by June 22, 2015.

"On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class
action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against us," the Company said. "The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. The plaintiff must file a motion for
class certification by June 22, 2015. No trial date has been
scheduled."


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Bristol Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a fully-
briefed motion to dismiss is pending in the class action lawsuit
filed by the Bristol County Retirement System.

"On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us; Glen
Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and William Davis,
our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol County
Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported class
consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock between
November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012," the Company said. "The
plaintiffs later added Lee Shapiro, our former President, as a
defendant. The plaintiffs allege that we, Mr. Tullman, Mr. Davis
and Mr. Shapiro made materially false and misleading statements
and/or omissions during the putative class period regarding our
progress in integrating our business with the business of Eclipsys
Corporation following the two companies' August 24, 2010 merger,
and that we lacked a reasonable basis for certain statements
regarding those post-merger integration efforts as well as our
operations and results and projections of future financial
performance. A fully-briefed motion to dismiss is pending. No
trial date has been scheduled."


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 27
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Altisource Residential Corporation securities
between February 7, 2013 through January 23, 2015.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Altisource Residential Corporation
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Altisource Residential Corporation class action, go to
the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-487.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.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court
for the District of the Virgin Islands.

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 Altisource Residential Corporation made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
the full scope of its reliance on Ocwen Financial Corporation, a
related party and the risks relating to its relationship with
Ocwen; and (2) the full scope of its related party relationship
with Altisource Asset Management Corporation.  When the true
details entered the market, Altisource Residential Corporation's
share price declined and 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 26, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-487.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.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Suit for $27.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal St. Anthony, writing for Star Tribune, reports that
Ameriprise Financial Inc. has agreed to pay $27.5 million to
settle a 2011 class-action lawsuit over the operation of its
401(k) plan for the company's employees and retirees.

The suit accused Minneapolis-based Ameriprise of loading up the
company 401(k) plan with its own expensive, underperforming mutual
funds and charging employees excessive fees, thus violating its
responsibility to plan participants under federal retirement law.

Jerry Schlichter, managing partner of the firm that brought the
suit, said in a statement that the settlement included provisions
to improve the plan.  "Competitive bids and enhanced
communications and disclosure will increase the value of the
employees' and retirees' 401(k) plans for years to come."

A joint motion for approval of the settlement was filed on
March 26 by the parties for consideration and approval by U.S.
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson in St. Paul.  The Schlichter
firm would get about $10 million of the settlement proceeds for
fees and expenses.

The proposed settlement would cover about 24,000 current and
former employees.  The 401(k) plan currently covers about 12,000
Ameriprise participants and boasts about $1.5 billion in assets,
Ameriprise said.

Ameriprise, one of the nation's largest investment houses and
financial planners, indicated the preliminary deal reached in the
federal case was not that big of a deal.

"The settlement does not require any changes to our plan, which
will maintain the existing broad and competitive selection of
investment options and features," the company said in a statement.
"The plan has always included funds we manage, as well as funds
from other companies and a brokerage window that offers
participants additional choice."

A spokesman declined to elaborate beyond the written statement.

Nelson declined to dismiss the lawsuit in a 2012 ruling.  She
ruled at the time that those bringing the suit had a "plausible"
allegation that Ameriprise was out to benefit itself at the
expense of plan participants.  In allowing the case to proceed at
that point, she let stand seven counts, ranging from failure to
monitor fiduciaries, to prohibited transactions and excessive
record-keeping fees.  One count of unjust enrichment was
dismissed.

Mr. Schlichter, who had sought more than $70 million in
compensatory damages, charged that Ameriprise stuffed the employee
plan with higher-cost, lower-performing funds that it had acquired
in 2010 from Bank of America and branded with its "RiverSource"
funds label.  Ameriprise argued that it had a sufficient mix of
popular funds for employees.

Ameriprise described the lawsuit as a copy of about a dozen others
that the St. Louis-based Schlichter firm had filed against other
large employers.  The firm has achieved similar settlements with
several of those employers in recent years.  The most recent and
largest was a $62 million settlement reached in February with
Lockheed Martin.


APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of ioS Storage Capacity Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viraj Shah, writing for Invest Correctly, reports that Apple Inc.
has preferred to file a motion to seek the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit in relation to iOS device capacity of newly shipped
iPhone, as well as iPad, devices.  While the plaintiff charged the
technology bellwether with misrepresenting the storage space to
consumers, the company has retorted by saying that the plaintiff
failed to come up with proof of fraud.

Apple Inc.'s filings in the California Court said that the two
plaintiffs, Christopher Endara and Paul Orshan, failed to provide
supporting evidence that the buyers of iPad and iPhone were misled
intentionally.  This was in respect to the usable disk space on
the gadgets with iOS 8.  In December, the plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit against the company for providing less storage facility
that it claimed.

The technology firm said that wherever software is written, a
portion of the device's resources are utilized, including storage
capacity.  The company followed the same principle as far its iOS
mobile operating system 8, like any other firm.

The plaintiffs' contention was that Apple Inc. was well aware that
its iOS 8 would take up some space on the disk.  The OS was bigger
than the expected size at 600 MB up to 1.3 GB.  The plaintiff also
charged the company with failing to estimate the reasonable
quantum of space that its iOS 8 would occupy, compared to its
earlier versions of OS.  Therefore, the company attempted to sell
the item deliberately with lower storage space.

Dismissal Suit

In its support to dismiss the lawsuit, Apple Inc. said that there
were two flaws of a fundamental nature.  One was the inability to
come up with supporting proof on the disk storage capacity.  The
second was in respect to the subscription to iCloud storage plans.
The company clarified that its iCloud storage plans are applicable
only for upgraded service options.  The technology company
provided 5GB of iCloud storage space free with every purchase of a
new device.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lead plaintiff
filed his reply brief in a class action appeal.

"Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were
filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
California against us and certain of our current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our
common stock," the Company said. "The complaints were brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that we and certain of our current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ
program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common
stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5,
2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E.
Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On
November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the second consolidated amended complaint.

"On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and
dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his
appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to
the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed his reply brief. Due to the stage of these
proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the
ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims."


AUSTRALIA: Seabird Residents Mull Suit Over Erosion Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Emery, writing for The West Australian, reports that houses
in the WA town of Seabird are at risk of falling into the ocean
amid disagreement over how to stop erosion, who is responsible and
how to fund it.

Residents of the town 100km north of Perth say the situation is
now critical, with at least two locals preparing to walk away from
the home they planned to retire in because of fears it is weeks
away from being lost.

After years watching the State Government and Gingin Shire
"passing the buck", residents say they will consider legal action
if their fears are realized.

The Government and council say they are concerned about the
erosion, a problem for more than a decade.  But despite multiple
reports, no long-term solution has been agreed to.

When The West Australian visited Seabird last week, the erosion
was within feet of two properties. Others ranging from shacks to
million-dollar holiday homes appear at risk.

Dimitri James (Jim) Batalin and wife Dorothy Atkins believe it is
a matter of time before the home they planned to retire in is lost
and have started moving their belongings out.

"The most frustrating part about it is that the buck keeps getting
passed," Dr. Batalin, the town medic, said.  "It (the house) has
to come down, it will come down.  Next week, several days, it's
going to collapse."

Seabird has just over 300 ratepayers and 50 full-time residents.

Many locals date the erosion from the loss of a rocky point 1km
south of Seabird.  In 2000, big swells claimed part of a local
road, leaving some properties without a road frontage.

Two years later, an engineering report commissioned by the shire
and Government proposed two long-term options: offshore
breakwaters or onshore groynes.  But neither eventuated.

Seabird Progress Association said erosion accelerated again last
year and swallowed part of a local road and a beach access ramp.

The council has done "sand nourishment" - dumping sand on the
beach to stabilize it -- as a short-term fix.  It also asked the
Government about funding a seawall but no decision has been made.

Action is complicated by the fact it involves unallocated crown
land that abuts private property.

Not only is there disagreement about where council and Government
responsibilities lie, but there is also confusion within the
Government about which department is responsible.

Gingin chief executive Jeremy Edwards said the council was
concerned properties were under threat and winter storms could
make it worse. He said it was working on a risk assessment.

"The shire fully appreciates and understands the frustration of
local residents but this issue involves State and local government
as well as the community," Mr. Edwards said.

"The shire is willing to be part of the solution but we are not
wholly responsible for a natural occurrence on land or in the
ocean where we have no permission to act."

The Department of Transport told The West Australian it had
recommended sand nourishment and was giving the council coast-al
management advice.

Lands Minister Terry Redman said the erosion threat was becoming
dire and he sympathized with the community.

"The Government, through the departments of Transport, Planning
and Lands, is still determining the best course of action in line
with the State coastal planning policy," Mr. Redman said.

Progress association president Garry Thomas said residents were
considering hiring contractors themselves to bring in rocks.

"It needs somebody to take responsibility," he said.  "Nobody is
prepared to take the bull by the horns and actually do something."

Mr. Thomas said he believed there were options to fund a solution,
which could include selling Government-owned land in the town.  He
said a class action might be an option if properties were lost or
damaged.

"If it's going to become a dirty fight, it's going to become a
dirty fight," Mr. Thomas said.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Removes JS Downey Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled JS Downey Insurance Service, Inc.
v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-0000-
CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00825-BAS-NLS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit on behalf of itself and other
similarly-situated professionals or brokerages under the
California Code of Civil Procedure.  The Class consists of all
licensed insurance professionals or brokerages, whose insurance
clients switched to ADP after ADP offered the clients discounts,
rebates, gratuities, or kickbacks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
          Mei-Ying Imanaka, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  mimanaka@nicholaslaw.org

Defendant Automatic Data Processing, Inc., is represented by:

          Rick Bergstrom, Esq.
          Mhairi L. Whitton, Esq.
          Ashley Goff, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          12265 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130.4096
          Telephone: (858) 314-1200
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1150
          E-mail: rjbergstrom@JonesDay.com
                  mwhitton@JonesDay.com
                  agoff@JonesDay.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Forex Rate Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that following the
path of two other major financial institutions, Bank of America
Corp. has bowed out of antitrust litigation alleging widespread
manipulation in the $5 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market.

On April 16, plaintiffs lawyers at Scott & Scott announced a
settlement to resolve claims that some of Bank of America's top
traders colluded to manipulate foreign exchange rates.  The deal's
value wasn't disclosed, but Scott & Scott indicated that it
mirrors prior settlements in the litigation, and would include
both monetary relief and cooperation from Bank of America as the
plaintiffs pursue claims against other defendants.

Bank of America, represented by Adam Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com
-- and Richard Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- at Shearman &
Sterling, is the third bank to settle of the dozen targeted in the
litigation.  JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to pay $99.5 million to
exit the case in a deal disclosed in January.  UBS AG subsequently
agreed to a $135 million settlement announced in mid-March.

"This latest settlement sends a message to Wall Street banks that
their long-standing practice of putting their own interests ahead
of their customers in the foreign exchange market must end," Scott
& Scott managing partner David Scott said in a statement
announcing the Bank of America agreement.  His firm and Hausfeld
have spearheaded the litigation for a group of investor plaintiffs
that includes public pension funds, investment funds and hedge
funds.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson declined to comment.
The company's chief financial officer, Bruce Thompson, referred to
the forex litigation in an earnings call on April 15, saying the
settlement amount would be covered by the bank's reserves.

In a November 2013 complaint, the plaintiffs accused 12 major
banks of conspiring to rig foreign exchange rates, including the
benchmark World Markets/Reuters Closing Spot Rate, which is often
called "the fix."  The alleged collusion played out through
instant messages, emails and online chat rooms with provocative
names, such as "The Cartel" and "The Bandits' Club," according to
the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield dealt the banks an early loss
in late January, when she refused to dismiss the consolidated
class claims.  At the time, the judge pointed out that even the
names of the forex traders' chat rooms supported the plaintiffs'
theory that they were used to coordinate anti-competitive
behavior.

Several of the banks involved in the lawsuit -- UBS, JPMorgan,
Citibank Inc., HSBC Holdings and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
-- have also agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion to resolve
similar parallel allegations by federal regulators.

The defense lineup for the banks includes Shearman & Sterling (for
Bank of America Corp.); Sullivan & Cromwell (for Barclays plc);
Allen & Overy (for BNP Paribas); Covington & Burling (for
Citigroup); Cahill Gordon & Reindel (for Credit Suisse Group AG);
Kirkland & Ellis (for Deutsche Bank AG); Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton (for Goldman Sachs & Co.); Locke Lorde (for HSBC);
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (for JPMorgan); Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz (for Morgan Stanley); Davis Polk & Wardwell
(for RBS); and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (for UBS).


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Woman Sues Law Firms Over Mirena Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a
Mississippi woman filed a negligence and breach of fiduciary duty
suit against three Texas personal injury firms and three lawyers,
alleging that a judge dismissed her product liability suit because
the defendants filed it too late.

"In short, various 'Super Lawyers' who claim to have experience in
'bad drug' litigation allowed the statute of limitations on
plaintiff's underlying claim to lapse, thereby forever barring
plaintiff from receiving compensation for the serious injuries
that she suffered as a result of the defective Mirena IUD,"
Crystal Lynn Starling alleges in a petition she filed in the 55th
District Court in Harris County on April 14.

Starling seeks a minimum of $500,000 in damages from the
defendants: David Matthews and Steve Faries, both of Matthews &
Associates of Houston; Adam Pulaski, of Houston-based Pulaski Law
Firm, which according to the petition is also known as Pulaski &
Middleman; and Freese & Goss of Dallas.

Mr. Pulaski, reached at Pulaski & Middleman, said he was unaware
of the petition and declined to comment until he could read it.
Mr. Matthews did not immediately return a telephone message
seeking a comment.  Neither did Richard Freese, a principal in
Freese & Goss.

Ms. Starling, who lives in Alcorn County, Mississippi, alleges in
Starling v. Matthews that she received a Mirena IUD on July 14,
2009, but underwent laparoscopic removal of the birth control
device on March 14, 2011, because it had migrated outside the
uterine cavity.  She alleges she suffered "severe pain, excessive
bleeding, nausea, soreness, loss of enjoyment of life and urinary
issues, in addition to incurring tens of thousands of dollars in
medical bills."

After seeing commercials in late 2012 or early 2013 about the
"defectiveness" of the Mirena IUD, Starling contacted the Pulaski
Firm in early 2013, and the Pulaski Firm "associated the case"
with Matthews & Associates and Freese & Goss and formed a Mirena
litigation team. She alleges that she returned a questionnaire and
an employment contract to the Pulaski Firm and Matthews &
Associates on Feb. 8, 2013, and the Pulaski Firm and Matthews &
Associates agreed to "investigate, prepare and prosecute" her
claim against the IUD manufacturer.

She alleges that because Mississippi has a three-year statute of
limitation for product liability/personal injury claims, her suit
needed to be filed by March 14, 2014. H owever, she alleges, the
lawyers delayed filing "to accumulate more plaintiffs" and filed a
suit on May 2, 2014, on behalf of her and four other Mississippi
residents against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and other
defendants.

Ms. Starling alleges that the underlying case was transferred to a
multidistrict litigation president overseen by U.S. District Judge
Cathy Seibel of the Southern District of New York.  Ms. Starling
alleges that on Feb. 13, 2015, Faries, on behalf of the lawyers,
notified her that they were required to dismiss her case with
prejudice because of an earlier order by Seibel dismissing a
different case on statute of limitations grounds.

"In the letter, Faries reiterates his disagreement with Judge
Seibel's decision but states, 'We have no legal recourse to
overturn or prevent application of her decision to our case,'"
Ms. Starling alleges in the petition.

Ms. Starling alleges that her case was dismissed on Feb. 25, 2015.
She alleges that if the defendants had filed her suit in a timely
manner, she would have recovered a settlement from Bayer like
other similarly situated plaintiffs.  She alleges that the three
defendant lawyers assumed joint responsibility for her lawsuit,
and are therefore jointly and severely liable for her damages.

She seeks more than $500,000 in damages consisting of the value of
her underlying case, and exemplary damages due to the defendants'
alleged intentional breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs attorney Lance Kassab, of the Kassab Law Firm of
Houston, said Starling's rights were tromped on by the negligence
of the defendants.

"They've just got so many cases going on that some of them just
fall through the cracks," he said.


BIOSCRIP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
All defendants in the securities class action litigation moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and briefing on the motion to
dismiss was complete on July 28, 2014.  No updates were provided
in BioScrip, Inc.'s Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

"On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on
behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities
between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive," the
Company said.

"On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers and certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013
underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of the
putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8,
2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive.

"On December 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the
SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits
and appointing a lead plaintiff. The Company denies any
allegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
February 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013
underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certain
stockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is brought
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013,
inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company's
securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten public
offerings of the Company's common stock conducted in April 2013,
and August 2013. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that
the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to
disclose matters related the Legacy Division's distribution of the
Medication as well as the Company's PBM Services segment. The
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. All defendants
in the case moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April
28, 2014. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete on July
28, 2014."

The Company believes all of the claims in these class action
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the
Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will
be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the
litigation costs of these actions. Additional similar lawsuits may
be filed. Moreover, the Company is not able to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


BOSTANY LAW: Faces "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessenia Maldonado v. The Bostany Law Firm, PLLC and John Peter
Bostany, Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-02842-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
April 13, 2015) is brought over alleged denial of overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marjorie Mesidor, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & PHILLIPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-mail: MMesidor@tpglaws.com


BP PLC: June 8 Deadline Set for Filing Economic, Property Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that class action
plaintiffs who want to file economic and property claims in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill multidistrict litigation must do so by
June 8.  But Brent Coon of Brent Coon & Associates of Houston, who
represents some 10,000 of those class members, is advising most of
those clients not to file a claim; he has asked the court to
extend a deadline, allowing his clients to opt out of the
settlement.

Mr. Coon is telling the majority of his clients "to get out and
take their chances [in court]," he said.

In that same vein, Mr. Coon filed a motion in the MDL in New
Orleans federal court, asking the court to re-notice prospective
class members.  Mr. Coon wants the court to give them the
opportunity to opt out of the settlement.

"The class was a good idea.  But even good ideas can fail
miserably," Mr. Coon said.

A BP spokesperson did not respond.  Nor did Richard Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- of Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis,
which defends the company.

Class counsel Stephen Herman, a partner in New Orleans' Herman,
Herman & Katz, did not return a call.

In his motion, Mr. Coon argued that the class settlement has
evolved from its original form and is now giving fewer class
members damage awards.

In his motion, filed on April 16, Coon noted that a March 31,
2015, report by the MDL's claims administrator shows that only 35
out of 3,611 submissions for a failed business loss have been
paid, only 634 out of 5,017 for startup business loss, and only
6,148 out of 44,022 for individual losses.  In total, the class
has only paid 87,833 claimants out of 205,450 submissions, with
only 42,964 remaining to be processed.

Pending are appeal motions that BP filed, attempting to claw back
"the relatively few claims that have been paid," Mr. Coon wrote.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wins Sanctions in Students' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Macagnone, writing for Law360, reports that Bridgepoint
Education Inc. won sanctions for the exclusion of a key witness in
a suit by a putative class of students at one of its for-profit
online colleges, in an order from a California federal judge on
March 26 that also denied the class certification.

District Judge Cynthia Bashant's order granting Bridgepoint's
motion for sanctions said that Betty Guzman, the named plaintiff,
violated disclosure rules by holding back on witness Ryan
Ferguson, a former Bridgepoint employee, until after the close of
discovery for class action certification.

"Rule 37's exclusionary sanction exists with the purpose of
deterring litigants from 'hiding the ball' as plaintiff has done
here," Judge Bashant wrote.

Ms. Guzman tried to argue that discovery should reopen to allow
Bridgepoint to depose Ferguson, but Judge Bashant said that would
"water down" the sanctions inherent in those rules.  In a
declaration in court documents, Ferguson claimed that Bridgepoint
enrollment officers were pressured to misrepresent the school in
order to get students to enroll.

"Although Bridgepoint's training materials required 'truth and
accuracy in all areas of advisement,' enrollment advisers were
pressured to say anything necessary to enroll students," the
declaration said.

The suit alleged that thousands of students at Bridgepoint's
Ashford University from March 2005 on were duped into believing
that federal student aid or GI benefits would cover all the costs
of attending, that the education would lead to state licensing for
teaching or other professions and other problems.

Bridgepoint presented several problems with the supposed class,
though, including that most of them may have signed an enrollment
agreement that included an arbitration provision that included an
opt-out clause.

Judge Bashant said it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
determine the size of a class without determining each member's
eligibility based on whether he or she opted out of the
arbitration provision.

"Accordingly, the court finds that based on the proposed class
definition as currently constructed, plaintiff fails to
demonstrate an identifiable and ascertainable class in light of
evidence suggesting that up to 96 percent of the proposed class
may not even be eligible to participate in this class action,"
Judge Bashant wrote.

However, Judge Bashant said that she was being careful not to
prejudge the claims on their merits, only that class certification
was not appropriate.

"The student complaints attached to plaintiff's class
certification motion describe a poorly run educational institution
eliciting much doubt as to whether defendants do indeed prioritize
their students' best interests," Judge Bashant wrote.  "The vast
sums of money produced from students is particularly alarming
given the circumstances described."

Last year, Bridgepoint paid a $7 million settlement to the Iowa
Attorney General's office on similar allegations of
misrepresentations in its practices, meant to reimburse students
from the state who enrolled in online classes.

The attorney general's investigation concluded that Ashford, among
other things, made misleading statements to prospective students
and used high-pressure sales tactics to encourage them to enroll.
Ashford also misrepresented to aspiring teachers that an Ashford
education degree would allow them to become classroom teachers
when, in reality, many Ashford graduates were still subject to
additional requirements, according to authorities.

In response to that settlement, Ashford and Bridgepoint emphasized
that they had admitted no wrongdoing.

The instant suit was filed in January 2011 against Bridgepoint,
Ashford and another Bridgepoint school, the University of the
Rockies, which was jettisoned in 2012.

Ms. Guzman is represented by Francis A. Bottini Jr. and Yury
Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc.

Bridgepoint is represented by Karen S. Chen, Noah A Katsell --
noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- and Christopher M. Young --
christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper.

The case is Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education Inc. et al., case
number 3:11-cv-00069, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Southern California.


CANADA: To Overhaul Issue of Lump Sum Payment to Wounded Veterans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
system of awards for the pain and suffering of the country's most
severely wounded soldiers is about to be overhauled as the Harper
government attempts to defuse a volatile issue within the angry
veterans community.

Multiple federal sources tell The Canadian Press that Veterans
Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole was set to announce targeted
improvements on March 30 to bring lump sum awards for the most
severely disabled more in line with what courts award civilians
injured in workplace accidents.

Just how much soldiers -- with missing limbs and other injuries
such as post-traumatic stress -- should be paid in compensation
has been a lightning rod issue since the federal government
overhauled the benefits regime in 2006.

Currently, the maximum tax-free award is $306,698, which is
considerably lower than the benchmark civilian award of $342,500,
established in 2012 by the B.C. Supreme Court.

Addressing the issue is crucial this election year for the ruling
Conservatives and Mr. O'Toole, who've proposed a series of new and
improved benefits to win back the allegiance of increasingly
outspoken and alienated ex-soldiers.

Legislation to enact the changes was expected to be dropped on
March 30 in the Commons, with the issue of the lump sum award
being among the most crucial.

Payments are determined on a sliding scale depending on the degree
of disability, but the sources say not to expect an across-the-
board increase for every category of injury.  Instead, the
measures will be "limited to the people who are most critically
injured."

One source, who was not authorized to speak to the media, said on
background one mechanism under consideration since last fall was
an additional one-time, $70,000 top-up payment that could be added
separately to whatever lump sum is given to a soldier.

The move would bring the payment system in line with Ontario's
compensation framework, said a second federal source.

The fact that modern-day veterans receive less is at the heart of
the class-action lawsuit by angry Afghan veterans.  The government
and lawyers for the plaintiffs recently put the suit on hold as
they negotiate a settlement.

The government has heard complaints for years, and in 2011 it
tried to placate injured veterans by allowing them the choice of
whether to take the lump sum or have it paid out in stages.  Only
two per cent of those eligible have taken up the offer and the
payment schedule remained unchanged.

The Commons veterans committee weighed in last summer, finding the
pain and suffering awards given to severely injured soldiers don't
match what courts or provincial compensation systems provide.
"The amount of the lump sum payment is considered very low by
those with very serious injuries in the short or medium term, who
are forced to leave the Canadian Forces but whose permanent
disabilities are moderate," said the all-party's committee report,
released last June.

Many veterans view the one-time disability award as the government
simply washing its hands of the wounded, the committee was told in
public hearings.

Former Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, a retired lieutenant-
general, was among the most outspoken in saying the measure was
detrimental to soldiers.

Kevin Berry, a veteran of the Afghanistan mission and a veterans
advocate, told the committee the ongoing payments for pain and
suffering made under the old pension-for-life system, replaced in
2006, had symbolic value.

"When my knees ache and I put my hearing aids in -- I'm 30, by the
way -- I'm reminded that there's a connection to the government of
Canada and, by extension, the people; that my sacrifice is
remembered; and that it's dealt with through a financial stipend,"
Berry testified.

"It's not a huge amount of money.  I'm not going to get rich off
of it.  But it's a nice reminder that I haven't been forgotten and
that's acknowledged -- every day."

The government said last year it needed to study the financial
implications of adjusting the lump sum and introducing new
benefits.

The proposed changes are going to be a hit to the government's
bottom line that one source said the Conservatives are eager to
book in the 2014-15 fiscal year, which ends March 31.


CHEROKEE CTY, GA: County and Sheriff Sued Under Civil Rights Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Davis, Individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Roger Garrison and Cherokee County,
Georgia, Case No. 1:15-cv-01167-ODE (N.D. Ga., April 14, 2015) is
brought under the Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Garrison is the sheriff of Cherokee County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy Dane Barnett, Esq.
          THE BARNETT LAW FIRM, P.C.
          135 Village Centre West, Suite 200
          Woodstock, GA 30188
          Telephone: (770) 400-9170
          Facsimile: (770) 400-9171
          E-mail: barnettlawfirm@gmail.com


COMCAST CORP: Customers Can Claim Class Action Settlement Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sanatoga Post reports that residents of Lower Pottsgrove,
Limerick, Pottstown and other municipalities within a five-county
area of southeastern Pennsylvania may be entitled to $15 in cash
or invoice credits from Comcast Corp. if they are current
customers of the company or its affiliates for more than basic
cable channels, or were customers between January 2003 through
December 2008, according to advertisements published March 29,
2015.

The refunds are part of a settlement in a class action lawsuit
filed against Comcast, alleging it conducted "certain business
practices (that) resulted in subscribers paying higher prices for
cable TV services in the Philadelphia area," defined as Bucks,
Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.

"Comcast denies all of the claims in the lawsuit and says it did
nothing wrong," the notice added.  It appeared in several area
newspapers.

The time to claim a refund is limited; submissions must be made
online or by mail by July 10 (2015; Friday).  Claim forms are
available online at www.CableSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-
863-9450.  Even current subscribers who don't file a claim will
benefit, the notice reported, because they will automatically
receive a free two-month subscription to The Movie Channel.

Former customers who no longer deal with Comcast qualify for the
cash.  Current subscribers can opt to have $15 taken off a monthly
Comcast bill, or apply it to other products like Internet service
or pay-per-view movies.

There's also the option, according to the notice, that customers
can seek to be excluded from the benefit class and sue Comcast
themselves.  They might, or might not, win a better deal.  They
also can object to the settlement's terms.  Exclusions and
objections must be registered a month earlier, by June 10.

The settlement is valued at $50 million, the notice said.  Not all
that money is bound for customers, though; attorneys who brought
the class action are seeking $15 million for fees and expenses.  A
court hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Adams" Suit Moved From Washington to Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adams, et al. v. Community Health
Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00072, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00594-KOB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darrell W. Scott, Esq.
          Matthew John Zuchetto, Esq.
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP PS
          926 West Sprague, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201-5076
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966
          Facsimile: (509) 455-3906


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Ruling Expected on Bid to Authorize Arrow Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP anticipates a ruling from the Judge
on the Petitioners' motion to authorize the Arrow Acquisition
Class Action Lawsuit in the first quarter of 2015, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Prior to the completion of the Arrow Acquisition on November 8,
2013, a train transporting over 50,000 barrels of crude oil
produced in North Dakota derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada
on July 6, 2013. The derailment resulted in the death of 47
people, injured numerous others, and caused severe damage to
property and the environment.  In October 2013, certain
individuals suffering harm in the derailment filed a motion to
certify a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the
District of Megantic, Province of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of all
persons suffering loss in the derailment (the Class Action Suit).

In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended motion to
name Arrow and numerous other energy companies as additional
defendants in the class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs have named
at least 53 defendants purportedly involved in the events leading
up to the derailment, including the producers and sellers of the
crude being transported, the midstream companies that transported
the crude from the well head to the rail system, the manufacturers
of the rail cars used to transport the crude, the railroad
companies involved, the insurers of these companies, and the
Canadian Attorney General.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that Arrow (i) was a producer of the crude oil being
transported on the derailed train, (ii) was negligent in failing
to properly classify the crude delivered to the trucks that hauled
the crude to the rail loading terminal, and (iii) owed a duty to
the petitioners to ensure the safe transportation of the crude
being transported.  The motion to authorize the class action and
motions in opposition were heard by the Court in June 2014.

"We anticipate a ruling from the Judge on the Petitioners' motion
to authorize the class action in the first quarter of 2015," the
Company said.


DAGGETT STREET: Tenants Mull Class Suit Over Building Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Simoni, writing for WTNH, reports that about 20 tenants
from Daggett Street Square have hired attorneys after they were
kicked out of their apartments and work space.  The city says the
building had numerous fire code violations and was never zoned for
residential use, only industrial.

"He [landlord] did write us a check for our deposit and nine days
of pro-rated rent," said tenant Laura Marsh.  "We did not receive
the full month's rent."

"We give them the security back," Herzel Owadeyah, President of
Daggett Street LLC said on March 24.  "We give them one month's
rent."

"We received about $1,000, which did not offset our costs," said
Marsh.  "In the past week we've spent nearly $4,000 in a new
security deposit, a first month's rent, pro-rated rent, and we
hired movers."

Ms. Marsh says she's one of the lucky ones.  She got a check and
found a new place to move in less than two weeks.  She says being
on spring break from her job as a professor at the University of
New Haven helped her find the time. Others weren't so lucky.

"Some people have not gotten anything back," said Ms. Marsh's
attorney, Kevin Casini.

The building has been an artist colony for decades and many have
lived here and used it as a creative space.  Mr. Casini says
they're exploring a class-action lawsuit.

"The idea is to get some sort of financial assistance to help them
bridge to the next place," said Mr. Casini.  "They knew what they
were doing and they've told all these people to say 'I stay there'
don't say 'I live there.'  In fact, someone from the management
company lives in the building, or at least he was until last
week."

Ms. Marsh says she knew she signed a commercial lease, but hoped
the landlord would make it right.

"There has been a 40-year precedent in that building, really the
owner should have explored zoning it properly for mixed use," said
Ms. Marsh.  "I feel the legacy that's there is incredibly rich
that there's 40 years of art work that came out of that space,
that history needs to be told in a way that doesn't make it seem
like we're hoarders or strange misfits."

Attorney John Williams represents five Daggett Street tenants.


DINOSAUR BAR-B-QUE: Faces Wage Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wilson, writing for The Daily Orange, reports that a former
Dinosaur Bar-B-Que employee has filed a class-action lawsuit
accusing the restaurant chain of failing to pay fair wages and
overtime compensation to its tipped workers.

Ashley Hankins, a resident of Bronx, New York, was employed at the
Dinosaur Bar-B-Que on W. 125th St., New York, New York, from about
July 2012 to January 2015.

The suit was filed March 26 by the Fitapelli & Schaffer law firm
on behalf of servers, bussers, runners, bartenders and other
"tipped workers" to recover minimum wages, pay for "side work,"
overtime compensation and misappropriated tips.

In the suit, Ms. Hankins said she was paid a "tipped" minimum wage
rate, less than the full minimum wage rate for non-tipped workers.
Dinosaur Bar-B-Que has not satisfied requirements under the Fair
Labor Standards Act or New York State Labor Law that would allow
them to pay the reduced minimum wage, according to the suit.

Hankins is also looking to recover money for "side work," which
tipped workers were required to do for roughly 20 percent, or more
than two hours, of their shift.  The side work included general
cleaning, cutting produce, refilling condiments, taking out
garbage and maintaining bar and service areas.

