CAR_Public/150508.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 92


                             Headlines


1051 MORRIS: "Estevez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AARGON AGENCY: Court Signs Accord Dismissing "Moye" Suit
ADVANCED MICRO: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Class Suit Proceed
AIR CANADA: Halifax Law Firms to Tackle Crash Landing Suit
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties to Submit Revised Accord by May 22

AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Fluoxetine Products Die to Safety Hazard
ARIA ASIAN: Faces 1st "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARIA ASIAN: Faces 2nd "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ARC PRESSURE: Faces "Lawton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BABIES "R" US: Faces Class Action Over Endless Earnings Program
BARRICK GOLD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Class Action
BHP BILLITON: Faces "Tamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOIRON CANADA: Recalls Filix Mas Oral Drops

BOSCH: May 28 Deadline for Claims in Front-Loading Machines Case
BOULDER BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
CADIZ INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CANADA: Veterans Await Impact of Reforms in Benefits Class Action
CANADIAN CHOICE: Recalls Organic Virgin Coconut Oil

CARDINAL OILFIELD: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Denies Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit
CHRYSLER: Recalls 1,514 Promaster Trucks, Vans Over Airbag Defect
CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CRUISER RV:  Recalls Viewfinder Models Due to Explosion Risk
CSOS LLC: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DANLIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DOLLAR TREE: District Court's Class Action Remand Order Reversed
DOUGLAS LABORATORIES: Recalls Ultra D-Tox Products

EJ AMUSEMENTS: OT Suit Gets Conditional Class Certification
EL BESO: "Esteves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EL MOLINO: Recalls Market Town Cabbage Rolls
ELBO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action

EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Shark(R) Vacuum Cleaners
FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers
FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wilkes" Suit Claims
FOOGO: June 22 Deadline Set for Drinking Bottle Settlement Claims

GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Nature Valley Dark Chocolate Nut Bars
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Cars Over Brake Hose
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Models
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Clavulin 400 Products
GOOGLE INC: Parents Can't Proceed with In-App Purchase Class Suit

GOOGLE INC: Stock Split May Cost Over $500 Million
GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklava Mix Due to Undeclared Cashew
GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklawa Mix Products Due to Cashews
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recall Multiple Street Models
HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Chicken with Broth Products
HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action
HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blowers & Vacuums
HONDA: Recalls Multiple 2014-2015 Vehicles

HOOKSETT PUBLIC: Director Faces Complaints From Subordinates
HORIZON MUD: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Janczak" Suit Says
HULU LLC: Judge Tosses Facebook Privacy Class Action
HYUNDAI: July 6 Deadline Set for Gas Mileage Settlement Claims

INT'L BUSINESS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
J-W WIRELINE: "Parrot" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JACKSONVILLE GREYHOUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
JIM SMITH: "Heavlin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

JOHNS HOPKINS: To Vigorously Oppose Class Action Over STD Study
K&B OILFIELD: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KNIGHT CAPITAL: July 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LENOVO INC: Expands ThinkPad Notebook Battery Packs Recall
LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles ADA Class Action

MICHIGAN: Department of Corrections Faces ADA Class Action
MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Injury Risk
MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Blower Motor
MIZUHO BANK: Judge Dismisses Yen Libor Class Action
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling

NAVISTAR: Recalls AE School Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
NEBRASKA: Food-Benefit Applications Suit Get Class-Action Status
NEW SUPERIOR TUB: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says
NEW YORK, NY: "Quota Board" to Take Center Statge in Class Action

OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 1st "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 2nd "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OLIVIERO CAFE: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PECCAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tractor-Trailers
PETROBRAS: Executives Named as Defendants in Class Action
PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Centrum Multivitamin Class Action
POLLO OPERATIONS: Amended Class Cert. Bid Must be File by May 28
PREMERA BLUE: Faces Five Data Breach Class Actions

PREMERA BLUE: More People Join Data Breach Class Action
PRIORITY ENERGY: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RED HAWK: Faces "Thibodeaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RELIANCE PRESSURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
RESONANT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

RICK'S CABARET: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $15MM
ROCKING 8: "Arnwine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
S BROS INC: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SALLIE MAE: 11th Cir. Revives Floyd Case, Remands to Dist. Court
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action

SPOKEO INC: Wants Supreme Court to Uphold 9th Cir. Ruling
SPRINT CORP: Settles Nextel Merger Class Action for $131 Million
SUCCESS EXPRESS: Faces "Anger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKATA CORP: Three Canadian Law Firms File Airbag Class Action
TARGET CORP: No Benefit Achieved in Data Breach Settlement

TEX-STAR WATER: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TOYOTA MOTOR: Stanley Firm Sues Over Car System Hacking Risk
TRADER JOE'S: Attorney Plans to Extend Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action

TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURE: I-635 Residents File Class Action
UNION PACIFIC: Deprives Landowners Property Rights, Suit Claims
UNITED KINGDOM: High Court Strikes Out Hindraf's Class Action
UNITED STATES: Suits Seek Removal of Commanders From Rape Cases
UNITED STATES: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flores" Case as Frivolous

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims
VIA FETUCCINI: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VICTIM SERVICES: Response to Dismissal Bid Due Today
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hecht" Suit in N.Y. Over Mortgage Policies
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Foreclosure Fees

WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Background Check Class Action
WISCONSIN: Docketing Statement in Parenthood Case Signed

* Bill to Push for Class Action Procedure for Health Sector
* Insurance Companies Target for Class Actions
* More Companies Require Workers to Arbitrate Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 70 Suits Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Protected From GM Employee Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 82 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Suit vs. Crane Co. To Be Heard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hellam" Suit vs. Crane Co. Is Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in 2 Pa. Suit Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Peraica" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23-Mil. A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Had $521-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Has $36-Mil. Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $81-Mil. A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Has $1.7-Bil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Wins Summary Judgment in "Wommack" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. App. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. App. Remands "Sorenson" Suit for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Cos. in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hockler" Suit Withdrawn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dugas" Suit Partially Dismissed vs. UTC, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Inmates' Claims


                            *********


1051 MORRIS: "Estevez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Estevez, Alejandro Gomez, Ramiro Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1051 Morris Park
Pizza Corp. d/b/a Emilio's Gourmet Pizza & Pasta and Ricardo
Dinardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-03255 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Emilio's Gourmet Pizza & Pasta
restaurant located at 1051 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York
10461.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joaquin Ernesto Orellana, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
      277 Broadway
      New Year, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 766-9870
      Facsimile: (212) 766-9869
      E-mail: jorellana@jeolaw.com


AARGON AGENCY: Court Signs Accord Dismissing "Moye" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Miranda M. Du signed a stipulation on April 27,
2015, dismissing with prejudice the action captioned NATALIE MOYE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AARGON AGENCY, INC. d/b/a/ AARGON COLLECTION AGENCY,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-01352-MMD-GWF, (D. Nev.).

The Court granted the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss the entire
action. As stipulated by the parties, the action is dismissed with
prejudice as to Plaintiff Natalie Moye, and dismissed without
prejudice as to the putative class members, pursuant to FRCP
41(a)(1)(A(ii), with each party to bear their respective
attorneys' fees and costs.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/6ORsZMfrom Leagle.com.

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC, Danny J. Horen --
danny@kazlg.com -- Las Vegas, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

CARLSON & MESSER LLP, David J. Kaminski -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com --
Stephen A. Watkins -- kaminskd@cmtlaw.com -- Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant, AARGON AGENCY, INC. d/b/a AARGON
COLLECTION AGENCY.


ADVANCED MICRO: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Class Suit Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil McAllister, writing for The Register, reports that a US
federal judge has given the green light for a class-action lawsuit
accusing AMD of securities fraud over the chipmaker's alleged
failure to inform investors of problems with its manufacturing.

The suit, first filed in January 2014 and amended in June of that
year, accuses AMD of willfully misleading investors by withholding
information about low manufacturing yields for its "Llano" line of
processors.

Llano, a codename that AMD was tossing around as far back as 2008,
was the first generation of AMD's accelerated processing units
(APUs), a marketing term the company uses to describe chips that
combine CPU and GPU cores on a single die.

AMD's original plan was to get its APUs to market by 2009, but
that idea quickly evaporated. It then said it would get them out
by the end of 2010, but later pushed its target into the following
year.  Repeated delays meant retailers were eventually left
stocking shelves with motherboards that could support Llano chips,
but not the chips themselves.

In a 121-page complaint, attorneys representing Babak Hatamian and
other AMD shareholders allege that the firm's execs never properly
explained the nature of these delays to investors.

Instead, the suit claims, AMD execs gave repeated assurances that
manufacturing problems at AMD's fabbing partner GlobalFoundries
had been resolved, when in fact they had not.

"The yield problems that plagued [GlobalFoundries] in 2010 had not
been resolved," the lawyers assert in court filings, "and by the
time of the Llano launch in June 2011, AMD was significantly
supply-constrained such that AMD was only able to ship whatever
meager supply of Llano it was able to generate to its top-tier OEM
customers, leaving AMD's important channel customers without any
supply of Llano at all."

Famine to glut

By the time AMD was able to manufacture Llano in quantity, the
suit claims, the market had moved on.  Demand for Llano had
shifted to newer processors, and AMD was left saddled with as much
as $100m in unsold inventory.

"Despite these known problems," the suit alleges, "Defendants made
statements throughout the Class Period that demand, particularly
in the third party distribution channel (and in emerging markets
where most channel sales occurred) was strong, that Llano was
experiencing high customer adoption, and that sales were high."

Once the full truth was revealed, the plaintiffs claim, AMD's
stock plummeted, shedding nearly 74 per cent of its value between
the period of March 27 and October 18, 2012.  The chipmaker's
share price has yet to fully recover.

AMD had sought to have the plaintiffs' suit dismissed on grounds
that its legal theory was insufficient, but in a ruling made
public on April 1, US District Court Judge Yvonne Rogers of the
Northern District of California denied that motion and ruled that
the case would go forward.

"The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly," Judge Rogers
wrote in a 19-page ruling.  "In so holding, the Court has
considered possible non-culpable explanations for why defendants
might have stated that yields were on track when they were later
exposed as not having been."

The judge found, however, that such explanations were "relatively
less persuasive" than the plaintiffs' allegations and that the
evidence presented in the complaint met the legal requirements for
a valid lawsuit under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.

What's more, court documents claim, "Lead Plaintiffs believe that
substantial additional evidentiary support for the allegations
herein exists and will continue to be revealed after Lead
Plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity for discovery."

The lawsuit seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus
interest and court costs.

At press time, AMD had not responded to The Register's request for
comment.


AIR CANADA: Halifax Law Firms to Tackle Crash Landing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Arsenault, writing for Herald News, reports that The Wagners
law firm of Halifax announced on April it will work with two
Toronto law firms in a class action connected to the crash landing
of Air Canada flight AC 624 at Halifax Stanfield International
Airport.

Wagners and the firms Rochon Geneva and Will Davidson have been
contacted by some of the 133 passengers on board the Toronto to
Halifax flight, which crash landed 335 meters short of the runway
on March 29.

More than 25 people were taken to hospital following the crash and
the class action will seek damages for physical and psychological
trauma.

"The AC 624 incident fortunately resulted in no fatalities, but it
reveals severe safety hazards which could have led to serious
consequences for passengers and crew members," the statement from
Wagners reads.

"Aviation experts have identified in the media a number of
possible safety failures, such as inadequate runway navigational
systems, poor air navigation safety standards, and potential pilot
errors."

The release quotes lawyer Ray Wagner claiming that class actions
are a tool to promote safety.

"Behavior modification will cause substantive changes to a number
of emergency and operational systems that appear to have failed
the passengers of AC 624."

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia must approve and certify the
proposed class action, according to the April 1 release.

Wagners and Will Davidson worked together following the MK
Airlines Ltd. crash in Halifax in 2004.  Will Davidson was a
co-lead counsel in a class action the followed an Air France crash
in Toronto in 2005.

Rochon Geneva has worked on a number of aviation litigation cases,
the Wagners release said.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties to Submit Revised Accord by May 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In AL SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GREETINGS
CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02577-JST, (N.D. Cal.),
before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement and for certification of the settlement
class. The matter came on for hearing on April 30, 2015. As stated
at the hearing, the parties have agreed to make changes to their
settlement agreement, and resubmit it for approval.  The changes
are:

Cy pres: The agreement will be amended to provide that all funds
will be distributed to participating class members, with the
exception of funds allocated to, but not used for, settlement
administration. Only this last category will be distributed to a
cy pres recipient.

Supplemental Notice: Having re-reviewed the notice provisions of
the settlement agreement, the Court withdraws its comments at the
hearing regarding the providing of supplemental notice to class
members. The parties are not required to take further steps with
regard to this item. This order supersedes Paragraph Two of the
minutes from the April 30 hearing.

Form of Notice: the parties will make these alterations in the
form of notice:

1. At question 14 on the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1
at 6, the parties will add the statement, "Class Counsel can
provide additional information or answer questions you may have
with regard to this settlement." This statement shall be included
in the textual paragraph under question 14 before the sentence
that begins "If you want to be represented by your own lawyer
. . . ."

2. In the text under question 22 of the proposed notice form, ECF
No. 42, Ex 1 at 8, the parties will add language to the paragraph
after the phrase, "or by going in person to. . . ."  The full
phrase shall read "or by going in person to the office of the
Clerk of the Court at any of the locations of the District Court
for the Northern District of California [website], between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court
holidays." See Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,
available at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance
(providing sample language).

3. The envelopes in which class members' notice packets are
mailed "should be designed to enhance the chance that [they] will
be opened." Id. Examples of envelopes that meet this requirement
are available at the Federal Judicial Center website, www.fjc.gov,
and specifically at
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ClaAct03.pdf/$file/ClaAct
03.pdf.1

Opt-Out Procedures: The parties will also make these revisions to
their suggested opt-out procedures:

1. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the
settlement need not provide their telephone numbers to Simpluris
to do so. The language at question 12 of the proposed notice form,
ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 5, 7, should be adjusted accordingly.

2. Class members who wish to object to the settlement will only
be required to send their objections to the Clerk of this Court.
See Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance."All
objections will be scanned into the electronic case docket and the
parties will receive electronic notices of filing."

3. The parties will add a statement to the text under question 16
of the proposed notice form, ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 7, that
instructs class members that the Court is unable to modify the
settlement; the Court only has the power to approve or deny it.
Sample language for this statement is available at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.

4. In the text under question 16 of the proposed notice form, ECF
No. 42, Ex. 1 at 7, the parties will remove this language: "if,
but only if, you state in your objection (or separately timely
file and send to the Settlement Administrator) a Notice of
Intention to Appear at the Final Approval Fairness Hearing." The
sentence from which that language is excised shall read, in its
entirety, "If you make a timely objection, you may appear and be
heard at the Final Approval Fairness Hearing, either in person or
through an attorney of your choice (at your expense)." No class
member shall be required to notify the parties or the Court that
they will appear at the final fairness hearing. For the same
reason, the text under question 20 of the proposed notice form,
ECF No. 42, Ex. 1 at 8, shall be modified to read only: "If you
object to the Settlement, you or your lawyer may speak in Court in
support of that objection." All other language shall be omitted.

The parties will submit a revised settlement agreement by May 22,
2015.

A copy of District Judge Jon S. Tigar May 1, 2015 order is
available at http://is.gd/4x4Wgxfrom Leagle.com.

Al Smith, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall --
kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- Woodall Law Offices.

Jeffrey Hourcade, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall, Woodall
Law Offices.

American Greetings Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Angela Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Arthur M. Eidelhoch -- aeidelhoch@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg --
jrothenberg@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Margaret Hart
Edwards -- mhedwards@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Marie Lewis, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Intercontinental University, Inc.,
and Aiu Online, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03646 (N.D. Ill., April 24,
2015), seeks to stop Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide.

The Defendants own and operate a private, for-profit online
university.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Alicia Hwang, 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
              ascharg@edelson.com
              ahwang@edelson.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey P. Cairns, Esq. of Stinson Leonard Street LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that in 2011, a group of current and
former employees filed a class action lawsuit in the District
Court of Minnesota claiming that Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and
members of its 401(k) Plan fiduciary committee had breached their
fiduciary duty to the Plan participants and engaged in self-
dealing.  The specific actions generating the lawsuit were the
selection by the company's fiduciary committee of a number of
Ameriprise mutual funds, then known as "RiverSource Funds" as
investment options for its participants as part of the 401(k) Plan
fund array when several of these funds (a) had no track record or
(b) had a track record, but carried either one or two stars (out
of a maximum four stars) on the Morningstar performance rating
system.

Reports note that in addition to the facts above, the company
offered its participants target date mutual funds (often used as a
default or a single asset allocation fund) which had internal
management fees paid to a subsidiary of Ameriprise that were three
times the management fee charged on a comparable Vanguard target
fund group.

It was announced that the plaintiffs and the company had agreed to
dispense with the trial which was scheduled to begin on April 13,
2015 in exchange for certain stipulations regarding the selection
of the record keeper and fund managers for the Plan and members of
the fiduciary committee.  In addition, there is a monetary payment
from the company in the amount of $27.5 million and Ameriprise
agrees to refund administrative fees from related funds in excess
of actual costs.  A reported 24,000 current and former
participants will share in the settlement.

Members of plan committees, trustees and other plan fiduciaries
must exercise their duties in the sole interest of the plan
participants and beneficiaries to provide benefits or to defray
reasonable expense of administering the plan.  While there are
statutory exemptions for qualified employer securities, other
transactions between an ERISA plan and the plan sponsor and its
affiliates will be subject to additional scrutiny under the
fiduciary standards to determine if the transactions are
prohibited and/or amount to self-dealing and a breach of the
prudent person rule.  Plan fiduciaries can protect themselves by
engaging an independent investment advisor to evaluate fund
managers, make recommendations and benchmark fees.

The motion for settlement was filed on March 26, in the office of
federal district court Judge Susan Richard Nelson and must be
approved by Judge Nelson before it becomes final.


APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Fluoxetine Products Die to Safety Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Posting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52993

The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) used in the
manufacturing of these lots may not meet the specification for
impurity - isobutyl vinyl ketone (IBVK)

A. APO-Fluoxetine
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02216361
   Dosage form: Capsule
   Strength: Fluoxetine (Fluoxetine hydrochloride) 20 mg
   Lot or serial number: Bottle of 100 Capsules:

                         KT8932
                         KZ8595
                         ME3862

                         Bottle of 500 Capsules:

                         KJ1893

Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
                150 Signet Drive
                Toronto
                M9L 1T9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


ARIA ASIAN: Faces 1st "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Aria Asian Corp. d/b/a Aria Asian Fusion,
Huang Lin, John Doe and Jane Doe# 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03238
(S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 385
Halstead Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ARIA ASIAN: Faces 2nd "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Aria Asian Corp. d/b/a Aria Asian Fusion,
Huang Lin, John Doe and Jane Doe# 1-10, Case No. 7:15-cv-03238
(S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 385
Halstead Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ARC PRESSURE: Faces "Lawton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opio Lawton and Tim Bennett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ARC Pressure Data, Inc., Glena
Turner, Amy Turner, and Craig Turner, Case No. 3:15-cv-01279-N
(N.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

ARC Pressure Data, Inc. provides a range of oil and gas support
services to various oilfield installations throughout the state of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


BABIES "R" US: Faces Class Action Over Endless Earnings Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a popular baby supplies store was sued
on March 16 over allegations its rewards program was misleading
and misrepresented what consumers actually receive when purchasing
something from its stores.

Stacy Tongate filed the lawsuit against Babies "R" Us over its
Endless Earnings program. The lawsuit alleged the program offers
shoppers up to 10 percent back on registry items purchased in
order to attract more customers to use the baby registry services.
Ms. Tongate said the company launched the program in April 2014
and offered the benefits with no limits.

The suit alleged that the rewards reflect only a fraction of the
amount that consumers are contractually entitled to.  The company
allegedly offered five percent of the first $300 spent by
consumers.  After the first $300, consumers are bumped up to 10
percent.

The lawsuit is seeking class status for those who made purchases
during the Endless Earnings program's duration.  The suit is also
asking for approximately $5 million in damages plus court costs.

Ms. Tongate is represented by Michael L. Silverman, Gregg M.
Barbakoff and Matthew D. Savin, of Spirut, PC in Chicago.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
case number 1:15-cv-02286


BARRICK GOLD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Barrick Gold
Corp has lost its bid to dismiss a U.S. lawsuit that accuses the
world's largest gold producer of concealing problems at a troubled
South American mine and of fraudulently inflating the company's
market value by billions of dollars.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan ruled on April 1
that shareholders can pursue class action claims that Barrick
intended to deceive them about environmental problems afflicting
its Pascua-Lama project on the border of Argentina and Chile.

"Though plaintiffs have not alleged a motive, they have
sufficiently alleged strong circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness," the judge wrote in a 55-page
decision.

Judge Scheindlin also said shareholders can pursue claims that
Barrick misled them about its accounting for the project.

The judge dismissed claims alleging that Barrick intentionally
misled them about costs and production delays.  She also dismissed
claims related to transactions conducted on the Toronto Stock
Exchange, saying a key U.S. securities fraud law does not reach
that far.

Jim Hughes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone
interview: "It is a very good result for shareholders, and allows
us to go forward on several very strong claims."

Barrick bought the untapped Pascua-Lama mine in 1994, and had been
counting on it to generate a large percentage of its overall gold
production.

But cost overruns, environmental issues, labor unrest, political
opposition and falling bullion prices contributed to Barrick's
decision on Oct. 31, 2013 to indefinitely halt the project, after
it had already spent more than $5-billion.

Investors who bought Barrick's common stock sued for losses
covering the period from May 7, 2009, when Barrick said it
would begin construction on Pascua-Lama, through Nov. 1, 2013.

These investors said Barrick touted Pascua-Lama during this period
as a "world-class project that will contribute low-cost ounces at
double-digit returns," even as it became clear the project would
fall short of expectations.

Judge Scheindlin said the shareholders may amend their lawsuit,
though it was "difficult to believe that plaintiffs will be able
to plead additional facts that are not already included in their
almost 200-page, 548-paragraph complaint."

The case is In re: Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-03851.


BHP BILLITON: Faces "Tamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Tamez, Billy Tom Medlin, Gavin Reynolds, and James Clark,
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals
v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00330-RP (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc. is a foreign corporation
and maintains its principal address in Houston, Texas. BHP is a
producer of iron ore, coal, copper, and aluminum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 S. 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: lukas@nka.com
              fisher@nka.com


BOIRON CANADA: Recalls Filix Mas Oral Drops
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Posting date: April 20, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53015

Recall initiated following suspension of market authorisation by
Health Canada. The oral use by self-medicating of the mother
tincture ingredient Dryopteris filix-mas in the homeopathic
product should not be authorized on the Canadian market due to
unfavorable risks: benefits ratio and the fact that a "safe"
dosage of Male fern cannot be determined.

Depth of distribution: Practitioner

A. Filix Mas
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN-HM 80018123
   Dosage form: Oral drops
   Strength: Mother tincture
   Lot or serial number: L14A020124. ref.TP2525

Recalling Firm: Boiron Canada Inc.
                1300 Rene Descartes
                Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville
                J3V 0B7
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Boiron Canada Inc.
                                1300 Rene Descartes
                                Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville
                                J3V 0B7
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


BOSCH: May 28 Deadline for Claims in Front-Loading Machines Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that from gas mileage
complaints to washing machines just not doing the job, new class
action lawsuit settlements could put money in your pocket.

One of them involves washing machines made by Bosch and Siemens.
It involves front-loading machines.

Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com says complaints are that the
machines left clothes stinky.

"With front loaders, you have to do more maintenance than with a
typical top loader where it drains automatically," he says.

If you own one of the washers, file a claim by May 28th and you
could get $55 from this settlement.

The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit.


BOULDER BRANDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 1 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Boulder
Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 23,
2013 and October 22, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 1, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/boulderbrands/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Boulder and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Boulder is a company that markets and manufactures a wide array of
consumer food products for sale primarily in the United States,
Canada and the United Kingdom.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse facts concerning the Company's business and
prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the
Company was having problems with its inventory management and the
integration of recent acquisitions, and that the Company's ongoing
mix shift to lower margin products made its previously announced
margin improvements unattainable.  As a result of defendants'
false statements and omissions, Boulder stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $17.94 per share on April 2, 2014.

Then, on October 22, 2014, Boulder provided an update on its
anticipated third quarter 2014 financial results and its outlook
for the fourth quarter of 2014, disclosing that during "the third
quarter, we faced a number of headwinds that impacted our
financial results."  The Company further disclosed that the "the
mix shift of our fast-growing, lower margin Natural segment is
significantly outpacing our higher margin Balance segment and is
therefore putting increased pressure on our gross margins."  In
addition, the Company revealed it was "expecting lower shipments
due to a normalizing of certain inventories at our largest
customer."  On this news, the price of Boulder stock collapsed
23%, falling from a closing price of $12.73 per share on October
21, 2014 to close at $9.62 per share on October 22, 2014, on
volume of more than 9 million shares traded.  The next day,
Boulder's stock price dropped an additional 6%, closing on October
23, 2014 at $8.99 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Boulder common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


CADIZ INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nickolas Van Wingerden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cadiz Inc., Scott S. Slater, Timothy J.
Shaheen, and Keith Brackpool, Case No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM (C.D.
Cal., April 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Cadiz Inc. is a land and water resource development company
headquartered in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CANADA: Veterans Await Impact of Reforms in Benefits Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that veterans at the centre of a class-
action lawsuit against the federal government are waiting to see
whether legislation introduced by the Harper government to improve
benefits is the beginning, or the end, of reforms to the system.

If it's the end, the lawyer for the ex-soldiers says the
politically embarrassing court fight is, in all likelihood, back
on.

Don Sorochan says he will have to consult his clients, but his
view is that the measures announced by the Harper government in
February represent easy fixes and that more is to come.

"If it is the end of it, I would think the answer would be pretty
simple: It's not enough," he said.

The lawsuit, which argues that modern-day soldiers are
discriminated against compared with troops who fought the two
world wars and Korea, was put on a hold earlier this year as the
two sides entered settlement talks.

Mr. Sorochan says it is possible the government, or the opposition
parties, could promise more during the coming election campaign,
but the ex-soldiers will have to make decisions based upon what's
in front of them.

The time-out in the lawsuit ends on April 15, but the two sides
could elect to extend it if they believe there's value in
continuing discussions.

The lawsuit has been a black eye for the Conservatives, who pride
themselves on supporting the troops and Mr. Sorochan says the
government had been insisting that it be dropped immediately in
light of the recent improvements.

"We are certainly interested in continuing the talks, but we will
have to reassess where we are in the lawsuit, given the reforms,"
said Mr. Sorochan.  "We've already done some analysis, but the
point is, these weren't supposed to be the end of the reforms."

Since the beginning of March, the new veterans minister,
Erin O'Toole, has announced a series of measures, including a new
$70,000 pain and suffering award that appears aimed at the
physically injured.  There is also a new proposed retirement
income security benefit for moderately and severely wounded
soldiers without military pensions and new programs for
caregivers.

The government has also expanded access to the permanent
impairment allowance, which gives the most severely disabled
veterans up to $2,800 a month in tax-free income for life.

In their statement of defense against the lawsuit, government
lawyers offended veterans by saying the government has no
extraordinary obligation towards soldiers and that the current
government cannot be bound by political promises made by previous
governments, notably by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden during
the First World War.

The Conservatives pledged to include a recognition of that so-
called "sacred obligation" in the preamble to the new legislation,
which was tabled on March 30 in the House of Commons.

Bill C-58 says its purpose "is to recognize and fulfill the
obligation of the people and government of Canada to show just and
due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to
Canada.  This obligation includes providing services, assistance
and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or
have died as a result of military service and extends to their
spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans."
It also says legislation should be "liberally interpreted."


CANADIAN CHOICE: Recalls Organic Virgin Coconut Oil
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canadian Choice Wholesalers Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9787

   Brand name   Common name     Size    Code(s)          UPC
   ----------   ----------      ----    on product       ---
                                        ----------
Earth's Choice  Organic Virgin  675 ml  EXP: 29/05/2016  6 77403
                Coconut Oil             Lot: VCO15040B   51176 3
Earth's Choice  Organic Virgin  350 ml  EXP: 29/05/2016  6 77403
                Coconut Oil             Lot: VCO1504OC   51175 6


CARDINAL OILFIELD: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaine Prine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cardinal Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-
00445 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Cardinal Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
proving well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that some of the
names have changed, but the aims have not -- and for CBS that
means go hard.  In a blunt, brisk and not really giving-an-inch
response to the class-action-seeking complaint former CBS Radio
intern Camille Demere first filed on January 26, the company said
on March 31 it wants the whole thing tossed out.

"Defendants respectfully request that this Court: (a) dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice; (b) deny each and every
request for relief set forth in the Complaint; (c) award
Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses;
(d) award Defendants their costs and disbursements incurred in
defense of this action; and (e) award Defendants any other relief
that the Court deems just and proper," said CBS Radio Inc. and CBS
Radio East Inc. in their joint answer on March 31 to Ms. Demere
and her attorneys' amended complaint of February 27.

Basically, other than acknowledging that CBS Radio Inc. and CBS
Radio East are corporations set up under the laws of Delaware and
based at W. 52nd St in NYC, the March 31 response is a long litany
of denials of the various allegations the complaint makes about
Ms. Demere's time as intern at CBS Radio from December 2009 to
August 2010.  Ms. Demere said in her original complaint against
CBS Corporation and in her amended one against the radio units
that the company broke NY labor laws by having "a policy and
practice of wrongfully classifying the Named Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees as exempt from minimum wages"
starting in January 2009 and continuing to this day.  Ms. Demere
also claimed that "CBS required the Named Plaintiff and members of
the putative class to perform work on its behalf and for its
benefit for which they were not compensated."

Hitting back with the assertion that all this is irrelevant
because the claims are barred by statute of limitations
requirements among other objections, CBS adds that the "purported
class members' claims are barred, in whole or in part, because
they were not or are not employees and were exempt and/or not
covered by minimum wage, overtime, and/or other provisions of the
applicable law."  Giving their clients some deft cover, CBS'
lawyers also say that "if Defendants are found to have failed to
compensate Plaintiff and/or putative class members as alleged in
the Complaint, which Defendants deny, Defendants acted at all
times on the basis of a good faith and reasonable belief that
their actions were in compliance and conformity with all
applicable federal and state laws and/or written administrative
regulations, orders, rulings, guidance and/or interpretations, and
therefore Defendants' actions were not willful or reckless or in
reckless disregard of applicable law" -- i.e., if we did do the
thing we say we never did, it wasn't our fault, sorry.

That might not fly so high with Ms. Demere's attorneys of Virginia
& Ambinder and Leeds Brown Law P.C., who are very experienced in
these intern lawsuits.  The NYC firm and the Carle Place-based
Leeds Brown Law were the plaintiffs' lawyers in the interns
lawsuit that Viacom settled for $7.2 million in March -- a deal
that sees a potential $900,000 payout for the lawyers.  Virginia &
Ambinder also are handling the class action that former The Wendy
Williams Show intern Anthony Tart filed on October 3 last year
against Lionsgate and producers Debmar-Mercury.  The firm is no
fave of CBS.  Virginia & Ambinder were the lawyers in the very
short-lived David Letterman intern action against the company and
the late-night host's Worldwide Pants last year.

So, with a settlement likely not in the cards right now, the next
step is to see what NY Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla
does with all this.  A preliminary conference was set for April 8.

Elise Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- and Michelle Annese --
mannese@proskauer.com -- of NYC's Proskauer Rose LLP represent the
CBS Radio units


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Denies Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that a
federal judge has denied Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges the company conspired
with subsidiaries it formed to overcharge leaseholders by
artificially inflating the cost to gather natural gas extracted
from Marcellus Shale drilling.

U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion on March 31 ruled the
Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership had presented sufficient
evidence at this state of the litigation to proceed with its
lawsuit against Chesapeake and its subsidiary, Access Midstream
Partners.

The lawsuit, filed in June 2014 by attorney Robert Schaub of
Wilkes-Barre, alleges Chesapeake formed Access Midstream in August
2010 to gather and transport natural gas from its drilling
operations.  The companies then conspired to have Access Midstream
charge Chesapeake fees far above industry standards, which were
passed on to leaseholders.  Access Midstream then rebated a
portion of the inflated fees to Chesapeake.

The suit sought damages on several counts, including unjust
enrichment, conversion and civil violations of the Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The racketeering count
was based on allegations the companies' actions constituted an
ongoing fraud perpetrated against leaseholders.

Chesapeake and Access Midstream sought to dismiss the racketeering
case and other counts, but Judge Mannion denied the motion.  The
judge did dismiss one count of honest services fraud, finding that
count could not stand because officials with the companies had no
fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The Suessenbach case is among at least three class action lawsuits
filed in Pennsylvania that allege racketeering violations.  Other
similar suits were filed by the A&B Campbell Family LLC Trust in
and James L. Brown, both of Wyalusing. Those cases are pending.

A separate class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Demchak
Partners, which does not include racketeering allegations, is
currently before a federal judge, who must determine whether to
approve a proposed $11 million settlement.  Attorneys previously
said the Demchak case, which focuses on allegations Chesapeake
improperly deducted post production costs from leaseholders, will
not impact the other class action lawsuits.


CHRYSLER: Recalls 1,514 Promaster Trucks, Vans Over Airbag Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 1514
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015164TC
ID number: 2015164
Manufacturer recall number: R19

On certain vehicles, the tape used to stow the airbag curtain at
the A pillar position could negatively affect the deployment of
the side impact curtain airbag, which could increase the risk of
injury in a side impact and/or rollover event. Correction: Dealers
will remove the tape on the side airbag inflated curtain.

   Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----       ----------------------
   RAM       PROMASTER   2015


CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Alana Lewis-Gursky, David R Rodriguez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Citigroup, Inc. and
Judge Technical Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03213-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Citigroup, Inc. is a Delaware banking and financial services
corporation with headquarters located in New York City.

Judge Technical Services, Inc. is a staffing agency with its
corporate headquarters located in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Klein, Esq.
      Christopher McNerney, Esq.
      Molly Anne Brooks, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
              cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
              mbrooks@outtengolden.com

         - and -
      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      Facsimile: (215) 750-3138
      E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net

         - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com


CRUISER RV:  Recalls Viewfinder Models Due to Explosion Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 12
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015167TC
ID number: 2015167
Manufacturer recall number: 11041 R

On certain travel trailers, the liquid propane (LP) compartment in
the slide room may not have been properly sealed from the interior
of the trailer. If a leak were to occur in the liquid propane
compartment, it could be dissipated into the interior of the
trailer. A propane gas leak, in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire or an explosion, which could cause
injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will reinforce
the metal compartment, and seal all sides that lead into the
living portion of the trailer.

   Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----        ----------------------
CRUISER RV    VIEWFINDER   2015


CSOS LLC: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Medina, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions, LLC, Carlos
I. Garza, III and Jorge Gomez, Case No. 2:15-cv-00187 (S.D. Tex.,
April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate oil and gas production facilities
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DANLIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Danlin Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00188 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Danlin Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of a rotary steerable
drilling tool.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM LLP
      9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


DOLLAR TREE: District Court's Class Action Remand Order Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Record reports that the court of appeals reversed a district
court's remand order and remanded the action with instructions.
The court held that the district court had Class Action Fairness
Act subject-matter jurisdiction where a defendant filed a timely
successive removal petition after a state trial court entered a
class certification order that expanded the plaintiff's proposed
class so as to place at least $5 million in controversy.

Richard Reyes sued Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., in California state
court.  Mr. Reyes asserted Labor Code violations and unlawful
business conduct arising from Dollar Tree's alleged denial of
proper rest breaks to its employees.  Mr. Reyes sought
certification of a class and alleged that the amount in
controversy was less than $5 million in aggregate.

Invoking federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Dollar Tree removed the action to
federal district court.  In pertinent part, CAFA vests district
courts with jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.

Dollar Tree maintained that some $5.5 million was in controversy
based upon its estimate of the number of missed breaks that were
implicated by Reyes's complaint.  The district court disagreed,
reasoning instead that the complaint restricted the scope of
putative class members in a manner that kept the action below
CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold.  The court thus
remanded the action.

Back in state court, the trial court tentatively ruled that the
class framed by Reyes, namely assistant managers who worked alone,
would not be ascertainable.  The court instead certified a class
comprised of all Dollar Tree assistant managers who did not
receive proper breaks.

Dollar Tree removed the action once more, citing the expanded
class certified by the state trial court.  The district court
granted Reyes's motion to remand on the ground that the second
removal was untimely because it was based on the same class
definition that had been the subject of the first removal.  Dollar
Tree appealed.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that the district court had
subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court of appeals equated the trial court's class certification
order to an order permitting the amendment of pleadings to alter
the class definition.  The effect was the same, namely, the
creation of CAFA jurisdiction for the first time.  It did not
matter that the result was achieved through a class certification
order instead of an order permitting amendment of the complaint.
By expanding the amount in controversy, the trial court's class
certification order altered the circumstances of the case that
bore on jurisdiction.  That meant that Dollar Tree's successive
removal petition was timely because the company removed the action
within thirty days of the state trial court's class certification
order.

The court declared that the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction because Dollar Tree offered an unchallenged,
plausible assertion that the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA
were met.

The court remanded the action for the district court to exercise
jurisdiction.


DOUGLAS LABORATORIES: Recalls Ultra D-Tox Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Posting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52949

Lead levels exceed acceptable daily limits when 2 or more capsules
are taken.

Depth of distribution: Retailers

Ultra D-Tox
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80035567
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Allium sativum 20 mg
          Aloe vera 5 mg
          Apium graveolens var. dulce 5 mg
          Bentonite 300 mg
          Chlorella Pyrenoidosa 60 mg
          Hordeum vulgare 5 mg
          Lacobacillus acidophilus 250 million cfu
          Linum usitatissimum 5 mg
          Magnesium 18 mg
          Mentha x piperita 5 mg
          Pimpinella anisum 5 mg
          Plantago ovata 10 mg
          Prunus spp. 5 mg
          Stem bromelain 3 mg
          Vitamin C 30 mg

Lot or serial number: 50029524
                      4073613

Recalling Firm: Douglas Laboratories of Canada (Importer)
                490 Elgin Mills Road East
                Richmond Hill
                L4C 0L8
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Douglas Laboratories of Canada
                                (Importer)
                                490 Elgin Mills Road East
                                Richmond Hill
                                L4C 0L8
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


EJ AMUSEMENTS: OT Suit Gets Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. of Fox Rotschild reports that the workers, who
have accused their amusement park employer of not paying proper
overtime, have won class certification from the federal district
court judge.  Now, the entire tenor of the case has changed (and
not for the better for the employer).  The case is entitled Pilar
Garcia et al. v. E.J. Amusements of NH Inc. and is in federal
court in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted;
the class will cover employees who worked for the Company since
2010, but will exclude employees who have executed releases with
the Company.  Significantly, the Judge ruled that the workers can
amend the Complaint to add a new lead plaintiff who executed a
release but who seeks to challenge the validity of the releases on
behalf of the workers who signed them.

The judge put off ruling on the sanctions motion against the
amusement park company's counsel on the allegations that it had
improperly scripted settlement communications with class members.

The suit alleged that about 200 workers were paid a flat rate
based, for 40 hours, notwithstanding that they often worked seven
days per week and up to 14 hours per day.  The workers assembled,
operated and broke down various amusement park rides at fairs and
carnivals.

The Takeaway

Now, notice will go out to the people in the class and the matter
will be complicated by the possible challenge to releases that
have already been negotiated and payments made.   If allegations
of behind-the-back type dealings are sustained, this could lead to
a finding of willfulness (extending the statute of limitations by
one year).  Maybe these employees should have been on Belo
contracts or some other legally appropriate way of allowing them
to work all those hours and yet being in compliance with the FLSA.


EL BESO: "Esteves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Esteves, Eligio Mazaba, Alfredo Carmona, Jesus Rodriguez,
and Gilberto Chacha Mendoza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. El Beso Mexican Restaurante, LLC and
Andreas Bouraxis, Case No. 15-cv-00484-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 24,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate El Beso Mexican Restaurante and
Cantina located at 5030 S. 74th Street, in Greenfield, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


EL MOLINO: Recalls Market Town Cabbage Rolls
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: El Molino Foods of Canada (1972) Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Northwest Territories
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9778

   Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s)       UPC
   ----------   ----------       ----    on product  ---
                                         ----------
Market Town     Cabbage Rolls    10      Best Before   0 57316
                                 count   17 FEB 2016,  14466 9
                                         25 FEB 2016


ELBO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Rolando Arias, Juan Andres Chunchi, Andy Clausell, Rodrigo
Flores, Jorge Panama, and Diego Arapi, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Elbo Construction LLC, Elie
Deitsch, and Shlomo Silber, Case No. 1:15-cv-03220-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
April 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a
corporate office at 71-50 Parsons Boulevard, Flushing, New York,
11365.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              morales@pechmanlaw.com


ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 31 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of holders
of Entropic Communications, Inc. common stock on February 3, 2015,
in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by
MaxLinear, Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 31, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Entropic, its Board of Directors, MaxLinear
and certain of its subsidiaries with breach of fiduciary duty
and/or violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed sales of Entropic to MaxLinear.
Entropic is a world leader in semiconductor solutions for the
connected home.