Side work is typically assigned to '"back-of-the-house" employees
who receive at least the full minimum wage rate, according to the
lawsuit.  Because these duties are those of a tipped worker, the
suit alleges that Ms. Hankins was engaged in a "dual occupation"
for which she is entitled to the full minimum wage.

Ms. Hankins also accused the chain of requiring tipped workers to
engage in a "tip distribution scheme" in which they were forced to
share tips with kitchen workers.  They were also forced to share
tips with kitchen managers in situations where there were "in-
house, pre-paid" reservations, according to the lawsuit.

Kitchen workers and managers are not entitled to share tips under
the FLSA or the NYLL.

The suit is filed collectively against Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC,
JLN-Store, Inc., Soros Strategic Partners LP and John Stage.  The
first Dinosaur Bar-B-Que was opened in Syracuse in 1988.  The
lawsuit specifically focuses on the company's New York locations
in Brooklyn, Buffalo, Harlem, Rochester, Syracuse and Troy.

The suit accuses defendants of failing to keep accurate records of
wages and tips earned, or hours worked by Ms. Hankins, and said
she was not provided accurate statements of these either.

According to the suit, John Stage, co-founder, owner and operator
of the Dinosaur BBQ restaurants, had power over payroll decisions
and was actively involved in managing the day-to-day operations.


DOUBLE DOWN: Accused of Running "Camouflaged" Gambling Apps
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that consumers
filed separate class actions against virtual casino Double Down
and "Castle Clash" maker IGG, claiming that the companies' games
are "camouflaged" gambling and illegal sweepstakes.

Margo Phillips filed a class action against Double Down
Interactive, a Washington-based company that operates a virtual
casino that offers users the chance to play slot machines,
roulette, black jack and more online.

"Defendant has illegally profited from thousands of Illinois
consumers," Phillips claims.

Double Down allegedly offers first-time visitors free "chips" to
wager on its virtual games.  When the free chips run out, the
company sells visitors 150,000 chips for $2.99 or 100 million for
$99.

Players cannot win cash money by playing Double Down's games --
they win more chips instead.  But these chips "are identical to
the chips that defendant sells," according to the complaint.

Therefore, "Double Down Casino games are nothing more than
camouflaged unlawful games of chance," Phillips says.  She claims
she bought, wagered and lost over $1,000 worth of chips at Double
Down Casino.

Jose Soto and others filed a similar complaint against Sky Union
doing business as IGG.com, a Nevada-based company that runs the
popular online game "Castle Clash."

While "Castle Clash" is free to play, the company sells "gems"
that may be used by players in-game to improve their castle.

"While players can use the gems to improve their virtual towns and
'advance' in the game, these uses of gems merely obfuscate the
unlawful games of chance IGG operates within Castle Clash," the
complaint claims.

Plaintiffs say that "IGG routinely conducts sweepstakes to promote
Castle Clash.  Yet, IGG typically requires that consumers buy gems
to enter the sweepstakes -- in these cases, purchase is necessary
for entry.  Here, IGG directly ties the amount of gems that
players purchase to the likelihood of winning the sweepstakes."

The monetary value of winning these prizes is further evidenced by
the sale of gem-rich Castle Clash accounts on the secondary market
for hundreds of dollars, according to the complaint.

Both complaints seek to recover the money plaintiffs spent on
"chips" or "gems" as part of the operation of defendant's
allegedly illegal lotteries, and damages for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Amir Cheyenne Missaghi, Esq.
          Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  amissaghi@edelson.com
                  cbooth@edelson.com

The Phillips case is titled Margo Phillips, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Double Down Interactive
LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 2015CH06068,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.


DUKE ENERGY: Parties in Progress Merger Suit Executed MOU
---------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation executed a
Memorandum of Understanding relating to a settlement which will be
submitted to the court for approval.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were
also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke
Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants
in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke
Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three
lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and
Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and
misleading representations and omissions in the Registration
Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into
other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in
Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On August 15, 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation for an
amount which, net of the expected proceeds of insurance policies,
is not anticipated to have a material effect on the results of
operations, cash flows or financial position of Duke Energy. On
December 2, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding relating to the settlement which will be submitted
to the court for approval.


DUKE ENERGY: Oral Argument Held in Price Reporting Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument was held
on January 12, 2015, in the Price Reporting Cases.

A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates
and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated,
single federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits
contain similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated
natural gas markets by various means, including providing false
information to natural gas trade publications and entering into
unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust
laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in
unspecified amounts.

On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant's motion for
summary judgment in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke
Energy affiliates are a party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court's decision. On
July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants',
including Duke Energy, petition for certiorari. Oral argument was
held on January 12, 2015.


ESSEX PROPERTY: Paid $500,000 in Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Essex Property Trust, Inc. and Essex Portfolio, L.P. said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the $500,000 to be paid by BRE Properties, Inc. ("BRE") or
its successor(s) in a class acton settlement has been paid in full
by Essex.

Three putative class action and shareholder derivative actions
were filed on behalf of alleged BRE stockholders and/or BRE itself
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, under the
following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No.
24-C-13-8425, filed December 23, 2013; Applegate v. BRE
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-2, filed December 30, 2013;
and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-46, filed
January 3, 2014. On March 18, 2014, the parties reached an
agreement in principle that provided for the settlement of action
on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of
understanding. On October 28, 2014, the Court entered an Order and
Final Judgment Settlement granting final approval of the
Settlement. The Order and Final Judgment Settlement included a
judgment of the dismissal of all claims against BRE, Essex and the
other defendants with prejudice as well as a full release of any
and all claims related to the Merger. The $500,000 to be paid by
BRE or its successor(s) has been paid in full by Essex.


ESSEX PROPERTY: Faces "Foster" Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Essex Property Trust, Inc. and Essex Portfolio, L.P. said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that a punitive class action was filed on December 19, 2014,
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, entitled Foster v. Essex Property Trust,
Inc. alleging that the Company failed to properly secure the
personally-identifying information of its residents. The lawsuit
seeks the recovery of unspecified damages and certain injunctive
relief. This lawsuit was filed in connection with a cyber-
intrusion that the Company discovered in the third quarter of
2014. At this point, the Company is unable to predict the
developments in, outcome of, and/or economic and/or other
consequences of this litigation or predict the developments in,
outcome of, and/or other consequences arising out of any potential
future litigation or government inquiries related to this matter.


FACEBOOK INC: Pay-Per-Click Marketers Seek to Revive Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a group of pay-
per-click marketers aim to revive a class-action lawsuit alleging
that Facebook charged them for invalid clicks, according to recent
court papers.

Late last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
marketers couldn't proceed with their claims in a class-action,
but could still bring suit as individuals.  That ruling was a big
blow to the marketers, because it's often prohibitively expensive
to litigate a case as an individual.

The battle dates to 2009, when Fox Test Prep, Steven Price (who
operates the car site DriveDownPrices.com) and other marketers
alleged that Facebook violated its contract with advertisers by
charging them for "invalid" clicks.

The companies sued shortly after tech news site TechCrunch
reported on complaints about perceived click fraud on Facebook.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in the Northern District of
California ruled several years ago that Facebook's contract with
advertisers disclaimed liability for clicks that were
"fraudulent," in the sense that the clicker had dubious
intentions.  But Judge Fogel ruled that the disclaimer didn't
apply to clicks that were "invalid" -- such as when technical
problems prevented users from reaching a landing page.

In 2012 a different federal judge, Phyllis Hamilton, ruled the
companies couldn't bring the lawsuit as a class-action.  The 9th
Circuit upheld that decision last year, ruling that the marketers
hadn't shown a "workable class-wide methodology" to determine
whether a click should be considered valid.

The marketers, who allege Facebook "systematically" charges
companies for invalid clicks, now say that they intend to file a
new motion for class-action status, based on evidence from
Facebook's internal records.

"Plaintiffs intend on refilling their class certification motion
within 120 days . . . and will demonstrate in their expert's
declaration the feasibility of their methodology by implementing
it with actual data from Facebook," counsel for the marketers says
in a status report filed with Hamilton.

Facebook counters that the marketers waited too long to make this
argument.  "Plaintiffs' attempt to have a second bite at the
apple, after nearly six years of hard-fought litigation, should be
denied," the company says in court papers.  "Granting plaintiffs'
request would serve only to impose unfair costs and burdens on
Facebook to re-litigate an issue that has already been resolved.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Class Action Over Minors' Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, Esq. of Graydon Head, writing for Cincinnati.com,
reports that earlier in March, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California certified a class of
plaintiffs seeking a court order voiding contracts they entered as
minors.

Do you know anyone who entered a contract with Facebook when they
were under the age of 18? If so, let them know they are plaintiffs
in a class action suit in a California federal court.

The two named plaintiffs arrived in their positions via different
routes.  Plaintiff I.B. (the court used initials for the minors)
intended to charge $20 worth of Facebook credits to play a game
called Ninja Saga.  Apparently, I.B. thought his games were being
financed by virtual currency, and managed to charge hundreds of
dollars in the course of his gaming. We can assume that he does
not have a future in accounting.

Plaintiff J.W. on the other hand, simply took his parents' debit
card without their permission and charged over $1000 in Facebook
credits. Given this penchant for spending other people's money,
perhaps J.W. has a future in politics.

In any event, these plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class
of similarly situated knuckleheaded minors.  And the court granted
the motion.

Along the way, the court had to determine a few preliminary
matters.  First, the class asked to proceed under a California
statute that voids contracts entered by minors.  Facebook argued
that class members living outside California couldn't proceed
under a California statute.

But the court didn't "like" (get it?) that argument.  The court
noted Facebook's "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" itself
required users to agree California law would govern disputes.
This falls under the legal theory known as "careful what you wish
for."

Having settled the choice of law question, the court then turned
its attention to whether the case could proceed as a class. It
considered the issues of "numerosity," "commonality," "typicality"
and "adequacy."

And each of the factors favored a finding in favor of class
certification.  As for numerosity, the court concluded there were
likely millions of class members.  And those millions had a common
claim -- the voidability of contracts with minors.  In this
regard, the plaintiffs' claims were typical -- minors who'd
entered a contract that they sought to get out of. Finally, the
court concluded the plaintiffs would adequately present the
claims.

So the news was generally good for the class, except for one
thing.  The court agreed the class could press its claims to void
the contracts, but not the claims seeking to recover money paid
under the contract.

In the court's view, each monetary claim was so small, and so
unique, that it would "overwhelm" the claims for injunctive
relief.  In this case, the numerosity element -- the sheer number
of claims, actually worked against certification on the monetary
claims.  Sort of ironic really.


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Goes to European Court of Justice
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Weclker, writing for Irish Independent, reports that one of
the biggest ever European class action law suits go from the Irish
High Court to the European Court of Justice.  And it is the result
of an Austrian student's shock at finding out how much geographic
and behavioral information Facebook gathered about him.

In 2011, Max Schrems asked Facebook for all of the personal data
-- he got a CD with over 1,200 pages on it showing deleted chat
conversations, event invitations he hadn't responded to, pokes and
details on his physical location identified by computer and phone
IP addresses.  Much of this was from his phone.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Remands Freestyle Engine Suit to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford Freestyle
engine surge lawsuit might finally get its day in court as a
class-action complaint.

Plaintiff Gene Edwards filed the lawsuit in 2011 alleging model
year 2005-2007 Freestyle cars have defective electronic throttle
control systems that Ford concealed from the public.  The lawsuit
alleges the defect can cause the Freestyle engine to surge when
idling or can cause unintended acceleration in both drive and
reverse.

In February 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
class-action lawsuit to include all affected Freestyle owners, but
that motion was dismissed by a district court in June 2012.
Mr. Edwards petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for
permission to appeal the district court decision, a motion that
was granted in October 2012.

Problems with engine surge and acceleration are nothing new, at
least according to owners who have written to CarComplaints.com:

"Turned on the car with my foot on the brake.  If the car is in
reverse or drive it will lunge forward causing me to slam on the
brakes.  When I do this, the car will either die completely or it
will go drive in snail mode, and the wrench light on the dash will
come on.  I can have it floored and the car will only go 5 mph.
If I do get speed and take my foot off the gas, the car will lug
down jerking the car in the process." - 2005 Ford Freestyle owner
/ Farmington Hills, Michigan

"I have a 2005 Ford Freestyle that has now started to lunge
forward on its own ,while I have the brake applied. Today it
almost caused me to jump into cross traffic and scared me to
death.  I no longer trust driving this car nor transporting my
Grandchildren, or my family anywhere." - 2005 Ford Freestyle owner
/ Culbertson, Montana

After the lawsuit was filed, Ford extended the Freestyle warranty
for idle surge repairs and offered refunds for repair costs
previously paid out by owners.

In court, Ford said its extended warranty and refunds for repairs
means a lawsuit isn't necessary, an argument the Ninth Circuit
didn't buy.  A three-judge panel has now ruled the case must go
back to district court for another shot at class-action status.

The Ford Freestyle engine surge lawsuit is currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California -- Edwards v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by the Gibbs Law Group.


FORT COLLINS, CO: Nears Settlement of Panhandling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Pohl, writing for The Coloradoan, reports that the ACLU of
Colorado and the City of Fort Collins are in the final stages of
settling a class-action lawsuit that challenged parts of the
city's panhandling enforcement.

Legal counsel from both parties "have agreed upon terms to settle
this matter," court records filed on March 26 and hosted on the
city's website show.  A preliminary injunction hearing had been
scheduled for March 27 in federal court but was instead vacated.
Both the ACLU and the city confirmed on March 27 that an out-of-
court agreement was being finalized, and specifics were expected
to be revealed on March 23.

Additional details about what the settlement entails have not yet
been made available, and it's not yet known whether any money will
be exchanged or what policy changes may result.

The Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union on Feb. 10
sued the city on behalf of four homeless individuals on the
grounds that police were infringing upon free-speech rights by
warning individuals about solicitation or citing people for some
forms of panhandling.  The 29-page document also included
allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have
started targeting the environmental group's canvassing procedures
in Old Town.

In response to the class-action lawsuit, Fort Collins City Council
in February voted unanimously to nix some aspects of the city's
panhandling ordinance in hopes of side-stepping at least part of
the suit.

Council in February approved an emergency ordinance to cut some
provisions of the "aggressive panhandling" rules on the books, at
least temporarily changing when, where and from whom individuals
can solicit donations. The move was aimed at side-stepping part of
the suit in a move to buy officials time to research the issues
and consider what additional action can or should be taken.

What's against the law

Here's a breakdown of what's still illegal under the city of Fort
Collins prohibition on aggressive panhandling:

-- Intimidating, threatening, coercive or obscene panhandling
conduct that causes the subject to reasonably fear for his or her
safety.

-- Panhandling using fighting words.

-- Knowingly touching or grabbing the person solicited.

-- Panhandling in a manner that obstructs the passage or the
person or requires him or her to take evasive action to avoid
physical contact.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Defect Suits Pile Up
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than 200 people who were injured or died in accidents
attributed to an ignition-switch defect have filed new lawsuits
this year against General Motors Co., having found little recourse
in a victim compensation fund administered by attorney
Kenneth Feinberg.

Most of the more than 40 lawsuits have been coordinated into a
multidistrict proceeding in federal court in New York and were
filed after a Jan. 31 deadline to submit claims with the fund.  GM
recalled more than 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide last year
due to the defect, which causes the ignition switch to slip into
the accessory position, shutting down electrical power and
disabling air bags.

On April 15, GM won a bankruptcy ruling that barred many of the
claims brought in class actions filed by consumers alleging
economic damages, as well as injury and death cases filed over
accidents that occurred before 2009.

But most of these new lawsuits aren't subject to that decision,
and they add to the hundreds of other injury and death cases
pending before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern
District of New York, who is crafting a plan for the first trials
against GM over the ignition switch to begin on Jan. 11.

The new suits also demonstrate the limits of Feinberg's fund,
which compensates only for victims with severe injuries or deaths
who were in cars recalled for the ignition-switch defect.  The
fund does not pay victims alleging defects associated with 30
million cars and trucks that were recalled last year.

Mr. Feinberg has handled compensation funds for victims of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico.

As of April 10, nearly 1,700 claims submitted to the fund for
deaths and injuries remained under review or lacked documentation
-- about 40 percent of all those filed with the fund.  Only 241
were found eligible for compensation, while 1,318 were deemed
ineligible.

Robert Hilliard, co-lead counsel over the injury and death cases
in the coordinated litigation against GM, said some of his clients
have been disappointed with the amounts Feinberg has offered,
particularly to those with neck and back injuries.

"The fund also has a defect in that it was not designed to treat
those who have very short hospital stays but still suffer
permanent disabilities fairly," said Mr. Hilliard, a partner at
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas.  "A jury will
likely award any one of these cases more than the total amount
paid to date by Feinberg."

Feinberg, in an interview, insisted that only four claimants have
rejected offers so far -- three of whom were Hilliard's clients.
As to the pending claims, Mr. Feinberg said that claimants have no
documentation at all "or they've sent us something, and it's
woefully inadequate."  Mr. Feinberg, of Feinberg Rozen in
Washington, said most people have received a letter requiring more
documentation, such as police reports or photographs of the
accident.

Mr. Feinberg has given claimants extra time.  On Nov. 17, he
extended the fund's original deadline of Dec. 31.  He said
claimants have 60 days to provide documentation and, if they
don't, the fund gives them another 60 days before rejecting their
claim as deficient.

But Mr. Hilliard said providing documentation is challenging,
especially since most victims got rid of their cars without
knowing anything was wrong with them.  He also took issue with
Feinberg's awards, noting that most people with head and neck
injuries were being offered less than $10,000.  In general, the
fund compensates victims who died or had severe injuries that
required hospitalization. But many people with those injuries
aren't hospitalized, Hilliard said.

Mr. Feinberg offered another explanation for the new lawsuits:
"The reason they're probably filing a lawsuit is because they're
not eligible to participate in the program," he said.  In fact,
many of the lawsuits involve cars and trucks that aren't eligible
for compensation under the fund.

Others, however, were brought amid concerns that the statute of
limitations to file a suit is about to expire.  Under the fund's
rules, victims must waive their right to sue if they accept a
payment, but the fund doesn't toll the statute of limitations
until a claim is "substantially complete."  But they can also file
suit while waiting for their claim to be processed.

Some lawyers said that they no longer want to wait for a decision
from Mr. Feinberg.  James Bilsborrow, an attorney at New York's
Weitz & Luxenberg who filed a case on March 27, said his client,
Melissa Adams, provided additional documentation to Mr. Feinberg
but hasn't heard anything since Feb. 15.  "I think she has a valid
claim and the fund should compensate her but don't know if they
will," Mr. Bilsborrow said.

Her 2012 accident occurred in Tennessee, which has a one-year
statute of limitations from the date GM acknowledged the defect,
he said.  "Her statute would run while waiting for a response from
the facility, and we didn't want that to happen."

Meanwhile, Judge Furman is getting lawyers ready for trial, with
depositions of GM employees and additional discovery planned for
the coming months.  And Mr. Feinberg said the fund is expected to
wind up by early summer.  Mr. Feinberg said he'd be surprised if
claimants eligible for compensation under the plan, or those
ineligible because they didn't have enough proof, will do any
better in court.

"But I wish them well," he said.


GOOGLE INC: Taps Cleary Gottlieb, Allen & Overy as Antitrust Atty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that two
high-powered global firms have been hired by Google to fight
antitrust claims leveled at the technology giant by the European
Union.

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton will defend Google against
allegations that its enormously popular Internet search engine
favored the company's own products over those of its competitors,
while Allen & Overy will handle a separate antitrust investigation
into Google's Android operating system.

The European Commission announced both actions on April 15.  The
first, for which Cleary Gottlieb has been retained, involves
Google's alleged practice of requiring mobile device manufacturers
to exclusively preinstall its own applications and unnecessarily
bundle its services.

In the antitrust case, the EC alleges in a statement of objections
that Google systematically positions its service "Google Shopping"
at the top of search results, above its competitors, regardless of
which service is more relevant to the terms entered into the
search box.  The EC says this practice, which has gone on since
2008, allowed Google's shopping service to grow unfairly fast,
thereby suppressing competition and innovation.  More than 90
percent of European Web searches are done on Google, according to
the EC.

Cleary Gottlieb antitrust partners Thomas Graf and Robbert
Snelders in Brussels and Maurits Dolmans in London will represent
Google on its alleged infringements of EU antitrust law, along
with associates Hannah Bill, Andrew Leyden, Henry Mostyn and
Mathieu Relange.

Google's in-house team of attorneys includes senior competition
counsel Oliver Bethell, director of competition Julia Holtz,
associate competition counsel Jenny Coombes and senior in-house
economist Fabien Curto Millet.  The lawyers have 10 weeks to
respond to the EC's accusations in writing.  They can also request
an oral hearing before the commissioners will decide how to
proceed.

"The commission's objective is to apply EU antitrust rules to
ensure that companies operating in Europe, wherever they may be
based, do not artificially deny European consumers as wide a
choice as possible or stifle innovation," said a statement by EU
competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager.  "In the case of
Google I am concerned that the company has given an unfair
advantage to its own comparison shopping service, in a breach of
EU antitrust rules."

The EC also announced on April 15 its separate probe of Google
into claims that the Mountainview, California-based company
required smartphone and tablet manufacturers to preinstall
Google's search engine, among other accusations.

Allen & Overy antitrust partner Juergen Schindler in Brussels will
take the lead for the Magic Circle firm on the Android
investigation, working with fellow antitrust partners Dirk Arts in
Brussels and Ellen Braun in Hamburg.

Google will also work with outside economists Andrea Lofaro,
Stephen Lewis and Jan Peter van de Veer of London-based RBB
Economics, an antitrust law consulting firm, as well as Paul
Hofer, founder of London-based AMC Economics, which advises
companies going before the EC.

Cleary Gottlieb has a long-standing relationship with Google.  The
firm's lawyers took the lead for the Internet giant last year when
it sold Motorola Mobility for $2.91 billion to Lenovo and bought
artificial intelligence startup DeepMind for a reported $400
million.  Google also turned to Cleary Gottlieb for counsel on its
$1 billion buy of Israeli map software maker Waze in 2013.

The antitrust arena is another realm where Cleary Gottlieb has
been a staunch Google advocate.  The firm was on hand when the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission challenged Google's $750 million
acquisition of the mobile advertising firm AdMob before eventually
allowing the deal to go forward in 2010.

In 2011, the FTC launched its own investigation into whether
Google was using its search engine to stifle competition.  In
response, Google hired 12 lobbying firms, including Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, Bingham McCutchen, Holland & Knight and
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough to defend itself against the
FTC.  The agency closed the investigation in 2013 without charging
Google.

But Google has not let up on its lobbying efforts.  Nelson Mullins
has been paid $250,000 since the start of 2014 to lobby on
telecommunications policy, patent reform and copyright and privacy
issues, according to records on file with the U.S. Senate, while
now-defunct Bingham McCutchen was paid $100,000 to lobby during
that same time frame.  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, the successor firm
to Bingham McCutchen, has since picked up that work, registering
in January as a lobbyist for Google.

The EC's allegations will likely keep Google's outside counsel
busy for years to come.

Ms. Vestager, the EU competition commissioner who spoke with The
Deal earlier this year about her mandate, said publicly she is
also investigating Google's alleged practices of copying the Web
content of its rivals and insisting on exclusive deals with
advertisers.

In a blog post on April 15, Google's senior vice president,
Amit Singhal, said its search engine results have not harmed its
rivals, claiming that competition among shopping sites, including
Axel Springer, Expedia, TripAdvisor and Yelp, all of which have
logged complaints with the EC, is more fierce than ever.

Media representatives for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
another longtime legal adviser to Google, whose chief legal
officer once worked at the firm, did not respond to a request for
comment on whether the firm has any role advising the company on
its European antitrust woes.

The firm, a Silicon Valley stalwart whose ties to Google stem to
the company's inception, opened an office in Brussels, home to the
EC, back in 2011.


GOOGLE INC: May Face Safari Privacy Class Action in UK
------------------------------------------------------
Sara Rose, writing for The Next Digit, reports that Google Inc.
has lost out on an important privacy battle in the United Kingdom
after a Court of Appeal ruling upheld the right of UK residents to
file lawsuits against Google for Google's tracking of Safari
browser data.  In 2012, news had surfaced about Google violating
the privacy rights of users of the Safari web browser.

Apple's Safari browser which comes as a default on Apple's devices
provides greater security when it comes to usage history.  This
higher security setting meant that Google wasn't able to place its
cookies in user's devices to track their internet usage in order
to generate fruitful and actionable data for advertisers.
However, a small loophole in Safari, which Google labeled as a
"known functionality", allowed Google to place cookies in user's
Apple devices in an underhand manner.

Google did it by inserting code into its ads that made Safari
believe that its user had filled out a form on a webpage, even
though the users had not done so.  This step made the browser
believe that a tracking cookie can be initiated on its devices.
This tracking method is not allowed by default on Safari and a
user has to opt-in for the same.

After the cookie had been thus placed, it was used to enable
tracking by Google, which allowed user data to be monitored and
collected.  This data was then compiled and provided to
advertising networks such as PointRoll, Vibrant Media and the
Media Innovation Group.  This surreptitious collection of data had
alarmed privacy enthusiasts to the creeping and unsolicited
tracking by Google.  However, at that time, Google and other
advertising networks had defended this practice by claiming that
this "tracking" was based on a 'known functionality' and there was
nothing that was illegally accessed.

However, the Court of Appeal did not agree with the same.  The
Appeals court upheld the right of trial for those whose privacy
was violated by Google.  The court stated that the case merited a
trial as it was a 'secret and blanket tracking and collation of
information, often of an extremely private nature'.

This decision by the Court has also expanded the ambit of privacy
jurisdiction by adding a new pedestal on which privacy
infringement related claims can be found.  Earlier, the aggrieved
parties resorted to 'breach of confidence' to stake their claims
of privacy infringement.  The lack of a common law of torts that
explicitly recognized the right to privacy also posed a challenge
for UK citizens who faced even more novel forms of privacy
violations.  The Court, by deciding that Google's tracking and
collation of user's information amounted to 'misuse of private
information' will surely help develop the scope of privacy rights
that may be enjoyed by a UK citizen.


GREYSTONE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products
--------------------------------------------------
Greystone Foods, LLC voluntarily recalls Today's Harvest Field
Peas with Snaps, Silver Queen Corn, and Broccoli Florets with the
sell by date 04/21/16 shipped to Publix Supermarkets warehouse in
Lakeland, FL warehouse due to possible health risk.

Greystone Foods, LLC of Birmingham, Alabama is recalling any
Today's Harvest frozen Field Peas with Snaps, Broccoli Florets,
and Silver Queen Corn with the sell by date of 04/21/16 because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, headaches,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Greystone Foods, LLC voluntarily recalls Today's Harvest Field
Peas with Snaps, Silver Queen Corn, and Broccoli Florets with the
sell by date 04/21/16 shipped to Publix Supermarkets warehouse in
Lakeland, FL warehouse due to possible health risk. To the best of
our knowledge, none of these items left their warehouse. In an
abundance of caution, Publix has decided to remove these items
from their stores. No other grocers are involved in this recall.

These products come in 32 ounce clear plastic bags and are located
in the freezer section of Publix. The sell by date of 04/21/16 is
printed along the bottom seal of the bag in black ink.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after we were informed
by our supplier that an area of their facility where the field
peas with snaps were blended tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes on a non-food contact surface. All products involved
in this recall were quickly identified and removed from commerce.

If any customers find packages with the sell by date of 04/21/16
we urge them to return them to the store where they were purchased
for a refund. Consumers with questions may call 1-205-945-9099.


GUESS? INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that on March 24, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California denied
Guess?, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a telephone consumer protection
act ("TCPA") class action pending against it.  Guess argued that
the plaintiff's complaint failed to demonstrate that Guess had
used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to send
unsolicited text messages in violation of the TCPA.  The Court,
however, rejected Guess' arguments and the case will now proceed
to discovery.

Guess Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied

Guess moved to dismiss the TCPA class action complaint because, it
argued, the complaint merely recited the legal standard set forth
in the TCPA without including any facts to demonstrate that an
ATDS was used in sending the subject text messages.  The Court
rejected this argument.  The Court began by noting that there are
two pleading standards courts typically follow in TCPA actions:
the first permits a plaintiff to do nothing more than recite the
legal standard set forth in the TCPA, assuming that it is
impossible for the plaintiff to definitively know that an ATDS was
used until discovery; the second requires the plaintiff to
"include factual allegations about the call within the complaint
allowing for a reasonable inference that an ATDS was used."  The
Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff had set forth sufficient
allegations to "infer use of an ATDS."

Express Consent is an Affirmative Defense in TCPA Class Actions

Guess also attempted to dismiss the complaint by claiming that the
named plaintiff expressly consented to the receipt of text
messages.  The Court declined to dismiss the complaint at this
early stage of the proceedings, however, because the plaintiff had
expressly alleged that she "did not provide Defendant or its
agents prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages."  The Court stated that although express consent is a
defense to a TCPA claim, if the plaintiff claims that he or she
did not provide consent, the parties must go through discovery
before the Court will decide the issue.

Now that the Court has denied Guess' motion to dismiss, Guess will
have to file an answer and begin discovery.


GUSANO'S CHICAGO: Employees Can't Challenge Arbitration Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq., and Paul Williams, Esq., of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, report that in
Conners v. Gusano's Chicago Style Pizzeria, plaintiffs, former
employees of defendant, brought a collective action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Defendant responded
by implementing a binding arbitration policy on current employees
that specifically prevented current employees from joining
plaintiffs in the collective action.  The district court enjoined
defendant from enforcing the arbitration agreement as to any
current employees who chose to join the litigation. On
interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated the order,
finding that the former employees lacked standing to challenge the
current employees' arbitration agreements.

In Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services, the district court
certified various classes of current and former employees in an
action under the California Labor Code.  The employer petitioned
the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), asserting that the lower court
abused its discretion by certifying classes that included
employees who signed employment agreements containing class action
waivers.  The Ninth Circuit agreed, and vacated the certification
order to the extent that it included employees who signed class
action waivers. In so holding, the Circuit Court reasoned that
because the named plaintiff's arbitration agreement did not
contain a class action waiver, she was an inadequate
representative for and her claim lacked typicality as to putative
class members who had signed such waivers.

Conners v. Gusano's Chicago Style Pizzeria, No. 14-1829 (8th Cir.
Mar. 9, 2015).

Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services, Inc., No. 13-55154 (9th
Cir. Mar. 9, 2015).


GUTHY-RENKER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product
------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Wen Hair Products and
marketing company Guthy-Renker got hit with a defective products
class action lawsuit over allegations the line of products cause
hair loss.

The Wen haircare lawsuit, filed by women living in Florida,
Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and North Carolina, the
plaintiffs all allege they have suffered severe hair loss after
using "Wen Hair Products".

The Wen line of products is designed, manufactured and sold by
Chaz Dean, a Hollywood hair stylist, and Guthy-Renker.  The
defendants claim that the Wen hair products condition the hair,
and limit or repair damage caused by regular hair treatments and
daily styling.  However, not advertised is the alleged severe and
possibly permanent damage to hair, including hair loss to the
point of visible bald spots and severe breakage, according to the
plaintiffs.

According to the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, many of the
women who have suffered damage called the companies for help, only
to be told that their complaints were unusual.  However, the
companies had received prior, similar calls, which they did not
disclose. You think?


HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of "All Natural" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a 9th
Circuit panel reversed the dismissal of a federal class action
over allegedly chemical-laden "all natural" cosmetics, finding
federal law doesn't expressly preempt California's false-
advertising laws.

Skye Astiana and Tamar Davis Larsen filed a federal class action
against Hain Celestial Group and Jason Natural Products, claiming
they were deceived into purchasing the companies' cosmetics based
on labels proclaiming the products "all natural," "pure natural"
and "pure, natural and organic."

The women say that in reality, the companies' cosmetics allegedly
contain synthetic and artificial ingredients like benzyl alcohol
and even airplane antifreeze.  They say they never would have
purchased the products -- and paid the premium prices charged for
them -- if they had known the products weren't actually all
natural.

A federal judge first dismissed the women's quasi-contract claim,
finding it was not a stand-alone cause of action and "nonsensical
as pled in any event."

Hain then asked the court to dismiss the case entirely, arguing
that the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempted the women's
state-law claims.  The judge opted to dismiss the case -- rather
than stay it -- so the parties could seek guidance from the Food
and Drug Administration.

On appeal, Hain against reasserted its preemption argument and
asked a 9th Circuit panel to completely dismiss the case.  The
company said allowing the class action to go forward would create
a "novel state labeling requirement" under California law that the
U.S. Supreme Court had addressed in a case over pesticide labels.