On February 3, 2015, Entropic and MaxLinear announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which
Entropic would be acquired by MaxLinear in a cash and stock
transaction in which the Company's stockholders will receive $1.20
per share in cash and 0.2200 of a share of MaxLinear common stock
for each Entropic common share outstanding.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Proposed Acquisition.  In addition, the
complaint alleges that in order to secure shareholder approval of
the deal, defendants filed a materially false and misleading Form
S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-4") with the SEC on March 12,
2015, which was subsequently amended on March 25, 2015.  The S-4,
which recommended that Entropic shareholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition, omitted and/or misrepresented material
information in contravention of Secs. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934
Act.  Specifically, the S-4 contains materially misleading
statements or otherwise fails to provide material information
about the Proposed Acquisition, including, among other things: (i)
the flawed and unfair sales process undertaken by the Board; (ii)
the conflicts of interests that burdened the process; (iii) the
data and key inputs underlying the financial analyses performed by
Barclays Capital, Inc., Entropic's financial advisor; and (iv)
certain financial projections prepared by Entropic's management
and relied upon by Barclays in rendering its opinion as to the
fairness of the Proposed Acquisition to the Company's public
shareholders.  The complaint alleges that the foregoing
information is material to the impending decision of Entropic's
shareholders whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition and/or whether to seek appraisal for their shares.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of
holders of Entropic common stock on February 3, 2015.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Shark(R) Vacuum Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 22, 2015
Posting date: April 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53013

This recall involves certain models of Shark(R) brand Rotator(R)
Powered Lift-Away(R) Series upright vacuum cleaners.  They are
maroon in colour and have a clear plastic middle section.  Shark
and Rotator are printed on the front of the vacuum cleaners.
They measure approximately 114 centimetres tall (45 inches) and
30.5 centimetres wide (12 inches).

The following model numbers are included in this recall:

  Model Number   UPC               Certification
  ------------   ---               -------------
  NV650W         Not applicable    ETL Certification Numbers
                 as sold directly  4005850 or 4004022
                 to consumers

  NV652          622356537940      ETL Certification Numbers
                                   4005850 or 4004022

The vacuums can be identified from the model number, manufacturing
date codes, and an identifying mark.  The model number is printed
on a silver sticker located on the upper right-hand corner of the
back of the unit.

The date code is stamped permanently into the metal prong of the
power plug and show the week and year of manufacture in the WWYY
format. Recalled units have date codes beginning with the number
48 or lower and ending with 14.

Vacuum cleaners marked with a dimple or green circle sticker on
the outside of the plastic cuff that holds the aluminum wand have
been inspected by the firm and are not included in this recall.

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

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these vacuum cleaners in Canada.

Euro-Pro Operating LLC has received 62 reports in which the
aluminum wand disconnected from the vacuum cleaner's handle. One
incident occurred in Canada, and 61 incidents occurred in the
United States. No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 665 units were sold in Canada and approximately
142,000 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from August 2014 to March 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.
              Suzhou
              CHINA

Manufacturer: KingClean Electric Co., Ltd.
              Suzhou
              CHINA

Distributor: Euro-Pro Operating LLC
             Newton
             Massachusetts
             UNITED STATES

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

For more information, consumers may contact the company's recall
hotline toll-free at 1-877-593-5140, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
EST Monday to Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST on Sundays.
Consumers may also visit the Shark's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xO0RVc


FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: FGC Foods Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9772

   Brand name   Common name     Size    Code(s)     UPC
   ----------   -----------     ----    on product  ---
                                        ----------

Gourmet Chef    Creamy Coleslaw  1.6 kg  All codes   6 23580
                with Greek               where       10185 3
                Yogurt                   sunflower
                                         seed is not
                                         declared.


FGC FOODS: Recalls Coleslaw with Greek Yogurt Due to Sunflowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: FGC Foods Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9772

   Brand name   Common name      Size    Code(s)     UPC
   ----------   -----------      ----    on product  ---
                                         ----------

Gourmet Chef    Creamy Coleslaw  1.6 kg  All codes   6 23580
                with Greek               where       10185 3
                Yogurt                   sunflower
                                         seed is not
                                         declared.


FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wilkes" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Wilkes and Tiffany Tyler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. First National Collection Bureau,
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01839-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's false, deceptive and unfair debt-
collection practices. Specifically by sending mail based
collection correspondence that fails to advise the consumers and
debtors the statutes of limitations for filing legal claims for
time-barred debts.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is in the business of which
the principal purpose is the collection of debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOOGO: June 22 Deadline Set for Drinking Bottle Settlement Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Foogo has settled a
class action reusable drinking bottles.

How about a thermos that doesn't do what it advertises?

Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com says the allegation is "it
was designated as leak proof, and spill proof, although it did
leak and spill."

If you have a Foogo reusable drinking bottle you can either get $8
for each or a replacement depending on the proof you have.  The
deadline to file is June 22.

The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Nature Valley Dark Chocolate Nut Bars
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: General Mills Canada Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9779

  Brand name    Common name     Size   Code(s)       UPC
  ----------    -----------     ----   on product    ---
                                       ----------
Nature Valley   Sweet & Salty   35 g   29SE2015 RB   0 65633
                Dark Chocolate                       50689 3
                Nut Bars


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Cars Over Brake Hose
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 205
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015157TC
ID number: 2015157
Manufacturer recall number: 15149

On certain vehicles, originally sold, or currently registered in
areas of heavy road salt usage during winter months (Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and
Newfoundland & Labrador), the front brake hose fitting at the
caliper may corrode. If the fitting corrodes significantly, the
internal brake hose-tube interface may develop a leak or in some
cases break, causing a sudden increase in braking distances which
may lead to a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will replace both front brake hose assemblies.
Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2010-080.

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
CADILLAC     CTS-V      2004


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac CTS-V Models
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 205
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015157TC
ID number: 2015157
Manufacturer recall number: 15149

On certain vehicles, originally sold, or currently registered in
areas of heavy road salt usage during winter months (Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and
Newfoundland & Labrador), the front brake hose fitting at the
caliper may corrode. If the fitting corrodes significantly, the
internal brake hose-tube interface may develop a leak or in some
cases break, causing a sudden increase in braking distances which
may lead to a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will replace both front brake hose assemblies.
Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2010-080.

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
   CADILLAC  CTS-V      2004


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Clavulin 400 Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Posting date:  April 20, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53017

The bottle was inspected and it was confirmed that two pieces of
glass 17x14x8 mm and 15x15x8 mm respectively were inside the
bottle along with the reconstituted suspension. The bottle itself
was intact indicating that the glass was introduced into the
bottle.

The Products are distributed in Wholesalers, Hospitals, Pharmacies
and Patients.

A. Clavulin 400
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02238830
Dosage form: Powder for solution
Strength : Amoxicillin (Amoxicillin trihydrate) 400 mg / 5 mL
           Clavulanic Acid (Clavulanate Potassium)  57 mg / 5 mL
Lot or serial number: (L) 710535
Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                7333 Mississauga Road
                Mississauga
                L5N 6L4
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                                7333 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6L4
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


GOOGLE INC: Parents Can't Proceed with In-App Purchase Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has so far
refunded $30 million to parents whose children made in-app
purchases, the company says in new court papers.

The company revealed that figure as part of an effort to convince
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, Calif. to
dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit by parents who say they
were wrongly billed for in-app purchases by their children.
Google says the parents can't proceed in court, because the
company already settled a Federal Trade Commission complaint about
the so-called "family fraud" charges.

Google argues that the FTC settlement -- which requires the
company to issue refunds -- already compensates any parents who
would join in the class-action lawsuit.  "Where each putative
class member is entitled to receive full restitution from a
government settlement, the government settlement is unquestionably
superior to costly, duplicative class-action litigation," Google
says in its most recent round of court papers, which were filed
with Judge Whyte.

The arguments are the latest turn in a lawsuit that dates to March
of 2014, when New York resident Ilana Imber-Gluck alleged that one
of her two young sons, both of whom were then under 6, purchased
$65.95 worth of in-game currency shortly after she downloaded the
99-cent app "Run Jump Smash."

Ms. Imber-Gluck said in her complaint that Google allows parents
to purchase apps for their children, but doesn't adequately
disclose that kids will be able to automatically purchase in-game
currency for a period of 30 minutes.  Other parents later joined
in the case.

The parents said in court papers filed earlier in March that they
wished to proceed with a class-action regardless of the FTC
settlement.  Among other arguments, the parents contend that the
FTC didn't require Google to adequately notify parents about the
matter.

"The FTC Settlement required Google to send only one email notice
to consumers who had made prior in-app purchases.  The subject
line of the email does not mention unauthorized purchases by
minors," the parents argued.  "The notice does not mention that
the FTC has accused of it violating the law, but rather, suggests
that Google voluntarily decided to take action."

Google counters in papers filed on March 27 that its notifications
have been "remarkably effective."

"As of March 23, 2015, Google had provided approximately $30
million in refunds to Google Play account holders pursuant to the
refund process put in place under the FTC decision and order," the
company argues.  "The FTC has never suggested to Google that its
notice does not comply with the decision and order or otherwise
does not provide consumers with adequate information about the
refund process."

The company adds that its notices give consumers a simple way to
submit refund claims.  "The notice provides users a list of all
Google Play purchases during the relevant time period and users
need only 'check off' which purchases were unauthorized to make a
claim," the company says.

Judge Whyte scheduled a hearing on the matter for April 5.


GOOGLE INC: Stock Split May Cost Over $500 Million
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Liedtke, writing for Associated Press, reports that an
unorthodox stock split designed to ensure Google CEO Larry Page
and fellow co-founder Sergey Brin retain control of the Internet's
most profitable company could cost Google more than half a billion
dollars.

Mr. Page, 42, and Mr. Brin, 41, have maintained control over
Google since they started the company in a rented Silicon Valley
garage in 1998.  Their ideas and leadership have spawned one of
the world's best known and most powerful companies with a market
value of $375 billion and a payroll of about 54,000 employees.

Yet many investors have become frustrated with Page's unwavering
belief that Google should be spending billions on far-flung
projects ranging from driverless cars to diabetes-controlling
contact lenses that may take years to pay off and have little to
do with the company's main business of search and digital
advertising.  The big spending is one reason Google's stock price
is about 2 percent below where it stood at the end of 2013, while
the Standard & Poor's 500 index has climbed 11 percent.

To maintain the power to drive Google's direction, Messrs. Page
and Brin initially accumulated virtually all of the company's
class "B" shares, which have 10 votes for each "A" share.  The
duo, though, worried that control would erode as Google issued
more "A" shares to pay for acquisitions and reward other workers.
A year ago, Google split its stock to create a new category of "C"
stock with no voting power that would allow more Google shares to
be issued without undercutting Page and Brin.

Class "A" shareholders were outraged, skewering the maneuver as a
textbook example of shoddy corporate governance. Google argued
there wouldn't be much difference between the price of "C" and
"A'' shares because Page and Brin held majority control anyway
with the "B" shares.  To settle a class-action lawsuit challenging
the split, Google agreed to compensate "C" shareholders if the
average price of "C" stock fell more than 1 percent below "A"
shares through the first year of trading.

Google's theory proved wrong, said BGC Financial Partners Colin
Gillis.  The difference turned out to be between 1 percent and 2
percent, though the final gap won't be announced for up to 30 days
as Google works with outside experts to determine the figures
under a complex formula.

"This shows the market does place a value on owning a voting
stock," he said.

Google disclosed in a recent regulatory filing that it would have
owed about $593 million to class C stockholders had the
calculations been done on Dec. 31.  Based on that estimate, the
class C stockholders would receive roughly $1.74 per share in cash
or additional stock.  Calculating the exact amount that Google
Inc. owes will start after the stock market closes on April 2.

The Mountain View, California, company has until early July to pay
the money.  It's something that Google can easily afford, given
the company holds $64 billion in cash.  And the damage could have
been a lot worse: Google would have had to pay $7.5 billion, or
about $22 per share, had the first-year spread between "A" and "C"
shares was 5 percent or more.

Class C shareholders should ask themselves if the money they are
getting is enough to compensate for relinquishing their voting
rights and ceding control to Messrs. Page and Brin, said
Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg
center for corporate governance.

Shareholders "are getting this cash for giving up their say in
effective management," Mr. Elson said.  "This could be a case of
'penny wise, pound foolish.'"

Google declined to comment.


GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Wheels
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015154TC
ID number: 2015154

On certain travel trailers, the wheel hubs may have been
manufactured with improperly hardened wheel studs that may break,
which could cause a complete separation of the wheel(s) from the
travel trailer and a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the defective
hubs.

   Make         Model     Model year(s) affected
   ---          -----     ----------------------
   GRAND DESIGN           2015, 2016, 2015, 2016, 2015, 2016


GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklava Mix Due to Undeclared Cashew
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9786

   Brand name   Common name     Size    Code(s)          UPC
   ----------   ----------      ----    on product       ---
                                        ----------
   Rashad       Baklawa Mix     1850 g  All codes where  None
                                        cashews are not
                                        declared on the
                                        label.


GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baklawa Mix Products Due to Cashews
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9775

  Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s)        UPC
  ----------   ----------     ----    on product     ---
                                      ---------
  Rashad         Baklawa Mix  1000 g   All codes     None
                                       where cashews
                                       are not
                                       declared on
                                       the label.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 1630
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015172TC
ID number: 2015172

On certain motorcycles, the hydraulic clutch system may not be
able to generate enough lift to disengage the clutch after being
parked for an extended period of time, which could result to a
loss of control of the vehicle when started in gear or when first
shifted into gear. This could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect
and affect the repairs accordingly.

   Make           Model                         Model year(s)
   ----           -----                         affected
                                                -------------
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   POLICE ELECTRA GLIDE (FLHTP)  2014, 2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   STREET GLIDE (FLHX)           2014, 2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ROAD GLIDE (FLTR)             2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ELECTRA GLIDE ULTRA CLASSIC   2014, 2015
                  (FLHTCU)
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   CVO STREET GLIDE (FLHXSE)     2014, 2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ULTRA LIMITED (FLHTK)         2014, 2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   STREET GLIDE SPECIAL (FLHXS)  2014, 2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   CVO ROAD KING (FLHRSE)        2014
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ELECTRA GLIDE ULTRA CLASSIC   2015
                  LOW
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ULTRA LIMITED LOW             2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   ROAD GLIDE SPECIAL            2015


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recall Multiple Street Models
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 381
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015151TC
ID number: 2015151

Certain motorcycles may fail to comply with the requirements of
CMVSS 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. These
motorcycles may have been built without a rear reflector assembly
which could reduce conspicuity, increasing the risk of crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction : Dealers
will install a rear reflector assembly.

   Make           Model                Model year(s) affected
   ----           -----                ----------------------
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   STREET 500 (XG500)   2015
HARLEY-DAVIDSON   STREET 750 (XG750)   2015


HEINZ CANADA: Recalls Chicken with Broth Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Heinz Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9741

Heinz Canada is recalling Heinz brand Chicken with Broth from the
marketplace due to potential loss of seal, causing spoilage.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the product in your home. If the product
is in your home, do not consume it.

If an infant has been fed any of the Heinz brand Chicken with
Broth described above, discontinue use and monitor for symptoms.
Consumption of spoiled food may cause symptoms such as upset
stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please
seek medical attention.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

This warning was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a
food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warning.

   Brand name   Common name    Size     Code(s)        UPC
   ----------   ----------     ----     on product     ---
                                        ----------
   Heinz        Chicken with   100 mL   2016SE26 and   0 571660 7
                 Broth                  2016DE12

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


HERSHEY CO: Judge Tosses Food Labeling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on March 31 tossed a putative consumer
class action against The Hershey Co. alleging it misled customers
about antioxidants in its chocolate and cocoa products, ruling
that the evidence didn't show the labeling was likely to misinform
a reasonable consumer.

The court in May 2014 trimmed most of the claims in the suit,
preserving only lead plaintiff Leon Khasin's claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law that the statement "natural
source of flavanol antioxidants" on some Hershey products is
"false and misleading," according to court documents.

Hershey argued that Mr. Khasin didn't prove he was deceived by the
antioxidant statement on the label, and there was no evidence of
classwide deception since the plaintiff didn't prove that
reasonable consumers would likely have been misled by Hershey's
statements.  U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila agreed
with the defendant and granted the motion for summary judgment in
favor of Hershey.

"There is insufficient evidence that the 'natural source of
flavanol antioxidants' statement on the challenged Hershey
products was likely to mislead reasonable consumers and that the
label statements were therefore unlawful on that basis," the judge
wrote in the 12-page order. "Even if the court were to accept
Khasin's personal logic to arrive at the conclusion that the
phrase . . . misleads consumers because it appears to violate FDA
regulations, 'not every regulatory violation amounts to an act of
consumer fraud.'"

Judge Davila said that under California law, Mr. Khasin can't
obtain relief by arguing how consumers could react; he must show
how consumers actually do react.

"Without such proof, Mr. Khasin does not satisfy the UCL's
'reasonable consumer' test," the judge wrote.

Mr. Khasin also didn't prove he lost money or property or
demonstrate economic injury as required by the UCL, the judge
said.

"Khasin proffers no evidence to show economic injury, but rather
claims that his purchases are 'legally worthless' because they are
inaccurate representations of what he thought he was purchasing,"
Judge Davila said.

The plaintiff's complaint, filed in April 2012, alleged that
Hershey products he had purchased had unlawful representations on
the packaging, including misleading antioxidant nutrient content
claims, nutrient content claims without required disclosures,
healthy diet claims, sugar-free claims, unlawful serving sizes,
the listing of polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid as "PGPR" and
failure to disclose vanillin, according to the order.

In November 2012, the court dismissed claims for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Song-Beverly Act while also
rejecting Hershey's contention that the Ninth Circuit's ruling on
Lanham Act claims in Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co. barred
the state law claims, since the appeals court held private parties
could not seek to enforce U.S. Food and Drug Administration
labeling regulations.

An attorney for the plaintiff told Law360 on March 31 they didn't
agree with the decision.

"While plaintiffs have the highest regard for Judge Davila, we
believe this opinion to be in contrast to California and Ninth
Circuit law," Richard Barrett said.  "We are currently weighing
our options."

Mr. Khasin is represented by Richard R. Barrett of Law Offices of
Richard R. Barrett PLLC and Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates.

Hershey is represented by Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Travis J. Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com - and Michelle
W. Cohen of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and John W. Fowler
of Bergeson LLP.

The case is Leon Khasin v. The Hershey Co., case number 5:12-cv-
01862, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blowers & Vacuums
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Posting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience:  General Public
Identification number: RA-52839

This recall involves the Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum.
The recalled products are red and black in colour. "Homelite
BlowerVac 2 Speed Powerful 220 MPH" is printed on the side of the
motor housing and on the black plastic blower tube.

  Model Number    UPC            Certification
  ------------    ---            -------------
  UT42120         046396552105   CSA Certification Number 218549
  UT42120A        046396005397   CSA Certification Number 218549
  UT42121         046396005397   UL Certification number E255524

The model numbers can be found on a label on the left side of the
red motor housing.

Note that the Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum has been
recalled previously.

The Homelite 12 amp electric blower/vacuum can overheat, spark and
catch on fire posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Homelite Consumer Products Inc has
received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to
the use of these products in Canada.

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

Approximately 41,000 units were distributed in Canada and 823,000
units in the United States.

The affected products were sold in Canada and the United States
from January 2010 through March 2015 at Home Depot stores and
online.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Changzhou Globe Tools Co., Ltd.
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd.
              CHINA

Importer: Homelite Consumer Products, Inc.
          Anderson
          South Carolina
          UNITED STATES

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


HONDA: Recalls Multiple 2014-2015 Vehicles
------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 61
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015162TC
ID number: 2015162

On certain motorcycles, the rear shock absorber may not have been
manufactured correctly. The piston rod nut may have been tightened
before the piston had the correct full metal-to-metal contact.
This could result in the nut loosening, which would prevent proper
rear suspension action, and could cause poor handling that may
result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will repair/replace the rear shock absorber.

   Make    Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----       ----------------------
   HONDA               2014, 2015


HOOKSETT PUBLIC: Director Faces Complaints From Subordinates
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hayward, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
Hooksett Public Works Director Leo Lessard went on a paid
administrative leave on March 27, according to the town
administrator, who said town councilors will consider a host of
complaints against him from his subordinates.

The complaints, voiced a second time in late February by the union
that represents Public Works employees, said Mr. Lessard
frequently used obscene language to "verbally abuse, intimidate
and bully" his subordinates.

The union claimed Mr. Lessard referred to other town workers in a
derogatory fashion and oversaw a steady departure of experienced
workers.

"My feeling is every time I went to work, at the end of the day
I'd be pulling a knife out of my back," said Doug Urquart, the
highway crew chief who quit earlier in March, after spending eight
years with the department.

Mr. Urquart, who is not in the union because of his management
status, said Mr. Lessard hasn't changed in the 3« years he's been
on the job.  "He'd rather create turmoil, discontent and low
morale," Mr. Urquart said.

Over the past two years, the crew of 16 -- which includes highway,
parks and building maintenance -- experienced 17 departures,
according to a roster of workers that the town provided the New
Hampshire Union Leader.