Noting that the high court had not absolutely barred state-law
suits over inadequate labeling in the pesticide case, Circuit
Judge Margaret McKeown said on April 10 that the class action did
not seek to change Hain's product labels except to stop calling
the products "all natural" if they are not.

"FDA regulations do not require Hain to label its products 'all
natural' or 'pure natural,'" McKeown wrote.  "If the class action
ultimately requires Hain to remove these allegedly misleading
advertising statements from its product labels, such a result does
not run afoul of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits
'requirements' that are 'different from,' 'in addition to,' or
'not identical with' federal rules."

McKeown acknowledged that the FDA has never regulated the use of
the word "natural" on cosmetic labels, but rejected Hain's
argument that the agency therefore permits the use of the word in
whatever way companies wish to do so.

"This argument proves too much," McKeown wrote in the 17-page
decision.  "By this logic, a manufacturer could make any claim --
wild, untruthful or otherwise - about a product whose contents are
not addressed by a specific regulation.  The statute, however,
proscribes statements that are 'false or misleading in any
particular,' not statements that are 'prohibited by specific FDA
regulations.'"

The panel also reinstated the class' quasi-contract cause of
action, which the lower court had likened to the disfavored
common-law unjust enrichment claim.

"Unjust enrichment and restitution are not irrelevant in
California law," McKeown wrote. "Rather, they describe the theory
underlying a claim that a defendant has been unjustly conferred a
benefit 'through mistake, fraud, coercion or request.'  When a
plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, a court may construe the
cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution."

She continued: "The class alleged in its first amended complaint
that they were entitled to relief under a 'quasi-contract' cause
of action because Hain had 'enticed' plaintiffs to purchase their
products through 'false and misleading' labeling, and that Hain
was 'unjustly enriched' as a result.  This straightforward
statement is sufficient to state a quasi-contract cause of action.
To the extent the district court concluded that the cause of
action was nonsensical because it was duplicative of or
superfluous to the class' other claims, this is not grounds for
dismissal."

In late 2014, a different federal judge in San Francisco certified
a separate class action against Hain over its use of the word
"organic" on labels of its Avalon and Jason cosmetics.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Toll Free: (888) 355-1735
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
                  wlison@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@gmail.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          James M. Schurz, Esq.
          Lisa A. Wongchenko, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: jschurz@mofo.com
                  lwongchenko@mofo.com

The appellate case is Skye Astiana; Tamar Davis Larsen, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Jason Natural Products, Inc., a California
corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-17596, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
District Court case is Skye Astiana and Tamar Davis Larsen v. The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., and Jason Natural Products, Inc., Case
No. 4:11-cv-06342-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Financial Institutions Dismiss Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the financial
institutions named as plaintiffs in the putative financial
institution class actions agreed to dismiss their claims with
prejudice.

"On January 20, 2009, we publicly announced the discovery of a
criminal breach of our payment systems environment (the
"Processing System Intrusion"). The Processing System Intrusion
involved malicious software that appears to have been used to
collect in-transit, unencrypted payment card data while it was
being processed by us during the transaction authorization
process. We believe the breach did not extend beyond 2008," the
Company said.

"Several lawsuits were filed against us and our sponsor banks in
connection with the Processing System Intrusion, including
putative class action lawsuits brought by financial institutions
and banks, which sought to represent all financial institutions
that issued payment cards to cardholders whose transaction
information was alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion. These actions were centralized
before the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas as part of a multi-district litigation captioned In re
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. These actions sought
compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost of issuance
of replacement cards and losses by reason of unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

"On February 26, 2015, the financial institutions named as
plaintiffs in the putative financial institution class actions
and/or in the actions that were transferred to or otherwise made
part of the centralized multi-district litigation agreed to
dismiss their claims with prejudice. As part of this dismissal, we
made no payments to the named plaintiffs."


HI-TECH PHARMA: Judges Receptive to Appeal in Supplement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that two of three
federal judges in Atlanta on April 17 sounded receptive to a
Norcross firm's appeal of a $40 million contempt order over its
marketing of dietary supplements.

King & Spalding partner Merritt McAlister appeared for Hi-Tech
Pharmaceuticals and its owner and CEO, who have been battling the
federal government in criminal and civil arenas for more than 11
years over its marketing of diet pills and other substances.  The
owner and CEO, Jared Wheat, has served an 18-month prison term and
a stint in jail on a judge's contempt finding during that period.

On April 17, Mr. McAlister argued that the district court judge
who sanctioned her clients held them to a standard that wasn't
found in the language of the injunction he said they violated.
Judges Gerald Tjoflat and William Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sounded concerned that the lower
court judge didn't give Hi-Tech and Wheat sufficient notice of
what was forbidden -- and he didn't allow them to present evidence
that their marketing claims were supported by science.

Along with the monetary penalty, Senior U.S. District Judge
Charles Pannell Jr. last year ordered an immediate recall of four
supplements that Hi-Tech had marketed as weight loss or male
sexual enhancement products.  Unsatisfied with the company's
compliance, Judge Pannell in September ordered Wheat and senior
vice president of sales Stephen Smith to turn themselves in to
federal marshals.  Judge Pannell ordered their release in
November.

The case was initiated in 2004 by the Federal Trade Commission, in
the midst of a criminal probe of Hi-Tech drug sales that resulted
in Wheat's prison sentence.  He pleaded guilty to federal charges
stemming from Hi-Tech's unregulated sale of adulterated drugs such
as Valium and Xanax.  The 2004 action by the FTC focused on
Wheat's multimillion-dollar diet supplement business.  The FTC
alleged that Hi-Tech's statements in magazines and flyers --
including a claim that one supplement was "an effective treatment
for obesity" -- were false and unsubstantiated.

In 2008, Judge Pannell found that Hi-Tech's advertising had
violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and levied a $15.8
million regulatory fine.  He also entered an injunction
prohibiting Hi-Tech and the other defendants named in the case
from making certain claims about any product's effectiveness as a
weight loss product unless they had "competent and reliable
scientific evidence that substantiates the representation."  The
Hi-Tech defendants appealed the injunction, and a separate panel
of judges affirmed in a one-sentence ruling.

In 2011, the FTC moved to hold Hi-Tech, Wheat and Smith in
contempt, alleging their claims about various Hi-Tech supplements
had violated the terms of the injunction.  The defendants tried to
show that they had scientific evidence to back up their marketing
claims, but Judge Pannell refused to consider the defendants'
expert testimony on what is adequate substantiation for the sort
of claims the defendants made.  The judge said the standard had
been settled at the time he issued his 2008 injunction.

Last May, Judge Pannell issued the $40 million contempt sanction,
based on his conclusion that the company's marketing had violated
the 2011 injunction.  He said the monetary figure represented
gross revenues from the sale of the supplements from Jan. 1, 2009,
through Aug. 31, 2013, and was intended to repay consumers who may
have been swayed by deceptive claims.  He also ordered the
defendants to recall certain supplements from stores.

The Hi-Tech defendants appealed the sanctions, and both they and
the FTC began submitting status reports on the defendants'
compliance.  In July, the FTC called for Wheat and Smith's
incarceration, and in September Pannell ordered Wheat and Smith
jailed until a proper recall notice was sent to distributors,
links to the recall notice were prominently displayed on Hi-Tech's
website and the products were no longer available for purchase.
In November, after the FTC filed a report saying the defendants
had substantially complied with the judge's order, Judge Pannell
ordered Wheat and Smith released.

Arguing for Hi-Tech and Wheat on April 17, King & Spalding's
McAlister told the appellate judges that most reasonable people
would read Judge Pannell's 2008 injunction as requiring something
less than the sort of proof that is required when a manufacturer
claims that its product is akin to a drug. If double-blind,
placebo-controlled studies were the standard to be imposed on
Hi-Tech, she said, that could have been put in the injunction.

She said the product claims that were at issue when the injunction
was issued differed significantly from those that were the basis
for the contempt sanction, arguing that the latter claims didn't
say the supplements cured obesity.

A visiting judge on the panel, Senior Fifth Circuit Judge Rhesa
Hawkins Barksdale, pressed McAlister on her arguments.  The judge
elicited the lawyer's acknowledgment that the district judge
wasn't required to list in his injunction every item Hi-Tech might
sell and the standard for judging marketing claims about each.  "I
think the precedent makes clear you don't have to dot every I and
cross every T in an injunction," said Judge Barksdale.

But Judges Pryor and Tjoflat asked questions that were more
encouraging for Hi-Tech.  Judge Tjoflat said he was concerned that
the injunction may be of the sort that merely told the defendants
to obey the law. That presents a fairness problem given that it
shifts the burden away from the government, he said: "It puts the
burden on the wrong party."

Atlanta lawyer E. Vaughn Dunnigan spoke briefly on behalf of
Smith, contending that Judge Pannell didn't meet his obligation to
make specific findings about Smith's actions before holding him in
contempt.

Leslie Rice Melman of the FTC in Washington told the judges it was
clear that the Hi-Tech defendants understood that once they lost
their appeal of the 2008 injunction, they would need to have
placebo-controlled testing to support their marketing claims.  She
said the changes Hi-Tech made to its advertisements were merely
"cosmetic."

As for the Hi-Tech defendants' attempts to back up their claims
when facing possible contempt sanctions, Ms. Melman said, "they
were the same ingredient-specific studies that the district court
had already determined were not accepted in science."

Ms. Melman said Judge Pannell acted well within his authority in
determining that the evidence Hi-Tech offered at the contempt
stage was the same sort of evidence that it had offered when the
district judge was considering the government's request for an
injunction.  "The district court did not shut them out," she said.

"The standard of well-controlled, clinical testing is well-
accepted within science as the gold standard," Ms. Melman added.
Judge Tjoflat asked her why the FTC hadn't put that standard in
the proposed injunction it submitted to Pannell.

"At the time," Ms. Melman replied, "the FTC didn't believe it was
necessary."


HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Flawed Reimbursement Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that another proposed wage and
hour class action lawsuit has been filed against 70 Domino's
Franchises stores, this time in California and Arizona, by a
delivery driver who alleges Domino's fails to reasonably reimburse
drivers for the costs of using personal vehicles for work, in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
California labor laws.

Field by driver Derek Gibbins, the Dominos delivery lawsuit
alleges franchise operator Hishmeh Enterprises Inc. uses a flawed
method to determine reimburse rates.  Specifically, it typically
pays $1 per trip which that does not accurately reflect costs
incurred by drivers.

The complaint further claims that Hishmeh's "systematic failure"
to provide adequate reimbursement constitutes a "kickback" such
that hourly wages paid to its drivers are not free and clear,
resulting in net wages that fall beneath federal and state
minimum-wage requirements in violation of the FLSA and state labor
codes.

"The net effect of defendant's flawed reimbursement policy is that
it willfully fails to pay the federal and state minimum wage to
its delivery drivers," according to the complaint filed in
California federal court.  "Defendant thereby enjoys ill-gained
profits at the expense of its employees." Otherwise known as
screwing your employees -- allegedly.

The complaint alleges all Hishmeh drivers have similar experiences
because they operate under the same reimbursement policy.  The
suit seeks to include an estimate of several hundred current and
former Hishmeh delivery drivers in California over the past four
years.


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Urges 3rd Circuit to Preserve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mello, writing for Law360, reports that Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey and counsel for a class of health care
service providers have urged the Third Circuit to preserve a class
action settlement resolving claims over unpaid reimbursements,
saying the deal provides the best solution to the dispute, even
for the objectors who appealed.

A group of objectors protested the settlement, which awarded no
damages but provided a $2.5 million payment to class counsel Nagel
Rice LLP.  The objectors, various health providers who say Horizon
underpaid them for their services, claimed the suit was worth as
much as $10 billion in damages.

In a March 25 brief, Horizon argued the "complexity of the action"
made the settlement a favorable resolution, noting the court
pointed out the lengthy litigation that preceded the settlement
and further court action would use up "substantial judicial
resources."

"Appellants now seek to overturn a settlement that ended five
years of hard-fought litigation, resolved all of the claims
asserted against Horizon in two separate lawsuits, and is
providing concrete benefits to approximately 2.7 million class
members," Horizon argued.

In October, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler ordered the
objectors to post $2,500 bond each pending their appeal to the
Third Circuit of his approval of the settlement.

Under the settlement, which covers 2.8 million class members,
Horizon was ordered to stop using the allegedly faulty Ingenix
database to calculate claims for covered services provided by out-
of-network providers.  The company pledged to discontinue use of
its "Top of Range" reimbursement schedule for such claims, which
Nagel Rice called statistically flawed.

Class counsel, after opposing Horizon in years of litigation,
joined the company in a call to preserve the settlement.

"The district court considered and rejected objectors' arguments,
seeing them for what they truly are: 'speculative and unfounded,'"
Nagel Rice attorneys wrote in a separate brief, also filed on
March 25.

Both Horizon and Nagel Rice referred to Girsh v. Jepson, a 1975
case in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Objectors deliberately focus on only one Girsh factor in a
vacuum: the lack of monetary relief to the class," Nagel Rice
wrote.  "They ignore that the 'value' of the class must be weighed
against 'all the attendant risks of litigation.'"

The class is represented by Bruce H. Nagel, Randee M. Matloff and
Andrew Pepper of Nagel Rice LLP.

Horizon is represented by Phillip Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- and David Jay -- jayd@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The objectors are represented by Eric D. Katz of Mazie Slater Katz
& Freeman LLC.

The case is McDonough et al. v. Horizon Healthcare Services Inc.,
case number 14-3558, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Consolidated BCBS Identity Theft Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
With no evidence of injury stemming from a Blue Cross Blue Shield
security breach, a federal judge threw out a consolidated class
action in New Jersey, reports Rose Bouboushian, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuit stems from the report by Horizon Healthcare Services
Inc. dba Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey that an
unknown thief stole two password-protected laptops from its Newark
headquarters in early November 2013.

In addition to reporting the incident to the Newark Police
Department, Horizon issued a press release and letters to members
potentially affected by the theft on Dec. 6.  That press release
announced that the stolen computers may have contained files with
various amounts of member information, including names, addresses,
identification numbers, dates of birth, and in some cases, Social
Security numbers.

The breach implicated the personal and insurance information of
more than 839,000 members of Horizon, out 3.7 million, but Horizon
said that the computer' configuration made it uncertain whether
"all of the member information contained on the laptops is
accessible."

Horizon offered free credit monitoring and identity-theft
protection for members with Social Security numbers on the stolen
laptops, but various members filed suit anyway.

Claims by Courtney Diana, Karen Pekelney, Mark Meisel and Mitchell
Rindner were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi
in Newark.  They claimed that Horizon's "wrongful actions and
inaction" forced them to "mitigate the actual and potential impact
of the data breach on their lives."

Though Rindner alone alleged actual misuse of his personal info,
all claimed to have sustained "economic damages and other actual
harm for which they are entitled to compensation," and they
asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Cecchi dismissed the action for lack of standing on March 31,
relying on the 11th Circuit's 2012 ruling in a similar case,
Resnick v. AvMed Inc.

In Diana, Pekelney and Meisel's case, the plaintiffs failed to
allege an "economic injury," according to the unpublished ruling.

"Neither Diana nor Pekelney nor Meisel allege that they were
careful in guarding their sensitive information, that they
suffered any monetary losses like those alleged in Resnick, or
that they have sustained any other injuries such as identity
theft, identity fraud, medical fraud, or phishing," Cecchi wrote.

The trio's higher likelihood of future harm does not give them
standing, the judge ruled.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged any post-breach misuse of compromised
data," Cecchi wrote.

Rindner claimed that someone filed a fraudulent joint tax return
under his and his wife's names, and that someone tried to
fraudulently use his credit card, but Horizon persuaded the court
that the theft of its laptops did not necessarily cause these
injuries.

"While it is possible that the thief obtained Rindner's wife's
information from another source and pooled it with Rindner's
information from the stolen laptops, the dearth of any other
identity theft victims (out of 839,000 members) makes this an
unlikely scenario," Cecchi wrote.

Since Rindner also received a tax refund from the fraud in
question, he does not have a claim for redress on that point,
according to the ruling.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Horizon Healthcare
Services Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:13-cv-07418-CCC-
JBC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


HOSPIRA INC: Preservative-Free Bupivacaine HCl Injections
---------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., (NYSE: HSP) has announced it is issuing a voluntary
recall of one lot of Preservative-Free Bupivacaine HCl Injection,
USP, 0.5% (5 mg/mL), 30 mL Single-dose (NDC: 0409-1162-02, Lot 38-
515-DK, Expiry 1FEB2016) due to one confirmed customer complaint
of orange and black, visible particles embedded and free floating
within a single-dose glass teartop vial. The particles were
identified as iron oxide. This recall is being carried out to the
user level (both human and veterinary).

Risk factors associated with particulate include the potential for
particulate to be injected and/or therapy may be delayed. If
smaller pieces of the particulate break off and become free
floating within the solution, it may be injected into the patient.
Injected particulate may result in local inflammation, low-level
allergic or immune responses, granuloma formation or mechanical
irritation of tissue, in particular in patients allergic or
sensitive to iron oxide. In addition, therapy may be delayed if
observation of particulate is not made until the point of care.
This delay is likely to be of negligible clinical significance
provided remediation is readily available.

The lot was distributed from July 2014 to September 2014. Hospira
has not received reports of any adverse events associated with
this issue for this lot to date. Hospira is currently working with
our glass supplier and has initiated an investigation to determine
the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution, and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility.  Customers
who have further distributed the recalled product should notify
any accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
user level (both human and veterinary). Hospira will be notifying
its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for
impacted product to be returned to Stericycle. For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-866-918-8770 between the hours of
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

  Hospira Contact      Contact Information      Areas of Support
  ---------------      -------------------      ----------------
Hospira Global         1-800-441-4100           To report adverse
Complaint Management   (8am-5pm CT, M-F)        events or product
                       (ProductComplaintsPP     complaints
                        @hospira.com)

Hospira Medical         1-800-615-0187          Medical inquiries
Communications          or medcom@hospira.com
                        (Available 24 hours a
                        day/7 days per week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com


IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Suit Over Safety of Fitness Product Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed with prejudice a class action claiming
that a sporting goods company's doorway pull-up bar contains a
potentially fatal defect, reports Katherine Proctor, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Matthew Weininger claimed that Implus Footcare's
"Perfect Multi-Gym" fitness product places users at risk of injury
or even death because its key feature -- an exercise bar installed
over the top of a doorframe -- requires the user's weight to hold
it in place.

Weininger claimed the inherent flaw in the products design is that
few users can maintain "a complete vertical presence" during a
pull-up, since the body's natural inclination is for the legs to
swing forward on the way up and to backward on the way down.  This
"pendulum like effect" is inevitable, he said, and as a result the
bar can detach from the door frame and send its user to the
ground.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, Implus Footcare argued whatever
fault might exist, it was in Weininger's claims.  Specifically,
the company said Weininger's complaint failed to show that any of
the "tens of thousands" of Multi-Gyms that had been sold had ever
injured anyone.  Further, it said, Weininger failed to assert that
his Multi-Gym had failed to perform as intended, or that he even
used the product.

"Because his conclusory claims of potential harm are entirely
speculative, Plaintiff lacks standing to sue, either individually
or on behalf of the putative class," the company said.  "Even if
Plaintiff had standing, his Complaint fails to state claims upon
which relief could be granted."

U.S. District Judge William Orrick agreed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

Implus Footcare is represented by:

          Troy Yoshino, Esq.
          CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA  94104
          Telephone: (415) 989-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: tyoshino@cbmlaw.com

The case is Matthew Weininger v. Implus Footcare, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01375-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Defense Department's Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dianna Cahn, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that seven
months after a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
contractor hired to ship military service members' cars
internationally, the case is at a standstill in the U.S. District
Court in Georgia.

Six military service members put their names to the complaint
filed against International Auto Logistics last August after the
company damaged or lost track of hundreds of vehicles in its first
months on the job.

International took over the Defense Department's vehicle shipping
contract in May, beating out a contractor that did the job for 15
years.

Complaints poured in as the peak summer shipping season
progressed, with service members saying their vehicles were
arriving weeks or months behind schedule.

The company came under fire for not accurately tracking the
vehicles and for not providing assistance to service members left
in the lurch.  Things got so bad that, at one point, the
Transportation Command stepped in, providing a hotline for service
members who were stonewalled by the company.

By mid-August, the lawsuit said, only 30 percent of vehicles had
been delivered on time.  Neither International nor the
Transportation Command would verify precise delivery rates.  But a
month later, a government spokesman said the company was still
falling short of a promised 90 percent deliver rate.

The numbers improved once the peak season ended. International
said in February that its on-time rate had climbed to 95 percent
since Jan. 1.  But even then, it fell short of the contractually
required 98 percent on-time delivery rate.

In February, the Transportation Command said that despite these
problems it was sticking with the contractor through another
season.  A spokesman for the military command, based at Scott Air
Force Base in Illinois, said military officials were comfortable
with a new plan submitted by the company for how it would handle
the upcoming peak season.

Meanwhile, International is fighting the class-action suit.  In
mid-September, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit for
a number of reasons, including its claim that service members who
filed the complaint are subject to dispute resolution provisions
in the contract and do not have the standing to sue.  It also
claimed that they had no standing to sue for breach of contract
because they are not signatories to the contract.

A judge in the case has ordered all actions on the suit frozen
pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss, according to attorneys
on the suit.  Until then, no further depositions can be taken and
the case remains at a standstill.


INVENTURE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Vegetable & Smoothie Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. has issued a voluntary recall of certain
varieties of its Fresh Frozen(TM) line of frozen vegetables, as
well as select varieties of its Jamba "At Home" line of smoothie
kits, due to finding of Listeria monocytogenes, in its Jefferson,
GA facility. Listeria is an organism that can cause infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

To date, there are no known illnesses linked to consumption of
Fresh Frozen IQF frozen vegetables or Jamba "At Home" smoothies.
However, Inventure Foods has decided to err on the side of utmost
caution and issue a voluntary recall because Listeria
monocytogenes was identified within the facility.

The Company urges anyone who has purchased a product listed below
to not consume it and to instead return the package to the store
where it was purchased for a full refund. If consumers have
additional questions, representatives will be available 24/7 at
866-890-1004; via email at info@inventurefoods.com or visit
InventureFoods.com/Information/FrozenRecall for the latest
updates.

The Company said, "Please be assured that we are committed to
producing the highest quality products - and our top priority is
the health and safety of consumers. It is with this commitment
that we have initiated this voluntary recall as a precautionary
measure and are working closely with the FDA to proactively remedy
the situation."

The Fresh Frozen products being recalled are distributed to retail
outlets, including food service accounts, mass merchandise stores
and supermarkets in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.

The Jamba "At Home" smoothies' products being recalled are
distributed to retail outlets, including mass merchandise stores
and supermarkets east of the Mississippi River. Only specific
Jamba "At Home" branded products are involved in this recall. No
other Jamba(R) branded products are affected.

The products being recalled are identified below:

Fresh Frozen Vegetable Products

  UPC CODE          FF ITEM     PACK SIZE   DESCRIPTION
  -------           NUMBER      ---------   -----------
                    -------
0-86069-20000-1     102         6/2#        SPEC. BUTTER BEANS
0-86069-50000-2     105         4/5#        SPEC. BUTTER BEANS
0-86069-20010-0     112         6/2#        BABY LIMA BEANS
0-86069-50010-1     115         4/5#        BABY LIMA BEANS
0-86069-20020-9     124         6/2#        CUT GREEN BEANS
0-86069-50020-0     125         4/5#        CUT GREEN BEANS
0-86069-20340-8     132         6/2#        ITALIAN GREEN BEANS
0-86069-50340-9     135         4/5#        ITALIAN GREEN BEANS
0-86069-20030-8     203         6/2#        CROWDER PEAS
0-86069-50030-9     205         4/5#        CROWDER PEAS
0-86069-20040-7     212         6/2#        BLACKEYE PEAS
0-86069-50040-8     215         4/5#        BLACKEYE PEAS
0-86069-20041-4     222         6/2#        PURPLE HULL PEAS
0-86069-50041-5     225         4/5#        PURPLE HULL PEAS
0-86069-20050-6     242         6/2#        FIELD PEAS W/SNPS
0-86069-50050-7     245         4/5#        FIELD PEAS W/SNPS
0-86069-20060-5     252         6/2#        BUTTER PEAS
0-86069-20005-6     256         6/2#        BUTTER BEANS
0-86069-20016-2     144         12/24 oz    FORDHOOK LIMA BEANS
0-86069-20061-2     262         6/2#        GREEN PEAS
0-86069-50060-6     265         4/5#        GREEN PEAS
0-86069-20290-6     272         6/2#        GREEN PEAS W/CARROTS
0-86069-50290-7     275         4/5#        GREEN PEAS W/CARROTS
0-86069-20042-1     283         6/2#        ZIPPER PEAS
0-86069-20032-2     295         6/2#        WHITE ACRE PEAS
0-86069-20070-4     303         6/2#        CUT OKRA
0-86069-50240-2     305         4/5#        CUT OKRA
0-86069-20350-7     312         6/2#        BABY WHOLE OKRA
**** NO UPC         315         4/5#        BABY WHOLE OKRA
0-86069-20075-9     323         6/2#        BREADED OKRA
0-86069-50075-0     325         4/5#        BREADED OKRA
0-86069-20100-8     402         6/2#        CUT YELLOW CORN
0-86069-50100-9     405         4/5#        CUT YELLOW CORN
**** NO UPC         421         96 CT       3" CORN ON COB
0-86069-20200-5     422         6/2#        3" CORN ON COB
0-86069-50250-1     425         4/5#        3" CORN ON COB
0-86069-20102-2     432         6/2#        SHOEPEG CORN
0-86069-50102-3     435         4/5#        SHOEPEG CORN
0-86069-20300-2     502         6/2#        SLICED YELLOW SQUASH
0-86069-50300-3     505         4/5#        SLICED SQUASH
0-86069-20270-8     510         6/2#        BREADED SQUASH
0-86069-20310-3     522         6/2#        SLICED ZUCCHINI
0-86069-20510-5     531         6/2#        CHOPPED VIDALIA
                                            ONIONS & SQUASH
0-86069-20500-6     542         6/2#        CHOPPED VIDALIA
                                            ONIONS
0-86069-20295-1     603          6/2#       SLICED CARROTS
**** NO UPC         604          20#        SLICED CARROTS
0-86069-20355-2     659          6/2#       BRUSSEL SPROUTS
0-86069-20140-4     703          6/2#       CUT BROCCOLI
0-86069-50140-5     705          4/5#       CUT BROCCOLI
0-86069-20141-1     708          6/2#       BROCCOLI FLORETS
**** NO UPC         762          12/2#      DICED CELERY
0-86069-25071-6     774          6/2#       MUSTARD GREENS
0-86069-25040-2     776          6/2#       IQF COLLARDS
0-86069-25050-1     777          6/2#       IQF TURNIP GREENS
0-86069-25060-0     778          6/2#       IQF TURNIP GREENS W/R
0-86069-25090-7     779          6/2#       IQF CHOPPED SPINACH
**** NO UPC         792          12/2#      DICED ONIONS
**** NO UPC         795          12/2#      DICED RED PEPPER
**** NO UPC         798          12/2#      DICED GREEN PEPPER
0-86069-50080-4     805          4/5#       MIXED VEGETABLES
0-86069-20080-3     806          6/2#       MIXED VEGETABLES
0-86069-20014-8     813          6/2#       PREMIUM CALIFORNIA
                                            BLEND
0-86069-20011-7     814          6/2#       CALIFORNIA BLEND
0-86069-50011-8     815          4/5#       CALIFORNIA BLEND
0-86069-20330-9     826          6/2#       SUMMER BLEND
0-86069-20150-3     833          6/2#       VEGETABLE GUMBO
0-86069-20160-2     836          6/2#       VEGETABLE SOUP MIX
                                            W/TOMATOES
0-86069-21270-7     842         6/2#       STEW MIX
0-86069-20280-7     852          6/2#       STIR FRY BLEND
0-86069-20285-2     862          6/2#       ITALIAN BLEND
0-86069-20425-2     866          6/2#       FAJITA BLEND
0-86069-20400-9     877          6/2#       TEJANO BLEND
0-86069-20405-4     882          6/2#       JALISCO BLEND
0-86069-20432-0     897          4/5#       SEASONING BLEND
0-86069-20430-6     898          6/2#       SEASONING BLEND
0-86069-20170-1     856          6/2#       COUNTRY BLEND
0-86069-10180-3     90199        12/1#      WHOLE STRAWBERRIES
0-86069-10260-2     91199        12/1#      WHOLE BLACKBERRIES
0-86069-10190-2     92199        12/1#      SLICED PEACHES
0-86069-10500-9     952          24/12 oz   BLUEBERRIES
0-86069-10230-5     971          18/12 oz   TRIPLE BERRY BLEND
0-86069-20120-6     1002         6/2#       YAM PATTIES
0-86069-20112-1     1570         8/28 oz    SWEET POTATO CUTS
0-86069-50265-5     1582         4/5#       BOIL BLEND
0-86069-95015-9     4022         12/12 CT   SOUTHERN STYLE
                                            BISCUITS
0-86069-95020-3     4031         12/12 CT   CHEESE BISCUITS
0-86069-95040-1     4061         12/12 CT   BUTTER BISCUITS
0-86069-11200-7     S124         12/12oz    CUT GREEN BEANS
0-86069-11210-6     S262         12/12oz    GREEN PEAS
0-86069-11230-4     S402         12/12oz    CUT YELLOW CORN
0-86069-11260-1     S708         12/10oz    BROCCOLI FLORETS
0-86069-11270-0     S806         12/12oz    MIXED VEGETABLES
0-86069-11275-5     S814         12/10oz    CALIFORNIA BLEND
0-86069-11280-9     S826         12/12oz    SUMMER BLEND
0-86069-11290-8     S862         12/10oz    ITALIAN BLEND
0-86069-20001-8     10299        12/1#      Speckled Butter Beans
0-86069-20012-4     11299        12/1#      Baby Lima Beans
0-86069-20021-6     12499        12/1#      Cut Green Beans
0-86069-20341-5     13299        12/1#       Italian Green Beans
0-86069-20043-8     21299        12/1#       Blackeye Peas
0-86069-20051-3     24299        12/1#       Field Peas w/ Snaps
0-86069-20006-3     25699        12/1#       Butter Beans
0-86069-20063-6     25299        12/1#       Butter Peas
0-86069-20071-1     30399        12/1#       Cut Okra
0-86069-20351-4     31299        12/1#       Baby Whole Okra
0-86069-20076-6     32399        12/1#       Breaded Okra
0-86069-20101-5     40299        12/1#       Cut Yellow Corn
0-86069-20301-9     50299        12/1#       Sliced Yellow Squash
0-86069-10530-6     543          18/12 oz    Chopped Vidalia
                                             Onions
0-86069-20296-8     60399        12/1#       Sliced Carrots
0-86069-20356-9     65999        12/1#       Brussel Sprouts
0-86069-20142-8     70399        12/1#       Broccoli Cuts
0-86069-25070-9     77499        12/1#       Mustard Greens
0-86069-20081-0     80699        12/1#       Mixed Vegetables
0-86069-20013-1     81499        12/1#       California Blend
0-86069-20151-0     83399        12/1#       Vegetable Gumbo
0-86069-20431-3     89899        12/1#       Seasoning Blend
0-86069-21271-4     84299        12/1#       Stew Mix
0-86069-25041-9     77680        12/1#       Collard Greens
0-86069-25051-8     77780        12/1#       Turnip Greens
0-86069-25061-7     77899        12/1#       Turnip Greens
                                             w/Diced Turnips
0-86069-25091-4     7791         18/12 oz    Chopped Spinach

Jamba At Home Smoothie Kits

The products affected have best by dates from 18 Mar 2016 through
17 Oct 2016 with code dates from 72644AH01 through 71075AH01.