In August, 12 members of Local 1580 of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees filed a class-action
grievance against Mr. Lessard.  Town Administrator Dean Shankle
said the union agreed to hold it in abeyance for six months.

But in late February, the union voted on a resolution of no
confidence against Mr. Lessard.  In part, it faulted him for using
vulgar and derogatory language against employees and town
residents.

"Lessard also uses derogatory terms related to sexual orientation
to describe our union brothers and sisters in the Hooksett Fire
Department," reads nine complaints against him.

An effort to reach Mr. Lessard on March 30 through his
administrative assistant was unsuccessful.

Mr. Shankle said he notified town councilors of Mr. Lessard's
administrative leave on March 30.  He said he couldn't discuss the
circumstances because of employee confidentiality laws.

Diane Boyce, the superintendent of the transfer station and
recycling operations, has been named acting director.

"I am dealing with the issues, and we definitely want all of our
employees to work where they feel safe and enjoy their jobs,"
Mr. Shankle said.

He said he hoped the matter will be resolved by April 24, the next
time the Town Council is scheduled to meet in public session.  The
April 8 meeting was called specifically to address the union
grievance, and the council asked that no other action come before
the board, Mr. Shankle said.

Under provisions of the town charter, any department head has the
right to appeal disciplinary actions to the town council.

According to town records, Mr. Lessard started with the town in
July 2011 and now makes $88,800.  He assumed the job that had been
held by Dale Hemeon, who was convicted of theft of town property
that year and sentenced to six months in jail.

Mr. Shankle credited Mr. Lessard with instituting modern record-
keeping and information systems in the department.  And he said
"Leo was great in terms of getting things done."

But his workers said they were yelled at, threatened with
termination and subjected to disparaging remarks about fellow
workers.

"We're DPW guys; we can deal with jokes, but it's the context.
I've got one of the worst mouths going, but I'm not disrespecting
people, calling them pieces of . . .," said Jeffrey Lord Jr. Lord
said he transferred out of the highway crew to the transfer
station, where he works under Boyce.

Chad Boyd of Epsom, who still works on the highway crew, said he
takes antidepressants because of Mr. Lessard.  He said Mr.
Lessard's actions meant the staff was short of numbers and
motivation when snowstorms hit in January.

"Our plowing slowed down because I didn't want to be there
anymore," he said.

The two said Mr. Lessard gave a brief apology in August to address
the class-action grievance.  But workers sensed little change.

Harriett Spencer, staff representative for the local, said
Mr. Lessard appeared to retaliate against employees who signed the
grievance.


HORIZON MUD: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Dewbre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Horizon Mud Company, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00058 (W.D. Tex.,
April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent
a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the Defendant's Midland, Texas.

Horizon Mud Company, Inc. is a well drilling contractor that
maintains a principal place of business at 500 W. Wall Street,
Midland, Texas 79701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Janczak" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant A. Janczak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Horizontal Wireline Services, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-01074 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single work week.

Horizontal Wireline Services, LLC owns and operates a private
equity firm with offices in Dallas and Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


HULU LLC: Judge Tosses Facebook Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that
Hulu LLC didn't know that Facebook Inc. could use the data the
online video-streaming site provided to match individual users
with specific videos they watched, according to a California
federal judge's order granting Hulu's motion for summary judgment
in a proposed class action on March 31.

Judge Laurel Beeler, who hinted at her decision in February, said
she couldn't find that Hulu knowingly violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act because the data it sent to Facebook revealing
users' identities and the videos they watched were transmitted in
separate parcels, meaning Facebook would later have to combine the
data to connect a user with a video.

Scott Kamber, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients are
disappointed in the ruling, but look forward to an appellate
review.

"We are confident that the facts submitted by the plaintiffs in
opposition to summary judgment were sufficient to demonstrate
Hulu's knowledge that Facebook was able to identify its users and
their video selections every time they watched a video,"
Mr. Kamber told Law360 on April 1.  "We believe the VPPA provides
important statutory privacy protections that would be undermined
if this order were allowed to stand."

The VPPA was passed in 1988 after the press gained access to the
video store rental history of failed U.S. Supreme Court nominee
Robert Bork.

Judge Beeler said this case differed from a video store clerk's
handing over a slip of paper with a name and a list of videotapes
because of Hulu's separation of users' names and the videos they
watched, even though Facebook had the capacity to link the two
data sets with a special browser cookie.

"In terms of this case, if Hulu did not actually know that
Facebook might 'read' the c_user cookie and video title together
(yielding something akin to the list of Judge Bork's videos), then
there cannot be a VPPA violation," the judge said.

The plaintiffs, who sued in 2011, had argued that Hulu's
transmission of both pieces of data satisfied the law's
requirements.  But Judge Beeler said that the VPPA requires
"mutual understanding that there has been a disclosure," and said
depositions of Hulu employees proved that it had no knowledge of
what Facebook would do with the data it received.

Another important element of the case involved a "show faces"
feature that allowed Facebook users' images to appear on webpages
after they clicked the "like" button on Hulu's or any other
company's website.

The plaintiffs argued that the fact that users' images could
appear on Hulu's pages show that the company knew Facebook was
able to identify individuals and their video selections.

Victor Jih, an attorney for Hulu, countered that the company had
no idea how Facebook figured out how to show users' faces and said
the plaintiffs had simply referenced email correspondence rather
than source code to bolster their claims.

Judge Beeler agreed with Mr. Jih that the plaintiffs came up short
in attempting to definitively show what Hulu actually "knew" and
instead relied on assertions made by an expert.

The plaintiffs had also pointed to correspondence between Hulu and
The Nielsen Co., which informed Hulu that services designed to
determine the efficacy of Hulu's ad delivery would reveal users'
demographics and identities to Facebook.

The judge acknowledged that Nielsen's statements "probably" show
that Hulu knew Facebook's cookies could be used to identify users
but said that only related to ads tracked by Nielsen, not the
"like" button.

Mr. Jih told Law360 on April 1 that Hulu was pleased with the
decision.

"Hulu takes privacy very seriously and we are very happy it has
been vindicated by the court," Mr. Jih said.  "We are also
grateful that the court took the time to make several important
rulings to prevent this law from being misused in the future."

The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Parisi and Suzanne
Havens Beckman of Parisi & Havens LLP, Scott A. Kamber, David A.
Stampley and Grace E. Tersigni of KamberLaw LLC, and Brian R.
Strange and Gretchen Carpenter of Strange & Carpenter.

Hulu is represented by Robert M. Schwartz --
rschwartz@omm.com -- Steven M. Dunst and Victor Jih of O'Melveny &
Myers LLP along with Simon J. Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- and
Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, case number 3:11-cv-
03764, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HYUNDAI: July 6 Deadline Set for Gas Mileage Settlement Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Hyundai has settled a
class action gas mileage issues.

If you're driving a Hyundai, how many miles are you getting per
gallon?

"They were promising Hyundai gets more gas mileage when in fact it
doesn't or worse than what was projected," is the allegation says
Hardy.

If you owned or leased a Hyundai on or before November of 2012,
you qualify.

The options are a lump sum cash payment averaging $353, a dealer
service debit card, or a new car rebate certificate.  Or you could
opt for lifetime reimbursement paid over time.  It usually pays
more depending on how long you have the car.

The deadline is July 6,

The company did not claim any wrongdoing in settling the suit.


INT'L BUSINESS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on April 1 disclosed that it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on April 1, 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who, between
January 22, 2014 and October 17, 2014, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of International
Business Machines Corporation.

If you purchased or acquired publicly traded IBM securities during
the Class Period as defined above, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York no later than May 1, 2015.
A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.  If you
would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709, or via
email at ravan@labaton.com

IBM is a global information technology company based in Armonk,
New York.  The Company manufactures and sells computer hardware
and software and offers a variety of technology services.  Prior
to October 20, 2014, IBM's operations included the Company's
Microelectronics business that was primarily responsible for the
design and production of microchips used in certain of the
Company's server computers and other devices.

The complaint charges IBM and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period Defendants made false and
misleading statements and concealed material information relating
to the true value of the Company's Microelectronics business and
the segment's assets.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, IBM concealed a substantial decline
in value of the Microelectronics business and its assets, despite
a history and outlook of severe operating losses.  Instead, IBM
reported values of approximately $2.4 billion relating to long-
lived assets within the Microelectronics segment in the Company's
financial statements throughout the Class Period.

The truth regarding the value of IBM's Microelectronics business
and its assets was revealed on October 20, 2014, when the Company
announced an agreement to transfer this business to
GlobalFoundries Incorporated along with a $1.5 billion incentive
payment.  IBM further disclosed that the Company's
Microelectronics business had lost $700 million in 2013 and was
projected to suffer a similar loss in 2014.  In reaction to these
disclosure, IBM's stock price fell $12.95 per share, or 7.11
percent, to close at $169.10 per share that day.

The magnitude of IBM's overstatement of its assets during the
Class Period was confirmed on October 28, 2014 when the Company
filed its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2014.  In this
quarterly report, IBM recorded a $4.7 billion charge, more than
half of which represented a total write-off of the entire $2.4
billion value of the long-lived property, plant, and equipment
assets of the Microelectronics business.  If you are a member of
the Class, you can view a copy of the complaint online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

The plaintiff is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with collective assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  With nearly 60 full-time attorneys, Labaton
Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


J-W WIRELINE: "Parrot" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Parrott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J-W Wireline Company and J-W Energy Company, Case No.
5:15-cv-00329 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an energy development and energy
services company specializing in natural gas compression,
gathering, exploration and production, and well services with
significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


JACKSONVILLE GREYHOUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Platt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00524-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
owns and operates a gambling center and casino.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, PA
      300 SE 13th St
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


JAYCO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 34
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015160TC
ID number: 2015160

On certain travel trailers and fifth wheels, the Norco slide room
mechanisms could be defective. The drive train that controls the
inward and outward motion of the room could have been manufactured
with incorrectly rated screws. If the screws were to fail, the
slide room could extend while the vehicle is in motion, increasing
the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will replace the defective screws with
correctly rated screws.


JIM SMITH: "Heavlin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Heavlin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Jim Smith Electric Service, Inc. and James F. Smith Case No.
2:15-cv-00258 (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an electrical services company in
Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy
      Morgan & Morgan, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 967-5377
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


JOHNS HOPKINS: To Vigorously Oppose Class Action Over STD Study
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gantz, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that
Johns Hopkins will vigorously oppose a $1 billion lawsuit filed on
April 1 by more than 700 family members and research subjects who
were infected by sexually transmitted diseases during 1940s and
1950s government experiments in Guatemala.

The lawsuit filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court alleges that
Hopkins, as a leading authority on venereal disease at the time,
played a key role in a government study of syphilis and other
sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala.

The suit, filed by Baltimore law firm Salsbury, Clements, Bekman,
Marder & Adkins LLC on behalf of 774 plaintiffs, names Johns
Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, the School of
Medicine, the School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Health
System.  It also names the Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-
Meyers Squibb Co., a New York pharmaceutical company.

Hopkins officials reject the suit's claims and say the institution
did not conduct or pay for the government study.  Hopkins doctors
served on a government committee that oversaw funding for the
study, officials said.  Robert Mathias --
robert.mathias@dlapiper.com -- a lawyer with DLA Piper and
Hopkins' lead counsel, described the suit as baseless and said he
will likely move to dismiss the case on statute of limitations.

"The study they're complaining about took place almost 70 years
ago," Mr. Mathias said.  "The doctors they name are all deceased."
Paul D. Bekman, who is among the lawyers representing the case's
plaintiffs, says he can prove Hopkins' involvement.

"We can back up every single thing we have said in the complaint
with facts and documents," Mr. Bekman said.  "Hopkins and
Rockefeller were involved in this up to their eyebrows."

Details of the study became public during a 2011 federal bioethics
review.  A prior class action lawsuit against the U.S. government
was dismissed in 2012.


K&B OILFIELD: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Sanders, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. K&B Oilfield Services, Inc., Case No. 6:15-
cv-00447 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

K&B Oilfield Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company
proving well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


KNIGHT CAPITAL: July 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on April 2 issued a statement in regards to the
announcement of a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JUAN FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KNIGHT CAPITAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-cv-06760 (MCA) (SCM)

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED KNIGHT CAPITAL
GROUP, INC. ("KNIGHT") SECURITIES BETWEEN MAY 10, 2011, AND
AUGUST 1, 2012, INCLUSIVE.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified,
for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the Court, a
hearing will be held on July 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Martin Luther King Building & United States Courthouse, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101, for the purpose of determining
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action for the sum of
Thirteen Million Dollars ($13,000,000.00) in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which
would result in this Action being dismissed with prejudice against
the Released Persons1 as set forth in the Settlement Agreement
dated February 9, 2015; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation of
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (3) whether the application for
fees and expenses in connection with this Action should be
approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Knight securities, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the settlement thereof.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to Knight
Capital Group Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O.
Box 3076, Portland, OR 97208-3076, or by downloading this
information at www.knightsecuritieslitigation.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than June 29, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to
be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by
June 2, 2015.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than June 11, 2015, and received
by the following no later than June 11, 2015:

LESTER R. HOOKER
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
MATTHEW SOLUM
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Counsel for Defendants
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 888-
593-4978 or contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel at the address listed
above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: April 9, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


LENOVO INC: Expands ThinkPad Notebook Battery Packs Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 21, 2015
Posting date: April 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52947

This recall expansion involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the
following ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13, 14, 15,
120, 125, 320, 325, 420, 425, 430, 520, 525 and 530 series; the
X200, X201, X200S, X201S, X220, X220T, X100E, X120E, X121E and
X130E series; the T410, T420, T510 and T520 series; and the W510,
W520, L412, L420/421, L512, and L520 series.

Recalled battery packs have one of the following part numbers
starting with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and
letters printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the
battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812,
42T4816, 42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4868, 42T4874, 42T48880, 42T4890,
42T4954, 42T4958, 45N1012, and 45N1050. The battery packs measure
between 20 to 28 centimetres (8 to 11 inches) long, 2.5 to 7.5
centimetres (1 to 3 inches) wide and about 2.5 centimetres (1
inch) high.

Affected battery packs were also sold separately.

The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Lenovo has received two reports in Canada and two reports in the
United States of the battery pack overheating.  An additional 14
similar incidents occurred outside of Canada and the United
States.

Approximately 17,700 units of the battery backs were distributed
in Canada and about 148,800 units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from February 2010 to June 2012 at
various retailers and online in Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Lenovo (Canada) Inc.
             North York
             Ontario
             CANADA

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

For more information, consumers can contact Lenovo toll-free at 1-
800-426-7378 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday
or Lenovo's website and select Support at the top of the page,
then click on the link to the recall page in the News and Alerts
section at the bottom right of the page for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Southern California Public Radio reports that Los Angeles settled
a giant class action lawsuit on April 1 brought on behalf of a
quarter-million disabled city residents.  They contended that
L.A.'s broken sidewalks impaired their rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) to move freely around the city.

Now, Los Angeles' cracked and crumbling sidewalks are on track to
get $1.4 billion in repairs, over the next 30 years.

Quadriplegic resident Mark Willits sued the city in 2010, and his
case was broadened to a class action.

Lillibeth Navarro, a plaintiff, praised the settlement at a news
conference with city leaders.

"It's a major win for the disability community of Los Angeles,"
she said.  Those with disabilities risk their lives and safety
traversing miles and miles of inaccessible L.A. sidewalks," she
said, and spoke of the frustration of trying to navigate broken
paths in her wheelchair.

In Chinatown, Andre Davidson uses a walker to help him stand. He
said the city's broken sidewalks and slippery curb ramps need
upgrades.

"They are quite unsafe, you have a lot of cracks and dents,
especially at the ramps, they are kind of dangerous," he said.

How did we get here?

A 1911 state law made sidewalk repairs the financial
responsibility of adjoining property owners in most of California.
But in the mid-70s, Los Angeles accepted a multi-million dollar
federal grant for sidewalk repairs.  In exchange for the money,
the city took over financial responsibility for sidewalks damaged
by trees.

The money ran out within a few years, and the city fell behind in
repairing sidewalks to the point that one city estimate said it
would cost $1.5 billion to do the entire job.

Sidewalk repairs have been close to non-existent in recent years,
partly because the city was holding back spending while it waited
for settlement with this case.  A shortage of workers, and the
lack of a clear policy over which paths were greatest priority led
to further delays.

City Attorney Mike Feuer said the settlement terms require the
city to set aside $31 million a year (a base amount that would
grow with inflation over time) and to spend at least $25 million
annually on repairs.

The city has already been paying out about $6.5 million dollars a
year in injury claims stemming from broken sidewalks, Mr. Feuer
said.  But over the past two years, it has managed to still put
aside as much as $27 million in funds for repairs.  The money that
was placed in the sidewalk repair trust fund will be the first
monies applied toward the settlement.

Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city's general fund, used to pay for
many city services, will make up the rest of the funds.

What will be repaired first

The first year's spending calls for $5 million for installing curb
ramps, the rest on sidewalks, Mr. Feuer said.

Sidewalks adjacent to city land are the top priority for repairs,
followed by sidewalks on the most used main streets.  Over time,
smaller residential streets will be fixed, but it could take years
for some areas to see repair crews.

Setting priorities for which residential sidewalks to fix will be
a district-by-district decision, Mr. Garcetti said.

The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge.


MICHIGAN: Department of Corrections Faces ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Covington & Burling LLP on March 31 disclosed that the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) unfairly discriminates against
and denies equal treatment to prisoners who are deaf or hard of
hearing in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution of the United States, according to a class action law
suit filed in U.S. District Court on March 31 by Michigan
Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS), Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firms
Covington & Burling and Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti &
Sherbrook.  The class action lawsuit, filed by three current
prisoners housed within MDOC facilities, seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all deaf or hard of
hearing persons who are, or will be, confined in Michigan's
prisons.

"The Michigan Department of Corrections has failed or refused to
provide necessary accommodations and assistance in a consistent
and comprehensive manner," said Chris Davis, MPAS Attorney.  "As a
result, it has violated the prisoners' rights by infringing on
their ability to communicate with loved ones, participate in
medical and mental health care as well as religious and various
other programs."

The lawsuit explains that, as a result of MDOC not providing
adequate accommodations and assistance to deaf and hard of hearing
inmates, the inmates are unable to adequately maintain contact
with loved ones; have access to educational opportunities
(including academic classes, vocational training, and other
programs) offered to prisoners; access necessary medical care;
participate in religious services; or access telephone and
television services.  The lawsuit further explains that deaf and
hard of hearing inmates are improperly disciplined and their
safety is jeopardized by MDOC.  It emphasizes that as a result of
MDOC's numerous legal violations, deaf and hard of hearing inmates
are forced to serve their time largely isolated from, and are
unable to effectively communicate with, other individuals.

"Unfortunately, it is clear that Michigan's treatment of its deaf
and hard of hearing prisoners violates federal law.  Deaf
prisoners should not be punished or prevented from communicating
with their families because of their disability," Deborah M.
Golden, Director, Prisoners' Rights Project, Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC), and one of the
legal co-counsel on the lawsuit stated.  "While Michigan's
mistreatment of deaf prisoners is not unique, as reflected by
several cases filed by WLC around the country involving federal
and state prisons, such litigation has produced progress in
achieving fair treatment for deaf prisoners, and we are committed
to working with co-counsel to remedy the violations in this case,"
Golden continued.

The remedies sought in the current lawsuit, include: access to
videophones as a necessary method to provide deaf inmates access
to telecommunications; adequate visual notification of oral
announcements concerning emergencies and other events;
implementation of necessary policies, training, and monitoring to
ensure equal treatment by prison officials; and adequate access to
sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services.

"This lawsuit is consistent with Covington's long-standing
commitment to pro bono service for important causes and vulnerable
clients, regardless of location. Together with co-counsel, the
firm is committed to ensuring that Michigan treats its deaf and
hard of hearing prisoners fairly and equally," Andrew Lazerow --
alazerow@cov.com -- Partner at Covington, and co-counsel on the
lawsuit, stated.

"Unfortunately, it's clear from our investigation into the
Michigan Department of Correction's treatment of its deaf and hard
of hearing prison population, which involved interviewing inmates
at multiple prisons throughout the state and reviewing numerous
prison records, that Michigan unfairly punishes and discriminates
against deaf and hard of prisoners in violation of federal law and
the U.S. Constitution," stated Steve Bartenstein --
sbartenstein@cov.com -- Associate at Covington.

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) is the
independent, private, nonprofit organization designated by the
governor of the State of Michigan to advocate and protect the
legal rights of people with disabilities in Michigan.  The
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
(WLC) is a public interest legal organization with extensive
experience in civil rights litigation, including with respect to
deaf inmates across the country.  In an increasingly regulated
world, Covington & Burling helps clients navigate their most
complex business problems, deals, and disputes.  Founded in 1919,
the firm has more than 850 lawyers in offices in Beijing,
Brussels, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seoul,
Shanghai, Silicon Valley, and Washington.  Kitch Drutchas Wagner
Valitutti & Sherbrook is a Michigan-based law firm with a long
history of involvement in significant public questions relating to
the health care field.