Code Format:
7= JEFFERSON, Production codes starting with 3 are not included in
the recall

Jamba At Home Smoothie Products

  UPC CODE  JAMBA ITEM  PACK   DESCRIPTION  PRODUCTION  "BEST
  --------  NUMBER      SIZE   -----------  CODE         BY
            ----------  ----                ----------  DATE"
                                                        -----
8-84038-    85098       8/8oz  Strawberries 72644AH01   18 Mar
85098-                         Wild         thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85100       8/8oz  Razzmatazz   72644AH01   18 Mar
85100-7                                     thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85099       8/8oz  Mango-A-     72644AH01   18 Mar
85099-4                        Go-Go        thru        2016
                                            1075AH01    thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85168       8/8oz  Orange Dream 72644AH01   18 Mar
85168-7                        Machine      thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85169       8/8oz  Caribbean    72644AH01   18 Mar
85169-4                        Passion      thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85102       8/8oz  Green Fusion 72644AH01   18 Mar
85102-1                                     thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85167       8/8oz  Red Fusion   72644AH01   18 Mar
85167-0                                     thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016
8-84038-    85166       8/8oz  Blue Fusion  72644AH01   18 Mar
85166-3                                     thru        2016
                                            71075AH01   thru 17
                                                        Oct 2016

With manufacturing facilities in Arizona, Indiana, Washington,
Oregon and Georgia, Inventure Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNAK) is a
marketer and manufacturer of specialty food brands in better-for-
you and indulgent categories under a variety of Company owned and
licensed brand names, including Boulder Canyon Foods(TM),
Jamba(R), Seattle's Best Coffee(R), Rader Farms(R), TGI
Fridays(TM), Nathan's Famous(R), Vidalia Brands(R), Poore
Brothers(R), Tato Skins(R), Willamette Valley Fruit Company(TM),
Fresh Frozen(TM) and Bob's Texas Style(R). For further information
about Inventure Foods, please visit www.inventurefoods.com


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Action
-------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in
the case filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former j2
Canada employee as additional defendants in an existing purported
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc.
("Sabon"), was added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to
dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The
Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the j2 Canada
employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Free-Vychine Action
---------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in
the case filed by Andre Free-Vychine.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court"). The complaint alleges two
California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in
certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a
purported nationwide class of allegedly similarly situated
persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. (collectively, "LEO") filed a purported class
action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles
Superior Court. The complaint alleges three California statutory
violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims
relating to late fees levied in certain Onebox(R) accounts. LEO is
seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of itself and a purported nationwide class of allegedly
similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles
Superior Court ordered both cases related. Discovery is ongoing.


JENI'S SPLENDID: Recalls Ice Cream, Yogurts & Sorbets Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams has initiated a voluntary recall of all
ice creams, frozen yogurts, sorbets, and ice cream sandwiches for
all flavors and containers because of the possible presence of
Listeria monocytogenes . The company is ceasing all sales and
closing all scoop shops until all products are ensured to be 100%
safe.

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

The ice creams, frozen yogurts, sorbets, and ice cream sandwiches
being recalled were distributed in the United States to retail
outlets, including food service accounts and grocery markets, as
well as online at jenis.com. This recall includes all products
bearing the "Jeni's" brand name.

The contamination was discovered in a sample randomly collected by
the Nebraska Department of Agriculture.

Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams is not aware of any illness reports to
date related to the recalled products. However, out of an
abundance of caution, Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams is taking this
voluntary precautionary measure in order to ensure complete
consumer safety. "Our top priority is guaranteeing the safety of
all consumers by taking every possible precaution," says John
Lowe, CEO of Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams.

"We have decided to recall everything currently on retailer
shelves, and we are closing our scoop shops until we are 100%
confident every item we sell is safe. We have called in experts to
help us find the root cause. We will be working with our suppliers
to determine if the bacteria was introduced by one of the
ingredients we use. We will not reopen the kitchen until we can
ensure the safety of our customers."

Customers who have purchased any of the products are urged to
dispose of them or return them to the store where they were
purchased for an exchange or full refund, and consult with their
physician regarding any medical questions. Customers may also
contact Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams at 614-360-3905 between the
hours of 9 am and 10 pm (E.D.T.) on April 23 and 24, from 9 am to
5 pm (E.D.T.) on April 25 and 26, and from 9 am to 5 pm (E.D.T.)
on Mondays through Fridays thereafter. Jeni's can also be
contacted by email at recall@jenis.com, and at jenis.com/recall


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Dismisses Baby Powder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, report that
a woman claiming she developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson
& Johnson baby powder for more than 60 years failed to point out
any specific misrepresentations the company made and can't claim
she paid a premium for the product, a California federal judge
ruled on March 26.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley dismissed Mona Estrada's
proposed class action against J&J, finding she had only identified
general statements on the company's website to support her claims
that the company falsely described its baby powder as "safe."

"These statements lack sufficient specificity to substantiate an
injury," Judge Nunley said.  "Moreover, plaintiff does not
specifically claim to have relied on these online statements at
all when purchasing the baby powder and could not have relied on
them in 1950 when she initially purchased the product."

The judge said Ms. Estrada had also claimed that J&J told women it
was safe for them to use the powder on their genitals, but didn't
identify any specific statements to that effect.

In her complaint, Ms. Estrada said the company has known since at
least 1982 that women who use the powder, which is made of scented
talc, had an increased risk of ovarian cancer but still encouraged
women to use the product every day.

The complaint also said Estrada had paid a premium for the baby
powder but Judge Nunley said her decision to use it for decades
showed that she had believed it was worth the price.

"Plaintiff received exactly what she paid for -- the elimination
of friction on the skin, the absorption of unwanted excess
moisture, and the maintenance of freshness," the judge said.

According to Ms. Estrada's complaint, studies have shown that
talcum powder increases women's risk of ovarian cancer by 33
percent if they use it on their genitals, but J&J's only warnings
instruct users not to get the powder in their eyes, to avoid
breathing it and to use it externally.

Judge Nunley's order gave Ms. Estrada 30 days to file an amended
complaint.

In a similar case, a jury in 2013 sided with another woman
accusing the company of negligence related to its baby powder's
ovarian cancer link, but rejected her claims for strict liability
and failure to warn, denying her compensatory and punitive
damages.

A spokeswoman for J&J told Law360 on March 27 that the company was
"pleased" with the decision.

J&J is represented by Richard B. Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com -- and
Matthew D. Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Ms. Estrada is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E. Hurst,
Thomas J. O'Reardon II and Paula M. Roach -- proach@bholaw.com --
of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III --
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Lance C. Gould and Alison Douillard
Hawthorne -- alison.hawthorne@beasleyallen.com -- of Beasley Allen
Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, and Allen Smith Jr. of The Smith
Law firm.

The case is Mona Estrada v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number
2:14-cv-01051, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Bailey" Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Bailey class action
lawsuit currently is stayed pending the outcome of a motion to
drop.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against Gentiva in which five former employees
("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations. The former
employees claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"
compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay. Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of federal
and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). On October 8, 2010, the
court granted Gentiva's motion to transfer the venue of the
lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the FLSA
claims as a collective action. On May 26, 2011, the court
bifurcated the FLSA portion of the suit into a liability phase, in
which discovery closed on January 15, 2013, and a potential
damages phase, to be scheduled pending outcome of the liability
phase. Following a motion for partial summary judgment by Gentiva
regarding the New York state law claims, Plaintiffs agreed
voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing on December 12,
2011.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a North Carolina
state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012. On August
29, 2012, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for certification of
a North Carolina state law class. Gentiva filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims under the NCWHA on
March 22, 2012, which the court granted on January 16, 2013. On
February 14, 2013, Gentiva filed two motions for partial summary
judgment with regard to Gentiva's liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment in their favor with regard to Gentiva's
liability. On July 26, 2013, the court denied Gentiva's motion for
summary judgment with regard to Gentiva's liability for
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment. On November 4, 2013, the court denied Gentiva's motion
to amend the District court's July 26 Order to certify two legal
issues for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. In its order, the court established a 30-day
deadline for Gentiva to file its motion for decertification of the
FLSA collective action class, which Gentiva then filed on December
4, 2013.

On April 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting Gentiva's
motion for decertification and dismissing the opt-in plaintiffs
from the lawsuit without prejudice. On the same day, Plaintiffs
filed a motion to amend the court's order to delay the effective
date of the dismissal of the opt-in plaintiffs' claims for 60
days, until June 17, 2014. On May 8, 2014, the court entered an
order granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend, thereby extending the
effective date of dismissal through June 17, 2014. On June 17,
2014, approximately 194 of the former 999 opt-in plaintiffs who
had been dismissed from this case filed a new complaint against
Gentiva in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia as a separate, follow-on lawsuit with
identical claims captioned Cynthia Bailey et al. v. Gentiva Health
Services, Inc. These were some of the individuals who had been
dismissed from the Rindfleisch lawsuit and who wished to continue
to pursue their claims. Given the filing of the follow-on lawsuit,
at the court-ordered June 19, 2014 settlement conference, it was
determined that the Rindfleisch case would be stayed and
administratively closed pending the outcome of global mediation of
both lawsuits. Accordingly, on June 24, 2014, the District court
administratively closed the case. Pursuant to an agreement between
the parties at the settlement conference, on July 30, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Bailey lawsuit naming
a total of 411 plaintiffs. On September 12, 2014, the parties
engaged in the mediation of both lawsuits. The parties did not
reach a settlement to resolve either lawsuit, and the Rindfleisch
case was re-opened at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel on
January 8, 2015.

On January 13, 2015, the court entered an order in the Rindfleisch
lawsuit granting each party limited damages discovery with respect
to the named Plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to this order, the
parties filed their proposals regarding damages discovery on
January 27, 2015. In the Bailey lawsuit, Gentiva filed its answer
to the Plaintiffs' complaint on October 10, 2014, as well as a
motion to drop all Plaintiffs other than the named Plaintiff,
Cynthia Bailey, based on misjoinder, as the court had already
determined in the Rindfleisch case that the Plaintiffs' claims
should not remain in the same lawsuit. The Bailey lawsuit
currently is stayed pending the outcome of the motion to drop. The
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits are seeking attorneys' fees and costs,
back wages and liquidated damages going back three years from the
filings of the complaints under the FLSA.

Gentiva is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from the Rindfleisch and Bailey
lawsuits on its business, financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources. Gentiva does not
believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of
loss can be made for these lawsuits at this time. Gentiva intends
to defend itself vigorously in these lawsuits.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Status Conference in Wilkie Action on June 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a status conference is
scheduled for June 22, 2015, in the class action by Catherine
Wilkie.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against Gentiva in which a former employee alleged wage
and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The
complaint alleged that Gentiva paid some of its employees on both
a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status
and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further alleged
that California employees were subject to violations of state laws
requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage
statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff sought class
certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and damages
going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the
state wage and hour claims. Gentiva denies the plaintiff's
allegations but, following a March 2012 mediation, agreed to pay a
total settlement amount of $5 million to settle the collective and
class action claims. The federal district court granted final
approval of the settlement on March 26, 2013, and funds were
disbursed to the participating class members, 99 percent of whom
timely negotiated their settlement checks. The unclaimed wages
will escheat to the State of California, and any balance remaining
will be distributed to a cy pres beneficiary at the conclusion of
the escheat process. A status conference is scheduled for June 22,
2015, at which time the parties will present a final accounting of
the settlement fund, and the court is expected to approve
distribution of the residual to the cy pres beneficiary and
dismiss the case.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Awaits Documentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
Federal Securities Class Action Litigation remains subject to the
completion of definitive settlement documentation, notice to the
putative class and approval by the court.

Between November 2, 2010 and October 25, 2011, five shareholder
class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its then-
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each of these
actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with Gentiva's participation in the Medicare Home Health
Prospective Payment System ("HH PPS"). Following consolidation of
the actions and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff, on April 16, 2012, a
consolidated shareholder class action complaint, captioned In re
Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. The complaint, which named Gentiva and certain then-
current and former officers and directors as defendants, asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well
as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), in connection with Gentiva's participation in
the HH PPS. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
Gentiva's public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose
that Gentiva improperly increased the number of in-home therapy
visits to patients for the purposes of triggering higher
reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial
inflation in the price of Gentiva Common Stock during the period
between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011. On June 15, 2012,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 25, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave to amend the complaint in accordance with the court's
rulings as set forth in its March 25 order. On May 10, 2013, lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint,
and, on June 24, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
September 19, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. As a result of the court's
decision, the named then-current officers and directors were
dismissed from the action, and certain claims against Gentiva and
a former officer and a former officer/director remained. On
October 3, 2013, the remaining defendants moved for partial
reconsideration of the court's September 19 order. On December 10,
2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the remaining
defendants' motion for partial reconsideration. As a result of the
court's decision, Gentiva and the former officer were dismissed
from the action, and only a Section 10(b) claim against the former
officer/director remained.

On January 9, 2014, the former officer/director filed an answer to
the consolidated amended class action complaint. On January 28,
2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of final
judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On March 3, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
lead plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b), granting the motion to
the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claims
brought pursuant to the Securities Act as to all defendants, and
denying the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final
judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the Exchange Act as to
all defendants other than the former officer/director. As a result
of the court's decision, on March 6, 2014, the court entered final
judgment in favor of all defendants on lead plaintiff's claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On October 17,
2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On
November 24, 2014, the parties attended a mediation session but
did not reach a settlement. On December 10, 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for $6.5
million, to be funded in its entirety by insurance. The settlement
remains subject to the completion of definitive settlement
documentation, notice to the putative class and approval by the
court.


KINROSS GOLD: Settles Securities Class Action for $33 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on March 27 announced a $33 million
settlement of a securities fraud class action lawsuit, led by Lead
Plaintiff City of Austin (Texas) Police Retirement System against
Kinross Gold Corporation and certain of its former senior
officers.  The litigation relates to Kinross's public statements
concerning the development of the Tasiast mine in West Africa.

The Settlement is on behalf of persons or entities that purchased
Kinross common stock on the open market in the United States
between August 11, 2011 and January 16, 2012 (inclusive), and were
purportedly damaged thereby.  The Settlement is pending
preliminary approval by the Court.

The Settlement was reached after the parties had concluded factual
and expert discovery and had briefed motions relating to class
certification and the admissibility of the parties' experts.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, please contact
U. Seth Ottensoser -- ottensoser@bernlieb.com -- or Michael S.
Bigin -- bigin@bernlieb.com -- by email or by phone at (877) 779-
1414.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

Lead Plaintiff City of Austin (Texas) Police Retirement System is
a public pension fund that provides retirement and disability
benefits to active and retired Austin police officers and their
beneficiaries.


KOHL'S CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unwanted Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report that a
Wisconsin judge on March 26 dismissed a proposed class action
accusing Kohl's Corp. of violating federal law that prohibits
businesses from sending unsolicited phone calls, saying the
customer who brought the complaint must arbitrate her claims
individually per the terms of the store credit card she signed up
for.

U.S. District Judge William Conley said the arbitration provision
is binding on lead plaintiff Brittany Ineman's claims because she
used her Kohl's credit card to make purchases after it was issued.
Ms. Ineman had argued arbitration was not enforceable because she
said she doesn't remember any of the terms or agreements contained
in the credit card contract.

Moreover, Judge Conley said it is proper to dismiss the complaint
outright because all of Ms. Ineman's claims are covered under the
2009 Kohl's agreement.  Ms. Ineman alleged Kohl's phone calls
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and brought the
lawsuit on behalf of customers who received unsolicited calls from
the retailer.

"Even accepting plaintiff's contention that she did not sign,
read, review or receive the 2009 cardmember agreement (or more
accurately, does not recall doing so), plaintiff's admitted use of
the credit card forms a sufficient basis to find that she assented
to its terms, including the arbitration provision," Judge Conley
said.

The complaint, filed in June, argues that Kohl's uses so-called
skip-tracing techniques to ascertain the phone numbers of
consumers who owe money on store credit cards and then illegally
pepper them with harassing collections calls.

Ms. Ineman claims she received calls for years even though the
TCPA prohibits creditors from making autodialed and prerecorded-
message calls without having obtained the recipient's prior
express consent.  Under Federal Communications Commission rules,
prior express consent requires a consumer to furnish the wireless
number "during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed."

She alleged she did not list her cellphone number when applying
for a Kohl's card in 2008, but began receiving robocalls later
that year and continuing until 2013 from the retailer or companies
operating on its behalf.

Kohl's filed a motion to compel arbitration, or alternatively
dismiss the complaint, in October.

The putative class is represented by Lester A. Pines and Tamara B.
Packard of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, Daniel M. Hutchinson,
Jonathan D. Selbin and Douglas I. Cuthbertson of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and Matthew R. Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com --and Michael J. Boyle Jr. --
mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- of Meyer Wilson Co. LPA.

Kohl's is represented by Howard A. Pollack -- hpollack@gklaw.com
-- John L. Kirtley -- jkirtley@gklaw.com -- and Bryan J. Cahill --
bcahill@gklaw.com -- of Godfrey & Kahn SC and Joseph A. Boyle --
jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- and Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

The case is Ineman v. Kohl's Corp., case number 3:14-cv-00398, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.


KRAFT FOODS: Accused of Manipulating Price of Wheat Futures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kraft manipulated the price
of wheat futures, a shareholder alleges in a federal class action,
on the heels of a complaint by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.


LEE'S SUMMIT, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Warrant Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------
Lee's Summit Journal reports that Lee's Summit and other area
municipalities are part of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf
of residents who have paid so-called "warrant fees" or "failure to
appear fees."

Lee's Summit was served with the suit on March 24.  The lawsuit is
still early in the process, with some cities still not having
gotten notice of the suit.

The suit named three plaintiffs: Jonathan Gerke of Harrisonville,
Jarid Ward of Kansas City and Julie Kenney of Lee's Summit.  They
are suing on behalf of themselves and potentially thousands of
others.  They contend the named cities are collecting surcharges
not authorized by Missouri statute.  It contends the cities
collect the fees to generate profit.  Critics of the fees say they
fall hardest on poor.

Lee's Summit, it said, charges an "escalating" $50 failure-to-
appear fee.

The suit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court, is asking for a
judge to order the cities that assessed and collected the fees to
refund the money collected since Jan. 1, 2005 to plaintiffs in the
class.

Other cities named in the suit are Kansas City, Independence,
Grandview, Raytown, Blue Springs, Greenwood, Lake Lotawana,
Buckner, Oak Grove, Lake Tapawingo and Lone Jack.

Andrew Schermerhorn, a lawyer with the Klamann Law Firm, one of
the firms representing plaintiffs, said the suit was prompted by
practices that came to light in Ferguson, Mo., and others in the
eastern part of the state.

"It appears to us and others that those fees aren't authorized by
law and (are) illegal," Mr. Schermerhorn said.

Lee's Summit has not filed its response to the suit.  Lee's Summit
officials said on March 25.

While the fees in Ferguson were strongly tied to associated
problems with race and poverty, the suit involving Lee's Summit
does not make those allegations.  It simply asserts that the fees
collected by the municipal courts in those cities are not
authorized by Missouri statute.

In Ferguson, defendants for common traffic offenses had more fees
and fines racked onto their cases after they could not pay the
original fine or missed a court date.  Some of the defendants
complained of tactics that prevented them from making their court
appearances, such as bailiffs not allowing them to enter the
courtroom because they had family or children with them. After
being unable to pay, some of those defendants were jailed, losing
jobs and causing more fees to pile on.  Critics of the practice
say it has an excessive impact on the poor, who suffer a lack of
justice simply because they cannot pay.


LIBERTY SILVER: July 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on March 24 issued a statement regarding the
Liberty Silver Corporation Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TODD STANAFORD a/k/a JERALD TODD STANAFORD, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT DONALD
BRUCE GENOVESE, WILLIAM TAFURI, GEOFFREY BROWNE, BG CAPITAL GROUP
LTD, LOOK BACK INVESTMENTS, INC., OUTLOOK INVESTMENTS, INC., AND
LIBERTY SILVER CORPORATION, Defendants. Case No. 9:13-cv-80923
(KLR)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or acquired common
stock in Liberty Silver Corporation (OTC: LBSV) during the period
from February 10, 2010 through October 5, 2012.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that Lead
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned litigation have reached a
proposed partial settlement with Defendants Liberty Silver
Corporation, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri for $1 million in
cash, plus interest earned.  Defendants Robert Donald Bruce
Genovese, BG Capital Group Ltd, Look Back Investments, Inc., and
Outlook Investments Inc. who are also named as defendants in this
Action, are not parties to this Settlement. The litigation is
continuing against the BG Defendants regardless of whether the
proposed partial settlement is approved, however, there is no
guarantee of an additional settlement or distribution.

A hearing will be held on July 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, 701 Clematis Street, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401, to determine: (i) whether the Court should
approve the proposed partial Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; (iii) whether Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and
reimbursement awards for Lead Plaintiffs should be approved; and
(iv) whether the claims against the Liberty Silver Defendants
should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased publicly traded common stock of Liberty Silver
Corporation during the period from February 10, 2010 through
October 5, 2012, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund.  If you have not yet received the detailed Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Liberty
Silver Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O.
Box 59089, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9089, or going to the website,
www.LibertySilverSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than June 23, 2015.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such
that it is received no later than June 26, 2015, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and
you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of litigation expenses, and reimbursement awards for
Lead Plaintiffs, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they are
received no later than June 26, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Any questions, should be directed to:

Claims Administrator:
Liberty Silver Securities Litigation
c/o Heffler Claims Administration
P.O. Box 59089
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9089
1-844-777-8053
www.LibertySilverSettlement.com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
William B. Federman
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
(405) 235-1560
wbf@federmanlaw.com

Dated: March 30, 2015
By Order of the Court


LIFE TIME: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held in TCPA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that preliminary approval
hearing of a settlement in the TCPA Litigation was scheduled for
March 5, 2015.

On April 17, 2014, a putative class action was filed against LTF
Club Operations Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Life
Time Fitness, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri. On June 13, 2014, LTF Club Operations Company, Inc.
removed this action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. On April 23, 2014,
a second putative class action was filed against Life Time
Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota. On April 23, 2014, a third putative class action was
filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On July
1, 2014, a fourth putative class action was filed against Life
Time Fitness, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. On January 26, 2015, a fifth putative class
action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. These actions are collectively referred to as the "TCPA
Actions" or "TCPA Litigation."

"The TCPA Actions allege that we violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when we, or a third party on our
behalf, sent marketing text messages to plaintiffs' cellular
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system without
plaintiffs' consent," the Company said.  "Each plaintiff seeks
certification of the class, injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and an award of damages available under
the TCPA, which include actual damages and statutory damages of
$500 per violation or $1,500 per violation if the violation was
willful. We deny the allegations."

"On October 15, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted our motion to transfer four of
the TCPA Actions to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings ("MDL"). We have moved to transfer the fifth action,
filed January 26, 2015, for consolidation in the MDL.
The parties have agreed to a class settlement of the TCPA
Litigation. On February 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The preliminary approval
hearing is scheduled for March 5, 2015. We agreed to pay all costs
of the settlement, including class notice, claims administration,
court-awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, court-awarded service
awards, and awards to class members. Class members may claim
either a cash award of $100 or a membership award that lets them
pick either a free three-month single Gold membership or a $250
credit toward any access membership that covers the class member.
The total settlement amount, as calculated under the agreement, is
subject to a minimum of $10 million and a maximum of $15 million.

"Depending on the total number of claims submitted and the amount
of attorneys' fees awarded, the amounts of the cash award and
membership award may be adjusted up or down to bring the total
settlement amount within that range. For purposes of calculating
the total settlement amount, every membership award that is timely
and validly claimed counts as a payment of $250 (subject to
adjustment).

"Because our cost to service a membership is less than the
membership award, the amount of our reasonably estimable loss does
not directly correspond to the amount of the total settlement
amount as calculated under the agreement. Further, the amount of
attorneys' fees, the claims rate, and the mix of cash and
membership awards all remain unknown at this time, and therefore,
we believe our reasonably estimable loss is a range. Based on
reasonable estimates of these factors, we have recorded a
liability in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $4.7
million, which we believe represents the minimum amount of the
range."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Flooring Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., on March 25 filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to make Lumber Liquidators, Inc., pay restitution to
consumers who purchased from the home-improvements retailer
certain brands of laminate flooring found to emit high levels of
health-harming formaldehyde, the law firm announced.

Weitz & Luxenberg said the class action alleges Toano, Virginia-
based Lumber Liquidators knew the flooring gave off unlawfully
high levels of potentially cancer-causing formaldehyde fumes, but
concealed that information from consumers.

Further, the law firm said its suit alleges Lumber Liquidators
told customers the flooring's formaldehyde emissions met
California air-quality standards, the most stringent in the
nation, when in fact the emissions did not.

The class action was filed in federal court in Manhattan on behalf
of a half-dozen named representative plaintiffs from Texas, New
Jersey and New York, the law firm said.

The lawsuit demands that Lumber Liquidators give the six
representative plaintiffs -- and other members of the class who
bought the offending flooring -- a full refund of the product's
purchase price and reimbursement for any costs incurred in the
original installation, delivery, removal and return of the
defective product, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

Additionally, the lawsuit calls for Lumber Liquidators to pay
damages permitted by various states for false advertising and
other violations of consumer-protection statutes, Weitz &
Luxenberg said.

Help For Lumber Liquidators Flooring Customers:
Weitz & Luxenberg said the lawsuit filing does not alter the
firm's interest in discussing with purchasers of the defective
flooring their legal rights against Lumber Liquidators.

"No one who purchased the laminate flooring that is the subject of
this lawsuit should have to live with it, especially since
continued exposure to formaldehyde at these levels may cause
health effects, as formaldehyde exposure has been linked to
myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer," said Robin L.
Greenwald, who heads Weitz & Luxenberg's Environmental, Toxic Tort
& Consumer Protection Unit.

"Purchasers of this Lumber Liquidator laminate flooring can
contact us toll-free at 844-400-HELP or through our website,
www.weitzlux.com," she said.

Curt Marshall, also of the Firm's Environmental, Toxic Tort and
Consumer Protection Unit, explained that the formaldehyde problem
stems from the glue used to hold the laminate layers together.

"The glue contains much more formaldehyde than it should in order
to make each gallon of the adhesive stretch farther, thereby
making the unit cost of the glue very inexpensive," Mr. Marshall
said.

"It's all about Lumber Liquidators making bigger profits," he
said. "It's all about corporate greed."

The Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring subject to the class
action lawsuit is mainly the Dream Home brand's Kensington Manor,
Ispiri, Nirvana and St. James styles, but includes other brands as
well.

"Please contact us to determine if your Lumber Liquidator flooring
has similar dangerous levels of formaldehyde," said Mr. Marshall.

Impetus for the Lumber Liquidators Class Action:

Weitz & Luxenberg said the class action lawsuit against Lumber
Liquidators was spurred by a "60 Minutes" investigative news
report that aired on CBS television earlier this year.

The program described lab-test results of flooring samples taken
from Lumber Liquidator stores in several states.  Virtually all of
the tested samples emitted formaldehyde at levels illegal in
California, the law firm recounted.

"60 Minutes" also sent undercover reporters to the Chinese
factories where the flooring was made.  There, they obtained
admissions of mislabeling intended to make the product appear
compliant with California emissions standards, Weitz & Luxenberg
said.

Then, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission revealed it was
investigating Lumber Liquidators' Chinese-made laminate flooring.

Also, Occupational Health & Safety magazine reported that Lumber
Liquidators has not abandoned its claim that the laminate flooring
is "100% safe" and pledged to continue selling it.

                     About Weitz & Luxenberg

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. -- http://www.weitzlux.com/-- is a
personal injury and consumer protection law firm.  Weitz &
Luxenberg's numerous litigation areas include: mesothelioma,
defective medicine and devices, environmental pollutants, products
liability, consumer protection, accidents, personal injury, and
medical malpractice.  Victims of consumer fraud are invited to
rely on Weitz & Luxenberg's more than 25 years of experience
handling such cases.  You can contact the firm's Client Relations
department at 800-476-6070 or at clientrelations@weitzlux.com


MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Has Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing is now complete
and the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is under
consideration by the Court.

"On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against us
and certain of our current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey by David Serr
on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our
common stock between February 20, 2013 through February 12, 2014,
which we refer to as the class period," the Company said. "On July
22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the amended
complaint alleges that statements made throughout the class period
about the trials were misleading because they failed to disclose
that cangrelor did not show superiority to the drug clopidogrel,
that the clinical trials were unethically and inappropriately
administered, that clopidogrel was not administered optimally, and
that cangrelor patients exhibited higher bleeding rates. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification
of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs."

"On November 17, 2014 we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January
16, 2015. Briefing is now complete and the motion is under
consideration by the Court. We believe we have valid defenses to
the claims in the lawsuit, will deny liability and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. An adverse resolution of the lawsuit
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations. We are presently unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a
range of potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Suit for Improperly Applying Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. improperly applies certain
deductions to deflate the monthly benefits it owes disabled
California employees, a class alleges in the Los Angeles Superior
Court, Central District, reports Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff John Voshall notes that he had to go on disability
retirement after a workplace accident as electrical compliance
lead inspector for Palo Alto, Calif.

In Voshall's case, the collapse of a hinged manhole caused his
severe injuries and total disability, the April 8 complaint in Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleges.

Voshall says the disability retirement benefits to which he is
entitled from the Public Employee Retirement System, or PERS,
include "a retroactive payment to the date of his first
eligibility for such benefits."

MetLife alleged waited "years" to advise Voshall on Dec. 11, 2014,
that it was applying certain reductions to his PERS disability
retirement benefits.

"Specifically, MetLife has impermissibly applied offsets for: (1)
cost of living adjustment ('COLA') amounts added to retirement
benefits and/or Social Security benefits; and (2) retirement
benefits that represent contributions made by employees to
retirement plans," the complaint states.

Voshall says the COLA amounts that MetLife applied retroactively
to his benefits were "in excess of the COLA benefits actually
received by plaintiff."

"In doing so, MetLife claimed a right to reimbursement of past
benefits in the amount of $282,690.96, reduced plaintiff's monthly
disability income benefit under the Palo Alto policy retroactively
and on an ongoing basis, and confiscated the reduced benefit
amount going forward to repay the claimed past offset amounts,"
the complaint states.

Voshall says this practice of applying "other income" reductions
is part of a policy by MetLife to improperly reduce disability-
income benefits it pays under group long-term disability income
policies issued to California public entities.  He wants a judge
to bar MetLife from "asserting any right to reimbursement by
virtue of its conduct in delaying its assertion of any offset
rights."  The class also seeks damages, restitution and an
injunction for breach of contract, bad faith and violations of
California's unfair competition law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Gianelli, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          550 S Hope St., Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611


MIAMI-DADE, FL: DDA Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
David Smiley, writing for Miami Herald, reports that for decades,
the Miami Downtown Development Authority has taxed property owners
to fund its mission as a business booster and planner for the
city's central business hub.

But after collecting millions over the last 50 years, the semi-
autonomous city agency now wants Florida lawmakers to pass
legislation stating that it has the authority to collect property
taxes -- just in case there were any questions that it doesn't.

The pro-tax legislation, sponsored by Republican Miami-Dade
lawmakers, comes amid a protracted legal battle over whether the
DDA lacks legal standing as a taxing authority.  Supporters of the
DDA, which expects to reap $6.4 million in property taxes this
year, say the narrowly tailored bills merely seek to clarify the
agency's authority and to ward off "frivolous" lawsuits.

"Let me make it real clear. All this language does is clarify
existing law," Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, said
during a committee discussion on his proposal (SB 278).

But critics say Diaz de la Portilla and Rep. Manny Diaz Jr., who
is sponsoring a companion bill in the House, are providing a
backdoor defense for the DDA while the agency awaits a ruling from
the Third District Court of Appeal on a series of legal
challenges.  Linda Carroll, an attorney representing a Brickell
property owner in multiple lawsuits against the DDA, said that if
anything, the sponsored bills prove her client's case.

"They don't have authority. And this is their attempt to try and
pick up the pieces," she said.

Carroll has represented Milan Investment Group since 2008, when
the company filed a class-action suit against the DDA.  The
corporation, which last year paid just $73 in property taxes to
the DDA from its Brickell condo unit, has challenged every tax
bill it has received from the DDA during the last seven years, and
argued for a refund.

The crux of the argument -- that the DDA has no constitutional or
legal authority to reap property taxes -- comes down largely to
how the agency was created.

The Miami DDA was founded in 1967, two years after the state
authorized special downtown development taxing districts to
alleviate blight and revitalize central business districts.
Today, 14 downtown development districts exist, but Miami's is the
only one created under the 1965 law.

That's largely because in 1968, the Florida Legislature granted
cities and counties the authority to pass laws without state
blessing, and then repealed local application laws rendered
obsolete, like the one authorizing the Miami DDA.  Without a state
law on the books to back the DDA, or a county vote or referendum
by property owners in the taxing district, Carroll argues that the
agency is levying an illegal tax.

Democratic Sen. Gwen Margolis, whose district includes much of
downtown, has unsuccessfully tried to stop and then tweak the
Senate bill.  She says the law is tailored so that it only applies
to Miami, and is an improper intrusion by the Legislature into the
courts.

"They're trying to solve a lawsuit legislatively, which is
inconceivable," said Sen. Margolis, who in a recent committee
meeting referred to the DDA as "somebody's little teapot."
Diaz de la Portilla, who didn't respond to messages left at his
Miami and Tallahassee offices, countered that Sen. Margolis must
be fighting the DDA for "personal reasons."

Javier Betancourt, deputy director of the Miami DDA, said that the
DDA simply wants to reiterate its taxing authority.  Mr.
Betancourt has been clear in Tallahassee that the legislation is
in response to lawsuits against the DDA.

"It's very clear to us that the authority is there [in state law]
and the Legislature's intent has always been to provide that
authority," said Mr. Betancourt.  "But just in case there was any
doubt and to frankly bring some finality to this issue and
discourage frivolous lawsuits in the future, we wanted to make
crystal clear the authority is there."


MICHAELS STORES: Accused of Doing Credit Checks w/o Permission
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action in
Texas claims Michaels Stores does background checks and credit
checks on employees and applicants without permission and without
disclosing it.


MICROSOFT CORP: Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
managers who accused Microsoft of entering into no-poaching
agreements waited too long to file suit, a federal judge found in
a case related to other high-profile lawsuits against major tech
companies.

Deserae Ryan and Trent Sau claimed last year that the tech giant
conspired with other technology companies to suppress wages and
restrict competition.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with Microsoft that the claims
are subject to a four-year statute of limitations under federal
and state antitrust laws.  Since the alleged injuries started in
2007, the plaintiffs waited too long to file suit and also Koh
rejected arguments that the claims fell within narrow exceptions
to the statute.

The judge gave permission to amend allegations that Microsoft
continued to violate the plaintiffs' rights or hid its involvement
in the conspiracy which would -- if found to be true -- would stop
the statute of limitations clock.

Earlier in the second week of April, Koh dismissed a suit accusing
Disney, Pixar and other animation studios of a similar conspiracy.

That ruling came after the judge gave preliminary approval to a
$415 million settlement of conspiracy claims against Apple,
Google, Intel and Adobe.  A final approval hearing for the
settlement will be held on July 9 in San Jose.

Yet another similar suit against Oracle is still active.

The class in the Microsoft case is represented by:

          Jeffrey Hogue, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 238-4720
          Facsimile: (619) 270-9856
          E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com

Microsoft is represented by:

          Robert J. Maguire, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: robmaguire@dwt.com

The case is Deserae Ryan, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case
No. 5:14-cv-04634-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


MILO's KITCHEN: Access to Unredacted Facebook Data Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the woman bringing a potential class action against the maker
of treats that allegedly killed her dog doesn't have to open her
Facebook account to the defense, a federal judge has ruled.

The 648 pages of her Facebook posts, with redactions, that she
provided are sufficient, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of
the Western District of Pennsylvania held.

Milo's Kitchen, the maker of the dog treats, had asked the court
to compel Lisa Mazur, who brought the suit, to produce a complete
and unredacted Facebook data file and her username and password
for the site.  Milo's argued that when Mazur had a public Facebook
page, she had posted a statement blaming another major
manufacturer of dog food for her dog's illness.

"Defendants contend that because the entry is highly relevant to
plaintiff's claims, and because plaintiff has denied that she
purchased any treats other than Milo's treats, defendants are
somehow entitled to limitless access to her Facebook account,"
Judge Kelly said.  "The court disagrees."

Because Ms. Mazur had at one point posted a comment on her
Facebook page indicating that another company's treats caused her
dog's illness, there might be other information relevant to the
case on her Facebook account, Milo's had argued.  So the company
sought the production of her whole account.

Although Ms. Mazur had objected to the request as being overbroad,
she provided several hundred pages, with redactions, of her
Facebook account, according to the opinion.

That production included "data indicating that 'plaintiff likely
purchased a jerky treat product other than the one at issue in
this litigation'; 'texts of various Facebook entries';
'conversations between plaintiff and a third-party (Kristyn
Corcoran) regarding the instant suit'; and 'a significant number
of comments with respect to chicken jerky,'" according to the
opinion.

She redacted information that wasn't relevant to the suit.

Those redactions were legitimate, the judge said, because the
defense is only entitled to information that is relevant to the
case.

"Defendants nevertheless argue that it was improper for plaintiff
to unilaterally decide what should be redacted complaining that
the location of certain redactions are 'suspect,' and that any
objections to producing plaintiff's entire Facebook file on
privacy grounds or because it would be burdensome are unfounded
given the protective order entered by the court and the fact that
plaintiff has already produced the entire file -- albeit
redacted," Judge Kelly said.

Milo's cited to three Pennsylvania state-court cases to "stand for
the proposition that Facebook accounts are always subject to
unrestricted access once a threshold showing of relevance has been
made," Judge Kelly said.

However, she held those cases are distinguishable from Mazur's
suit.

Using a court of common pleas opinion from 2011, Largent v. Reed,
as an example, Judge Kelly noted the plaintiff there had filed a
suit alleging she had gotten serious physical and mental injuries
following a car accident.

The defense there sought access to her Facebook profile since it
had pictures and posts that contradicted her claims, like a post
that she was going to the gym.

Over the plaintiff's objections, the defense won a motion to
compel access to her account, saying, "The plaintiff had put her
physical and mental health at issue and thus had no privacy rights
in the Facebook postings," Kelly summarized.

Ms. Mazur, though, complied with Milo's request for access to her
Facebook account and supplied the relevant information, Kelly
said.

"Counsel for plaintiff not only took pains to include even
borderline entries and un-redacted certain data in an effort to
show the absence of materiality, but he has represented, and the
court has no reason to doubt, that the redactions were made in
good faith and that the information that remains redacted has
nothing to do with the claims or defenses raised in this case,"
Kelly said.

"Moreover, in Largent, the plaintiff's claims of severe and
permanent mental and physical injuries would seemingly affect
almost every aspect of her life and likely be reflected in much,
if not all, of her Facebook data.  No such claims are at issue
here and thus Largent (nor Zimmerman or McMillan) support a
finding that disclosure of plaintiff's entire Facebook file or her
username and password is appropriate," Judge Kelly said, referring
to the two other state-court opinions similar to Largent.  "Under
these circumstances, the court finds not only that unfettered
access to plaintiff's Facebook data, particularly her access
information, is not warranted but that defendants have received
all the discovery relative to plaintiff's Facebook account to
which they are entitled, with perhaps one exception."

That one exception related to the redacted conversation between
Mazur and Corcoran, who may be a potential class member if the
case becomes a class action.

Ms. Mazur argued the conversation would be protected by attorney-
client privilege through the common-interest doctrine.

Judge Kelly held off on ruling on that issue, instead planning to
do an in-camera review of the materials.

Thomas Soule of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin in Chicago
represented Ms. Mazur and couldn't be reached for comment.

Anita Weinstein of Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia had been listed
as the attorney of record for Milo's.  She recently died and other
attorneys on the case couldn't immediately be reached for comment.


MINE SAFETY: "Iverson" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Optical Corporation removed the lawsuit
captioned Iverson v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, et al., Case
No. CV-14-00281-2, from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Arkansas, Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00114-DPM to the proceeding.

The case is an action for personal injuries arising under the
Federal Employers Liability Act.  Plaintiff Willie Iverson is a
resident of Pine Bluff, Arkansas.  He alleges that his injury is
lung disease and silica related conditions, caused by exposure to
respirable crystalline silica while sandblasting, working around
sandblasting, grinding, and working with ballast rocks.  These job
duties were performed from approximately 1974 to 1994 at Cotton
Belt Railroad, which became Southern Pacific Railroad, which
merged with Union Pacific Railroad Company in Pine Bluff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Malouf, Esq.
          Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
          John T. Givens, Esq.
          PORTER & MALOUF, PA
          Post Office Box 12768
          Jackson, MS 39236-2768
          Telephone: (601) 957-1173
          Facsimile: (601) 957-7366
          E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com
                  tim@portermalouf.com
                  johnny@portermalouf.com

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422
          Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant Mine Safety
Appliances Company is represented by:

          Charles R. Wilbanks, Jr., Esq.
          G. Austin Stewart, Esq.
          Matthew R. Dowd, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          1018 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 800
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 292-0789
          Facsimile: (601) 944-9342
          E-mail: chip.wilbanks@arlaw.com
                  austin.stewart@arlaw.com
                  matt.dowd@arlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Patrick McDowell, Esq.
          Matthew Wade Allen, Esq.
          BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC
          The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
          190 East Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 948-3101
          Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
          E-mail: pmcdowell@brunini.com
                  mwallen@brunini.com

Defendant, Cross Claimant and Cross Defendant 3M Company is
represented by:

          Clarence Webster, III, Esq.
          John Alexander Purvis, Esq.
          Mary Clay Morgan, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC
          188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 948-8000
          Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: cwebster@babc.com
                  apurvis@babc.com
                  mmorgan@babc.com

               - and -

          William C. McGowin, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          RSA Dexter Avenue Building
          445 Dexter Avenue, Suite 9075
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-7700
          Facsimile: (334) 956-7701
          E-mail: wmcgowin@babc.com

Defendant and Cross Defendant American Optical Corporation is
represented by:

          Alex T. Gray, Esq.
          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          E-mail: agray@mwlaw.com
                  lpruitt@mwlaw.com
                  mhargraves@mwlaw.com

               - and -

          Ginger C. Hyneman, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          100 East Huntington, Suite C
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336-9295
          Facsimile: (870) 336-9787
          E-mail: ghyneman@mwlaw.com


MINNESOTA: Dormant Asset Law Violates Due-Process, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that noting that Minnesota has
seized $606 million worth of personal goods under its Unclaimed
Property Act, a class wants a judge to strike the law down for
due-process violations.


MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: September Trial Set for Inmate Suicide Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Ceballos, writing for Monterey Herald, reports that in-custody
deaths are one focus of an ongoing class-action filed in May 2013
on behalf of jail inmates alleging inadequate medical care, poor
accommodations for the disabled and serious safety problems,
including not doing enough to prevent suicides.

The suit, which was brought by Public Defender James Egar and the
American Civil Liberties Union, accuses county officials of not
doing enough to reduce the overcrowded prison population, which is
blamed on a high pretrial population and a failure to make
adequate use of custody alternatives such as day reporting and GPS
monitoring.

Monterey County's steady trickle of inmate suicides has caught the
attention of many, and the county is not alone in struggling to
address the issue. In 2013, a mental health expert appointed to
oversee programs in California prisons quit in frustration when
the state didn't implement his recommendations aimed at reducing
prison suicides.

Just 30 state inmates committed suicide that year, out of a
prisoner population of 135,000. Monterey County's jail population
hovers around 1,000.

In April 2014, independent experts in the Monterey County case
issued a series of reports blasting conditions at the jail.  One
blamed the jail's mental health care system for putting prisoners
at risk and possibly increasing their risk of suicide.  It also
criticized the use of "rubber rooms" -- windowless, padded cells
without toilets, beds or sinks -- used to house suicidal inmates.

"Too many of my clients have died by suicide or through
preventable disease while housed in the jail," Mr. Egar said at
the time.  "Enough is enough."

Another ongoing suit over the suicide of a mentally ill inmate
booked on a homicide charge accuses the county of failing to take
adequate steps to care for an inmate who, upon his arrest,
allegedly asked several times for a lethal injection, along with
several other indicators he was in distress.  Joshua Claypole was
briefly placed on suicide watch but hanged himself shortly after
being taken off it.

The county has denied liability in the case.  "While it is by all
accounts a tragic case, there is no evidence that medical care
fell below standard," it wrote in court papers.

A judge has ruled the case could proceed.

The county has taken some measures to reduce the inmate
population.  Beginning in 2007, the Sheriff's Office sought and
won a series of court orders -- at least 55, according to
documents filed with the class-action -- allowing jail officials
to release inmates before their sentences were up.

The trial is scheduled to begin in September.


MOTIVA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over From Benzene-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Paul Ferguson, Individually and as the Legal
Representative of Grace Joan Ferguson and Melinda Ferguson v.
Motiva Enterprises, LLC, Conocophillips Company, and Total
Petrochemicals & Refinery USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01181 (E.D.
La., April 14, 2015) arises from benzene-related injuries.

The Defendants are manufacturer, distributor, seller, supplier, or
large industrial consumer of benzene or benzene-containing
products.  The Defendants are foreign corporations incorporated in
Delaware and with their principal place of business in Texas.

Mr. Ferguson worked for the Defendants as pipefitter/boilermaker
performing new construction and turnarounds.  He alleges that from
2000 through 2010, he would regularly come into contact with
benzene or benzene-containing products (e.g., crude oil, toluene,
xylene, benzene and gasoline) at the Defendant's facilities.  He
also alleges that he was diagnosed with NHL (non-hodgkin's
lymphoma) in May 2014 due to his exposure to benzene and benzene-
containing products.

As a result of his injuries, Mr. Ferguson contends that his wife,
Melinda Ferguson, and his child, Grace Joan Ferguson, are entitled
to recover damages for the injuries they suffered including loss
of consortium, loss of service and loss of society.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYLAN NV: Recalls Multiple Injectable Products Due to Particulate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. (Nasdaq: MYL) announced that its U.S.-based Mylan
Institutional business is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall
to the hospital/user level of select lots of the following
injectable products due to the presence of visible foreign
particulate matter observed during testing of retention samples.

  NDC      Product Name and Strength   Size   Lot      Expiration
  Number   ------------------------    ----   Number   Date
  ------                                      ------   ----------
67457-464  Gemcitabine for Injection,  10 mL  7801396  08/2016
-20        USP 200mg
67457-464  Gemcitabine for Injection,  10 mL  7801401  08/2016
-20        USP 200mg
0069-3857  Gemcitabine for Injection,  10 mL  7801089  07/2015
-10        USP 200mg
67457-463  Gemcitabine for Injection,  100 mL 7801222  03/2016
-02        USP 2 g
67457-462  Gemcitabine for Injection,  50 mL  7801273  05/2016
-01        USP 1 g
67457-493  Carboplatin Injection       100 mL 7801312 06/2015
-46        10mg/mL
0069-0146  Methotrexate Injection,     2 mL   7801082  07/2015
-02        USP 25mg/mL                (5 x 2mL)
0069-0152  Cytarabine Injection        5 mL   7801050  05/2015
-02        20mg/mL                    (10 x 5mL)

Administration of a sterile injectable that has foreign
particulates has the potential of severe health consequences.
Intrathecal administration could result in a life threatening
adverse event or result in permanent impairment of a body
function. Intravenous administration has the potential to damage
and/or obstruct blood vessels which could induce emboli,
particularly in the lungs. If a right to left cardiac shunt is
present, the particulate may lead to arterial emboli and result in
stroke, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and loss of
renal and hepatic function or tissue necrosis. Other adverse
effects associated with intravenous injection of particulate
matter include local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response
and/or embolization in the body and infection. Intra-arterial
administration could result in damage to blood vessels in the
distal extremities or organs. Intramuscular administration could
result in foreign-body inflammatory response, with local pain,
swelling and possible long term granuloma formation. To date,
Mylan has not received any reports of adverse events related to
this recall.

Gemcitabine for Injection, USP 200mg is an intravenously
administered product indicated for the treatment of ovarian
cancer, breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic
cancer. These lots were distributed in the U.S. between Feb. 18,
2014, and Dec. 19, 2014, and were manufactured and packaged by
Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company. Lot 7801089 is
packaged with a Pfizer Injectable label.

Carboplatin Injection 10mg/mL is an intravenously administered
product indicated for the treatment of advanced ovarian carcinoma.
The lot was distributed in the U.S. between Aug. 11, 2014, and
Oct. 7, 2014, and was packaged by Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a
Mylan company, with a Mylan Institutional label.

Methotrexate Injection, USP 25mg/mL can be administered
intramuscularly, intravenously, intra-arterially, or intrathecally
and is indicated for certain neoplastic diseases, severe psoriasis
and adult rheumatoid arthritis. The lot was distributed in the
U.S. between Jan. 16, 2014, and March 25, 2014, and was packaged
by Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company, with a Pfizer
Injectables label.

Cytarabine Injection can be administered intravenously or
intrathecally and in combination with other approved anti-cancer
drugs is indicated for remission induction in acute non-
lymphocytic leukemia of adults and pediatric patients. The lot was
distributed in the U.S. between May 02, 2014, and July 24, 2014,
and was manufactured and packaged by Agila Onco Therapies Limited,
a Mylan company located in Bangalore, India and is packaged with a
Pfizer Injectables label.

Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is
arranging for return of all recalled products. Distributors,
retailers, hospitals, clinics, and physicians that have these
products which are being recalled should stop use and return to
place of purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Mylan
Customer Relations at 800.796.9526 or customer.service@mylan.com,
Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST. Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to using these drug
products.

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

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

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company committed to setting new
standards in healthcare. Working together around the world to
provide 7 billion people access to high quality medicine, we
innovate to satisfy unmet needs; make reliability and service
excellence a habit; do what's right, not what's easy; and impact
the future through passionate global leadership. We offer a
growing portfolio of around 1,400 generic pharmaceuticals and
several brand medications. In addition, we offer a wide range of
antiretroviral therapies, upon which approximately 40% of HIV/AIDS
patients in developing countries depend. We also operate one of
the largest active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers and
currently market products in about 145 countries and territories.
Our workforce of approximately 30,000 people is dedicated to
creating better health for a better world, one person at a time.
Learn more at mylan.com.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Delaware Supreme Court Overturned Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on July 30, 2014, Nabors
and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("CJES") and
its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members
of the CJES board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, and that Nabors Red Lion and CJES
aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the
Merger and the CJES stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger
and, to the extent that the Merger is completed before any relief
is granted, to have the Merger rescinded. On November 10, 2014,
the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on
November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling,
followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered
certain members of the CJES board of directors to solicit for a 30
day period alternative proposals to purchase CJES (or a
controlling stake in CJES) that are superior to the Merger, and
(ii) preliminarily enjoined CJES from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. CJES complied with
the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of
the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014, the
Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment
and vacated the order.


NEW YORK, NY: Accused of Racial and Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Adelle Goodwine v. The City Of New York, New York City Department
of Information Technology & Telecomunications, Paul Cosgrave,
Ronald Bergmann, Cordell Schachter, Vincent Grippo, and Carole
Post, in their official and individual capacities, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02868-JMF (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015) is brought as a result of
the Defendants' alleged discrimination against the Plaintiff based
on her race (African American) and sex (female) and the
Defendants' retaliation against her for opposing their
discriminatory employment practices.

Ms. Goodwine is an African-American female.  She commenced
employment with Defendant DoiTT in April 2006 until February 2014.
She is a resident of Kings County in the state of New York.

The City of New York is a municipality organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York.  Under the Charter of the
City, the City is the municipal agency with responsibility for its
duly organized and created departments, including the Department
of Information Technology & Telecommunications ("DoiTT") and the
City's agents, servants and employees, who work for DoiTT.

DoiTT is a municipal agency created and authorized under the laws
of the City.  DoiTT provides IT services, infrastructure and
telecommunications to New York City's agencies, boards, offices,
residents, businesses, and visitors.  The Individual Defendants
are officers, servants, employees or agent of DoiTT and the City
of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          18 W. 18th Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (646) 356-1010
          Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
          E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com


NORTEK INC: Class Actions in Their Initial Stages
-------------------------------------------------
Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class action lawsuits
against the Company are in their initial stages.

"Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), our wholly owned subsidiary,
is the defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Florida,
Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida," the Company said.  "In addition, Nortek, Inc., Nortek
Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. are the
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer,
et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.  These lawsuits allege that evaporator and condenser
coils in Nordyne's residential heating and cooling products are
susceptible to a type of potential corrosion of the copper tubing
in the units that can result in coil leaks and/or failure of the
units.  The Florida action was initiated on May 21, 2014 and seeks
compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's alleged wrongdoing,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Tennessee
action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and seeks damages
associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the
allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged
defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect,
injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs. No arguments or ruling with respect to class action status
have occurred to date in either of these actions."

"While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints.  At
this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material
loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or
liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events
could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss,
which could ultimately have a material impact on our business.
The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material
loss as the actions progress."


NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters' Class Action in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action filed
by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund is in the early stage of
litigation.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which
the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and
the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower
court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a
class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities
in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court
remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the
case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.


NU SKIN: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion
requesting that the court consolidate the various purported class
actions, appoint State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action and appoint the law firm Labaton
Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action. On May 1, 2014, that stipulated motion was
granted and on June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action
complaint was filed.

"On August 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case and on
October 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to our
motion to dismiss. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on
February 18, 2015, and an order denying the motion was issued on
February 26, 2015," the Company said.

"The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims
on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and
to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt. The consolidated class
action complaint alleges that, inter alia, we made materially
false and misleading statements regarding our sales operations in
and financial results derived from Mainland China, including
purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-
level marketing activities. We believe that the claims asserted in
the consolidated class action complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend ourselves."


OHIO: Employers Must Wait for $420MM Workers Comp Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Telegraph-Forum reports that thousands of employers in the state
who were overcharged for workers compensation insurance premiums
will have to wait at least a few more weeks before collecting a
share of the $420 million court settlement, according to one of
the attorneys involved.

The settlement in July ended a class-action lawsuit that dragged
on for years. It created a fund to repay businesses that were
overcharged for workers compensation premiums from July 2001 to
June 2009.

The case had been settled last July.  The deadline for filing a
claim was in October, with the hope that the money would be paid
in February or March.  But Stuart Garson, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, tells The Columbus Dispatch that distributions probably
will go out until the first half of May.

About 29,000 claims seeking $261 million were filed; 300,000
employers had been eligible in the case.

Mr. Garson said about 95 percent of the claims were mostly
straightforward, but others have been more complicated to resolve.
They include those involving businesses that have filed for
bankruptcy and raise questions about who is entitled to the money.

"They have been difficult to process," he said.

An earlier court ruling said Ohio's state insurance fund for
injured workers set up an illegal rating system that resulted in
employers being overcharged nearly $860 million.  The state
settled the case last year rather than appealing to the Ohio
Supreme Court.

Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation administrator Steve Buehrer
said at the time of the settlement that the state has made major
changes to its system.  Both sides said they were satisfied with
the settlement.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack Rodos Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on March 27 disclosed that it has
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. common stock during the
period between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, inclusive.  The
Case is No. 15-cv-557-CAB-MDD.  The complaint alleges that
Orexigen and certain of its executives violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of
all purchases of Orexigen common stock during the Class Period.

If you would like to discuss this case or have any questions
concerning your rights and interests as a purchaser of Orexigen
stock, we encourage you to contact Stephen R. Basser or
Samuel M. Ward of Barrack at (619) 230-0800, (215) 963-0600, or
(212) 688-0782, or via email at sbasser@barrack.com or
sward@barrack.com

Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity,
including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy
expenditure through [central nervous system] activity."  Orexigen
is headquartered in La Jolla, California, just north of Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine's office in San Diego, California.

The Barrack complaint alleges that as part of the FDA post-
marketing approval process for Contrave, Orexigen was required to
conduct a new, randomize-blind, placebo-controlled study to
evaluate the effects of long-term treatment with Contrave on the
incidents of major adverse cardiac events, or "MACE," in
overweight and obese subjects with cardiovascular disease or
multiple cardiovascular risk factors, referred to as a "LIGHT
study."

On March 3, 2015, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim results of
its LIGHT study.  However, according to media reports, Orexigen
had been warned by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
about inappropriately releasing interim study data in the past
and, thus, knew that it would not be appropriate to release
interim LIGHT study results on March 3, 2015.  With the company's
March 3, 2015 disclosures, the price of Orexigen common stock
increased by more than 30%, from a closing price of $5.79 on
March 2 to a closing price of $7.64 on March 3, 2015.  The stock
closed at even higher prices the next two days -- closing at $8.49
per share on March 4 and at $8.01 per share on March 5, 2015.
Over the three days, more than 150 million shares of stock were
traded.

However, after the close of trading on March 5, 2015, Forbes
published an article entitled "Top FDA official Says Orexigen
Study Result 'Unreliable', "Misleading."  As alleged in the
Barrack complaint, the Forbes report contained comments from an
FDA official charged with overseeing the Contrave post-marketing
clinical trial program, who reportedly stated, among other things,
that the interim data from the study was probably "unreliable,"
"misleading," and "likely false."  The Forbes article commented
that "[i]f Orexigen cannot find a way to set things right, it
could face fines, civil penalties, or even the withdrawal of
Contrave from the market."

After issuance of the Forbes article, the price of Orexigen stock
fell significantly as trading resumed on March 6, 2015, falling to
a low of $6.76 per share and resting at $7.10 per share by the
close of the day.

If you purchased Orexigen common stock during the period from
March 3, 2015 through March 5, 2015, you may be eligible to serve
as a lead plaintiff and thereby participate in the direction of
this litigation on behalf of the class members.  If you wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you are required to file a motion with
the court no later than 60 days from March 10, 2015.  If you would
like to discuss this case or have any questions or information
concerning this notice or your rights and interests as a purchaser
of Orexigen stock, we encourage you to contact Stephen R. Basser
or Samuel M. Ward of Barrack at (619) 230-0800, (215) 963-0600, or
(212) 688-0782, or via email at sbasser@barrack.com or
sward@barrack.com

You may view a copy of the complaint as filed at www.barrack.com

Barrack, Rodos & Bacine -- http://www.barrack.com-- has
significant expertise and experience prosecuting investor class
actions.  The firm has been appointed by courts to lead positions
in litigating such legal disputes for almost 40 years. It has
secured many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history, including one of the largest securities class action
trial verdicts since the passage of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The firm has also achieved
significant recoveries in securities class actions in the
District Courts of California, including a recovery in excess of
$1 billion.


PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pedego Inc., of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,000 Lithium ion rechargeable batteries. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves 36-volt and 48-volt lithium ion rechargeable
batteries sold separately and as original equipment with Pedego
electric bikes. Recalled batteries of each voltage came in two
styles. One style has a silver or black metal case that measures
about 13 1/2 inches long, 6 1/2 inches wide and 2 1/2 inches high,
with black plastic end caps and a handle. The other style has a
black or white plastic case that measure about 14 inches long, 6
1/2 inches wide and 2 1/2 inches high with a red indicator lamp on
one end. The batteries have serial numbers that start with "DLG."
A label with the serial number is on one side of the metal
batteries and on the underside of the plastic batteries.

Pedego has received six reports of batteries overheating and
catching fire, including one report of property damage. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/UOahe0

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Bicycle stores and electric bike retailers and online at
www.pedegoelectricbikes.com from January 2010 through September
2013. The batteries were sold separately for about $600 to $900
and on electric bicycles that sold for between $2,000 and $3,000.


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Somaxon Pharmaceuticals Litigation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case
In re Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead
Case No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL) has been dismissed.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego by Daniele Riganello, who, prior
to the consummation of the merger between Pernix and Somaxon on
March 6, 2013 (the "Merger"), was an alleged stockholder of
Somaxon  (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-
SLCTL). A second purported class action was also filed in the
court by another alleged stockholder (Wasserstrom vs. Somaxon, et
al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL). Both plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on January 18, 2013. The lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action captioned In re Somaxon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case No. 37-
201200087821-CU-SLCTL). The operative complaint named as
defendants Somaxon, Pernix, Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, as well as
each of the former members of Somaxon's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants"). It alleged, among other things, that (i)
the Individual Defendants  breached fiduciary duties they
assertedly owed to Somaxon's former stockholders in connection
with the Merger (ii) Somaxon and Pernix aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger
consideration was unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosures
regarding the Merger in the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on January 7, 2013 (as amended, the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), were inadequate.

"On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation," the Company said. The MOU resolves the
claims brought in such litigation and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of Somaxon's former stockholders
of all claims against the defendants and their affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger. The parties executed a
stipulation of settlement setting forth a plaintiff's fee of
$185,000 on July 3, 2013.  The court entered a preliminary
approval of the settlement on January 17, 2014 and the final
settlement approval hearing occurred on April 25, 2014.  We paid
the $185,000 plaintiff's fee and attorney's fees of $15,000 and
the case has been dismissed."


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Pomerantz Files Amended Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP on March 30 announced the filing of a
consolidated amended securities class action complaint ("CAC")
against Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.  --  Petrobras ("Petrobras" or
the "Company") its wholly-owned subsidiaries Petrobras
International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo") and Petrobras Global
Finance B.V. ("PGF"), certain individual defendants, as well as
certain underwriters and the Company's  auditor,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes.  The class action
is pending in the Southern District of New York.

The CAC alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petrobras,
as well as debt securities issued by PifCo and PGF, on the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") between January 22, 2010 and March
18, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), or pursuant to other
domestic transactions (the "Class").  The CAC also alleges
violations of the Brazilian Corporate Law, the Brazilian Civil
Code, the Brazilian Securities Law, and the Brazilian Securities
Commission Regulations, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras securities on the
Brazilian stock exchange during the Class Period that also
purchased shares on the NYSE.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that Petrobras and its
senior executives engaged in a multi-year, multi-billion dollar
money-laundering and bribery scheme, which was concealed from
investors.  Significantly, Petrobras senior executives have
already acknowledged their participation in the scheme.  In
testimony released by a Brazilian federal court, the executive in
charge of Petrobras' refining division confessed that Petrobras
accepted kickbacks "from companies to whom Petrobras awarded
inflated construction contracts" and "then used the money to bribe
politicians through intermediaries to guarantee they would vote in
line with the ruling party while enriching themselves."  These
illegal acts caused the Company to overstate the value of its
assets on Petrobras' balance sheet.  As of March 16, 2015, the
corruption probe at Petrobras has already led to 40 indictments on
racketeering, bribery and money laundering charges, and Brazilian
prosecutors have asked the Supreme Court to investigate 34 sitting
politicians, including the speakers of both houses of Congress,
for allegedly receiving bribe money.

Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at Pomerantz stated, "The Consolidated
Amended Complaint alleges an unprecedented bribery and money
laundering scheme that pervaded every corner of Petrobras.  It is
inconceivable that the Company's senior executives, Directors and
auditor were unaware of the nature of the misrepresentations made
to unsuspecting investors. We intend to prosecute this case to
fullest extent possible to achieve a substantial recovery for the
Class."

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


PFIZER INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bellwether Zoloft Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison's Beth Wilkinson --
bwilkinson@paulweiss.com -- helped Pfizer Inc. get off to a
promising start on April 17 in sweeping litigation over the
antidepressant Zoloft, winning a defense verdict in the first
trial of hundreds of pending cases linking the drug to birth
defects.

A jury in Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis City rejected
claims brought by the family of Logyn Pesante, a boy born with a
hole in his heart whose mother allegedly took Zoloft to treat
depression while she was pregnant.  The lawsuit asserted a causal
link between Zoloft and the boy's condition, and accused Pfizer of
failing to provide enough warning about the antidepressant's
risks.

The April 17 verdict came in the first Zoloft case to go to trial;
in addition to several cases in St. Louis state court, plaintiffs
have sued in state court in Philadelphia and in multidistrict
litigation consolidated in Philadelphia federal court, among other
jurisdictions.  Jury selection for a second Zoloft trial is set
to begin in one of the state cases in Philadelphia, with a trial
to follow in early June.

Pfizer has denied the claims, and has tapped Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan's Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
-- to coordinate its national defense efforts.  For the Pesante
trial, the company called on Paul Weiss' Wilkinson, who delivered
opening and closing arguments.  Wilkinson told the jury that
scientific evidence doesn't back up the plaintiffs' claims and
that Pfizer adequately warned of Zoloft's risks.

"The decision is particularly significant as the plaintiffs'
lawyers selected this case for their first trial, and after all
the evidence was heard, the jury found in favor of Pfizer," the
company said in a statement.

Pfizer's defense lineup at trial also included Alexandra Walsh --
awalsh@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss and Booker Shaw --
bshaw@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn. (Paul Weiss is
also expected to take the lead for Pfizer at other trials in state
court, including the upcoming Philadelphia trial set for June.)

Joseph Zonies -- jzonies@rplaw.com -- of Reilly Pozner delivered
opening arguments for the plaintiffs in the St. Louis trial, and
Shelley Hutson of Clark Love Hutson handled the close.


PLATINUM PLUS: Former Exotic Dancers File Minimum Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hall, writing for Of The Morning Call, reports that 17-year-
old Briana Frank worked for nine months as an exotic dancer at an
Allentown club that failed to pay her minimum wage or overtime, a
federal lawsuit alleges.

The Easton teen's civil suit claims she was harmed when Platinum
Plus, the strip club on Airport Road, negligently hired the minor
and violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by classifying
the dancers as independent contractors, rather than employees.

It is one of two cases making allegations about wages against the
company that owns Platinum Plus.  In a proposed class-action
lawsuit filed in December, a former dancer at the Allentown club,
Elaine Alvarez, claims she and more than 100 other dancers are
owed back wages because the club's classification of them as
independent contractors is illegal.