In an increasingly regulated world, Covington & Burling LLP helps
clients navigate their most complex business problems, deals, and
disputes.  Founded in 1919, the firm has more than 850 lawyers in
offices in Beijing, Brussels, London, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, Seoul, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, and Washington.


MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 27277
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015165TC
ID number: 2015165
Manufacturer recall number: SR15-002

On certain vehicles, the ECU which controls the head lights, tail
lights and windshield wipers may have been improperly
manufactured. This could cause the voltage in the ECU to become
unstable and cause the head lights and/or tail lights to turn off
and/or the windshield wipers to become inoperable. This could
affect driver visibility and decrease vehicle conspicuity,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the
affected ECU with an updated version.

   Make      Model              Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----              ----------------------
MITSUBISHI   OUTLANDER          2009, 2010
MITSUBISHI   LANCER EVOLUTION  2010
MITSUBISHI   LANCER            2009, 2010
MITSUBISHI   LANCER SPORTBACK  2009, 2010


MITSUBISHI: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Over Blower Motor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Heater And Defroster
Units affected: 32810
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015166TC
ID number: 2015166

On certain vehicles, the blower motor may have been incorrectly
manufactured. This could result in a premature failure of the
blower motor which could affect the defroster performance
resulting in reduced visibility, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace blower motor and the power transistor as needed.

   Make     Model             Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----             ----------------------
MITSUBISHI  OUTLANDER         2009, 2010, 2011
MITSUBISHI  LANCER EVOLUTION  2010
MITSUBISHI  LANCER            2009, 2010, 2011
MITSUBISHI  LANCER SPORTBACK  2009, 2010, 2011
MITSUBISHI  RVR               2011


MIZUHO BANK: Judge Dismisses Yen Libor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, Pete Brush and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360,
report that a New York federal judge on March 31 dismissed a pair
of Japanese banks and a London-based markets operator from class
action litigation alleging some of the world's banks fixed yen-
denominated Libor rates, saying plaintiffs did not prove a direct
link between the defendants and the United States.

Federal District Judge George B. Daniels said that the plaintiffs
did not prove that Mizuho Bank Ltd., Resona Bank Ltd. and ICAP PLC
had sufficient contact with the Second Circuit specifically and
the United States more broadly for the case to move forward given
the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v.
Bauman.

"There is no basis to conclude that any of the Stipulating
Defendants, including ICAP, took actions 'expressly aimed' at the
United States by passively connecting to the United States via
Internet protocol addresses.  To contend that this highly
attenuated connection constitutes 'purposeful avail[ment]' is
unreasonable," Judge Daniels wrote in a 14-page ruling.

Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants could not
immediately be reached for comment.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daimler limited U.S.
jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

Judge Daniels had appeared skeptical that the plaintiffs' argument
that foreign defendants should be subject to trial in the U.S.
following the Daimler decision at September oral arguments,
despite the plaintiffs' argument that the banks were seeking to
advance new arguments that they had previously not employed in a
case that has lasted for more than two years.

"If it's a new test, why can't they use it?" he asked at the
hearing.

A host of banks have attempted to use the Daimler decision to
escape the U.S. Yen Libor rigging case, including Deutsche Bank
AG.  Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., The Bank of Yokohama Ltd.,
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp., The Norinchukin Bank,
Shinkin Central Bank, the Shoko Chukin Bank Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui
Trust Bank Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.

However, the March 31 ruling only applies to Mizuho, Resona and
ICAP.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon alleges he lost thousands of
dollars shorting derivatives of Euroyen Tibor rates, which are
allegedly influenced by Libor, in 2006.  In a 300-page complaint
replete with economic models, Mr. Laydon accused the banks that
sit on Libor and Tibor panels of conspiring to fix these rates by
submitting agreed-upon estimates.

He claimed anti-competitive action, unjust enrichment and
violations of the Commodity Exchange and Sherman acts.

Judge Daniels trimmed the plaintiffs' case last March, dismissing
antitrust, vicarious liability and unjust enrichment claims while
allowing price manipulation and aiding and abetting allegations to
survive.

The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent Briganti --
vbriganti@lowey.com -- and Peter D. St. Phillip Jr. of Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC.

Resona Bank is represented by Paul B. Hewitt --
phewitt@akingump.com -- and C. Fairley Spillman --
fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Mizuho is represented by Jeffrey Resetarits --
jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Jerome Fortinsky --
jfortinsky@shearman.com -- and John A. Nathanson --
john.nathanson@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLP.

ICAP is represented by Brian S. Fraser -- bfraser@rkollp.com --
H. Rowan Gaither IV -- rgaither@rkollp.com -- Katherine K.W.
Harrington and Shari Brandt of Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP.

The case is Laydon v. Mizuho Bank et al., case number 1:12-cv-
03419, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that the court of appeals reversed a judgment
of the district court and remanded.  The court held that a
defendant timely removed a class action under the Class Action
Fairness Act, where he acted within 30 days of ascertaining
removability, notwithstanding his failure to timely remove on
federal-question grounds.

Laura Jordan obtained a loan to purchase a home. Jordan's loan was
secured by a deed of trust of which Nationstar Mortgage LLC was
the beneficiary.  Under the terms of the deed of trust, Nationstar
could enter Ms. Jordan's house and change the locks if she either
failed to perform or abandoned the property.

Ms. Jordan defaulted on the loan. Nationstar entered Jordan's home
without notice, removed the existing locks, and installed a
lockbox.  Ms. Jordan was later permitted to re-enter the house to
gather her personal belongings.

Ms. Jordan filed a putative class-action against Nationstar in
state court.  She alleged claims that included violations of the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  The state
court later certified the proposed class.  On June 3, 2014, Jordan
specified the amount in controversy in her responses to Nationstar
interrogatories.  On June 5, Nationstar noticed removal of
Jordan's action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA).

Ms. Jordan moved to remand the case to state court.  Ms. Jordan
argued that Nationstar's removal notice was untimely because it
was filed more than two years after Jordan's initial complaint
triggered federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 of the
FDCPA. The district court granted the motion, finding that the
relevant removal date was the date on which the case itself became
removable and not the date on which the case first became
removable under the CAFA.

Nationstar appealed, contending that the logic of (I)Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp.(I), 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006), had to be
extended to the CAFA context.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that
Nationstar's removal was timely under Sec. 1446 of the CAFA.
The court determined as a matter of law that a defendant may
remove a case from state court within 30 days of ascertaining that
the action is removable under the CAFA, even if an earlier
pleading, document, motion, order, or other paper revealed an
alternative basis for federal jurisdiction.

(I)Durham(I) held that under Sec. 1442(a)(1), the 30-day removal
clock is reset when a defendant discovers that a case is removable
on federal-officer grounds, even if the defendant was previously
aware of a different basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court noted that (I)Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v.
Owens(I), 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014), makes clear "that no anti-removal
presumption attends cases involving the CAFA."  Further, (I)Dart
Cherokee(I) noted the congressional intent in enacting the CAFA to
strongly favor diversity jurisdiction of class actions that had
interstate ramifications.  Thus, the court agreed that the
approach to federal-officer removal in (I)Durham(I) had to be
extended to CAFA claims.


NAVISTAR: Recalls AE School Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015170TC
ID number: 2015170
Manufacturer recall number: 15510

On certain school buses, a double battery (24 volt) jump start or
electrical load dump could result in an overvoltage condition of
the linear power module (LPM) which is used to control the
heater/air conditioning blower motor speed. If this were to occur,
this overvoltage condition could lead to the LPM overheating,
causing smoke, and increase the risk of fire, which could result
in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace the LPM with an upgraded LPM design.

   Make     Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----          ----------------------
   IC       AE SCHOOL BUS  2014, 2015


NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:
April 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 8552
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015171TC
ID number: 2015171
Manufacturer recall number: 15509

On certain buses, a double battery (24 volt) jump start or
electrical load dump could result in an overvoltage condition of
the linear power module (LPM) which is used to control the
heater/air conditioning blower motor speed. If this were to occur,
this overvoltage condition could lead to the LPM overheating,
causing smoke, and increase the risk of fire, which could result
in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace the LPM with an upgraded LPM design.

   Make         Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----         -----          ----------------------

   IC           HC COMMERCIAL  2013, 2014, 2015, 2014, 2015
                BUS
INTERNATIONAL   PROSTAR        2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
INTERNATIONAL   LONESTAR       2013, 2014, 2015
INTERNATIONAL   DURASTAR       2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
INTERNATIONAL   WORKSTAR       2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
INTERNATIONAL   TRANSTAR       2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
INTERNATIONAL   TERRASTAR      2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


NEBRASKA: Food-Benefit Applications Suit Get Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
KETV NewsWatch 7 reports that a judge has granted class-action
status to a lawsuit alleging that Nebraska consistently failed to
process food-benefit applications and renewals in a timely manner.

The ruling allows all recipients affected by delays to challenge
the state's practices.

The 2014 lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tami Leiting-Hall, a
single, working mother in Lincoln.  Ms. Leiting-Hall is
represented by the Lincoln-based Nebraska Appleseed and the
National Center for Law and Economic Justice in New York.

The plaintiffs allege the Department of Health and Human Services
created unlawful delays for low-income residents who requested
benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Department officials have said they don't comment on pending
lawsuits.

Molly McCleery, a Nebraska Appleseed staff attorney, says the
ruling recognizes that the problem isn't isolated to a few cases.


NEW SUPERIOR TUB: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Sky Management Corporation, a New York corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. New Superior Tub Refinish Corp., Estesan Gomez a/k/a Esteban
Gomez, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03239-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 24, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice
of faxing of unsolicited advertisements to persons who had not
provided express invitation or permission.

The Defendants own and operate a kitchen and bath contracting
company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED & POSNER
      225 West 34th St., Suite 705
      New York, NY 10122
      Telephone: (212) 494-0035
      Facsimile: (212) 216-9049
      E-mail: dan@shakedandposner.com


NEW YORK, NY: "Quota Board" to Take Center Statge in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Annese, writing for SILive.com, reports that a "quota
board" hanging up inside a Staten Island NYPD stationhouse that
purportedly assigns police officers points for each arrest made
will likely take center stage in a class action lawsuit against
the city.

In a press conference on March 31, the National Latino Officers
Association revealed the board's existence, saying that members of
the 122nd Precinct's Anti-Crime Unit got one point for each
misdemeanor arrest, and one-and-a-half points for each felony
arrest.

"That particular precinct will be part of a class action that
we're putting together right now," association chairman
Anthony Miranda told the Advance on April 1, contending that
minority police officers typically end up disciplined for failing
to hit their numbers.

Officers need to make three points a month, and if they don't,
they start at a deficit the next month, Mr. Miranda said.

"These quotas are not only mandated for these police officers on
patrol, but they're also mandated for these anti-crime specialty
units . . . . If you didn't hit the numbers, they would remove you
from the unit," Mr. Miranda said.

He added that the board highlights a larger problem throughout the
NYPD, and that the 122nd Precinct was bold enough to put the
numbers up on the wall.

"In that one precinct in particular, they actually put up a board
highlighting the numbers, and they turned it into a game.  It's
illegal what they are doing.  You can't create a competition
amongst police officers so that they can stay in the unit."

Board president Manny Gonzalez said he had heard from multiple
people within the precinct concerned about the board.

One police source said the whiteboard does, indeed, hang in the
basement office of the precinct's anti-crime unit, but it doesn't
represent any official policy.

Rather, the source said, it's something the officers put up
themselves, as a sort of friendly competition between each other.

Mr. Miranda was incredulous at that idea.

"Cops don't create boards," he said.  "This was the one precinct
in the world that this was allowable? . . . At least be honest
about what you did."

Mr. Miranda alleged that the points system, which he refers to as
"unofficial discipline," also plays into who gets overtime shifts
and vacation days, and who gets re-assigned to the department's
"Sky Watch" towers.

"There have been officers that have been put out because they
haven't hit the numbers," said Mr. Miranda.  When asked how many
officers, he responded, "Mostly minority, I'll give you that."

The NYPD denies such quotas exist.

"There are no numerical enforcement quotas established by the
NYPD.  Performance evaluations are conducted for all department
employees based on an assessment of their duties, responsibilities
and specific conditions of their assignments," said Stephen Davis,
the NYPD's deputy commissioner for public information.


OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 1st "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Vanwagner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Oil Inspections (U.S.A.) Inc. and Stephen
Taylor, Case No. 4:15-cv-01089 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing cargo expediting
operation services in the oil and petroleum industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


OIL INSPECTIONS: Faces 2nd "Vanwagner" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Vanwagner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Oil Inspections (U.S.A.) Inc. and Stephen
Taylor, Case No. 4:15-cv-01086 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing cargo expediting
operation services in the oil and petroleum industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose E. Campos, et al. v. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C, Case
No. 6:15-cv-00022 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C is in the oil well services
business in the Southern District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clark Woodson III, Esq.
      601 East Myrtle
      Angleton, TX 77515
      Telephone: (979) 849-6080
      E-mail: clark@woodsonlaborlaw.com


OLIVIERO CAFE: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Zapata, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated
v. Oliviero Cafe, and Harry Hongki Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-03237-ER
(S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a located at 850 7th Avenue, New
York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
and Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, regarding the
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS
Case No.:  5:11-cv-05235-RMW

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON
STOCK IN THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 27, 2010 TO
AND THROUGH NOVEMBER 6, 2011, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
("SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, that a settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision"), Shaw Hong, Anson Chan, and
Aurelio "Ray" Cisneros (the "Individual Defendants" and
collectively, with OmniVision, the "Defendants") in the amount of
$12,500,000 has been proposed by the Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte,
United States District Judge, on June 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 6 of the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street,
San Jose, California 95113 for the purpose of determining, among
other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether,
thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of
December 30, 2014; (iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and
(iv) the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel
for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest,
incurred in connection with this Action.  The Court has reserved
the right to reschedule the hearing without further notice.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement
thereof.  If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator:

OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Heffler Claims Group
P.O. Box 150
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0150

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
STEPHEN R. BASSER
SAMUEL M. WARD
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA  92101
(619) 230-0800
www.barrack.com
OmniVisionsettlement@barrack.com

BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
J. GERARD STRANCH IV
227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
Nashville, TN  37201-1631
Telephone:  (615) 254-8801
www.branstetterlaw.com
OmniVisionsettlement@branstetterlaw.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked or received no later than August 30, 2015 establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.  As further described in the
Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action,
regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than May 15, 2015.
Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than
May 15, 2015.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: MARCH 4, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION


PECCAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tractor-Trailers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that the nation's third-
largest semitrailer maker was hit with a proposed class action on
March 31 in New Jersey federal court for allegedly hawking
defective tractor-trailers that lose power or stop on the road due
to engine defects while touting their durability and quality.

According to the complaint filed by two New Jersey trucking
companies, PECCAR Inc. -- which makes and sells trucks under the
Kenworth and Peterbilt brands -- developed a new, lower-emission
engine in 2010 in order to comply with federal emissions standards
and the trouble with its trucks soon began.  The MX-13 diesel
engine, they said, causes PECCAR's tractor-trailers to stall,
forcing drivers to pull off to the side of the road and be towed
to a repair shop.

"The defendants have been aware for several years of the defective
nature of the [trucks].  In particular, defendants have seen sharp
increases in warranty repair work since the introduction of the
engines beginning with the 2010 model year," the complaint said.
"Meanwhile, defendants made numerous affirmative statements
touting the high quality, durability and reliability of the
vehicles, which . . . were false and misleading."

The plaintiffs propose a class of all those who purchased or
leased trucks with the allegedly defective engines in New Jersey.
A similar, proposed nationwide class action has been filed against
PACCAR in Seattle federal court and is currently pending.

The trucking companies claim PECCAR has had a "longstanding
knowledge" of the defects after a sharp increase in warranty
repairs and online complaints once the new engine was incorporated
in its fleet.

Yet, they claim, the company failed to fulfill its obligation to
tell consumers about the potentially dangerous defect.

Instead, trucking companies have used their warranties for repairs
and the manufacturer has only temporarily repaired the trucks by
"replac[ing] a defective component with another equally defective
and inherently failure-prone system, but has not remedied the
defects," the complaint said.

The suit alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The proposed lead plaintiffs say their class would contain, at a
minimum, thousands of members.  A rough price estimate of $100,000
for such a truck could mean the proposed class spent more than
$100 million on the vehicles.

The plaintiffs, BK Trucking Co. and Santelli Trucking Inc., are
represented by James C. Shah and Natalie F. Bennett of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP, John W. Trimble of Trimble & Armano,
Theodore J. Leopold and Leslie M. Kroeger --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC and James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H. Taylor of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC.

The case is BK Trucking Co. et al v. PACCAR Engine Co. et al, case
number 1:15-cv-02282, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


PETROBRAS: Executives Named as Defendants in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Folha de S.Paulo reports that fifteen executives of Petrobras and
its foreign subsidiaries are named as defendants in the class
action lawsuit against the Brazilian company in the US.  Among
them are two former presidents of the company, Jose Sergio
Gabrielli and Gra‡a Foster, as well as former financial director
Almir Barbassa, who stepped down this year.

The complaint was filed on March 27 in a New York court by the
lawyers of the investor who is leading the lawsuit, the British
pension fund USS (Universities Superannuation Scheme).

The goal of the lawsuit is to recover the losses of those who
applied in ADRs (stock receipts on the New York Stock Exchange) or
in Petrobras debt securities from January 2010 to March of this
year.

The claim of the collective action is that the company and its
executives misled investors by disclosing incorrect financial
information to the market, which did not consider the corruption
scheme revealed by the Car Wash Operation.

Independent auditor PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers), which was
responsible for approving the financial statement of Petrobras
during that period, is also cited as a defendant, in addition to
15 banks responsible for distributing the company's debt
securities in the market.

Wanted, Gabrielli and Barbassa said they did not know the content
of the class action lawsuit and, therefore, could not comment.
Gra‡a Foster did not return phone calls.  PwC said that it "does
not know of any formal complaint yet."


PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses Centrum Multivitamin Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on March 31 dismissed a proposed class action accusing
Pfizer Inc. of duping consumers into thinking that its Centrum
brand multivitamins provide a range of health benefits because
studies cited by the plaintiffs didn't have anything to do with
Centrum products.

U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf said the plaintiffs cited
studies concerning the impact of a range of health products on
cancer, cardiovascular problems and cognitive function, but the
company never claimed its multivitamins would have any impact on
those conditions.

"Simply put, these studies concerning specific medical conditions
in no way correlate to, let alone contradict as plaintiffs allege,
the unrelated claims made by Centrum about its health benefits,"
the judge said.  "Such a stark disconnect between the scientific
studies and the claims made about Centrum's benefits is fatal to
plaintiffs' complaint."

In their amended complaint filed in 2014, the plaintiffs targeted
a range of products, including Centrum Silver and Centrum Adults,
as well as products branded for men and women.  They claimed the
products' purported effects on immunity, metabolism, environmental
stress and physical stress are "wholly contradicted" by scientific
studies.

In their opposition to Pfizer's motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
had urged the court not to narrowly interpret the results of the
studies by Harvard Medical School and other sources cited in their
complaint, claiming the studies proved that the benefits touted on
Centrum labels actually just come from a normal diet.

The plaintiffs said the studies proved that at most, the
multivitamins provide no benefit and could even be harmful.

But the court found that the plaintiffs had relied too heavily on
an editorial piece from Annals of Internal Medicine called "Enough
is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements"
and had simply cited the same studies as the article's authors.

Judge Mauskopf said the authors reached their conclusions about
the studies by conducting "second-hand analysis" and that as an
editorial, the article clearly provides opinions rather than
scientific conclusions.

The judge also noted that the studies didn't actually address
multivitamins, but focused on "food, herbal preparations, packaged
drinks" and other products.

Further, Pfizer had only claimed that its Centrum products support
the immune system, rather than improve it, and the company never
made any specific claims that could be debunked by the studies the
plaintiffs cited, the judge said.

"Because of these 'mismatches,' and other issues, the science does
not undercut Centrum's statements regarding its health benefits,
and thus, plaintiffs have failed to raise a plausible claim that
Centrum's representations are false, deceptive, or misleading,"
Judge Mauskopf concluded.

A spokeswoman for Pfizer told Law360 on April 1 that the company
approved of the ruling.

"We are pleased with the court's decision to dismiss this case,
finding that plaintiffs had failed to support their claims,"
Pfizer said.  "Pfizer is committed to providing truthful
information, and the packaging for Centrum contains an accurate
and science-based description of the multivitamin."

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael R. Reese and Kim E.
Richman of Reese Richman LLP, as well as Clayton Halunen, Melissa
W. Wolchansky and Susan M. Coler of Halunen & Associates.