The suits follow a series of rulings in courts around the country
that the typical employment relationship between clubs and exotic
dancers -- in which they earn money only through tips and pay a
share back to the club -- violates state and federal labor laws,
said attorney Andy Santillo, who represents Ms. Alvarez.

In the case of Ms. Frank, her lawyer says Platinum Plus was
negligent in its alleged failure to verify her age and identity,
even though she used someone else's driver's license when she
interviewed there in February 2013.  Ms. Frank's lawsuit says she
was 17 when she began working in the club -- she is now 19.

The suit also alleges Platinum Plus is liable for battery because
it served Ms. Frank alcohol and allowed patrons to touch her
breasts and pelvic area, and for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment because it exploited her "youth, image and
beauty" for its own gain.

"Briana Frank was a child when this happened to her and it
shouldn't have happened," said South Whitehall Township attorney
Richard J. Orloski, who filed the suit on her behalf.

Allentown attorney Matthew Croslis, who represents South Carolina-
based KWLT LLC, which owns Platinum Plus, said he has filed a
motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Ms. Frank cannot seek
compensation for a chain of events that began with her own use of
a fake ID.

"She committed a crime to be able to work there, if she worked
there," Mr. Croslis said.

He added that KWLT had been contacted by two other attorneys with
offers to settle Ms. Frank's claims "to keep it quiet and out of
the press," before Mr. Orloski filed the lawsuit on her behalf.
Mr. Croslis said his client reported those initial settlement
offers to law enforcement.

Mr. Orloski filed an amended version of the lawsuit on March 24
that addressed the club's complaint that the suit did not contain
enough information to determine whether Ms. Frank had actually
danced in the club.

According to the suit, Ms. Frank was offered a job dancing at
Platinum Plus and used an older woman's driver's license during an
interview with a club employee Ms. Frank knew only as "Tom."

The suit says he hired Ms. Frank to dance, even though the picture
of the woman on the driver's license bears no physical resemblance
to Ms. Frank.  The suit says the club employee who interviewed
Ms. Frank also knows the woman whose license Ms. Frank used.

Crucial to the dancers' claims that Platinum Plus violated labor
laws is whether they are employees, who are covered by state and
federal labor laws, rather than independent contractors, who are
not, and whether the fees they charge patrons are tips or wages,
Mr. Santillo said.

Earlier in March in federal court in Texas, two exotic dancers at
a San Antonio area strip club won a jury verdict, which a judge
doubled to $250,000, after finding the establishment made no
effort to remedy its violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The verdict followed Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth's
ruling that the fees the dancers received from patrons for table
dances were tips and not wages that could be counted toward the
minimum wage.

In June, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ruled dancers were
employees of The Penthouse Club rather than independent
contractors, allowing their wage claims against the Philadelphia
club to move toward trial.  A federal court in New York reached a
similar decision in a class action lawsuit by exotic dancers
there.

Frank and Alvarez both allege they received no wages or overtime
from Platinum Plus, even though they worked more than 40 hours a
week.  Rather, the dancers receive payments and tips directly from
patrons.

According to Ms. Alvarez's federal lawsuit, the club also makes
deductions from the dancers' tips and other compensation for a
house fee and for payments to the disk jockey, bouncers and wait
staff.  Her suit claims the club also takes a share of payments
that dancers receive for personal dances, and fines them for
infractions, such as arriving late or chewing gum on stage.

Ms. Frank's lawsuit says she was required to pay $65 per shift out
of her tips.

Ms. Alvarez's lawsuit contends that she and other dancers at
Platinum Plus are not independent contractors because the club
regulated their performances, attire and interaction with patrons,
and subjected them to termination for failing to follow the rules.

The dancers had no opportunity for profit and loss depending on
their business decisions, and the club controlled how much they
could charge for lap dances and private dances, Ms. Alvarez's suit
says.

Attorney Katherine Batista, who represents KWLT in Ms. Alvarez's
case, did not return a call seeking comment.

Both suits noted the dancers had worked at Platinum Plus for
extended periods.  Ms. Frank worked at the club for about nine
months, her suit says.  Ms. Alvarez worked there for more than two
years in two stints between 2010 and 2014.

"We allege that based on the character of their employment that
they were employees of Platinum Plus," Mr. Santillo said.


PRA GROUP: TCPA Litigation Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation against PRA
Group, Inc. remains stayed, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  On
December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").  On
November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  On May
20, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation until such time as the
United States Federal Communications Commission has ruled on
various petitions concerning the TCPA. The range of loss, if any,
on these matters cannot be estimated at this time.


PREMERA BLUE CROSS: Faces Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Lisa Schencker, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
Premera Blue Cross failed to adequately protect its customers'
personal information and notify them of a recent data breach in a
timely manner, according to the latest class-action lawsuit filed
on March 26 against the insurer in federal court in Seattle.

The suit is one of at least five class-action suits filed over the
breach, said James Bilsborrow, an attorney representing the
plaintiffs with law firm Weitz & Luxenberg.  Premera announced
earlier in March that a May 2014 cyberattack breached a system
that contained records for 11 million of its customers.

Several class action lawsuits already have been filed against
insurer Anthem, which also suffered a cyberattack disclosed
earlier this year that exposed the personal information of 80
million current and former Anthem members.

Premera said in a statement on March 27 the latest lawsuit was not
unexpected because such actions are typical following data
breaches.  The insurer said it could not comment on pending
litigation.

However, in an earlier statement on the insurer's website, Premera
President and CEO Jeff Roe said of the attack: "The privacy and
security of our members' personal information is a top priority
for us.  As much as possible, we want to make this event our
burden, not yours, by making services available to protect you and
your information moving forward."

Premera has pledged to provide customers with two years of free
credit monitoring and identity theft-protection services,
including identity theft insurance.

The lawsuit against Premera was filed on behalf of three
plaintiffs from Nevada and Washington.  The complaint in the suit
alleges Premera "breached its duty to protect and safeguard its
customers' personal and health information and take reasonable
steps to contain the damage caused where any such information was
compromised."

The insurer's cybersecurity systems were breached just weeks after
federal auditors warned Premera that those systems were
vulnerable, according to the lawsuit.  Premera then exposed
customers to even greater risk by waiting six weeks to publicly
reveal the breach, the lawsuit alleges.

The insurer still has yet to "fully and accurately" inform all
those affected about the breach's consequences for them, according
to the lawsuit.

"This is unacceptable," the complaint states.  "In a data breach
situation, it is incumbent upon the breached company to provide
accurate and complete information to those at risk so they may
immediately protect themselves and their families from further
harm."

Washington state law requires companies provide notice as quickly
as possible, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also alleges that a recent outbreak of healthcare data
breaches should have put Premera on high alert.  It references a
Community Health Systems hack that exposed the Social Security
numbers of 4.5 million customers in 2014, and incidents involving
Centura Health in Colorado and St. Joseph Health System in Texas.

"The history of cyber security breaches in the industry, and the
warnings that are now all but ubiquitous, have placed companies
operating in the industry on notice of the duty to safeguard
customers' personal and health information," according to the
lawsuit.  "If anything, this history of failure should spur
greater efforts to implement top-of-the-line cyber security
measures that exceed the industry standard."

Mr. Bilsborrow also said a greater breadth of data was exposed in
the Premera breach compared with the Anthem hack.  In the Premera
cyberattack, clinical information was exposed, raising "the
specter of medical blackmail, healthcare discrimination, and more
effective information by which to perpetrate fraud," he said.

Ken Dort -- Kenneth.Dort@dbr.com -- a partner in Drinker Biddle &
Reath's Intellectual Property Practice Group in Chicago, said
there might be some merit to the plaintiffs' allegation that
Premera waited an unnecessarily long time to publicize the breach.
But he said it can often be difficult in such cases for plaintiffs
to get significant damages.

For example, in a previous case involving AvMed, the insurer
agreed, as part of a settlement, to reimburse customers who lost
money as a result of their identities being stolen through a data
breach.  In that case, two laptops containing personal information
for more than 1 million customers were stolen.  Mr. Dort, however,
said AvMed didn't have to set aside a great deal of money to
reimburse those customers because it can be nearly impossible to
show identity theft issues are a direct result of a data breach.

The lawsuit against Premera seeks unspecified damages.

The Premera breach affects Premera Blue Cross, Premera Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Alaska, and affiliate brands Vivacity and
Connexion Insurance Solutions, according to Premera.  The attack
may have exposed applicants' and members' names, birthdays,
contact information, Social Security numbers, member
identification numbers, bank account information and clinical
information.


QUANTA SERVICES: Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Cert. Motion Due
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., the deadline
for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification in the
remanded proceeding is March 19, 2015.

In June 2006, Plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton
seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present,
including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming
two additional class representatives, one of whom has since
settled directly with his employer. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was heard and denied in May 2012. Plaintiffs
appealed the denial of class certification, and in October 2013,
the California Court of Appeal reversed the denial and remanded
the case to the trial court for reconsideration.

In November 2013, TNS filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Court of California, which was denied. The parties attended
mediation in December 2014, however, there was no resolution.
Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification in the remanded proceeding is March 19, 2015.
Plaintiffs seek approximately $16 million for class damages and $5
million in attorneys' fees. Quanta retained any liability
associated with this matter following its sale of TNS in December
2012.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for
indemnity against the staffing agencies, which employed many of
the individuals in the putative class. In December 2012, the trial
court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and
the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand for indemnity.
The court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the
staffing agencies. TNS appealed the court's ruling. The appeal is
fully briefed, but a date for oral argument has not been set. At
this time, Quanta does not believe this matter will have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


RANGE RESOURCES: Must Disclose Chemicals Used at Drill Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
natural-gas exploration company does not have standing to appeal a
trial court's order compelling it to disclose proprietary
ingredients of chemicals used on a drill site, the state Superior
Court has ruled.

A split three-judge panel of the court April 14 quashed Range
Resources-Appalachia Inc.'s appeal of an order requesting the
company to provide more detailed information regarding chemicals
used at a drill site in Washington County.  The order came during
a discovery dispute in the personal injury case Haney v. Range
Resources-Appalachia.

Although the company argued protection of the proprietary
information was important enough to merit an appeal at the
discovery phase, Judge John T. Bender, who wrote the court's
majority opinion, said Range Resources lacked standing to merit a
collateral review of the issue.

"Range Resources does not have a recognizable interest in the
proprietary information it seeks to protect," Judge Bender said.
"To the extent the proprietary, chemical ingredients of products
used at the Yeager drill site are entitled to protection, the
right to assert such protection is held by the manufacturers of
those products, not Range Resources."

The Superior Court's holding was issued in a memorandum opinion.
Judge Anne E. Lazarus, in a concurring decision, disagreed with
the majority's ruling on standing and said Range Resources could
face significant sanctions if it fails to comply with the order.

"Recognizing the broad nature of those potential sanctions, which
include striking out pleadings, and imposing punishment for
contempt, I believe that Range Resources has standing now to seek
to establish that the trial court's order is appealable as a
collateral order," Judge Lazarus said.

However, she ultimately agreed with the majority's decision to
quash the appeal, and said the exploration company failed to
establish the order was a collateral order that could be directly
appealed.

"If review is postponed, the claim will not be irreparably lost
because Range Resources or the manufacturers may seek a protective
order under Pa.R.C.P. 4012(a)(9) to prevent the dissemination of
trade secrets or confidential information," Judge Lazarus said.

According to Judge Bender, the eight plaintiffs in the case lived
in Amwell Township.  In 2012, they sued Range Resources and
several other companies for personal injuries and property damage
allegedly stemming from environmental contamination caused by
natural gas operations at the Yeager drill site.

The plaintiffs sought information regarding the chemicals and
substances used or brought to the drill site, Judge Bender said.
In response, Range Resources cited material safety data sheets
regarding products that were used at the site.

Although Range Resources acknowledged the data sheets did not
indicate the proprietary chemical ingredients of the products, the
company said any hazardous ingredient would be disclosed in the
data sheets, Judge Bender said.

The Washington County Court of Common Pleas issued an order
directing all third-party manufacturers of the products used at
the site to disclose the ingredients of their products.  After
only a few manufacturers complied, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to compel Range Resources to comply with the order, according to
Judge Bender.

The plaintiffs argued that, since Range Resources was responsible
for the site, it was the entity most likely to be able to provide
the sought-after information.  The trial court agreed.

In June 2014, the lower court issued an order expressly placing
the burden on Range Resources to provide information regarding the
proprietary ingredients, Judge Bender said.

Range Resources appealed on the issue of whether it was proper to
place the burden on the company to produce trade secret and
proprietary information when it had not been established that the
information was relevant or that the disclosure outweighed the
potential harm for the manufacturers.

Judge Bender said that, while discovery orders are typically not
immediately appealable, a court can grant an appeal from a
collateral order if, among other things, the issue is too
important to be denied review and the claim would be irreparably
lost if the review is postponed.

Judge Bender looked to the importance factor first.  He said Range
Resources argued the right to confidentiality for proprietary
business information and trade secrets is too important to be
denied review.  Range Resources, Bender said, cited the 2002 state
Superior Court decision in Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic,
which had concluded that a dispute involving natural-gas trade
secrets and business information was sufficiently important for
collateral review.

"We do not dispute this precedent," Judge Bender said.  "However,
despite the recognized importance of protecting trade secrets,
Range Resources is without standing to seek such protection here."
Bender further added Range Resources did not attempt to argue it
has a direct interest in protecting the information.

"We discern no other right involved, which Range Resources may
assert, that would satisfy the importance prong of the collateral
order doctrine," Judge Bender said.

John Smith of Smith Butz in Canonsburg represented the plaintiffs.
"We look forward to Range's compliance with the trial court's
order to disclose all the chemicals used at the site," Mr. Smith
said.

A spokesman for Range Resources did not return a call for comment.
Kenneth Komoroski of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Bruce Rende of
Robb Leonard Mulvihill represented Range Resources.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Recalls Multiple OTC Drugs Due to Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
RB (formerly Reckitt Benckiser) has recalled certain lots of
liquid bottles of MUCINEX(R) FAST-MAX(R) Night Time Cold & Flu;
MUCINEX(R) FAST-MAX(R) Cold & Sinus; MUCINEX(R) FAST-MAX(R) Severe
Congestion & Cough and MUCINEX(R) FAST-MAX(R) Cold, Flu & Sore
Throat because the over-the-counter medications, which correctly
label the product on the front of the bottle and lists all active
ingredients, may not have the correct corresponding drug facts
label on the back. This recall was due to a confirmed report from
a retailer.

This mislabeling could cause the consumer to be unaware of side
effects and/or risks associated with the ingestion of certain
product ingredients which include Acetaminophen, Dextromethorphan,
Guaifenesin, Phenylephrine and/or Diphenhydramine. The voluntary
recall is being issued nationwide as a precautionary measure to
ensure our consumers have all relevant facts and warnings for the
active ingredients contained in the bottle.

Consumers could take a product with undeclared levels of
Acetaminophen, Dextromethorphan, Guaifenesin, Phenylephrine and/or
Diphenhydramine. Consumers would not be adequately warned of side
effects which could potentially lead to health complications
requiring urgent medical intervention, particularly in the case of
acetaminophen use in people with liver impairment, taking three or
more alcoholic drinks or when taking other medicines containing
this active ingredient without consulting a doctor.

RB is notifying its distributors and customers by direct
correspondence. As a precautionary measure, RB is asking consumers
to responsibly dispose of any unused product in accordance with
the following recommended guidance for drug disposal in your
household trash:

Mix liquid medicines with an unpalatable substance such as kitty
litter or used coffee grounds;

Place the mixture in a container such as a sealed plastic bag; and

Throw the container in your household trash. Consumers who have
purchased this product can also contact the RB MUCINEX FAST-MAX
recall toll free number at 1-888-943-4215 between the hours of
8:00 a.m.- 8:00 p.m eastern standard time with any questions or to
speak with a representative, and should refer to our website,
www.mucinex.com/recall for the accurate related drug facts
information. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this drug product.

CONSUMER MUCINEX RECALL LIST: Products, Lots and Expiry Dates

   Product Name               Batch/ Lot     Expiry
   ------------               ----------     ------
MUCINEX FAST-MAX Night-Time   AA037          12/31/2016
Cold & Flu Liq            AA060          1/31/2017
                              AA080          1/31/2017
                              AA097          1/31/2017
                              MNT0003        7/31/2016
                              MNT0004        7/31/2016
                              MNT0005        7/31/2016
                              MNT0006        7/31/2016
                              MNT0007        7/31/2016
                              MNT0008        7/31/2016
                              MNT0009        7/31/2016
                              MNT0010        7/31/2016
                              MNT0011        7/31/2016
                              MNT0012        7/31/2016
                              MNT0013        7/31/2016
                              MNT0014        10/31/2016
                              MNT0015        10/31/2016
                              MNT0016        10/31/2016
                              MNT0016        10/31/2016
                              MNT0017        10/31/2016
                              MNT0018        11/30/2016
                              MNT0019        11/30/2016
                              MNT0020        12/31/2016
                              MNT0021        12/31/2016
                              MNT0022        12/31/2016
                              MNT0023        12/31/2016
                              MNT0024        12/31/2016
                              MNT0025        12/31/2016

MUCINEX FAST-MAX Cold &   MCS0019        7/31/2016
Sinus Liquid                  MCS0020        7/31/2016
                              MCS0021        7/31/2016
                              MCS0022        8/31/2016
                              MCS0023        8/31/2016
                              MCS0024        9/30/2016
                              MCS0025        9/30/2016
                              MCS0026        9/30/2016
                              MCS0027        11/30/2016
                              MCS0028        10/31/2016
                              MCS0029        10/31/2016
                              MCS0030        12/31/2016
                              MCS0031        12/31/2016
                              MCS0032        12/31/2016
                              MCS0033        12/31/2016

MUCINEX FAST-MAX Severe       MSC0049        8/31/2016
Congestion & Cough Liquid MSC0050        8/31/2016
                              MSC0051        8/31/2016
                              MSC0052        8/31/2016
                              MSC0053        8/31/2016
                              MSC0054        8/31/2016
                              MSC0055        8/31/2016
                              MSC0056        9/30/2016
                              MSC0057        9/30/2016
                              MSC0058        9/30/2016
                              MSC0059        10/31/2016
                              MSC0060        10/31/2016
                              MSC0061        10/31/2016
                              MSC0062        10/31/2016
                              MSC0063        10/31/2016
                              MSC0064        10/31/2016
                              MSC0065        10/31/2016
                              MSC0066        10/30/2016
                              MSC0067        11/30/2016
                              MSC0068        11/30/2016
                              MSC0069        11/30/2016
                              MSC0070        11/30/2016
                              MSC0071        11/30/2016
                              MSC0072        11/30/2016
                               MSC0073       11/30/2016
                               MSC0074       11/30/2016
                               MSC0075       11/30/2016
                               MSC0076       11/30/2016
                               MSC0077       12/31/2016
                               MSC0078       12/31/2016
                               MSC0079       12/31/2016
                               MSC0080       12/31/2016
                               MSC0082       12/31/2016

MUCINEX FAST-MAX Cold,Flu      MCF0048        7/31/2016
& Sore Throat Liq          MCF0051        7/31/2016
                               MCF0052        8/31/2016
                               MCF0053        8/31/2016
                               MCF0054        8/31/2016
                               MCF0055        8/1/2016
                               MCF0056        8/31/2016
                               MCF0057        8/31/2016
                               MCF0058        8/31/2016
                               MCF0059        10/1/2016
                               MCF0060        8/31/2016
                               MCF0061        8/31/2016
                               MCF0062        8/31/2016
                               MCF0063        9/30/2016
                               MCF0064        9/30/2016
                               MCF0065        9/30/2016
                               MCF0066        9/30/2016
                               MCF0067        9/30/2016
                               MCF0068        9/30/2016
                               MCF0069        10/1/2016
                               MCF0070        10/31/2016
                               MCF0071        10/31/2016
                               MCF0072        10/31/2016
                               MCF0073        10/31/2016
                               MCF0074        10/31/2016
                               MCF0075        10/31/2016
                               MCF0076        10/31/2016
                               MCF0077        10/31/2016

MUCINEX FAST-MAX Liquid        WO00706571     7/31/2016
combination - Day Night Severe WO00707442     7/31/2016
Cold and Night-Time Cold       WO00707443     7/31/2016
& Flu.                     WO00707444     7/31/2016
                               WO00707822     7/31/2016
                               WO00709953     7/31/2016
                               WO00709955     6/30/2016
                               WO00720780     7/31/2016
                               WO00721052     7/31/2016
                               WO00721170     7/31/2016
                               WO00721171     7/31/2016
                               WO00726864     6/30/2016
                               WO00726865     7/31/2016
                               WO00728864     12/31/2016
                               WO00728865     12/31/2016
                               WO00728866     12/31/2016
                               WO00730003     12/31/2016
                               WO00730004     12/31/2016
                               WO00735142     12/31/2016
                               WO00736753     12/31/2016
                               WO00737477     1/31/2017
                               WO00737979     1/31/2017
                               WO00738556     12/31/2016
                               WO00739050     12/31/2016
                               WO00740405     1/31/2017
                               WO00740406     1/31/2017

MUCINEX FAST-MAX  Liquid       WO00707825     5/31/2016
combination packs - Daytime    WO00713226     7/31/2016
Severe Congestion & Cough  WO00715310     6/30/2016
Night-Time Cold & Flu      WO00715505     7/31/2016
                               WO00721174     9/30/2016
                               WO00721177     10/31/2016
                               WO00726860     10/31/2016
                               WO00726862     6/30/2016
                               WO00726952     8/31/2016
                               WO00728861     6/30/2016
                               WO00728878     7/31/2016
                               WO00728879     9/30/2016

*Lot List Current as of 4/23/15

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

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


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Class Actions by Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that beginning on
November 7, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally alleges that
Salix and certain former officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures regarding certain products, including with respect to
disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory levels,
business prospects and demand, reserves and internal controls.
Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn
Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., Case No:
1:14-CV-08925 (KMW), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW).  Another action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
under the caption Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D, and has subsequently been voluntarily
dismissed.  The two actions in New York federal court are
currently subject to several pending motions for consolidation and
appointment of lead plaintiff.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismissed Santarus Shareholder Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted
the request of parties in the Santarus shareholder litigation in
California federal court for voluntary dismissal of the complaint
without prejudice.

"Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to
challenge our proposed acquisition of Santarus, which was
announced on November 7, 2013," the Company said.  "Nine of these
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was
filed in California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. These actions generally allege that the members of the
Santarus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Santarus's shareholders by failing to maximize the value of
Santarus and by making inadequate or misleading disclosures
regarding the proposed merger, and that Santarus, we and certain
of our subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint in the action pending in California federal
court also asserts causes of action on behalf of the individual
plaintiff for alleged violations of certain sections of the
Exchange Act. These actions generally sought, among other things,
to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and fees. On December 9,
2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to stay the action
pending in California Superior Court."

"On December 11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the nine actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by
plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative
complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20,
2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement
in principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the
plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended
Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date. We completed our merger with
Santarus on January 2, 2014. The parties in the Delaware
litigation executed a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the
terms of their agreement in principle on January 17, 2014 and, on
January 23, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed
motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court,
and we filed a separate motion to stay that action in favor of the
Delaware litigation, which the court granted.  On February 12,
2014, the parties in the action pending in California federal
court filed a joint motion to stay that action pending a decision
by the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding final approval of the
proposed settlement of the Delaware litigation, and the California
federal court granted that motion on February 13, 2014.

"The parties in the Delaware litigation completed confirmatory
discovery in February 2014, and executed final settlement
documents on October 23, 2014, which were subject to approval by
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The settlement documents in the
Delaware litigation provided that, upon final approval by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, the plaintiffs' claims in the Delaware
litigation and the litigation pending in the California Superior
Court and California federal court would be released.  No
objections to the settlement were made in the Delaware litigation,
and, on January 22, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a
final settlement approval hearing at which it approved the
parties' settlement and granted plaintiffs' counsel's unopposed
request for $345,000 in attorneys' fees.  The Delaware Court of
Chancery awarded $335,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs'
counsel in the Delaware litigation and $10,000 in attorneys' fees
to plaintiffs' counsel in the action pending in the California
Superior Court.

"Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of settlement in the
Delaware litigation, the plaintiff in the California Superior
Court litigation filed a request for dismissal of the complaint
with prejudice on February 5, 2015, which the court granted on
February 18, 2015.  On February 19, 2015, the parties in the
California federal court litigation filed a joint request for
voluntary dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, which the
court granted on February 20, 2015 by an order dismissing the
complaint and closing the case."


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Approved Dismissal of Cosmo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Delaware court
has approved the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the Cosmo
Transaction Shareholder Litigation.

"On July 18, 2014, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
M.B.H., a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative
class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us, our
directors, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals S.p.A., or Cosmo Parent, Cosmo
and Sangiovese, LLC," the Company said.  "The Erste-Sparinvest
complaint alleged that our directors had breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the
agreement and plan of merger and reorganization announced on July
8, 2014, among us, Cosmo Parent, Cosmo and Sangiovese, LLC. The
complaint also alleges that the entity defendants aided and
abetted those breaches. The complaint sought, among other relief,
an order permanently enjoining the merger and damages in an
unspecified amount."

"On August 26, 2014, Michael M. Cebrik, another purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a second putative class action
in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger among us, Cosmo Parent, Cosmo and Sangiovese, LLC. The
Cebrik complaint named the same defendants as the Erste-Sparinvest
complaint, asserted substantially similar claims and sought the
same remedies. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel submitted a
letter to the Delaware Court of Chancery requesting consolidation
of the Erste-Sparinvest and Cebrik actions and appointment of co-
lead counsel, and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
plaintiffs' request later the same day.

"On October 3, 2014, we announced that we had reached an agreement
with Cosmo Parent to terminate our previously-announced merger
agreement. Under the terms of the termination, we made a $25
million payment to Cosmo Parent. On October 16, 2014, following
the termination of the merger agreement challenged in the
consolidated Delaware action, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims without prejudice. On October 22, 2014, the Delaware
court approved the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Feinstein" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on February 25, 2015, by Roberta Feinstein in the
Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to challenge Valeant's proposed
acquisition of Salix, captioned Feinstein v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10721 (the
"Feinstein Action").

"The complaint in the Feinstein Action generally alleges that the
members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to our shareholders by allegedly entering into a proposed merger
with Valeant, which was announced on February 22, 2015, pursuant
to which Valeant will acquire all outstanding shares of Salix in
an all cash tender offer for $158 per share," the Company said.
"The plaintiff in the Feinstein Action alleges that the members of
our board of directors agreed to the proposed merger with Valeant
at an unfair price as a result of an unreasonable process.  As of
February 26, 2015, we have not been served with process in this
matter."


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: DOJ Called to Probe Into Jail Inmate Fights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Michaels, writing for MotherJones.com, reports that the
San Francisco sheriff's office is asking the Department of Justice
to investigate allegations that officials at the county jail
forced inmates to fight for hamburgers and other rewards during
gladiator-style matches.

Speaking at a press conference on March 26, city public defender
Jeff Adachi accused four sheriff's deputies of twice pairing off a
150-pound inmate against a 350-pound inmate and betting on the
outcomes.  "I can only describe this as an outrageously sadistic
scenario that sounds like it's out of Game of Thrones," he said.

The smaller inmate claimed one of the deputies threatened him with
violence if he didn't fight.  "He told me he was gonna mace me and
cuff me if I didn't . . . comply with what he wanted,"
Ricardo Palikiko Garcia said in a statement, adding that three
weeks later, he still has bruises on his back and suspects he
fractured a rib.

However twisted this case may be, it's not an isolated incident.
Some other examples of prison guards being accused of organizing
gladiator-style fights and other humiliating games for prisoners:

Human cockfights: In 1996, an investigation by the Los Angeles
Times exposed how guards at California's Corcoran State Prison
paired rival inmates "like roosters in a cockfight, complete with
spectators and wagering."  Officers also allegedly organized a
ritual known as "gladiator day" in which inmates in the most
violent unit were sent to brawl in an empty yard, cheered on by an
official who served as an announcer.  Guards would break up some
fights by firing gas guns that discharged wood blocks or, if that
didn't work, by firing a rifle.  The FBI investigated after a 25-
year-old was killed during one such shooting.  In 2000, eight
prison guards accused of orchestrating the matches were acquitted
of federal civil rights abuses by a grand jury.

Out of solitary: In August 2012, a federal civil lawsuit was filed
on behalf of seven inmates at a St. Louis jail who said they were
forced by guards to fight and to punish each other, according to
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Thirty more inmates joined the
lawsuit in 2013, saying they were also required to fight.  At
least one attack was captured on video. Daniel Brown, the attorney
representing the inmates, said prisoners were even taken out of
solitary confinement to brawl.  "The guards were actually taking
inmates out of the cells, placing them in cells with other
inmates, and forcing them to fight each other," he told a St.
Louis radio station.

"Retard Olympics": In 2013, three corrections officers at a prison
in York County, Pennsylvania, were accused of organizing
competitions dubbed the "Retard Olympics," in which a prisoner
with bipolar disorder and another inmate were forced to do stunts
like drinking a gallon of milk in an hour, as well as water mixed
with pepper-spray foam.  Other challenges included eating a
spoonful of cinnamon and snorting a line of spicy vegetable
powder, as well as licking a guard's boots.  The guards denied any
wrongdoing and described the allegations as "fabrications."  York
County paid a $40,000 settlement to avoid going to court.

Nude lines: A class-action lawsuit filed March 19 on behalf of
hundreds of Illinois inmates alleges that more than 230 officials
from a state corrections unit called Orange Crush sexually abused
and beat inmates during "shakedowns" last year.  During a
shakedown in April 2014, officials allegedly forced inmates to
take off their clothes and stand in line with their backs at 90-
degree angles so each person's genitals rubbed against the behind
of whomever was in front of him. (Orange Crush referred to this
position as "Nuts to Butts").  They were told to walk like this to
the gym and were allegedly beaten with batons if they failed to
follow orders.


SHIVA SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Platt, writing for Morning Peninsula, reports that rumors of
the imminent closure or liquidation of the Shiva School of
Meditation and Yoga heightened in the face of an ongoing police
investigation, threat of a class action and suspension of its
accredited yoga teacher training course.

Signs have been removed from the school's ashram in Tower Rd,
Mt Eliza, and former residents have reportedly been told they had
until March 31 to remove any belongings.

Police from the Seaford-based SOCIT (Sexual Offences and Child
Abuse Investigation Teams) on March 26 confirmed they are
investigating allegations of sexual assault.  St Kilda lawyer
Angela Sdrinis is launching a class action following last
December's announcement by the school that its founder,
Russell Kruckman, also known as Swami Shankarananda and Swamiji,
"has had secret sexual relations with a number of women from the
ashram community".

At the same time Mr. Kruckman, in a statement signed Swamiji,
expressed regret and remorse for his actions and said he
"profoundly underestimated the impact" of tantric sexual
activities.

"I recognize at last their disastrous effect.  I vow to stop this
behavior," Mr. Kruckman said.

The school's management committee said "in light of the criminal
investigation that is being conducted" it has asked Swami
Shankarananda to "retire from Shiva Yoga".

Former followers of the swami have told The News they believe
Shiva Yoga Inc was set to go into voluntary liquidation.

Financial statements for the year ended June 2014 of the tax-
exempt Shiva Yoga Inc show it owns three properties near the
ashram collectively valued at just under $3m in Clarendon Close
and Petrel Ave.

The statements show $1.38 million has been spent improving the
ashram building in Tower Rd.  The "total comprehensive income
attributable to members" is $181,300.

The former followers say they believe the more valuable property
housing the ashram in Tower Rd is owned by Swami Shankarananda.

Revenue is listed on Shiva Yoga Inc.'s financial statements as
being $1.07m, with Swami Shankarananda shown as having loaned the
organization $373,508.  The statements show "retained earnings" of
$2.9m.

The statements show $1.38m was spent on "structural improvements"
to the Tower Rd property.

Spokesman for the Shiva School, Stephen Stanford, twice declined
to reply to questions from The News saying lawyer
David Galbally was handling media inquiries.

Mr. Galbally said he was providing corporate legal advice to Shiva
Yoga Inc but could not provide details about properties owned by
the organization.  He said on March 26 that the organization was
not in liquidation, a move that could only be determined by its
members.  Mr. Galbally said he did not know how many members Shiva
Yoga Inc had.

Yoga Australia said it had withdrawn Shiva Yoga's accreditation
for its yoga teacher training course but "will continue to offer
support to the students of the course and will register those who
have completed the course as yoga teachers".