Pfizer is represented by John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com
-- Jessica Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Thomas Fox,
Geoff Wyatt and Milli Hansen of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP.

The case is Kardovich v. Pfizer Inc., case number 1:13-cv-07378,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


POLLO OPERATIONS: Amended Class Cert. Bid Must be File by May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons Plaintiff,
v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-564-FTM-38CM, (M.D. Fla.) is before
the Court on Daisy, Inc.'s motion for class certification and
request for status conference. The Plaintiff moved the Court for
class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, however, on
March 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint due to lack of a factual basis to support the class
claim. The Court granted leave to amend and provide a factual
basis for the class claims.

On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint and
Class Action Claim. Therefore, the instant Motion to Certify the
Class is moot. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended
claim for class certification which includes the amended factual
basis included in its Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, in an order entered April 28, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/XQNds2from Leagle.com, District
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell ruled that Daisy, Inc.'s Motion for
Class Certification and Request for Status Conference is denied as
moot. The Plaintiff is given leave to file an Amended Motion for
Class Certification. The Amended Motion for Class Certification is
due on or before May 28, 2015.

Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Roy W. Foxall, Law Office
of Roy W. Foxall, PA, Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com
-- Anderson & Wanca & Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson & Wanca.

Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Leslie
Smith -- mlsmith@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP, Catherine A.
Miller, Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Jason L. Margolin --
jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jeffrey J. Mayer --
jmayer@freebornpeters.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP & Marc H.
Kallish -- mkallish@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, LPA.

Edward Priore, Defendant, Pro Se.


PREMERA BLUE: Faces Five Data Breach Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for Healthcare Info Security,
reports that five class action lawsuits have been filed in federal
court against Premera Blue Cross in the wake of a data breach that
affected 11 million individuals across the country.  Meanwhile,
its CEO has provided answers to questions from a U.S. senator
regarding the hacker attack.

The five lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle make
similar allegations -- that the company failed to protect
customers' confidential information, putting those affected at
risk for identity theft.  Among the complaints' allegations is
that the data breach resulted from Premera's alleged "failures to
follow HIPAA."

Two of the suits also note that Premera was warned in an April
2014 draft audit report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
that its IT systems "were vulnerable to attack because of
inadequate security precautions".

"That audit identified . . . vulnerabilities related to Premera's
failure to implement critical security patches and software
updates, and warned that 'failure to promptly install important
updates increases the risk that vulnerabilities will not be
remediated and sensitive data could be breached,'" notes one
lawsuit, Tennielle Cossey, et al vs. Premera.

That suit also states, "If the [OPM] audit were not enough, the
events of 2014 alone should have placed Premera on notice of the
need to improve its cyber security systems."  The complaint notes
that Community Health Systems in August 2014 also revealed a
hacker breach that affected 4.5 million patients.  "This prompted
a 'flash warning' by the FBI to entities in the healthcare
industry that it had observed 'malicious actors targeting health
care related systems,'" the suit says.

The suits are seeking unspecified damages, both "actual and
statutory."  Among the allegations in some of the suits are
violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

A Premera spokeswoman declined to comment about the suits.  She
noted, however, that Premera "expected there would be class action
lawsuits filed" against the company in the wake of the breach
"because that's typically what happens."

Attorney John Yanchunis of the Tampa-based law firm Morgan &
Morgan, which is representing plaintiffs in one of the Premera
class action suits, says he expects that the cases eventually will
be consolidated into one case in the federal court.  The Premera
breach "is more egregious than the Home Depot or Target breaches
because those [credit] cards can be cancelled," he says.  "Unlike
those other breaches, the information involved in the Premera
breach can be used to file fraudulent tax returns and fraudulently
secure healthcare in someone else's name."

Congressional Scrutiny

In addition to the lawsuits, Premera is also dealing with
Congressional scrutiny in the wake of the breach.

A March 20 letter to Premera CEO Jeffrey Roe, Sen. Patty Murray,
D-Wash., on behalf of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, asked the company to answer 15 questions
related to the breach and the company's information security
practices.  Those questions range from why Premera waited six
weeks to publicly announce the breach after its discovery, to
whether the hacking incident is related to the Anthem Inc. hacking
breach, to steps Premera is taking to bolster its information
security in the wake of the incident.

In the March 27 response letter to Murray, which Premera provided
to Information Security Media Group, Mr. Roe says the public
announcement of the breach was delayed based on advice from
Mandiant, a consulting firm it had hired to assist in the forensic
investigation of the incident.

"Mandiant warned Premera about the dangers of making any public
announcement about the attack until the following steps could be
taken: 1) Mandiant completed scanning all servers and workstations
for areas of infection to identify all attack vectors; 2) systems
were remediated in a concentrated time to lock the attackers out
of system; and, 3) remediation was followed by scanning to verify
that the all backdoors were eliminated," the letter states.

Mr. Roe also describes in the letter some details about the
breach: "Upon penetration of Premera's network, the attackers
gained access to log-in credentials and then deployed other tools
and tactics to gain broad access to Premera's network."  He adds:
"Mandiant's investigation to date has identified only intrusion
but no exfiltration of information from Premera's systems.
Mandiant has not conclusively determined the initial vector of
compromise.  That is, the [company doesn't] know if the malware
came from a phishing email, a contaminated website, or another
source of intrusion.

The letter also notes that Mandiant "found no evidence that the
cyberattack on Premera was the result of, or was related to, any
of the items identified in the [2014] OPM [audit] report."  Plus,
Roe notes: "Premera is not in a position to opine about whether
the Premera and Anthem attacks were connected or which attack
occurred first.  Because these attacks are the subject of active
FBI investigations, Premera encourages your office to contact the
FBI for additional information."

Premera is implementing several Mandiant recommendations to
bolster security moving forward, Mr. Roe says in the letter.  In
addition to removing all malware and backdoors from its IT systems
in response to this cyberattack, Mr. Roe says Premera has
implemented a number of system enhancements, including, among
others:

Deploying multiple-factor authentication for remote access to
Premera's network;

Scanning servers, desktops and laptops as a requirement for
continued use of devices on the network;

Installing enhanced monitoring tools to provide reports of any new
attacks on our computer networks;

Enhancing and expanding security and system event logging
capabilities; and

Engaging a service provider for advanced monitoring services.
State Scrutiny

Besides the lawsuits and the Congressional scrutiny, Premera is
also facing a probe from insurance officials in three states --
Washington, Oregon and Alaska.

Washington Insurance Commissioner Michael Kreidler said that the
states will conduct a "market conduct examination" of Premera
related to the breach.  The examination will include on-site
reviews of the insurer's financial books, records, transactions
and how they relate to its activities in the marketplace, Kreidler
explained in a statement.


PREMERA BLUE: More People Join Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Hahn, writing for KING 5 News, reports that the fallout from
Premera's massive data breach continues as more people join the
class action lawsuit against the largest insurer in our state.

A Tacoma woman believes she's already dealing with the impact of
that data breach.  Maria Sullivan is one of hundreds of people who
have signed on with a law firm handling a class action lawsuit
against Premera.

"That's very angering," said Ms. Sullivan.  "Working like I do in
the healthcare field I have to be so careful with what I even
leave on my desk.  That every paper is turned over.  So they
should be that careful."

Ms. Sullivan works as an account representative for a local
hospital.  So she is well aware of the kind of private information
that may have been exposed in Premera's data breach.

Ms. Sullivan signed up with Pfau, Cochran, Vertetis, & Amala to
join the class action lawsuit against Premera on March 31.  She
believes thieves obtained her private information through the
insurer's cyber attack. Someone already filed a false tax return
in her name.

"Stressed! Stressed! And on top of my tax returns now I'm starting
to receive stuff from China," said Ms. Sullivan.

She showed us one of several small packages that started arriving
in the mail, items she never ordered from companies she's never
heard of.

According to her attorney Darrell Cochran, the information hackers
got their hands on has the potential to do a lifetime of damage.

"Premera was warned it didn't have security safeguards in place,
and that there were steps they could have taken to prevent this
level of a cyber attack," said Mr. Cochran.

Three weeks before the data breach in May of 2014, auditors from
the federal Office of Personnel Management informed the insurer
that network security patches were not being implemented in a
timely manner, and that when it came to access control, Premera's
data center did not contain controls they typically observe at
similar facilities.

According to the insurer, the breach went undetected until this
past January, and Premera didn't tell its customers until
mid-March when the problem was fixed.

A spokesperson for Premera said he couldn't comment on pending
litigation, but said their security consultant ". . . found no
evidence that the cyber attack was related to issues in the
federal audit."

Cyber-security expert Brian Seely says Premera's offer for 2 years
of free credit monitoring is twice as long than most data breach
cases. But with birth dates and social security numbers stolen,
it's likely not long enough.

"Your information isn't just magically not going to be stolen,"
said Mr. Seely.  "It's always going to be stolen and out there and
someone has it, who is going to be even more irresponsible than
Premera."

At the time this article was written, about 166,000 customers had
signed up for the free credit monitoring.


PRIORITY ENERGY: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Priority Energy Services, LLC, Case No.
6:15-cv-00448-MHS (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Priority Energy Services, LLC offers flow-back, well testing, and
other oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


RED HAWK: Faces "Thibodeaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield service company
providing pressure control services to the oilfield with
operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


RELIANCE PRESSURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Reliance Pressure Control, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00185 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Red Hawk Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield service company
providing pressure control services to the oilfield with
operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


RESONANT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 31 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Resonant, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-02369, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Resonant securities between August 14, 2014 and February
26, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

Resonant is a development stage company, which focuses on creating
filter designs for radio frequency ("RF") front-ends in the mobile
device industry.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were errors in the
valuation of warrant liabilities, weighted average shares
outstanding and earnings per share, and the notes to the condensed
consolidated financial statements for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2014 and 2013; (2) the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures were not effective as of June 30, 2014;
(3) the Company would be unable to meet Milestone 4 pursuant to
its development agreement in the first quarter of 2015; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and
statements concerning its business operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 8, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
revealing that its previously issued unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for the three and six month
periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 included in its Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014 filed with the SEC on August 14,
2014 ("2014 2nd Quarter 10-Q") needs to be restated.  The Company
also revealed that it identified a material weakness in its
internal controls as of June 30, 2014.

On this news, shares of Resonant fell $0.13 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $6.35 per share on October 9,
2014, damaging investors.

On October 10, 2014, the Company filed an amended Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014 with the SEC (the "Amended 2014
2nd Quarter 10-Q"), which restated its unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements and related disclosures for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013.

On this news, shares of Resonant fell $0.25 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $6.05 per share on October 13,
2014, further damaging investors.

On February 26, 2015, the Company announced that the completed
duplexer design it delivered to its first customer for
consideration did not meet all the specifications in the
development agreement.

On this news, shares of Resonant fell $5.07 per share, or over
32%, from its previous closing price to close at $10.40 per share
on February 27, 2015, further damaging investors.

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


RICK'S CABARET: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $15MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that the owners of
Rick's Cabaret in Midtown avoided an upcoming trial by agreeing to
set aside $15 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by
strippers who claimed the jiggle joint wrongfully retained their
tips and classified them as independent contractors -- not in-
house employees -- to avoid paying minimum wage.

The settlement comes after Manhattan federal Judge Paul Engelmayer
in November ordered Rick's parent company, RCI Entertainment New
York, to shell out $10.8 million in damages but noted RCI could be
liable to pay current and former dancers millions of dollars more
for other wage-law violations since 2005 should the case go to
trial April 27.

Complaints that the judge opted not to rule on included dancers
being required to kick back $60 per shift to the "house" to strut
their stuff.

RCI president Eric Langan said the company believes the settlement
"is in the best interest of shareholders to resolve this case now,
to eliminate uncertainty and the ongoing cost of litigation."
He estimated RCI will ultimately pay between $9.5 million and
$12.5 million when the total class-action claims are known.

The suit alleging the club violated federal and state labor laws
was originally filed on behalf of 50 dancers; roughly 1,900 others
are also in line to cash in.

Instead of being paid wages by Rick's management, dancers said
they were paid directly from customers -- including what the
called "performance fees" for private lap dances.

Rick's had contended in legal papers it "exercised minimal
control" over the dancers, and the club had countersued while
claiming dancers' "performance fees" should count towards any
statutory wage obligation by Rick's.

Reviewers on the Web site Yelp said that the club's bartenders may
have been shady with their tips as well.

"The bartender refused to give my friend his credit card back
until they could see how much he was going to tip them," wrote
Kenny C. "Real douchey."

Others on the site raved about their $10 lunch specials.
Judge Engelmayer previously ripped Rick's in a September decision,
concluding honchos there "regulated almost every aspect of the
dancers' behavior within the club," including forbidding cellphone
use and gum chewing.


ROCKING 8: "Arnwine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Arnwine, and Burnice R. Rusk, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Rocking 8 Transportation,
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01088 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a trucking and
transportation business in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com


S BROS INC: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margarito Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. S Bros. Inc. d/b/a S. Bros. Pharmacy, Jack Eaton,
Jerry Gold, and Tsabikos Foutoulis, Case No. 1:15-cv-02347
(E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmacy with a principal place
of business at 176 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SALLIE MAE: 11th Cir. Revives Floyd Case, Remands to Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ROBERT D. FLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., JOHN
DOE, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-13397, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR,
Robert D. Floyd appealed the district court's order granting
Sallie Mae, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Floyd argued that the district court improperly
found his case to be moot after he received and rejected an offer
of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The district
court based its finding on an offer that would have provided him
complete relief on his individual claims while giving no relief to
the putative class.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on May 4,
2015, reversed the order of dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, in Stein v. Buccaneers Limited
Partnership, 772 F.3d 698 (11th Cir. 2014), the named plaintiffs
in a putative class action received offers of judgment under Rule
68 before moving for class certification. The plaintiffs did not
accept those offers. This Court held that the unaccepted offers of
judgment did not render the named plaintiffs' complaint moot.

"Based on this precedent, we are bound to hold that Sallie Mae's
offer of judgment did not render Floyd's complaint moot, and that
the district court erred when it dismissed for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction," the Eleventh Circuit held in its opinion, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ozrkpofrom Leagle.com.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck and Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, report that a
Massachusetts federal judge on March 31 tossed a proposed putative
securities class action accusing Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. of
misleading investors over the chances of its muscular dystrophy
drug eteplirsen hitting the market, saying that the biopharma
company couched its optimistic statements with proper disclosures.

The complaint had pointed to statements about the strength of U.S.
Food and Drug Administration trials for the drug as misleading
because the trials utilized a population of only 10 to 12 patients
and held up statements about a purported benefit of the drug as
misleading because they were skewed by the exclusion of two
patients who lost ambulation entirely despite responding to the
drug.  U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani disagreed, saying that
the statements were not misleading because Sarepta had repeatedly
disclosed before and after the start of the class period that it
had excluded data from those two patients.

Judge Talwani mentioned that in October 2012, before the start of
the class period, the company had disclosed the trial results and
subsequent interpretations for both the intention-to-treat
population and the modified intention-to-treat population, or
mITT, the latter of which excluded the two patients.  She said
that the company had made disclosures that made clear that "the
market and scientific community was informed that the company was
basing its more favorable results on an mITT population.

"That the company defended use of mITT population and cast its
trial results in a positive light does not detract from this
disclosure, as '[a] defendant does not have a duty to cast
descriptions of its business in the most negative light,'"
Judge Talwani said, referring to an earlier Massachusetts court
decision.  "Accordingly, claims that the company made material
misstatements or omissions based on Sarepta's use of the mITT
population must fail."

Eteplirsen, aimed at improving muscle function in patients
suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, had been undergoing
clinical trials since 2011, with the hopes of eventually gaining
approval from the FDA, according to the suit.  As part of the
testing, muscular dystrophy patients were given a course of the
drug, and administrators measured regression or stabilization
trends in the patients' ability to walk for six minutes at a time.

Judge Talwani also dismissed claims that Sarepta did not
adequately disclose in a July 2013 press release that the FDA had
raised concerns about the methodology behind the trials, again
ruling that the allegations were undermined by disclosures made by
the company.

"Defendants were under no duty, at that time, to delve into the
FDA's specific concerns over the sufficiency of eteplirsen's
potential NDA application, at least absent their making of
statements that would contradict such concerns," Judge Talwani
said.  "Moreover, the company's statements that it was encouraged
by the feedback and believed its data would be sufficient for a
filing constituted an expression of opinion, which as described
above is not actionable unless plaintiff shows that these beliefs
were not subjectively held."

Christopher G. Green -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- of
Ropes & Gray LLP, an attorney for Sarepta, told Law360 on April 1
that they are "gratified by the court's dismissal of this
securities class action.

"Our view, of course, is the court got this exactly right,"
Mr. Green said.  "This decision represents another dismissal in a
growing body of case law dismissing these actions against biotech
companies [that] are navigating the FDA approval process."

Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. is represented by Christopher G. Green,
Mark D. Vaughn -- Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- Michael J. Vito and
Alexia De Vincentis of Ropes & Gray LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by William B. Federman of Federman
& Sherwood and Alan L. Kovacs of the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs.

The case is Corban v. Sarepta Pharmaceutical Inc. et al., case
number 1:14-cv-10201, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.


SPOKEO INC: Wants Supreme Court to Uphold 9th Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that in the closely-watched case of
Spokeo, Inc. v Robins, the Solicitor General recently filed an
amicus brief urging the Court to deny certiorari and leave in
place the 9th Circuit's holding, which could encourage the rising
tide of privacy class action litigation.  The Solicitor General's
brief -- co-authored by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
-- argued that the dissemination of inaccurate information in
violation of a plaintiff's statutory right is a cognizable injury
giving rise to Article III standing, even absent an allegation of
any independent harm.  As many privacy plaintiffs continue to rely
on statutory violations to clear Article III's "case or
controversy" threshold -- a prerequisite to bringing suit in any
Federal Court -- any resulting opinion by the Supreme Court may
have significant down-stream implications.

In Spokeo, the defendant operated a directory website that
compiles publicly-available information to create a profile on
individuals.  The Ninth Circuit found that under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the plaintiff had standing to sue the defendant for
displaying allegedly inaccurate information, despite the
plaintiff's failure to allege he had suffered any actual resulting
harm.  That is, the Fair Credit Reporting Act created a statutory
right, the violation of which was sufficient to confer standing.
Spokeo is currently seeking certiorari, arguing that Article III
of the United States Constitution requires a concrete harm
independent of any Congressionally-created right.  And last
October -- after Facebook, Google, eBay, the Chamber of Commerce,
and others filed Amicus briefs -- the Supreme Court asked the
Solicitor General whether it should grant certiorari, a move that
often indicates the Court's increased willingness to consider a
case.

The Solicitor General's brief provides two new insights into how
this case may unfold.  First, in cases where the Supreme Court has
asked the Solicitor General for an opinion, the Supreme Court has
followed the Solicitor General's recommendation and denied
certiorari about 80% of the time.  See Margaret Meriwether Cordray
& Richard Cordray, The Solicitor General's Changing Role in
Supreme Court Litigation, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 1323, 1334 n.51 (2010)
(collecting studies from 1998 through the present).  Thus, at
least as a statistical matter, the new filing significantly
decreases the chance that the Court takes up this case.

Second, the Solicitor General's brief attempts to reframe the
question for the Court.  While Spokeo seeks to review Congress's
authority (or lack thereof) to create a justiciable controversy
absent any actual, concrete harm, the Solicitor General focuses
instead on the specific statutory right discussed in the Ninth
Circuit's opinion -- the right to prevent the dissemination of
inaccurate information, and particularly that right under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  If the Court accepts this formulation and
nonetheless grants cert and hears the case, any holding would be
significantly narrower and may have limited impact on other
privacy and consumer protection statues that do not regulate the
dissemination of inaccurate information.

This is not the first time the Court has flirted with clarifying
the Article III standing requirements in privacy class actions.
As previously covered by Inside Privacy, in 2012, the Court
granted certiorari but then later dismissed as improvidently
granted a similar class action under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, even
though neither plaintiff nor any member of the putative class
could allege that he personally was overcharged because of
defendant's conduct.  Only time will tell whether Spokeo will put
this issue to rest, but Inside Privacy will continue to monitor
the case for new developments.


SPRINT CORP: Settles Nextel Merger Class Action for $131 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Sprint Corp
has agreed to a $131 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit
accusing the third-largest U.S. wireless carrier of defrauding
investors about problems dating back to its $36 billion merger
with Nextel Communications Inc in 2005.

The all-cash settlement made public on March 30 resolves claims
that Sprint, former Chief Executive Gary Forsee and other
officials fraudulently inflated the company's stock and bond
prices between October 2006 and February 2008.

Investors said the defendants falsely touted that Sprint was
receiving billions of dollars of benefits from the merger and
improving its subscriber base by tightening credit standards.

Instead, investors said Sprint was struggling to integrate its
cellular networks and was losing hundreds of thousands of
subscribers, culminating in a $29.7 billion goodwill writedown in
February 2008.