"We want to reaffirm that the actions and admissions of Swami
Shankarananda go against all policies and procedures put in place
by our association and the ethical code of practice yoga teachers
abide by," Yoga Australia stated.

"This incident further instills the need for us to put into place
a regulatory framework for our profession, similar to that of
other allied health professions.

"We remind you that Swami Shankarananda is not a member or
registered teacher of Yoga Australia, however Shiva Yoga offer a
teacher training course that has now been suspended by Yoga
Australia pending the police investigations."

The revelations in December and offers of free counseling for
anyone affected by the school's leader did little to quell the
anger of hundreds of his followers who stopped their regular
attendances at the school's compound in Tower Rd.

One disaffected former attendee of Shiva School described the
counseling as "data collection, so they know what everyone was
saying: I haven't seen any of the promised transparency".

Another former member of the ashram of more than a decade said
things were "happening so quickly that the community [of former
members] has too little time to respond".

There was anger over the potential disposal of assets gained
through donations or work provide for free.

St Kilda-based lawyer Angela Sdrinis said she had notified both
Shiva Yoga Inc and Swami Shankarananda in writing that
investigations were underway into launching a possible class
action over alleged sexual abuse and physical injuries.

A website for Ms. Sdrinis describes her as a "personal injuries
accredited specialist and expert in Comcare and sexual and
institutional abuse".

Ms. Sdrinis she was investigating allegations by "about half a
dozen" women and was receiving "two or three" inquiries a day from
other potential claimants.  Claims about misused donations and
unpaid work were being referred to other lawyers.

Ms. Sdrinis said she had written to Shiva Yoga Inc and Swami
Shankarananda asking that they not dispose of any assets.

"I understand the liquidator [who may be appointed] is very
reputable and, I imagine, would be very reluctant to take such
steps without telling us," she said.

A former ashram member said some of the women leaving the ashram's
accommodation were being helped by friends "because they have
nowhere to go".

Most were also now referring to Swami Shankarananda as Russell,
rather than give him the dignity and elevation of the title
Swamiji.

"They call him Russell because it brings him down to earth," the
woman said.  "Swamiji gives him a status they don't believe he
deserves.

"There has been a huge loss of trust.  I feel like a trauma
victim.  I trusted him, but how gullible am I?

"It feels like there's been a death in my family."


SM FISH: Recalls Ossie's Pickled Lox & Cream Due to Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------
SM Fish Corp. of FAR ROCKAWAY, NY is recalling 8 ounce containers
of OSSIE'S PICKLED LOX & CREAM because it contains undeclared
eggs.  People who have an allergy to eggs run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The product was distributed to retail stores in NY and NJ.

   --- OSSIE'S PICKLED LOX & CREAM, NET WT. 8 OZ., is packed in
       clear, plastic containers bearing UPC code 739885104113
       and date code "06/04/15" (represents expiration date)
       located on the bottom of the plastic tub.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered during the
current FDA inspection that the containers did not list the sub-
ingredients of the mayonnaise, which contains eggs, used in the
product. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused
by a temporary breakdown in the company's packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased the item are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 718-945-9800, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 4
pm, ET.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm444101.htm


SM FISH: Recalls Ossie'd Herring in Sourcream & Pickled Lox Dairy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SM Fish Corp. of FAR ROCKAWAY, NY is recalling 8 ounce containers
of OSSIE'S HERRING IN SOURCREAM and OSSIE'S PICKLED LOX DAIRY
because they contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy
to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume these products.

The products were distributed to retail stores in NY and NJ.

OSSIE'S HERRING IN SOURCREAM, NET WT. 8 OZ., is packed in clear,
plastic containers bearing UPC code 739885114174 with date code
"06/08/15" (represents expiration date) located on the bottom of
the tub.  OSSIE'S PICKLED LOX DAIRY, Net Wt. 8 OZ., is packed in
clear, plastic containers bearing UPC code 739885114136 and date
code "06/08/15" (represents expiration date) located on the bottom
of the tub.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered during the
current FDA inspection that the containers did not list the sub-
ingredients of the sour cream, which contains milk, used in the
products. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was
caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's packaging
processes.

Consumers who have purchased these items are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 718-945-9800, Monday -
Friday, 9 am - 4 pm, ET.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm444105.htm


SOLARCITY: Faces Investigation Over Deceptive Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Larry Bell, writing for Nesmax, reports that last December
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and a member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform along with 11 other House members
sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission warning that the new
solar-leasing market industry has engaged in "deceptive marketing
strategies" to sucker unsuspecting homeowners into misleading
zero-money-down teaser loan deals.

Some of these purchasers who are now struggling to sell their
homes were not "fully aware of the terms of their 20 (to) 30 year
leases" which will exceed the life of the roof the panels are
mounted to.

Such practices have prompted the U.S. Treasury Department to
investigate SolarCity, the biggest player in the solar
installation subsidy industry for possible misrepresentations
about the "fair market value" of its systems and services.

Yet as the company is expected to lose more than $1 billion
through 2016, it still seeks to score more taxpayer subsidies out
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has already
kept the industry going for far too long.

Class action lawsuits filed by California and Louisiana homeowners
against solar panel leasing companies likewise allege fraudulent
marketing campaigns.  Here, unscrupulous promoters often seek
legitimacy through referral fees paid to local real estate
brokers, architects and contractors.

Writing in Newsmax, Bradley Blakeman explained how the scam works,
one where nonutility third-party contractors/installers approach
homeowners and small businesses promising significant energy
savings from roof-top solar systems with the enticement of a 20-
year lease and little or no upfront installation and operation
costs.  The purported savings are based upon too-good-to-be-true
inflated and unsupportable estimates of future utility rates.

As Mr. Blakeman notes: "And like any scam, the perpetrators must
act quick with high-pressure sales tactics employed to sign up as
many victims as possible before flaws in the leasing model are
made public.  Left in the fine print, for example, is the fact
that the initially low lease payments can then escalate year after
year.  Soon customers may find themselves stuck with paying more
for electricity than they would without subscribing."

Nor are homeowners typically aware that since the equipment must
be insured, their solar installations may increase their property
insurance premiums.  In some cases the customer who doesn't own
that equipment is also responsible to pay for its maintenance.
And while each purchasing homeowner typically gets a $1,000
subsidy from other taxpayers and grid users, the actual savings
from electricity generated usually doesn't even come close to
covering the cost of materials, installation and upkeep.

Sometimes worse of all, homeowners aren't told that upon entering
into the solar lease, the solar company will secure the
contractual obligations of the customer by placing a lien or other
encumbrance on the entire real property . . . not just on the
solar installation.

These liens can be sold to other creditors at a deep discount,
offering no remedy to the solar customer if the profiteer goes out
of business or simply walks away.  When this happens, any refusal
to pay -- even for legitimate reasons -- creates risks of
potential foreclosure or other legal action by the new lease
holder.

Homeowners may learn about the lien transfers for the first time
after attempting to sell their property to a prospective buyer.

Many also experience other problems in selling their property.  In
some cases the solar installations are defective or become
inoperable due to lack of maintenance.  Removal can cause
expensive roof damage.  Improperly maintained fixed panels can
cause roof leaks, and even fire hazards.

On top of all of this, solar panel leasers along with other
electricity ratepayers also get hit to compensate utility
companies for losses incurred under a "net metering" scheme which
forces customers to purchase solar power at inflated, money-losing
costs.

This happens through a shell game whereby credits subtracted from
customer utility bills for electricity not used from the electric
grid are simply incorporated back into overall rate increases.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all public utilities are
required to offer customers net metering upon request. Currently,
43 states, the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories have
such policies in place.  In addition, about half of all states
have "renewable energy standards" which require utilities to
purchase a set percentage of their electrical power from higher-
than-market solar and wind sources.

It's time to recognize the decidedly shady side of the solar panel
leasing industry, one whose "success" depends upon subsidies which
enable homeowners to effectively have solar leasing firms install
then for free, only to be gouged later along with generous -- read
as gullible -- taxpayers.  Let's finally put a lock on that cookie
jar.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Unclear When Court Will Rule in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that it is unclear when the
court will issue its ruling in a class action lawsuit.

"We are involved, along with other steel manufacturing companies,
in several class action antitrust complaints filed in federal
court in Chicago, Illinois, which allege a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products
were sold in the United States during a period between 2005 and
2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel
products," the Company said.

"One of the complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. A second
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period. An additional complaint was brought in December 2010, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee and
has been consolidated with the original complaints. All complaints
seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Class Certification in May 2012, and on
February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A
hearing on class certification was held on March 5-7 and April 11,
2014, and the matter remains under advisement. It's unclear when
the court will issue its ruling."


STEINER LEISURE: Facing Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al. Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is facing
the class action, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al.

"On April 7, 2014, a former student at our Schools Division's
Denver School of Massage Therapy brought a putative class action
against our Schools Division, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various
state wage and hour laws," the Company said. "The plaintiff
alleges that, in performing certain therapies on individuals from
the public as part of the requirement that students perform
clinical services (required for a massage therapy license), she
was acting as an employee for purposes of the FLSA and applicable
state law and was entitled to wages for those services. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated at
the schools operated by our Schools Division. At this time, we are
unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of the amount or range
of potential loss in this matter. Should we be found liable in
this matter, the amount that we may be required to pay in
connection with such liability could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations."


STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Have Joined Ideal Image Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that 20 individuals have
joined the lawsuit, Ideal Image Development Corporation, Marlow v.
Ideal Image Development Corp., to date.

On November 17, 2014, a former sales consultant brought a putative
collective action against Ideal Image Development Corporation,
Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the FLSA. The plaintiff alleges that she and others working as
sales consultants were not paid the applicable minimum wage for
certain training and travel work and were not paid overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a work week. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated across the country. Twenty
individuals have joined the lawsuit to date.

"At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be
found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to
pay in connection with such liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations," the Company said.


STRATECO LLC: Faces Class Suit in Ala. Alleging Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anitra Diamond and Labarron Yates, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kimberly Hastie, Chad Tucker and
Strateco, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204 (S.D. Ala., April 14, 2015)
is brought over alleged personal injury.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Brian Murphy, Esq.
          Kasie M. Braswell, Esq.
          BRASWELL MURPHY, LLC
          59 St. Joseph St.
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 438-7503
          Facsimile: (251) 438-7949
          E-mail: brian@braswellmurphy.com
                  kasie@braswellmurphy.com


SWEET SAM'S: Recalls Starbucks Black & White Mini Cookies
---------------------------------------------------------
Sweet Sam's Baking Company of Bronx, NY is recalling all lots of
Starbucks Black & White Mini Cookies sold in Starbucks Company
operated stores on or before Thursday, April 23rd, 2015, because
they contain milk, an allergen that is not declared on the
packaging. People who have an allergy to milk run the risk of
experiencing a serious or life-threatening reaction if they
consume the product.

The Black & White Mini Cookies were sold in Starbucks Company -
operated stores in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

The product comes in a 2.0 oz. (56 g) clear film package, each
containing two cookies.

Printed upon the front of the package are the words "Black & White
Mini Cookies", "A New York City Favorite", and "SKU 408785". On
the rear panel, among other details, are the words, "Manufactured
for: Starbucks Coffee Company", and UPC code "833282000495".

The recall was initiated by Sweet Sam's Baking Company after it
was discovered that the label did not reveal the presence of milk.
Two customers with milk allergies reported having an allergic
reaction after consuming the product. No other illnesses have been
reported to date. A product packaging review determined that the
private-label packaging design omitted the presence of milk from
the ingredient panel. Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by an oversight in the design process of the
private label. The packaging for Black & White Cookies sold under
Sweet Sam's own trademark does not suffer from this error. The
company will be revising the labeling of the product before re-
introducing onto the market.

Consumers who have purchased packages of Black & White Mini
Cookies sold at Starbucks and have an allergy to milk are urged to
discard the product or return it to any Starbucks store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact Starbucks's Customer
Relations at 1-800-782-7282, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM, Pacific Time.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Airbags for $2.4BB
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Macaluso, writing for The Windstor Star, reports that three
Windsor plaintiffs are suing Japanese manufacturer Takata Corp.,
for $2.4 billion over faulty airbags that have led to the recall
of about 400,000 vehicles in Canada.

The plaintiffs, represented by Sutts, Strosberg, are seeking
damages on behalf of owners of vehicles equipped with Takata-made
airbags, which can malfunction and harm drivers and passengers.

The Takata airbags, installed in Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Ford,
Nissan and BMW vehicles in North America, deteriorate over time.
The defective airbags can deploy with too much force, spraying
shrapnel at car occupants.  According to U.S. safety agencies, at
least five people have died and many more have suffered injuries
because of the faulty airbags

Almost 25 million vehicles equipped with the airbags have been
recalled worldwide.

The Windsor plaintiffs are John McIntosh, a 74-year-old retired
University of Windsor professor, who owns a 2003 Toyota Corolla;
Rick Des-Rosiers, a 55-year-old federal government employee and
owner of a 2003 Honda Pilot and Stephen Kominar, a 77-year-old
City of Windsor retiree and owner of a 2002 Honda CR-V.

Sutts, Strosberg has partnered with London, Ont., firm McKenzie
Lake in the class action.

Takata is facing dozens of lawsuits in the U.S., with proceedings
beginning in Florida late last year.  Vehicle owners are claiming
damages for injuries and the depreciated value of their vehicles.

In late February, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Association started fining Takata $14,000 a day for failing to
co-operate fully in its investigation into faulty airbag
inflators.

Harvey Strosberg, senior partner at Sutts, Strosberg, said the
three plaintiffs represent two separate lawsuits.  Three more
claims are in the works to reflect the additional vehicles
affected by the Takata recall.  He said the class action is based
on property value not personal injuries against Takata.  "Our
theory is the resale value of the car has been diminished because
of the problem, and that's reputation and it's the reality," said
Mr. Strosberg.

"Not every car has been repaired; there's not enough elasticity in
the repair business to repair each vehicle," he said.

"This is all about resale value and about loss of use, time and
expense for the people that have to get their car to the dealer,
sit down and  cool their heels for two or three hours to have it
repaired," he said.  "Time is money, so each person has a loss of
time and money.  That's essentially this case."

Alex Constantin, a member of the Sutts, Strosberg class action
litigation team, said his clients want answers from Takata.

"It appears there were difficulties in the manufacturing process
of these airbag inflators between 2000 and 2003, and the
plaintiffs want answers as to why it took the defendants
approximately a decade to notify them, class members and
regulators of these problems."


TEXAS A&M: Denies Claims in Suit Over Kyle Field Donor Seats
------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Evans, writing for Longview News-Journal, reports that Texas
A&M University's 12th Man Foundation denies all claims in a
lawsuit accusing the nonprofit organization of reneging on donor
seats at Kyle Field and says letters and meeting minutes cited as
evidence by three East Texans are mischaracterized.

The foundation's first answer to a March 11 lawsuit largely is a
general denial of claims that the foundation guaranteed seats and
parking spots to the three donors that it no longer honors.

The lawsuit by Sammy York of Kilgore, Gregory Hayes of Mount
Pleasant and Henry Holubec of College Station claims an eroding
relationship with the Aggie booster group was exacerbated when A&M
initiated its $485 million expansion of famed Kyle Field in
College Station.

In addition to seeking class action status from U.S. Judge Rodney
Gilstrap in Marshall federal court, the three plaintiffs ask they
not be charged extra for the stadium seats they now have. They
also ask for priority parking at no additional charge and
comparable accommodations for away games.

While capacity at Kyle Field is increasing in the fall to about
102,500 people from last season's 82,500, the configuration at the
stadium's west end is changing.  That's led to problems as long-
time donors like York, Hayes and Holubec face re-seating  --  and
are being asked to give more.

The 12th Man Foundation filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit two
days after the group was sued.

It reasserts that motion in its first direct answer to the trio's
lawsuit.

The Aggie's answer also outright denies most of the plaintiffs'
claims.

But, it points to specific citations the plaintiffs raised in the
original complaint, quoting from letters and other foundation
documents including meeting minutes of its executive and budget
committees as "incomplete, taken completely out of context and
mischaracterized."

The foundation's answer uses that phrase at least nine times.

No trial date for the lawsuit had been set by March 27.


TFH PUBLICATIONS: Recalls Puppy Starter Kit Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
TFH Publications, Inc./Nylabone Products, of Neptune, NJ is
recalling one lot of its 1.69 oz. package of the Puppy Starter Kit
dog chews, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals ingesting the product
and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated products,
especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after
having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The recalled Puppy Starter Kit consists of one lot of dog chews
that were distributed nationwide, to Canada, and through one
domestic online mail order facility.

The product comes in a 1.69 oz. package marked with Lot #21935,
UPC 0-18214-81291-3, located on the back of the package, and with
an expiration date of 3/22/18 also stamped on the back of the
package.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the company revealed the presence of Salmonella in one lot of 1.69
oz. packages of the Puppy Starter Kit.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 1.69 oz. packages of the Puppy
Starter Kit from affected Lot 21935, UPC 0-18214-81291-3,
Expiration date of 3/22/18, should discontinue use of the product
and may return the unused portion to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-877-273-7527, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Central time (after hours/weekends covered by third-party poison
control center).


TRANSNET: Pensioners File Class Action Petition
-----------------------------------------------
Alex Mitchley, writing for The Citizen, reports that Transnet
pensioners marched to the Union Buildings in Pretoria on March 30
in order to hand over a memorandum of petition to the Presidency,
pleading for funding that was promised but never given.

While the pensioners who say they are suffering will ask the
president to intervene, they will also be filing a class action
court application against Transnet, claiming R79 billion for more
than 65 000 pensioners who once worked for the parastatal railway
and freight company.

Daniel Letlhakwale, 67, said he had dedicated 34 years of his life
to Transnet and that it hurt him gravely not to be benefitting
from his service.  He said his pension was not correct and has not
been adjusted, which has left him impoverished and destitute.

"They are not giving enough money to survive," said
Mr. Letlhakwale.

The Freedom Front Plus was part of the march, with the political
party saying they have been trying to help Transnet pensioners for
more than a decade.  Party MP Anton Alberts said they have been
fighting in Parliament to help the flight of pensioners in
Transnet when they were approached for help in 2007.

The parliamentary process did not bear fruit according to Alberts,
which led them to approach the court.  In 2013, the Pretoria High
Court ruled that pensioners could act as a class action suit.
Transnet has not yet commented on the march.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has 14 days to answer charges that it
discriminated against passengers with service dogs, after a
federal judge denied the company's motion to dismiss a proposed
class action filed on behalf of blind individuals.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the Northern District
of California rejected Uber's arguments that the plaintiffs, led
by the National Federal of the Blind of California, lack standing
and that Uber is not a public accommodation under the Americans
With Disabilities Act.

Ruling on April 17, Judge Cousins noted that courts are encouraged
to take a broad view of standing in suits that enforce anti-
discrimination laws. The ruling does not prevent Uber from making
the same arguments at a later stage of litigation, Cousins wrote.

Uber lawyer Andrew Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- a
Littler Mendelson shareholder, did not return a call for comment.

The suit, filed in September, claims that Uber drivers refused to
pick up passengers with service dogs.

Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice, co-counsel to the plaintiffs,
said Cousins' decision was "the right one."

"We continue to remain open to sit down with Uber and try to work
this out," said Mr. Elder, who is litigating the case with Michael
Nunez and Laurence Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates.

Last month, Uber updated its code of conduct for drivers to
include a requirement to take riders with service dogs.

"Service animals must be accommodated in compliance with
accessibility laws," the company wrote on March 25.  "Reports of
refusing to transport a rider with a service animal will lead to
deactivation of the Uber account."

Mr. Elder said that he had not read the update to Uber's code of
conduct, but that more can be done.

"Yes, we want drivers to be required to take passengers with
service animals, but it's also about training drivers on what
they're required to do," Mr. Elder said.  "Enforcement for drivers
who don't do what they're supposed to do is a big piece of this."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gibson Dunn to Handle Wage, Data Breach Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that when suits
started to pile up against Uber Technologies Inc., at least half a
dozen defense firms got in on the action.  But lately the company
is entrusting more of its litigation to one firm, giving the
impression that the billion-dollar behemoth might be ready to
settle down.

Recently, lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher entered appearances
in federal court on behalf of Uber in potential class actions over
its classification of drivers and a 2014 data breach.  Uber also
has tapped the firm to fend off a federal suit claiming the
company conducted unauthorized background checks on drivers and a
state employment case on behalf of drivers.

Last month Uber turned to Gibson Dunn to handle a sensitive suit
filed by an Indian woman who alleges she was raped by a driver in
Delhi.

Consolidating litigation with one firm can cut a company's costs
and make its legal work more efficient.  That could be a logical
strategy as Uber, recently valued at $41 billion, transitions from
a disruptive upstart to a global powerhouse fighting legal and
regulatory challenges that could derail its business model.

Timing may be a factor in the company's selection of Gibson Dunn.
In particular, Uber added partner Theodore Boutrous Jr. to its
counsel roster as it gears up to fight class certification in a
major wage-and-hour case.  As counsel to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
Boutrous helped make some of the favorable law for companies
fighting class certification that Uber will be wielding.  In
Gibson, Uber also has recruited a powerful litigation team that,
if necessary, can take the case all the way to trial and through
appeal.

"This is right up my alley," Mr. Boutrous wrote in an email, about
his work for Uber.  "These cases raise very important issues
concerning the intersection of law, technology and innovation and
I have always been a big fan of Uber, so I am excited about the
chance to be involved."

Uber uses a mobile app to connect drivers with customers in need
of a ride.  Mr. Boutrous' team replaced Uber's prior counsel with
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in a fight over whether the company's
drivers are employees or independent contractors.  The swap came a
month after Uber lost its bid for summary judgment before U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California.
Morgan Lewis partner Robert Jon Hendricks --
rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- did not respond to calls or emails
requesting comment.

Douglas Dexter -- ddexter@fbm.com -- a partner at Farella Braun +
Martel, said it seems Uber brought on Gibson Dunn in case rulings
continue to go against the company.

"I assume that from a business perspective they feel that they are
going to try this case," he said, "because it's so fundamental to
their business model."

Lead plaintiffs counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston-based
Lichten & Liss-Riordan declined to comment on Uber's new counsel,
except to say in an email she's looking forward to proceeding with
whoever is representing Uber.

Mr. Boutrous is joined on the case by partners Joshua Lipshutz --
jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- in San Francisco, and Debra Wong Yang,
Marcellus McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- and Theane Evangelis
-- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- in Los Angeles.  Mr. Lipshutz and
Ms. Evangelis backed Mr. Boutrous when he successfully defended
same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.
Mr. McRae was Mr. Boutrous' No. 2 in a landmark case last year
that struck down key portions of California's teacher tenure and
seniority policies.  Ms. Yang served as U.S. attorney for the
Central District of California from 2002 to 2006 and was
previously a California state judge.  In addition to the
employment suit, Gibson Dunn recently stepped in for Uber in a
suit that claims the company failed to safeguard its drivers'
information, and put off informing drivers after their data was
hacked.  Gibson partners Michael Li-Ming Wong --
mwong@gibsondunn.com -- Thad Davis -- tdavis@gibsondunn.com -- and
Joshua Jessen lead the team, while West Hollywood firm Ahdoot &
Wolfson represents a potential class of Uber drivers.

Appearing before Judge Chen at a hearing on April 14, Mr. Boutrous
indicated Gibson Dunn will be getting involved in two more Uber
cases.  The first, a potential class action in the Northern
District of California, claims Uber ran consumer background checks
on drivers without permission, and fired some drivers based on the
results.  The second is a wage-and-hour case filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court, involving the same potential class as Liss-
Riordan's suit over the contractor/employee designation. Gibson is
expected to team up with Uber's current counsel at Littler
Mendelson in both cases.

Gibson Dunn entered its first appearance for Uber last month in
the Delhi rape case.  A Jane Doe plaintiff sued Uber for
negligence, fraud, assault and battery in the Northern District of
California, claiming stricter background checks of Uber drivers
could have prevented the assault.  The Gibson team, led by Wong,
fired off its first response earlier this month, insisting that
while the alleged rape is "deplorable," Uber is not responsible.

The suit improperly seeks to use California and federal law to
rectify "an alleged wrong committed by one Indian citizen against
another Indian citizen, in India."  Furthermore, the lawyers
argue, the accused assailant drove for Uber B.V., a Netherlands-
based entity, not Uber U.S. Uber launched its ride-hailing app in
2010 and today operates in more than 50 countries. Legal
challenges soon followed and the company has spread its legal work
around.

For litigation, general counsel Salle Yoo continues to rely on a
battery of firms in the Northern District of California, including
Irell & Manella, Littler, Fenwick & West, Perkins Coie and Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Uber is a desirable client, said Reed Smith partner Steven Katz,
in part because of its position at the forefront of the new
"sharing economy" business model.

"It's certainly a client I think any law firm would be very
pleased to say is in their client book," Mr. Katz said.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Robert Varian --
rvarian@orrick.com -- who doesn't represent Uber, said companies
are increasingly seeking the savings and efficiencies that come
from consolidating legal work. Over the past decade, he's seen
more companies embrace the strategy, including his own clients.

"They can negotiate better fee arrangements that way.  Because of
volume, they have more leverage to do that," he said.  "The
lawyers get a better institutional knowledge of the client, which
is helpful."

But competition between firms can be healthy, said Farella's
Dexter, adding, "no company wants to have any one vendor feel as
if they're completely comfortable."


UGANDA: Kampala Court Allows Reflexologists to Sue for Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andante Okanya, writing for New Vision, reports that the
Commercial Court in Kampala has granted reflexologists permission
to sue government for losses suffered when a ban was imposed on
their activities on March 24, 2011.

The ban has since been lifted, in a landmark judgment delivered on
March 25, 2013, which effectively quashed the directive of the
then Health minister as illegal and unlawful.  The minister
Stephen Malinga is now deceased.

On March 19, the court certified the claim as a class action in
the presence of the class lawyer Dennis Sembuya.  The law firm
Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates is listed as the class
firm.

Government's chief legal advisor and representative, the Attorney
General(AG), has never challenged  the landmark decision in the
Appellate Court.

Three associate entities were granted a 'Representative Order' to
sue on their behalf and that of the others who are interested
reflexology entities affected by the ban.

"It is hereby ordered that the applicants be and  are hereby
granted permission of this Honourable Court to sue the
respondent(AG) as the named lead plaintiffs in their own right and
on behalf of over 70 reflexology centers," the order reads in
part.

The lead plaintiffs  are umbrella body United Reflexologists
Association of Uganda Limited, Alleluia Reflexology Health
Solution and Nutrition Centre Limited, and Help Life Reflexology
Centre.

Reflexology is the application of appropriate pressure to specific
points and areas on the feet, hands, or ears.

Reflexologists believe that these areas and reflex points
correspond to different body organs and systems, and that pressing
them has a beneficial effect on the organs and person's general
health.

The order specifies that it is only those associated entities
affected by the ban, that have the right to be part of the class
action.

Additionally, the order stipulates that a class member wishing to
opt out of the class action law suit should do so within seven
days from the date of the public advertisement.

The firm has since issued a notice of certification, imploring
those entities to clarify whether they are interested in pursuing
the compensation class action.

The notice dated March 19, 2015, was published in the New Vision
edition of Monday, March 23, 2015.  The entities have an option of
'do nothing if you wish to participate', and 'opt out only of you
wish to be excluded.

Legal battle fact file

The legal battle arose on March 24 2011, when the reflexologists
filed an application for judicial review at the court in protest
at the ban, contending that Government never accorded them a
hearing before their activities were outlawed.

Judicial review is conducted by the High Court in relation to
proceedings plus decisions taken by subordinate courts and
inferior tribunals or bodies. The Commercial Court is a division
of the High Court.

The ban, communicated in a statement by Mr. Malinga, was premised
on an investigation which showed that reflexology centers
endangered patients' lives, as most lacked training and
operational standards.

The Uganda medical and dental practitioners' council, nurses and
midwives council, allied health professionals council and the
pharmacy council, compiled the report.

But in the ruling of Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire (now stationed at
the Appellate/Constitutional Court), he pronounced that the ban
was based on procedural error.

Justice Kiryabwire noted that although the minister acted in
public interest, the practitioners were not given chance to defend
themselves prior to the ban.

Last year on December 19, Mr. Sembuya filed a sh17b bill of costs
at the Commercial Court in Kampala.  On taxation of 18% of value
added tax, the net is sh15b.


ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Couture Says MMA Fighters Need to Form Union
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Raimondion, writing for MMA Fighting, reports that mixed
martial arts as a sport is in a state of flux.  The UFC is in the
midst of instituting a new performance-enhancing drug policy.  The
promotion's groundbreaking uniform deal with Reebok begins in
July.  Fighters have been complaining more and more about
compensation and fairness.  And, perhaps above all, several former
UFC fighters have filed a class-action lawsuit against the UFC,
accusing the organization of being a monopoly.

Given the current climate and everything that is bubbling just
beneath surface, MMA legend Randy Couture believes that it is the
right time for the fighters to band together and start a union.

"If there is a time, it is probably now for the fighters to unite
and get together and form a union or a guild or something along
those lines to insure minimum pay, 401Ks, health insurance, some
of those things that unions and guilds tend to do," Mr. Couture
told MMAFighting.com recently at the World MMA Awards in Las
Vegas.

The UFC does offer health insurance, but a few fighters have
expressed concern with the Reebok contract.  Brendan Schaub said
on his podcast in December that he lost six sponsors when they
found out they would be ousted from in-cage gear when the Reebok
deal started.  James Krause told MMAFighting.com recently that he
has already lost $20,000 in sponsorship money since the new
uniform endorsement was announced.

It's clear that they are not the only fighters affected.  But many
others have not been as vocal for obvious reasons -- criticizing
your employer in public can have negative ramifications.  Having a
union would alleviate these issues.

An endorsement contract for a league would have to be collectively
bargained with the fighters through a union and it would only be
signed when everyone could agree on the terms.  The same goes for
the UFC's ambitious new PED policy, which looks great on paper,
but could also infringe on the independent contractor rights of
fighters.

Mr. Couture, 51, said he has been asked about a union for years
and believes it's a necessary thing in order for the sport to
continue to evolve in the right ways.  The UFC Hall of Famer has
been a member of the Screen Actor's Guild for 13 years because of
his career in Hollywood and thinks something like that would be
beneficial for fighters.

"I think those are all things in the positive direction this sport
needs to go," Mr. Couture said.  "Those things need to happen."

Mr. Couture said the antitrust lawsuit against the UFC could also
affect "changes in procedures" depending on its level of success.
A handful of fighters, including Cung Le, Jon Fitch and Nate
Quarry, are accusing the UFC of illegally driving competitors out
of business and operating as a monopoly.  The suit says that
fighters are not able to get fair pay, because the UFC is the only
game in town and other organizations like Bellator are "minor
league."

Couture has had a relationship with Bellator and Spike TV in the
past, doing a pair of reality shows for the network, including
Bellator's Fight Master.  He likes how things have gone with the
Viacom-owned promotion since new president Scott Coker took over.

"Instead of a fight every week on Spike TV, it's going to be a
fight every month and it's going to be bigger and more special and
the fights that people talk about over the watercooler,"
Mr. Couture said.  "That's kind of where I came from, how it used
to be."

Right now, Mr. Couture doesn't have much involvement in MMA
outside of his Xtreme Couture gym in Las Vegas. He does have a
flourishing acting career and appeared on a recent episode of
"Hawaii 5-0." Couture is also working even more closely on an
upcoming silver-screen comedy called "Cameron and Eddie Lose the
Belt," which he is helping fund and cast.

Fellow legend Ken Shamrock recently announced his comeback for
Bellator, but Mr. Couture likely will not be following suit.

"I'm very happy with the decision I made to get out when I got
out," Mr. Couture said.  "I'm really, really enjoying the
direction I'm headed in with the acting and everything else I have
going on.  You never say never. I  retired once and came back.
But I just don't see that happening."

Mr. Couture doesn't have anything bad to say about MMA or the UFC.
He still believes in the sport that he helped grow to the heights
it has risen to now.  "The Natural" just thinks some changes need
to be made for it to evolve even more.

"It's still going to be, now and in the future -- in my opinion --
the combative sport of this generation and the next generation,"
Couture said.  "I don't think that's gonna change. If anything,
we're going through some growing pains.  I think there's some
changes that need to be made with the promotions, the contracts
they're handing out to fighters, the control issues.  A lot of
those things have made news over the last few months. It'll be
interesting to see how a lot of that shakes out."


UNITED STATES: Motion to Dismiss Water Suits Due
------------------------------------------------
Lacey Jarrell, writing for Herald and News, reports that two court
cases against the federal government -- both more than a decade in
the making -- reached a major milestone.