All of the defendants denied liability in agreeing to settle the
6-year-old lawsuit, according to settlement papers filed with the
federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The preliminary accord requires
court approval.

Sprint spokeswoman Stephanie Vinge said the Overland Park, Kansas-
based company settled to avoid the cost and distraction of
litigation.  "Sprint has and will continue to operate in complete
adherence with all federal securities laws," she added.

Japan's SoftBank Corp now owns 80 percent of Sprint.

The lead plaintiffs are the United Steelworkers' Pace Industry
Union-Management Pension Fund, Skandia Life Insurance Co and the
West Virginia Investment Management Board.

Their lawyers, led by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Motley
Rice, said the payout represented 12.1 percent of the estimated
$1.079 billion of damages, a percentage they called "very large."

Tor Gronborg, a Robbins Geller partner, declined to comment.

The plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek legal fees of up to 22
percent of the settlement, plus up to $4 million for expenses,
court papers show.

The company has in recent months offered discounts to entice
prospective subscribers to switch carriers. Its rivals include
AT&T Corp and Verizon Communications Inc.

The case is Bennett et al v. Sprint Nextel Corp et al, U.S.
District Court, District of Kansas, No. 09-02122.


SUCCESS EXPRESS: Faces "Anger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Anger v. Success Express Inc., Allan Weitman and John Does
#1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03252-PKC (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a courier business located at 550
Eighth Avenue, Mezzanine, New York, N.Y. 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


TAKATA CORP: Three Canadian Law Firms File Airbag Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that airbag
manufacturer Takata has seen its share of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. alleging the airbags contain defects in the metal inflators
that cause the airbags to explode into flying pieces of metal.

Considering the U.S. is full of these lawsuits, Canadian law firms
are now entering the rink with their own lawsuits representing
residents of Canada.

Three Canadian firms have filed lawsuits against Takata, and a
fourth law firm is preparing to do the same.  If the legal
complaints are certified by a judge, it's likely all the lawsuits
will be consolidated into one huge class-action suit.

Three Ontario plaintiffs are seeking combined damages of $2.4
billion Canadian dollars on behalf of owners of vehicles equipped
with Takata-made air bags.  However, the numbers could change once
Takata factors in the fiscal year's earnings forecast.

One of the involved Canadian law firms is Merchant Law Group LLP,
which has launched a class-action lawsuit against Takata that
could include 400,000 vehicles in Canada.  The lawsuit will ask
for financial compensation or benefits for affected Canadians who
own or lease one of the defective vehicles listed below.

Acura

2002-2003 Acura CL and TL
2003-2006 Acura MDX
2005 Acura RL

BMW

2000-2005 3-series sedan and wagon
2000-2006 3-series coupe and convertible
2001-2006 M3 coupe and convertible

Chrysler

2005-2008 Chrysler 300
2007-2008 Aspen

Dodge/Ram

2003-2008 Dodge Ram 1500
2005-2008 Ram 2500, Dakota, and Durango
2006-2008 Ram 3500 and 4500
2008 Ram 5500

Ford

2004 Ranger
2005-2006 GT
2005-2007 Mustang

Honda

2001-2007 Accord
2001-2005 Civic
2002-2006 CR-V
2002-2004 Odyssey
2003-2011 Element
2003-2007 Pilot
2006 Ridgeline

Infiniti

2001-2004 Infiniti I30/I35
2002-2003 Infiniti QX4
2003-2005 Infiniti FX35/FX45
2006 Infiniti M35/M45

Lexus

2002-2005 SC430

Mazda

2003-2007 Mazda 6
2006-2007 Mazdaspeed 6
2004-2008 Mazda RX-8
2004-2005 MPV
2004 B-series

Mitsubishi

2004-2005 Lancer
2006-2007 Raider

Nissan

2001-2003 Maxima
2001-2004 Pathfinder
2002-2006 Nissan Sentra

Pontiac

2003-2005 Vibe
Saab: 2005 9-2X

Subaru

2003-2005 Baja, Legacy, Outback
2004-2005 Impreza, Impreza WRX, Impreza WRX STI

Toyota

2002-2005 Toyota Corolla and Sequoia
2003-2005 Matrix, Tundra

To learn more about the Merchant Law Group Takata airbag class-
action lawsuit, visit www.MerchantLaw.com


TARGET CORP: No Benefit Achieved in Data Breach Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Maniloff, Esq. of White and Williams LLP, in an article for
PropertyCasualty 360, reports that despite the several dozen class
action-styled lawsuits filed against retailer Target, following
the late-2013 discovery that hackers had stolen millions of
customers' credit and debit card numbers and contact information,
it was a certainty that one line was never going to be spoken in
any courtroom: ladies and gentlemen of the jury.  That the Target
class actions would be resolved by settlement was as predictable
as the outcome of an NCAA Basketball Tournament game between a
number one and number 16 seed.

So it could not have come as a surprise to anyone when, on March
19, just a little over a year after the first data breach lawsuits
were filed, the announcement came from a Minnesota federal court:
Target would be filling up a shopping cart with cash to put the
matter behind it.  The settlement, albeit subject to final
approval in November, looks like this. Target will put $10 million
into a fund to be used to pay its affected customers -- "guests"
as it prefers to call them.  The court will be asked to approve
$6.75 million in attorney's fees on top of that.  Target will also
be saddled with several million dollars in administrative costs.
In an Associated Press story, Vincent Esades, the lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, stated that Target's total settlement costs could
reach $25 million.

The settlement calls for two types of recoveries.  Those able to
prove that they actually suffered financial losses, on account of
their personal or financial information being compromised, can
recover up to $10,000.  Such losses could be for, among other
things, unauthorized credit or debit card charges that were
unreimbursed (that is, if a bank somehow did not remove an
unauthorized charge), the time spent addressing such charges (up
to two hours at $10 per hour), hiring someone to help correct
their credit report, higher interest rates, purchasing credit
monitor services, and so on.  Surely there are people out there in
this category -- but not many (especially if the claims are
carefully scrutinized).

Quantifiable losses?

The vast majority of those eligible to make a claim will not have
documentation that they suffered any of these types of losses,
however.  Because they didn't.  The good news is that, despite how
serious the data breach issue is portrayed, most people suffer no
quantifiable losses on account of one.  With no evidence of
losses, those in this group will be able to sign a form, stating
that they used a credit or debit card at Target during the three-
week data breach period, and then be entitled to a recovery.
Presto.

Payments from the $10 million fund will first be made to those who
can prove that they actually suffered financial losses.  Then, all
those people in the just-sign-your-name category will share
equally in what's left.  The more people who make claims, the less
each claimant will receive.  So don't tell your friends.

One hundred million people could be eligible for the settlement.
If 100 million people make claims, then each one will receive 10
cents.  Bazooka Joe will be happy about that.  In reality, based
on statistics in other cases, just a few percent of the class
members will make claims.  Although, perhaps in this case, more
will do so than usual, given how high-profile it has been. In any
event, each claimant with a non-documented loss will probably
receive about enough for somewhere between a latte and a pepperoni
pizza.  That's more than they deserve, but there is only so much
that can be done to prevent such an unjustified payment in a
settlement like this.

The real problem with the Target settlement is not that it
achieved no benefit.  It did.  People who can prove that they
actually suffered financial losses, on account of their personal
or financial information being compromised, have been provided
with a simple means to recover up to $10,000.  That seems fair.
It's hard to begrudge them.  But to achieve this worthwhile
objective -- for so few -- will come at an enormous price: two
years of litigation, the payment of nearly $7 million in legal
fees, not to mention millions spent by Target on lawyers, millions
of dollars in administrative costs and a boatload of money doled
out to people who unquestionably suffered no losses whatsoever.
Surely there was an easier and less expensive way to arrive at
this outcome.  This data suffers from a breach -- one of common
sense.


TEX-STAR WATER: Faces "Prine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaine Prine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tex-Star Water Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00446
(E.D. Tex., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Tex-Star Water Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
proving well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Stanley Firm Sues Over Car System Hacking Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Newcomb, writing for Forbes, reports that connected car
technology faces no shortages of potential roadblocks, including
industry standardization, data management, consumer acceptance and
government regulation, just to name a few.  Central among these
are legal issues confronting not only automakers currently
building and selling connected cars, but all stakeholders --
automotive suppliers, technology providers and also government
officials -- involved and that view significant benefits to
connecting cars to each other and to traffic infrastructure to
reduce traffic, fuel consumption, emissions and, most importantly,
the number of lives lost in car accidents.

These legal challenges have now expanded to include what appears
to be the first class action lawsuit brought against automakers
for selling connected vehicles with "known defects" that could
enable the cars to be hacked.  The Stanley Law Group of Dallas,
Texas, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Toyota, Ford and GM.  Lead attorney
Marc Stanley said in a statement that the automakers have
"deliberately hidden the dangers associated with car computer
systems, misleading consumers."

The suit alleges that the "defendants have known, their CAN
[controller area network] bus-equipped vehicles for years have
been (and currently are) susceptible to hacking, and their ECUs
cannot detect and stop hacker attacks on the CAN buses.  For this
reason, defendants' vehicles are not secure, and are therefore not
safe," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also claims that car owners were charged "substantial
premiums" for CAN bus-equipped vehicles and that automakers
engaged in "fraudulent business practices" by failing to disclose
security flaws" that produced "defective vehicles [that] are worth
far less than . . . defect-free vehicles."

This last claim is puzzling since the CAN bus has been the
standardized electronic backbone of automotive safety, security,
comfort and drivetrain systems for virtually all passenger
vehicles around the world since 1996.  Aside from highly
publicized research-based efforts that could be better
characterized as vehicle "tampering" rather than "hacking," there
has been no worldwide malicious attempt to undermine CAN bus
systems to date.  The lawsuit tends to focus its language solely
on CAN bus connectivity, and how this nearly 30-year-old proven
automotive architecture is somehow the new-found source of
hacking.

The press release announcing the lawsuit mentions how the
vulnerabilities of connected systems recently have become a high-
level concern among lawmakers and a subject of media scrutiny.  A
recent vehicle security and driver privacy report commissioned by
Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) claims that most automakers have failed
to address data security and driver privacy concerns as cars have
become connected.  The release of the report was preceded by a
segment on 60 Minutes that showed correspondent Lesley Stahl
losing control of a car that had been hacked in a controlled
environment.

While the 60 Minutes segment was mostly hype on the subject of
connected cars, Senator Markey's concerns are well-founded and
securing connected cars needs to be a priority for all involved.
While automakers and other organizations are diligently working on
the issue, the question now is whether this new lawsuit can
succeed.

Given that connected vehicles -- or for that matter all connected
devices -- cannot be guaranteed 100-percent hack-free, such a
lawsuit may ultimately have little merit.  But it could set a
dangerous precedent for this nascent technology and have a
chilling effect.  And serve as an unnecessary roadblock to the
benefits that can come from connected cars.


TRADER JOE'S: Attorney Plans to Extend Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
Reserve attorney who filed a class action lawsuit against a who's
who list of discount wine producers and sellers says he is now
planning a similar suit in Puerto Rico and looking forward to
combining all similar lawsuits filed elsewhere into a nationwide
action.

Daniel Becnel -- dbecnel@becnellaw.com -- lead partner of Reserve-
based Becnel Law Firm, filed suit against 100 discount wine makers
and sellers for the arsenic content in their wines, which he
claims can be harmful to consumers.  The lawsuit is expected to be
worth several million dollars in damages for what is described in
the filing as several years of neglect and exposing consumers to
dangerous levels of toxins.

"It is all of the low end wines that have arsenic in them all.
The big player, Trader Joe's, sells a lot of them and Franzia
sells a lot of them," he said.

Mr. Becnel said the danger in arsenic consumption is mainly for
heavy wine drinkers, but even for moderate drinkers it poses a
health risk.

"All of the toxicologists and medical experts say it has a
propensity to build up and can kill you ultimately, especially if
you are some of these people like alcoholics that drink the stuff
day and night," he said.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on March 27 on behalf
of lead plaintiff Laura Marvin, a Baton Rouge resident, and all
similarly affected Louisiana residents. The case has been assigned
to U.S. District Judge James Brady.

The lawsuit argues that by not providing a proper filtering
process for their wines, the defendants were able to undercut
competitors and sell their products at a lower price.

However, The Wine Institute, a trade organization representing
California wineries, issued a statement saying they stand by the
quality of their members' wines.

"Unfounded litigation has raised questions about the safety of
California wine. We want to assure you that the health and safety
of consumers is of the greatest importance to our wineries and
that wine produced by our members is perfectly safe," the
statement said.

In fact, The Wine Institute maintains that arsenic is naturally
occurring in many different types of foods and drinks, including
drinking water, but has never been regulated in wines.

"Arsenic is prevalent in the natural environment in air, soil and
water and food. As an agricultural product, wines from throughout
the world contain trace amounts of arsenic as do juices,
vegetables, grains and other alcohol beverages and this is nothing
new," The Wine Institute's statement said.

The trade association noted that consumers would have to drink 14
glasses of wine per day, or nearly three bottles of wine, to equal
the arsenic limit allowable in drinking water by the Environmental
Protection Association.

The legal action mirrors several other lawsuits that have been
filed against the same wine producers and sellers across the
country.

Mr. Becnel said it is his hope the court will allow for all
lawsuits to be combined into a multi-district litigation (MDL),
which would allow for attorneys to provide representation on
behalf of anyone nationwide who may have been exposed to arsenic
thorough the defendants' products.

"We are going to file for a motion for an MDL to concentrate all
of the cases from all over the country.  There have not been many
filed.  Some have been filed in state courts in California," he
said.

However, even before a motion to create an MDL can be heard,
Mr. Becnel has indicated his law firm is going to pursue similar
cases in other jurisdictions.

"We are filing one in Puerto Rico, probably tomorrow, and there
are a few others that are going to be filed around the country,"
he said.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Judge Rejects Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina
federal judge on March 30 dismissed a proposed securities class
action accusing officers of mortgage issuer Triad Guaranty Inc. of
misleading investors over the soundness of its modified insurance
pools and the inherent risks involved, saying that the complaint
did not sufficiently plead scienter, among other deficiencies.

U.S. District Judge N. Carlton Tilley Jr. went against the
recommendation of a magistrate judge, ruling that the plaintiff's
allegations as a whole did not sufficiently plead scienter to the
extent that it was at least as compelling as any other inference
one might draw from the alleged facts, and granted the motion to
dismiss filed by individual defendants former Triad President and
CEO Mark K. Tonnesen, who has since retired, and former Senior
Vice President and CFO Kenneth W. Jones, who is now the CEO and
principal finance officer of a Triad subsidiary, according to its
website.

"Instead, plaintiff's allegations support the more convincing
inference that Triad, Tonnesen and Jones used their business
judgment when it came to the company's pricing practices, were
motivated to succeed in the changing mortgage insurance industry
and, once aware that independent evaluators recommended immediate
changes to bidding, revised the company's practices for doing so,"
Judge Tilley said.

He continued, "In other words, the inference of scienter is not as
strong as the opposing inference that defendants were conducting
their business in an effort to build a stronger market share and,
if anything, may have been at most negligent in some of their
practices."

Tilley also dinged the complaint for relying, improperly at times,
on five confidential witnesses, all of whom were described as
former high-ranking Triad officers or employees.

The class period spans from the fall of 2006 to April 2008, during
which time Triad insured mortgages through a "flow channel" on a
one-by-one basis and a "bulk" channel, in which it underwrote
mortgages packaged and pooled together into securities initiated
by underwriters of mortgage-backed securities, mortgage lenders
and mortgage investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
according to the second amended complaint.

The complaint accused the defendants of manipulating Triad's
insurance pricing models in order to underbid competitors,
increase market share and artificially boost revenue, all while
assuring investors that Triad's business practices were sound, its
risk levels appropriate and its business properly capitalized for
such risks.

In early 2007, officers of the company began to raise red flags
about the process Triad was using to assess risks, even going so
far as to prepare a formal evaluation demonstrating that the risk
was resulting in below market value insurance policies, the
plaintiffs alleged in their complaint.  The presentation led Triad
to retain a consulting firm and, based on its cautioning advice,
rein in its practices, the complaint said.

Yet even as the housing market deteriorated, defendants painted a
rosy picture and issued misleading statements, plaintiffs said,
before market revelations beginning in August 2007 caused stock
prices to drop sharply soon after.

In addition to ruling that plaintiffs did not adequately plead
scienter, Jude Tilley also defended many of the statements made by
Triad as puffery, and therefore inactionable.

The lead plaintiffs are represented by Jack Reise --
JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- Stephen R. Astley -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com --
and Elizabeth A. Shonson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The defendants are represented by William K. Davis of Bell Davis &
Pitt PA and Richard A. Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- and Robyn
F. Tarnofsky -- rtarnofsky@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

The case is Phillips v. Triad Guaranty Inc. et al., case number
1:09-cv-00071, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina.


TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURE: I-635 Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Paul, writing for CBSDFW.COM, reports that residents in a
north Dallas neighborhood have filed a class-action lawsuit after
more than 20 homes and businesses claim construction along I-635
has severely damaged their homes.

CBSDFW first reported the situation back in March of 2014.

Several residents claimed several large cracks in their walls,
ceilings and floors were caused by the LBJ Express Tollway
project.

"We're just scared of what's next.  We don't know what's going to
happen, if the roof is falling tomorrow," said Iveth Cazares.

The home Ms. Cazares grew up in is slowing splitting apart.  She
said she can see the problem from the backyard.

"When construction is going on, it's not just the noise and that
we can't sleep at night.  You can feel the shaking, the house
shaking," said Ms. Cazares.

One year after reporting the problem to the construction firm
tasked with the project, Trinity Infrastructure, residents and
business owners claim nothing has been done to fix their problems.

"Their whole lives they've worked to pay this home off. And now
that they've paid this home off, it's worth nothing?" questioned
Ms. Cazares.

The lawsuit claims the vibration from pile driving, deep
excavation and heavy traffic loads caused the damages to the
homes.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Trinity
Infrastructure released a statement:

"Trinity Infrastructure is aware of the class action law suit,
however we are unable to comment on pending litigation."

"I just want them to think of themselves living here," said
Ms. Cazares.  "Would they feel safe?"

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for TxDot did not want to
discuss the matter because the agency was not named in the
lawsuit.


UNION PACIFIC: Deprives Landowners Property Rights, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Rivera, Everardo Rivera, Enrique Molina, and Timothy Cook,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01842
(N.D. Cal., April 23, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
landowners who were deprived of their property rights by
concealing the construction of an oil and gas line within the
subsurface of the railroad's right-of-way and without due notice
or compensation to the Class Members for such use and occupancy.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Union operates a
railroad transportation system in 23 states west of the
Mississippi river.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq.
      John T. Cu, SBN 207402
      Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq.
      HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
      425 Market Street, 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
      E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com
              jcu@hansonbridgett.com
              gpittman@hansonbridgett.com


UNITED KINGDOM: High Court Strikes Out Hindraf's Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Free Malaysia Today reports that the London High Court on April 1
struck out an unprecedented class action lawsuit commenced by a
group of descendants of indentured labourers of Indian origin led
by the Hindu Action Rights Force (Hindraf) against the Government
of the United Kingdom.

Accepting arguments advanced by the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth
Counsel Martin Chamberlain, QC, the Court held that the Queen had
acted purely in her capacity as the Head of State of the United
Kingdom under her statutory duties and that, accordingly, the
claimants could not sustain their claim under UK's Crown
Proceedings Act.

In arriving at his decision, Judge Nicholas Blake, QC also held
that Article 167 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya
restricted the Queen's liability and that her responsibility
towards the Government of Malaya ceased on or after Merdeka Day.
In light of the above, the Judge found that essential elements
which needed to be proved in the case, including the duties of
care owed by the Crown to the claimants, the breach of those
duties and the causation of loss and damage suffered were
insurmountable obstacles which would prevent the claimants from
succeeding, particularly because the claimants were not the
indentured laborers who were brought into Malaya, but merely their
descendants.

Reacting to the decision, Hindu Action Force (Hindraf) Chairman P
Waythamoorthy expressed his regret that the Judge failed to
establish and recognize that the Indians in Malaya in 1957 were
subjects of the Queen and thus deserved the protection of the
Crown.

Despite the unfavorable outcome, Mr. Waythamoorthy claimed that in
the course of delivering the decision important observations were
made by the Judge with regard to the "discriminatory" nature of
Articles 8 (Equality), 12 (Rights in respect of education) and 153
(Reservations of quotas for Malays and natives) of the
Constitution.

He also claimed the Judge has suggested that the European Human
Rights Convention may afford the claimants a possible recourse in
dealing with such matters.

Mr. Waythamoorthy said that Hindraf's leadership will be
discussing the matter in detail with its legal representatives
upon receipt of the written grounds of the Judge's decision before
deciding on the next course of action.

"This is just the beginning of a long march Hindraf wishes to
undertake with other groups who really believe in equality, equal
treatment of fellow citizens and fundamental human rights," he
assured.