The suits allege that the United States must compensate irrigators
for shutting off water to the Klamath Project in 2001 and instead,
sending it downstream.  The cases were filed after the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation made the call to divert water only to the Klamath
River.  The decision was based on two conflicting biological
opinions meant to protect species on both sides of the California-
Oregon border.

The water shutoffs brought Basin agriculture to a standstill and
caused more than 12,000 farmers and ag supporters to rally in
downtown Klamath Falls for the historic Bucket Brigade.

Since then, the cases have been quietly working their way through
the judicial system.  On March 25, the court filed summary reports
for both, signaling the end of the discovery process and the
potential for reaching the finish line.

"They will provide a roadmap to trial," said Bill Ganong, general
counsel for the Klamath Irrigation District (KID).

Counsel for the U.S. could not be reached for comment.

The suits allege that the 2001 water shutoffs violated the Fifth
Amendment takings law, which requires government entities to
compensate property owners when their property is taken for public
use.

The lawsuits maintain the federal government illegally shut off
water for irrigators, making it a "take" that requires financial
compensation.

According to Mr. Ganong, expert witnesses have valued the water
between $35 and $104 per acre-foot. But, he added, the cases isn't
intended to be a moneymaker.

"It's not going to be a great deal of money -- nothing compared to
what the loss was," Mr. Ganong said.  "The idea is to try to
establish a principle for the future and help maintain the
viability of irrigated agriculture in the Project."

Irrigators' rights

KID is the lead defendant in the first suit, which was filed in
April 2001.  Twenty-four plaintiffs, including KID, are named in
the case: 10 individual landowners and 14 water districts.

According to Mr. Ganong, much of this suit hinges on whether
irrigation districts have a right to the water that was considered
a taking.  He explained that Fifth Amendment rights apply only to
those who use a resource.

"What is in question is whether the districts can file on behalf
of the landowners," he said.

John Anderson Farms is the lead plaintiff in the second takings
case against the U.S. Twenty other landowners are named in the
suit.

Early in the court process, the plaintiffs requested to submit
their cases together as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all
1,400 Klamath irrigators.  The request was denied.  Documents
state that instead, the court plans to hear individual cases with
the "hopes of bringing at least some of the issues in this case to
completion" before deciding whether a class-action filing is
appropriate.

According to the summary report, the U.S. is prepared to file
motion to dismiss claims for a class-action suit by April 8.
If a class-action filing is approved, anyone entitled to -- but
who did not receive -- water from Upper Klamath Lake or the
Klamath River in 2001 will be able to file a claim, according to
Mr. Ganong.  But even if a class-action is approved, finding Basin
residents impacted by the 2001 controversy will be challenging
because many have moved on or passed away.

"We are losing our knowledge," he said.

Consolidation possible

KID and Anderson Farms have requested their cases be tried before
2016. The U.S. has proposed allocating at least one more year for
briefing and submitting motions.

Mr. Ganong said the next step is for Francis Allegra, the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims judge overseeing the cases, to schedule a
status conference, which typically occurs 30 days after summary
reports are filed.  After the conference, Allegra can schedule
pre-trial proceedings, if he decides the cases are ready to move
forward.

Plaintiffs have requested for the trials to take place in
Washington, D.C., and for the KID and Anderson Farms suits to be
consolidated.

According to the summary reports, the U.S. position is that most
of the claims can be determined by a motion to dismiss or a motion
for summary judgment, meaning there are no major facts left to
dispute and the judge can rule without going through a trial.


UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Irrigation Water Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has dismissed a class-
action lawsuit by Nebraska farmers who say the Department of
Natural Resources deprived them of irrigation water to which they
were entitled.

But District Court Judge James E. Doyle IV ruled that the farmers
can amend their lawsuit with new arguments challenging the
decision to divert the water to comply with the Republican River
Compact.  Doyle ruled that the department's duties to comply with
the compact govern how water must be distributed.

More than 150 irrigators who receive water via the Frenchman
Cambridge Irrigation District say their crops suffered because
they were denied access to water that went to Kansas under the
compact.  The compact allocates 49 percent of the river's water to
Nebraska, 40 percent to Kansas and 11 percent to Colorado.


UNITED STATES: Groups Win Temporary Relief in Contraceptive Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
group of Pennsylvania religious nonprofits, challenging
contraceptive insurance under the federal health care law, won
temporary relief from an appellate court ruling after action by
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. on April 15.

In a late night order, Alito blocked the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Zubik v. Burwell and
directed the government to respond by April 20.  Justice Alito's
order stopped the appellate court ruling from taking immediate
effect and it stayed it pending the government's response and
further action by him or the full court.

The Roman Catholic bishops of dioceses in Erie and Pittsburgh,
along with their affiliated organizations, contend the
government's accommodation of their opposition to providing
contraceptive insurance -- a self-certification form opting out of
the coverage requirement -- "authorizes, obligates, and
incentivizes" their third-party insurance administrators to
provide the objectionable coverage.

In their application to Justice Alito, they told the justice that
"signing such a form or letter facilitates moral evil.  This is
true whether or not applicants pay for the objectionable
coverage."

In February, a three-judge appellate panel unanimously held that
the submission of the self-certification form did not
substantially burden the religious nonprofits' exercise of
religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"First, the self-certification form does not trigger or facilitate
the provision of contraceptive coverage because coverage is
mandated to be otherwise provided by federal law," Judge Marjorie
Rendell wrote for the panel.  "Federal law, rather than any
involvement by the appellees in filling out or submitting the
self-certification form, creates the obligation of the insurance
issuers and third-party administrators to provide coverage for
contraceptive services."

The panel also rejected arguments that it was not merely the
filing of the form that imposed a burden, but, rather, what
follows from it.  "But free exercise jurisprudence instructs that
we are to examine the act the appellees must perform -- not the
effect of that act -- to see if it burdens substantially the
appellees' religious exercise," Judge Rendell wrote.  "Even if we
were to conclude that there is a burden imposed on the appellees'
religious exercise, we would be hard-pressed to find that it is
substantial."

The Third Circuit denied en banc review on April 6.

Representing the religious nonprofits, Jones Day's Paul Pohl told
Justice Alito that dozens of similar cases involving hundreds of
plaintiffs are pending in district and appellate courts.

"Applicants here are the only ones currently exposed to millions
of dollars in fines for exercising their faith," Mr. Pohl wrote.
"The equities strongly favor preserving the status quo and
protecting [the] applicants' religious exercise pending resolution
of their petition for certiorari.  Indeed, that is why enforcement
of the mandate has been enjoined in nearly thirty cases
considering the mandate's application to nonprofit entities like
[the] applicants."


US POSTAL SERVICE: Accused of Discrimination in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Kohler v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, Case No.
2:15-cv-00439 (E.D. Wis., April 13, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff when it continuously
refused to give her promotional and advancement opportunities
because of her gender and in retaliation for her opposition to
gender discrimination and participation in protected activity.

Ms. Kohler was an employee of the United States Postal Service
under its federal law enforcement, crime prevention, and security
arm, the United States Postal Inspection Service.

The Postmaster General is the head of the United States Postal
Service, which had facilities and operations in Wisconsin,
including one located in Milwaukee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. End, Esq.
          FIRST, ALBRECHT & BLONDIS, S.C.
          158 N. Broadway, Suite 600
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-1972
          Facsimile: (414) 271-1511
          E-mail: jend@fabattorneys.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: 7th Cir. Affirms Text Monopoly Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Circuit threw out a class claim that AT&T, Verizon,
Sprint, and T-Mobile colluded to raise text messaging rates from
2005 to 2008, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service.

The antitrust complaint was filed just after Sen. Herbert Kohl,
chairman of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, sent a letter on Sept. 9, 2008, to the CEOs of the four
carriers expressing concern about antitrust violations.

The companies allegedly discussed price-fixing in trade
association meetings and then hiked rates despite steeply falling
costs.  The class claims that the companies also met through the
association's "leadership council," which had a stated mission to
substitute "co-opetition" for competition among members.

The cost of text messages, commonly priced at 10 cents per message
in 2005, rose to 20 cents per message by 2008.

When the 7th Circuit allowed the case to proceed to discovery in
2011, Judge Richard Posner wrote: "Discovery may reveal the
smoking gun or bring to light additional circumstantial evidence
that further tilts the balance in favor of liability."

On April 9, however, the 7th Circuit ruled that plaintiffs failed
to find a smoking gun.

"Their supposed smoking gun is a pair of emails from an executive
of T-Mobile named Adrian Hurditch to another executive of the
firm, Lisa Roddy," the 22-page opinion states.

In these emails, Hurditch criticizes T-Mobile's decision to raise
text messaging rates and says the price increase is a gouge on
consumers.  He calls the rate rise "collusive and opportunistic."
But beyond the use of the word "collusive," there is nothing in
the e-mails that implies express collusion between the four major
carriers.

"Nothing in any of Hurditch's emails suggests that he believed
there was a conspiracy among the carriers," Posner said, again
writing for the three-judge panel.

"There isn't even evidence that he had ever communicated on any
subject with any employee of any of the other defendants."

Plaintiffs "make much" of the fact that Hurditch later asked Roddy
to delete the emails he sent, but "there's nothing unusual about
sending an intemperate email, regretting sending it, and asking
the recipient to delete it," the judge added.

The plaintiffs' opening and reply briefs name Hurditch more than
160 times, but "it's a mystery to us that the plaintiffs have
placed such weight on those emails, thereby wasting space in their
briefs that might have been better used," the court said.

Furthermore, the problems with plaintiffs' case go deeper to the
legal foundation of antitrust law.

Plaintiffs "have particular difficulty accepting is that the
Sherman Act imposes no duty on firms to compete vigorously, or for
that matter at all, in price," Posner wrote.

While express collusion is forbidden, tacit collusion does not
violate the Sherman Act, and with good reason, Posner suggested.

Otherwise, "Such a requirement would convert antitrust law into a
scheme resembling public utility price regulation, now largely
abolished," he said.

Competing firms often keep close track of each others' pricing
behavior, and "often find it in their self-interest to imitate
that behavior rather than try to undermine it -- the latter being
a risky strategy, prone to invite retaliation," the opinion
states.

"We hope this opinion will help lawyers understand the risks of
invoking 'collusion' without being precise about what they mean,"
it concludes.  "Collusion is illegal only when based on
agreement."

The appellate case is Aircraft Check Services Co., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Verizon Wireless, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 14-2301, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

The District Court case is Aircraft Check Services Co., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 08 C 7082, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


W. P. CAREY: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class
action filed a Notice of Appeal on November 24, 2014 and have
until August 24, 2015 to file that appeal.

"On December 31, 2013, Mr. Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with
him commenced a purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v.
Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index. No.
650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against us, WPC REIT
Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of
CPA(R):16 - Global," the Company said.  "On April 11, 2014, we and
the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as
amended, and on October 15, 2014, the judge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 24,
2014 and have until August 24, 2015 to file that appeal. We
believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and if the
plaintiffs file a timely appeal, we intend to continue to defend
the case vigorously."


WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Hears Arguments in Namenda Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that less than a week
after a federal appeals court heard arguments in New York state's
challenge of an Actavis plc plan to switch Alzheimer's patients to
a new version of the drug Namenda, a Philadelphia district judge
on April 16 rejected similar "product-hopping" allegations,
clearing Warner Chilcott plc of antitrust liability in a separate
case.

The same day, Actavis' lawyers at Arnold & Porter pounced on the
Philadelphia decision, suggesting that it supports their defense.

In a letter, Arnold & Porter's Lisa Blatt alerted the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit to the ruling in Mylan Inc.'s
antitrust case over the acne drug Doryx, which is sold by Warner
Chilcott in the U.S. and made by Australia-based Mayne
Pharmaceuticals.  Mylan had alleged that Warner Chilcott and Mayne
made minor changes to Doryx that didn't really improve the branded
drug, but did thwart generic competition.

During oral arguments on April 13 in the Actavis appeal, Ms. Blatt
told a Second Circuit panel that New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman had fallen short of proving a parallel Sherman Act
claim.

For the state to prevail, Blatt argued on April 13, it must do
more than show that Actavis aimed to blunt generic competition by
ending sales of twice-daily Namenda IR -- which is about to lose
its patent protection -- and transitioning patients to a newer,
once-daily version of the drug.  That intent must also be coupled
with an actual harm to competition for the company's actions to
run afoul of the Sherman Act, Ms. Blatt argued.

In the April 16 letter, Ms. Blatt wrote that U.S. District Judge
Paul Diamond Jr.'s ruling in the Warner Chilcott case supports
that contention.

"The court recognized that defendants reformulated Doryx
'primarily to defeat generic competition,'" Ms. Blatt wrote.  "The
court nonetheless explained that 'there was no exclusionary
conduct.'"

In the Namenda case, Mr. Schneiderman's office has argued that
Alzheimer's patients prefer not to alter their medication
routines, so if Actavis' "forced switch" to the once-daily Namenda
XR succeeds, it's unlikely that those patients would want to
switch back to a twice-daily generic once one comes to the market
in July. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in Manhattan sided with
the state in December and blocked the company from discontinuing
its sales of the older, twice-daily Namenda IR.

Actavis has pushed at the Second Circuit for a quick reversal of
Sweet's injunction, arguing that it's unfairly forcing the company
to keep Namenda IR on the market and, in effect, giving a leg up
to its competitors.

The April 16 ruling in Mylan's case against Warner Chilcott echoes
that argument.

"Defendants have no duty to facilitate Mylan's business plan by
keeping older versions of branded Doryx on the market," the judge
wrote.

Mylan is represented in the Philadelphia case by Seth Silber,
Jonathan Jacobson and Michael Sommer of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.  Warner Chilcott is represented by J. Mark Gidley and
Peter Carney of White & Case, along with Ballard Spahr's Edward
Rogers.  Mayne is represented by Richard Hernandez and John
Flaherty of McCarter & English.


WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Dispute Forced Unionization Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on March 27
disclosed that the day after a group of family child care
providers filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a 2006
law that authorizes the forcible unionization of Washington
State's 12,000 home-based child care providers, Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 925 officials sent a letter to
providers in the state dropping their forced dues demands.

The development comes immediately in the wake of a federal lawsuit
filed by Cindy Mentele and three other providers from around the
state with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation
attorneys in conjunction with the Freedom Foundation.  The
lawsuit, which names Governor Jay Inslee in addition to SEIU Local
925, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.

The child care providers' lawsuit challenges the forced-unionism
scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's
guarantees of free political expression and association.  National
Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate
providers' First Amendment right to choose with whom they
associate to petition the government because the government does
not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to accept
its handpicked political representative to lobby itself.

The child care providers also seek repayment of union fees
illegally taken from them by the Governor, and given to SEIU Local
925, over the past three years.

Home-based child care and personal care providers, with Right to
Work Foundation attorneys' assistance, have challenged similar
forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states
across the country, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, and New York.  On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn, argued by Right to
Work Foundation attorneys, striking down the Illinois scheme,
ruling that individuals who receive state subsidies based on their
clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees.  The
Court did not rule on whether providers can be forced to accept
the union's so-called representation under a monopoly bargaining
scheme.

"Citizens have the power to select their political representation
in government, not the other way around," said Mark Mix, president
of the National Right to Work Foundation.  "Although a positive
first step, this letter doesn't begin to address the gross
violations this forced unionism scheme inflicts on Washington
State's child care providers' First Amendment rights of free
expression and association."


WHISTLER GROUP: Recalls Portable Power Supplies Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Whistler Group, Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a
voluntary recall of about 10,400 Portable jumpstart power
supplies. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The jumpstart's lithium battery can overheat and cause the units
to melt, catch fire and ignite nearby items, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

This recall involves Jump&Go Portable Jumpstart & Power Supply 12V
power supplies, with model numbers starting with WJS-3000. The
pocket-sized jumpstart power supplies measure about 5.1 inches
tall x 3 inches wide x 0.9 inches deep; and were sold in red,
black, yellow and pink. They have detachable jumper cables; built-
in high output LED flashlight with emergency flashing patterns;
and a USB port to charge phones, tablets and cameras among other
electronic devices. The Jump&Go and Whistler logos are printed on
the front of the unit. Recalled units have date codes in YYYY/WW
format from 201404 through 201439. The model number and date code
are on the back of the unit under the colored silicone boot. The
date code is stamped directly on the case adjacent to the
operational label. The model number is on the operational label.
Units that have a serial number on the operation label are not
included in this recall.

Whistler has received 45 reports of jumpstart and power supply
units overheating and melting, including 18 reports of fire,
resulting in approximately $16,000 in property damage. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/34RICT

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Hammacher Schlemmer, Radio Shack, Walmart and other retail stores
nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Sears.com and Staples.com
from May 2014 to October 2014 for between $60 and $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled unit and
contact Whistler for a free replacement, including shipping to
return the recalled unit.


WAYMOUTH FARMS: Recalls Raw Pine Nuts Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Waymouth Farms, Inc. of New Hope, MN is recalling RAW PINE NUTS in
various sizes, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The product was distributed nationwide through retail stores and
mail order under the Good Sense(R) brand. A list of packaging
sizes, UPC codes and expiration dates is found below:

   Packaging/Size           UPC             "Freshest if Used By"
   --------------           ---              Date or Range
                                             --------------------
4 oz. clear plastic tub     30243 50799      10-24-15 - 11/15/15
                                             11/20/15
                                             11/27/15 - 01/14/16
                                             02/6/16 - 07/21/16
4 oz. zipper bag            30243 86680      07/28/15 - 04/08/16
3 oz. zipper bag            30243 86681      09/29/15 - 04/02/16
15 oz. zipper bag           30243 86687      07/17/15 AND 10/22/15

The 4 oz. bags above may have been sold as a floor display, UPC
30243 86683 with a date range of Sep 05, 2015 to Feb 04, 2016.
Product was also sold in a 5 lb. bulk box, UPC 30243 02860, from
06/04/14 to 03/26/15 using the following Julian Codes:

Julian Code
1 155 14     1 183 14     1 210 14
1 223 14     1 239 14     1 260 14
1 281 14     1 282 14     1 317 14
1 351 14     1 020 15     1 050 15
1 085 15

This bulk product would have been sold from bulk self-service
grocery bins.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in a 4 ounce package.

Production of the Pine Nuts has been suspended while Waymouth
Farms, Inc. continues their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Customers who have purchased any packages of Pine Nuts are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Customer Service at 800-527-
0094 [Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM CST].

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm444782.htm


YOUKU TUDOU: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Ay He, writing for China Daily USA, reports that Youku Tudou,
China's largest streaming portal, is the subject of a class action
lawsuit that accuses the company of violating federal securities
laws during between February 2014 and March 2015.

Youku and some of its executives "violated the federal securities
laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the
investing public," according to a statement from Milberg LLP, one
of several law firms participating in the suit.

The law firms allege that Youku -- listed on the New York Stock
Exchange as YOKU -- made false and misleading statements about its
revenue, failed to properly record non-monetary transactions, and
lacked "internal controls over financial reporting."  As a result,
Youku's financial statements were false and misleading, the law
firm said on March 26.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Beijing-based streaming portal
of failed to properly account for its licensed content, according
to a copy of the complaint filed on March 25 by Pomerantz LLP and
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLP, two other law firms
participating in the class action.

Youku Tudou announced on March 17 that it would release fourth-
quarter results on March 19, which investors said "raised red
flags" because it gave them only two days' notice to prepare for
the company's earnings announcement.

On the day earnings were announced, the company reported a net
loss of $51.3 million, compared to the $4 million loss reported in
the same quarter in 2013.  The company's stock dropped 11 percent
on March 20, closing at $13.50, down from the $15.15 per share on
March 19, according to the complaint.

Youku Tudou also said that the Securities and Exchanges Commission
is investigating "certain aspects" of the company's past
accounting practices, and announced that it is "evaluating the
impact to its 2014 and historical financial statements," according
to the lawsuit filing.

After the company reported its losses, Deutsche Bank downgraded
Youku to "sell" from "hold" and said that the company will find it
difficult to recapture momentum in the Chinese Internet television
market.

Several participating law firms -- Milberg LLP, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Rigrodsky & Long -- did not respond to China Daily's
request for comment.  Pomerantz LLP declined to comment, citing
the ongoing litigation.

Shareholders and investors who have lost money in their investment
in Youku Tudou and are interested in participating in the class
action have until May 25 to file and join the class action
lawsuit.  After then, the court will appoint the lead counsel with
the lead plaintiff, and other cases will be consolidated into one
lawsuit.

Youku Tudou, formerly known as Youku and founded in 2003, streams
video online, similar to what the US' Youtube does.  Youku merged
with Tudou -- formerly another video-streaming platform -- in 2012
to become Youku Tudou, and the company has more than 500 million
active users.

Youku made its New York Stock Exchange debut in 2010 with shares
priced at $12.80.  The company raised $203 million for its IPO.
The company currently has a market cap of $2.62 billion.

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba invested $1.22 billion in the
streaming portal in April 2014, holding 16.5 percent of Youku
Tudou shares.


ZUM SCHNEIDER: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Zum Schneider FC 03, Inc. d/b/a
Zum Schneider, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02867-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015) alleges that the Defendant
has and is continuing to violate the Americans with Disabilities
Act by failing to provide accessible facilities at its property in
New York.  The violative Property is located in New York County,
in New York, and is being operated as a food service
establishment.

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.

Zum Schneider FC 03, Inc., doing business as Zum Schneider, is a
tenant on the Property operating this food service establishment.

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


ZYNGA: Must Face Investor Class Action Over Alleged IPO Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Geuss, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a judge ruled
that Zynga would have to face a revised lawsuit over allegations
that it defrauded investors by offering overly-zealous news about
the company's future at the time of its Initial Public Offering
(IPO).  The investors allege that Zynga knew that an upcoming
platform change at Facebook would decrease the company's ability
to rake in revenue, but executives concealed that information.
After the successful IPO, the complaint says, the executives sold
off their Zynga shares before the stock price collapsed.

Gaming giant has been on a wild ride in just 5 short years --
while losing $600M.

The investors applied for a class-action lawsuit in July 2012,
just after Zynga shares tumbled to $3 per share from a price peak
of $15.91 per share.  US District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed an
earlier version of the lawsuit a year ago, but ruled that the game
company would have to face a revised complaint from the same
investors.

Although Zynga denies the investors' claims, the plaintiffs say
they have at least six confidential witnesses who had access to
daily reports on Zynga's bookings before the IPO.  Those witnesses
say the company was in decline before the IPO.

"Although the company may have reported large bookings after the
fact," Judge White wrote, "Plaintiff contends that the bookings
declined significantly during the class period and yet Defendants
continued to represent to the public that the bookings were
strong."

In 2012, Zynga ultimately lost several billion dollars, millions
of monthly average users, and cycled through top executives at
lightning speed.


* Data Breach Costs Have Minimal Impact to Big Companies
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hackett, writing for Fortune, reports that from Sony to
Target, big companies that were hacked felt barely a dent to their
bottom line, an analysis reveals.

In the last two years, Fortune 500 companies from Sony to Target
to Anthem have experienced major data breaches.  Executives have
lost their jobs, tens of millions of consumers have had their
credit card and other personal data compromised, and corporations
have frantically tried to contain the damage.  Target agreed to
pay $10 million in a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit
related to a huge 2013 data breach.

But for all the panicky headlines, the boardroom anxiety, and the
general cyber security doom-and-gloom, one important -- if
counterintuitive -- question seems to have been overlooked: How
much does hacking really cost big companies?

If you dig into the financial performance results of companies hit
by some of the world's most notorious, disclosed data breaches, a
disturbing fact will strike you: They don't seem to cost all that
much.

That is the stunning conclusion of an analysis by Benjamin Dean, a
fellow at Columbia University's School of International and Public
Affairs.  Mr. Dean -- who also has a background in accounting --
pored over 10-K filings for Sony, Home Depot, and Target after
their recent, well-publicized security breaches.  Keeping an eye
out for breach-related expenses in these companies' quarterly
financial reports, Mr. Dean discovered that the actual expenses
reported by these companies amounted to less than 1% of each
company's annual revenues.

"After reimbursement from insurance and minus tax deductions, the
losses are even less," Mr. Dean writes on The Conversation, where
his post initially appeared.

A close look at Sony

Sony's November 2014 hacking led to the disclosure of unreleased
movies, embarrassing internal emails, and personal data --
including Social Security numbers -- of 47,000 celebrities and
employees. (It was so traumatic and disruptive to the company that
it delayed its 10-K filing.)

Still, Sony estimates its breach's financial impact has been just
$15 million to date "in investigation and remediation costs."
That's barely a blip on the radar.

"To give some scale to these losses," Mr. Dean writes, "they
represent from 0.9% to 2% of Sony's total projected sales for 2014
and a fraction of the initial estimates."

Dean notes that Sony, in total, anticipates spending $35 million
"restoring financial and IT systems" for the full fiscal year.
Further writing off the breach's monetary ramifications, the
company forecasts: "Sony believes that the impact of the
cyberattack on its consolidated results for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2015 will not be material."

These numbers are likely not small enough to vindicate Sony
Pictures' former executive director of information security.  In
2007, he told CIO Magazine that "'it's a valid business decision
to accept the risk' of a security breach . . . I will not invest
$10 million to avoid a possible $1 million loss."  But
Mr. Dean's analysis does come alarmingly close to making the
minimal effort-stance a defensible position.

The Home Depot hacking also barely made a dent.

Last year's Home Depot hacking led to crooks pocketing an
estimated 50 million customers' credit card numbers and email
addresses, but this relevant bit from Home Depot's most recent
earning's report shows it had a negligible impact:

In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company recorded $43
million of pretax expenses related to the Data Breach, partially
offset by a $15 million receivable for costs the Company believes
are reimbursable and probable of recovery under its insurance
coverage, for pretax net expenses of $28 million.

When you do the math, that $28 million "represents less than 0.01%
of Home Depot's sales for 2014," Mr. Dean points out.

And what about Target?

Target's hacking in late 2013 resulted in the theft of 40 million
payment cards and 70 million other records, including customers'
email addresses and phone numbers.  The security breach was
considered so severe that the CEO felt compelled to resign.

And yet, Target, in its latest filing, lays out in great detail
the tolls of its breach:

The Company incurred breach-related expenses of $4 million in
fourth quarter 2014 and full-year net expense of $145 million,
which reflects $191 million of gross expense partially offset by
the recognition of a $46 million insurance receivable.  Fourth
quarter and full-year 2013 net expense related to the data breach
was $17 million, reflecting $61 million of gross expense partially
offset by the recognition of a $44 million insurance receivable.

To sum the math up, Target's gross expenses totaled $252 million,
insurance compensation brought that down to $162 million, and
further tax deductions yield a final $105 million.  While larger
than either Home Depot's or Sony's outlay, the final amount is not
so wounding in the grand scheme of things.

"This is the equivalent of 0.1% of 2014 sales," Mr. Dean notes.

"To the companies themselves, this seems like a rounding error,"
he told Fortune on a call from Australia.  "It's certainly not a
huge loss when compared to their annual revenues."

To invest or not to invest in security

To be sure, this analysis has generated criticism.
Matthew Rosenquist, an information security strategist at Intel ,
argues Dean's analysis has several problems. First, he notes Dean
uses revenues rather than profits as the key metric.  "It can make
a lot of difference to management if an attack consumes a big
chunk of your profit or worse, pushes you from the green into the
red side of the ledger," he writes on a company blog.

Mr. Rosenquist also stresses the hidden costs of a breach: rising
insurance premiums, damage to third parties, sinking customer
goodwill and trust.  Most importantly, he writes, failing to
invest in security is strategically myopic; without ensured
stability, a business may as well be committing corporate suicide.

Dean acknowledges that over time consumer faith may erode, but he
says, for now, "You can't see losses and effects on the bottom
line in terms of reputational damage."

Actually, Mr. Rosenquist and Dean don't differ greatly in their
conclusions.  "Regardless of the way we measure it, or whether we
look forward or backward, we agree on the central point that
companies need to invest in information security," Mr. Dean told
Fortune, responding to Mr. Rosenquist's criticisms by email.

Turns out Mr. Dean is not an apologist for the willfully,
digitally indisposed.  He says he believes corporate networks need
buttressing -- even if data breaches don't hurt companies' bottom
lines.  Moreover, he believes the incentives for buttressing
corporate networks need buttressing.  And until corporations are
held more accountable for these breaches -- not with $10 million
slaps-on-the-wrist -- but with, well, he isn't quiet sure what
yet, companies won't make the big investments in information
security needed.

So, is security worth the investment? Here's Dean's take:

"We need to get back to what the hard evidence says.  What are the
verified losses and impact, as opposed to speculation in some
cases? It's not quite fear-mongering.  We need to ground our
analysis in how big a problem this is.  Once we've ascertained how
big a problem it is, we can figure out what to do about it, and
have an open and informed discussion.  Right now that's not
happening.  I'm not seeing hard evidence used to back up claims.
If that discussion is happening, it's not open."


* Dynamic Currency Conversion Scam May Spur Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael West, writing for Illawara Mercury, reports that as far as
bank robberies go, this one is bigger, and just as fiendish, as
any.  It is called "dynamic currency conversion" and it is a
robbery being perpetrated by banks upon the unwitting customers in
their tens of thousands.

Unless this dynamic currency conversion (DCC) scam is stopped,
profits from Australian customers alone will run into the billions
as, according to bank insiders, a DCC fee is levied on up to 90
per cent of overseas credit card transactions.  It is typically 5
per cent or more of the transaction value.

The sly elegance of the banking ruse is that it is customers
themselves who choose to be fleeced.

It works like this: those who have travelled overseas over the
past year, armed with their Visa or Mastercard, will have been
offered the choice of paying for -- say a hotel, car hire or a
restaurant bill -- in either the local currency or in Australian
dollars.

This seems a wonderful service at first glance.  Could it be that
the banks and credit card companies are finally giving customers
the chance to escape those dreaded currency conversion fees which
riddle a traveller's bank statement at the end of a trip?

Not in the least: you will still pay your foreign exchange fee no
matter which option you choose.  But if you choose to pay in your
own currency, in $A, you will be slugged with a fee of 5 per cent
or more for "dynamic currency conversion" (DCC) as well.

Roughly, the fee is split three ways between the card issuer (the
bank), the merchant (who bills you for their goods or services)
and the DCC provider (a middleman who tees up the arrangement).

Every time you press the button "Pay in AUD" you are inadvertently
ripping yourself off.  Most people choose that option though, as
it is counterintuitive to pay in a foreign currency given the
logic that another conversion fee would seem likely.  As the banks
clearly appreciate this logic, and profit hugely from it, and as
there is no disclosure of fees to customers at point of sale,
there is every likelihood the DCC scam will end up in the hands of
regulators and class action lawyers.

The banks were ducking for cover.  ANZ and Westpac were approached
for comment for this story and failed to respond.

Commonwealth Bank issued a brief statement explaining that DCC
fees were incurred, "due to the costs and risks associated with
overseas transactions".  National Australia Bank, sensing perhaps
the jig might be up, actually admitted customers should choose to
pay in the local currency:

"NAB advises its customers who are travelling overseas to always
pay in the local currency instead of Australian dollars so they
can avoid paying additional charges for currency conversion.

Then there was industry peak body the Australian Bankers
Association -- normally so effusive in its advice on how
governments and others should conduct themselves -- but in this
instance lost for words.  The ABA pointed Fairfax Media in the
direction of AFMA (Australian Financial Markets Association),
then, realizing it had recommended the wrong industry body,
suggested we try the Australian Payments Clearance Association
(APCA) which we did, only to be told by the APCA, despite the
advice of the ABA (and notwithstanding the newfound absence of the
AFMA in the process), that they had not heard of DCC.

Interestingly, it appears the credit card providers, Visa and
Mastercard, don't benefit from the DCC scam. As one executive from
one of the majors said, "It's revenue negative for us".  Seeing as
the two biggest card players are beholden to provide open access
to their schemes they have allowed low-profile DCC middlemen such
as Global Blue to interpose themselves in the payments system and
do deals with the merchants.

The merchants, such as hotel groups, get a cut of the higher
customer charges so they have an incentive to refrain from
informing the customer.  The regional head for one of the card
companies recounted his own experience recently of staying at a
hotel in Beijing, paying in DCC and then asking the hotel to
back-out the transaction.  He discovered the charge would have
been an extra 7 per cent.

"The merchant gets into it because it increases margins," he said.
On the record, Visa declined to comment as it was subject to court
proceedings (in the US).  Mastercard was at pains to point out
that it did not provide a DCC service.

"DCC is a service offered by merchants (which is usually
facilitated through their acquirer or a third party service
provider) which allows cardholders to choose to pay in the
cardholder's home currency at the point of interaction with that
merchant."


                             *********

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  * * *