UNITED STATES: Suits Seek Removal of Commanders From Rape Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kime, writing for Military Times, reports that four
active-duty and former service women filed a lawsuit on March 31
in federal court to stop the Defense Department from putting
commanders in charge of cases involving sexual assault in their
units.

Charging that commanders cannot be fair and impartial in such
cases because they often know the alleged perpetrators or victims,
the plaintiffs -- an Army first lieutenant stationed in Kuwait, a
former Air Force technical sergeant, a former airman and veteran
soldier -- have asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia for an injunction to halt such appointments.

Instead, legal officers outside the unit chain of command should
adjudicate the cases, the plaintiffs said.

The case represents a legal maneuver to institute what has long
been proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and is opposed
by many within the Defense Department -- to strip some commanders
of the authority to decide whether and how to prosecute a sexual
assault case.

Representing the plaintiffs, Baltimore lawyer Susan Burke said the
court can order the Defense Department to use its power under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice to appoint unbiased adjudicators.

"We hope we can get the federal court to help make sure the
department doesn't continue to let people who have known
misogynistic and sexist tendencies to be the judges," Ms. Burke
said during a news conference here.

The case's sole active-duty plaintiff, Army 1st Lt. Celina
Baldwin, was the alleged victim of sexual assault and harassment
in a high-profile case involving the U.S. Military Academy rugby
team in 2013.

Ms. Baldwin discovered a cache of sexually explicit e-mails
circulating among team members that discussed female cadets and
other women.  The e-mails eventually were turned over to West
Point officials.

The team was temporarily disbanded in mid-2013 as a result of the
revelations and reorganized under a new coach.  Disciplinary
investigations were recommended, but no further punishment for
those involved was discussed, according to a report released on
March 27 by the Army to Military Times.

The report noted that the Army recommended reviewing the chain of
command for the rugby team and improved training for team members
on hazing and sexual harassment awareness.

But those involved remain in the Army and eventually may be in a
position to oversee sexual assault cases, according to Burke.

"This same pattern of investigating and then whitewashing the
results are what . . . the plaintiffs have endured," she said.

One plaintiff, former Tech. Sgt. Jennifer Smith, said she was
sexually assaulted and later harassed by co-workers after
complaining that she worked in a sexually hostile work
environment.

The 18-year Air Force veteran said pornography on government
computers, as well as a fighter pilot songbook that includes
offensive songs, including an expletive-laced, sexually explicit
shanty about sado-masochism, violate Air Force policy and U.S. law
and should be removed from offices.

For her complaints, she was mocked, she said.

"I filed a formal complaint," Ms. Smith said.  "Six officers were
punished in my case.  All the officers received nothing more than
a piece of paper reprimanding them for their behavior.  All will
still lead. All will oversee airmen and sexual assault claims."

Ms. Burke has represented military personnel in several sexual
assault lawsuits, including plaintiffs in two separate class-
action suits against secretaries of defense and a female
midshipman in a case involving three Naval Academy football
players.

Charges against two defendants were dropped in the Naval Academy
case, and the third defendant was found not guilty.  The class-
action lawsuits against the Defense Department were dismissed.

Ms. Burke said she is taking a different legal tack on the current
case and believes she has a strong argument for the injunction.
The plaintiffs are not seeking damages, she said.

"The best justice is a blind justice.  We know if you are asked to
sit on a jury, you get excused if you know anybody," Ms. Burke
said. "They are assigning someone who has an inherent bias."

The Defense Department likely will ask the court to abstain from
exercising jurisdiction in the case -- as has happened in
Ms. Burke's previous cases -- she said.

However, if they pass that hurdle, a hearing could be held as
early as within six months, she said.

As a matter of policy, the Defense Department does not comment on
ongoing litigation, a Pentagon spokeswoman said.

A report released in late 2014 found that the number of sexual
assaults reported in the military has risen, from 3,604 in 2012 to
5,983 in 2014.  But the number of estimated assaults is believed
to be much higher since rape and sexual assault are underreported
crimes.

About 20,000 service members of 170,000 polled said they had
experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in
the past year, representing nearly 5% of all active-duty women and
1% of active-duty men, according to a 2014 survey.


UNITED STATES: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flores" Case as Frivolous
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Thomas B. Russell issued a memorandum
opinion on April 30, 2015, dismissing the action captioned ERIC
FLORES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL et al.,
Respondents, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-85-TBR, (W.D. Ky.).

Petitioner, Eric Flores, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis 64-page
complaint entitled "Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of
the First Amendment." He recently filed the same complaint in many
other district courts throughout the country. He names as
Respondents the U.S. Attorney General, with an address in
Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with an
address in Texas. Petitioner's address is also in Texas. None of
the allegations in the complaint appear to have anything to do
with the Western District of Kentucky.

Petitioner states that he is proceeding in this matter on behalf
of "a protected class of mexican american citizens of the United
States that is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." He names seventeen "parties of interest," some of
whom are deceased. He alleges that "executive employees of the
federal government" used "advanced technology with a direct signal
to the satellite in outerspace that has the capability of
calculateing genetic code to cause the petitioner[']s Uncle Jorge
Salas severe heart pain for long durations" and then used their
official capacity to influence the county forensic laboratory to
"fabercate frivolous documents resembleing legitimate adtopysy
reports" that his uncle died of natural causes. He also alleges
that the "organized group of executive employees" used the direct
signal of a satellite to cause him severe mental pain which
impaired his thought process in order to prevent him from pursuing
his appellate remedies. He further alleges that the "advanced
technology with a direct signal to the satellite in outerspace
that has the capability of calculateing a genetic code" to cause
suffering and to control mental states has been used on various of
his family members.

In his memorandum, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/FLiv1Kfrom Leagle.com, Judge Russell determined that
Petitioner's request for the Court to certify this action as a
class action must be denied because as a pro se litigant, he lacks
the qualifications to represent a class.  Second, the Court found
that the instant action must be dismissed as frivolous adding that
an action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are
delusional or "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible."

Eric Flores, Petitioner, Pro Se.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for The StarPhoenix, reports that the
makers of Canada's most successful naturalhealth product are
battling a class-action lawsuit alleging they fraudulently misled
customers into thinking Cold-FX could quickly relieve cold
symptoms -- contrary to their own studies.  The B.C. case is
unusual among health-product class actions, charging not that the
pills caused physical harm but that their benefits were
misrepresented to the public.

Previously confidential sales figures for Cold-FX, submitted as
part of the case, indicate that more than $117 million worth of
the ginseng-based product were sold in Canada as recently as 2011.

Developed by an Alberta-based team, and marketed through
endorsements by Don Cherry and other Canadian sports celebrities,
the product has grown to be the bestselling cold and flu remedy in
Canada.  But much of those sales were built on false claims that
the pills could bring "immediate relief" for cold and flu
symptoms, alleges the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

"They told people that the product does something that it doesn't,
and that's a lie," said John Green, the Vancouver lawyer
spearheading the case.  "It's even more problematic where you have
a product that is being sold and you're basing it on research."

Don Harrison, the Vancouver Island retiree acting as the suit's
"representative plaintiff," said he bought a bottle of Cold-FX at
a local big-box store in 2011, convinced by the stated promise of
fast relief from his respiratory bug.

"I took it according to directions and nothing happened, nothing
happened," the Ladysmith, B.C., resident said on March 30.  "I
don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that they were pulling
the wool over our eyes."

The drawn-out case is scheduled for another five days of hearings
this spring on whether it should be "certified" -- the designation
allowing a class action to head toward trial or settlement.  In
the meantime, a judge is also considering a request by the
defendants to have the lawsuit tossed out.

A lawyer for Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc., which bought Cold-FX
maker Afexa Life Sciences in 2011, said on March 30 he did not
have authority to comment on the case.

The company no longer seems to make claims about "immediate relief
of cold and flu symptoms."  And an affidavit from employee Tara
McCrory states that the Cold-FX packages themselves never
contained that phrase.

The affidavit also cites the product's support on social media,
including 24,000 likes of the Cold-FX Facebook page and 26,000
mentions on Twitter.  Those include one in 2012 that said "Cold-FX
is like some miracle pill," and another suggesting it "knocked my
cold away."

The court document also points to consumer research suggesting
most users take Cold-FX when cold and flu symptoms first appear.

The best evidence from an inconsistent series of clinical trials,
however, offers no evidence that it would help in those
circumstances, says the plaintiffs' expert witness.


VIA FETUCCINI: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Mendez and other similarly situated individuals v. Via
Fetuccini Corp. d/b/a The Pasta Factory Company and Richard JJR
Sanders, Case No. 1:15-cv-21534-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
      JARA & ASSOCIATES, PA
      1200 Brickell Avenue, 1450
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-0290
      Facsimile: (305) 675-0383
      E-mail: franklin@jaralaw.com


VICTIM SERVICES: Response to Dismissal Bid Due Today
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Vince Chhabria signed on April 30, 2015, a
stipulation and order extending briefing deadlines in KEVIN
BREAZEALE, KAREN SOLBERG, KEVIN HIEP VU, NANCY MORIN, and NARISHA
BONAKDAR, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. VICTIM SERVICES, INC., d/b/a
CorrectiveSolutions, NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., d/b/a
CorrectiveSolutions, and MATS JONSSON, Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-
05266-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties have stipulated and requested that the Court extend
the briefing deadlines for Defendants' Special Motion to Strike
and Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiffs request a one-week extension of
the time for them to respond to Friday, May 8, 2015.  The parties
have agreed that Defendants' replies should be due two weeks
later, on Friday May 22, 2015.

The motions are noticed for hearing on July 2, 2015. If the
parties' requested extensions are granted, the motions will be
fully briefed 41 days before the hearing date.

Plaintiffs requested and Defendants agreed to an extension of time
to respond because both motions are dispositive motions of
significant substance. Plaintiffs are working diligently to
respond to the motions but request an additional week to prepare
their responses to the 47 pages of briefing filed by Defendants.
The parties have agreed that Defendants should be granted an
additional week to file their replies as well. The parties do not
anticipate that the proposed extension of the briefing deadlines
will require the Court to reset the hearing date for the motion or
any other deadline.

Accordingly, the parties' court-approved stipulation, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/sUAAdMfrom Leagle.com,
provides that Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Special Motion
to Strike and Motion to Dismiss are due today, Friday, May 8,
2015. Defendants' replies are due on Friday May 22, 2015.

TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Seattle, Washington, Paul Arons, LAW
OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS, Friday Harbor, Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptabeck.com -- GUPTA BECK PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN, LLP, Michael A. Taitelman --
mtaitelman@ftllp.com -- Sean M. Hardy -- smhardy@ftllp.com -- Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants Victim Services,
Inc., National Corrective Group, Inc., and Mats Jonsson.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hecht" Suit in N.Y. Over Mortgage Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shea Hecht, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Gross Polowy Orlans, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02338 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide mortgage modifications to struggling
homeowners pursuant to Home Affordable Modification Program.
Instead, they intentionally delay the processing of HAMP
applications and extend trial modification periods in order to
maximize their own revenue and fees at the expense of and by
defrauding homeowners.

Wells Fargo, N.A.is a national banking association chartered in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jean Sedlak, Esq.
      SULTZER LAW GROUP
      77 Water St, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4268
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sedlakj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Foreclosure Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo and a
former mortgage servicing unit of Barclays Bank have asked a
federal judge in southern Ohio to toss claims that they engaged in
misconduct during mortgage foreclosures by charging homeowners for
an array of improper fees.

In filings on March 27, lawyers for the banks at Ulmer & Berne and
Treanor Pope & Hughes argued that the fees in dispute were
authorized by the plaintiff's mortgage loan, and the banks are
entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law.


WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Background Check Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Michael A Logan, Esq., of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, in an
article for Lexology, report that one of those background check
cases involving Whole Foods Market Group will continue past the
motion to dismiss stage.  On March 30, Senior Federal Judge
Richard A. Lazzara in the Middle District of Florida (Tampa
Division) refused to dismiss the case, based on the allegation in
the Complaint.  The Court held that "if the disclosure and the
consent forms combined and read as one document with the waiver
and release included simultaneously with the disclosure, the
complaint states a claim for relief."


WISCONSIN: Docketing Statement in Parenthood Case Signed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley signed on April 6, 2015, a
docketing statement in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, INC., et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD D. SCHIMEL, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
13-C-465, (W.D. Wis.), a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/9uLxkHfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants Brad D. Schimel, Ismael Ozanne, James Barr, Mary Jo
Capodice, D.O., Greg Collins, Rodney A. Erickson, M.D., Robert
Zondag, Suresh K. Misra, M.D., Carolyn Ogland, M.D., Michael J.
Phillips, M.D., Kenneth B. Simons, M.D., Timothy Swan, M.D.,
Sridhar Vasudevan, M.D., Timothy W. Westlake, M.D., Russell Yale,
M.D., and Dave Ross, their undersigned counsel, concurrent with
their Notice of Appeal, submitted the Docketing Statement, which
states that:

     Information Required By Seventh Circuit Rule 28(A)(1)

The district court had federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1331, over this civil case commenced by a
complaint filed by Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin,
Inc., Susan Pfleger, M.D., Kathy King, M.D., and Milwaukee Women's
Medical Services (collectively "Plaintiffs") in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on July 5,
2013. Plaintiffs pursued claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

This case is a class action, and the district court certified a
class of 71 elected district attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Dane County District Attorney Ismael
Ozanne has been designated as class representative. The Attorney
General of Wisconsin (through the Wisconsin Department of Justice
and its Assistant Attorneys General) is class counsel.

      Information Required By Seventh Circuit Rule 28(A)(2)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, over this appeal
by Defendants from the district court's March 20, 2015, Opinion
and Order and March 25, 2015, Judgment declaring Section 1 of 2013
Wisconsin Act 37 -- the hospital admitting privileges requirement
for abortion physicians -- to be unconstitutional and granting a
permanent injunction, which was entered by the Honorable William
M. Conley.  The permanent injunction is as follows:

(2) Defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing Section 1 of
2013 Wisconsin Act 37, codified at Wis. Stat. Sec. 253.095.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on April 6, 2015, along with a copy
of the March 20, 2015, Opinion and Order and the March 25, 2015,
Judgment. Defendants have timely filed their Notice of Appeal
within 30 days after March 25, 2015.

       INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(A)(3)

There are no claims that remain for disposition in the district
court.

The district court's March 20, 2015, Opinion and Order and March
25, 2015, Judgment granting a permanent injunction constitutes a
final decision and judgment as to the claims that Plaintiffs have
asserted under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The basis for appellate jurisdiction is not the "collateral order
doctrine."

The order and judgment sought to be reviewed does not remand a
case to a bankruptcy judge or administrative agency.

No issues remain before the district court.

BRAD D. SCHIMEL, Attorney General, MARIA S. LAZAR, Assistant
Attorney General, BRIAN P. KEENAN, Assistant Attorney General,
CLAYTON P. KAWSKI, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for
Defendants.


* Bill to Push for Class Action Procedure for Health Sector
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kadar, Esq. of Reed Smith, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that class actions -- which are progressively becoming
part of the legal landscape in France as "actions de groupe" --
will probably soon be extended to personal injury claims against
health products manufacturers, suppliers or service providers
using health products.

On March 17, 2015, a new bill proposal was issued, advocating the
creation of a class action procedure for the health sector.

Plenary discussions at the French National Assembly will commence
March 31, 2015, and will more precisely address the issue of
compensation for personal injury in the framework of the proposed
class action.

Under the proposed framework -- similarly to other class actions
already permitted in France -- patients and users' associations
have a monopoly on bringing legal actions for damages for physical
injury allegedly suffered by similarly-situated users of the
health system.  The class actions contemplated would be allowed
for alleged breaches of statutory and/or contractual obligations
of manufacturers or suppliers of health products.

In a first phase, the judge will review the admissibility of the
action and will decide over the liability of the defendant through
an analysis of the cases brought forward by the association.  The
judge will then define the proposed class -- the group of patients
that may seek to impose liability on the defendant -- and
determine the criteria that patients must meet to be included into
the group.

One cornerstone issue will be how judges will deal with the
heterogeneity of patients' personal injuries within the framework
of a class action, as well as with compensation issues likely to
arise.

Regarding the latter, recent attempts to ease claims for
compensation through an organized compensation system have had
mixed results in France, and the proposed compensation often is,
in general, lower than the amount a claimant could obtain in a
separate lawsuit.  As a consequence, many claimants have preferred
to file an individual lawsuit rather than following a more global
compensation program.  This has been particularly the case for
claims related to asbestos diseases.

Finally, it must be noted that French class actions will not allow
any form of punitive damages.


* Insurance Companies Target for Class Actions
----------------------------------------------
Arthur D. Postal, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that
insurance companies have emerged as a significant target for class
action lawsuits, according to an annual survey by a law firm that
represents management.

Data privacy is another issue that touches insurance companies, as
well as advisors.  The survey said data privacy emerged as the
subject of a "significant volume" of class action lawsuits in
2014.

According to the 2015 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt Class Action, 6
percent of all class action lawsuits filed in 2014 dealt with
insurance; data privacy suits constituted 4.2 percent of the
total.

"While data privacy matters currently represent a small portion of
class actions, when corporate counsel were asked what area they
saw as the next wave, they most often identified data privacy,"
the report found.

In addition, the report said, although class certification has
been a stumbling block for plaintiffs in the area of data privacy,
several factors "suggest data security matters are nonetheless
poised for growth."

These data security matters include increasing hacker activity,
more frequent internal protocol and security lapses, "and ongoing
consumer and business sensitivity regarding data sharing and use,"
the report said.

In the life insurance area, Class action suits brought in the life
insurance area involve disclosure issues on life and annuity
product features, pricing methodology and revisions to contracts,
suitability issues, long-term care policy adjustments, and asset
management issues, according to James F. Jorden, senior partner in
the Washington office of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt.

"The actual theme of any particular suit will vary depending upon
the nature of the sales practice or the policy," Mr. Jorden said.
There also has been a spike in class action suits against property
and casualty insurers, he said.

The report said that corporate counsel also expect a wave of
consumer fraud class actions, even though these constituted 29.6
percent of class action lawsuits in 2014. This is up from 26.6
percent of class action lawsuits in 2013.

The survey results were compiled from 360 in-depth interviews with
general counsel, chief legal officers and direct reports to
general counsel.


* More Companies Require Workers to Arbitrate Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Lauren Weber, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
companies are quietly eliminating a long-held employee privilege:
the right to band together to take the boss to court.

As employers try to stem the costs of lawsuits, more companies are
requiring workers to bring serious complaints to arbitration and
forbidding employees from participating in class actions.

The percentage of companies using arbitration clauses to preclude
class-action claims soared to 43% last year from 16% in 2012,
according to a survey of nearly 350 companies conducted by
management-side law firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP.

Fueling the trend is a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that upheld such
agreements.  The result, say lawyers on both sides of the issue,
has been a notable decline in actions that accuse corporations of
wage theft, discrimination, and other systemic violations of labor
laws.

Employers prefer arbitration because it is usually less expensive
and faster than litigation.

Drugstore chain CVS Health Corp., which began an arbitration
program for employees last year, maintains that it is a faster and
better way to resolve issues.

"In general, arbitration is less formal, more efficient and less
time-consuming than the traditional court process," CVS spokesman
Michael DeAngelis said.  "Employees who choose to participate in
the program have the ability to make the same claims and recover
the same remedies."

Employers also like it because it tends to go their way.  A 2011
Cornell University study found that arbitrations favor employers
more often than litigation does, and result in lower awards for
employees.

Joseph Otis signed a contract containing an arbitration clause and
class-action waiver in 2012 when he enlisted with Arise Virtual
Solutions Inc. to become a remote customer-service agent for the
Miramar, Fla., company's corporate clients.

As an independent contractor, Mr. Otis, of Marietta, Ga., paid
about $1,500 for telephone and computer equipment, $239 for an
unpaid three-month class on resolving problems for AT&T Inc.
customers and even the $15 for Arise to conduct a background check
on him.

Over the course of a year, he started thinking the deck was
stacked against Arise agents.  They were subject to extensive
control from the company, which recorded the calls and tracked
their length, but they rarely, if ever, got the hours they were
promised.  In 2013, Mr. Otis and several other agents filed a
class-action lawsuit against Arise, seeking reimbursement for
their unpaid training time, among other things.

The company challenged the workers' right to bring the class suit
and won, forcing them to enter individual arbitrations. Arise said
it doesn't comment on litigation.

Sears Holding Corp.'s Sears and Kmart units, Nordstrom Inc., Uber
Technologies Inc., and Halliburton Co. are among the large
employers that require or ask workers to waive their right to sue
as a class.

Lawyers agree that a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, gave employers confidence that courts would uphold
class-action waivers.  In the Concepcion case, the court ruled 5-
4, with conservative justices prevailing, that customers trying to
sue the telecom over a sales-tax issue couldn't do so because they
had forfeited the right in the fine print of their service
contract.

While that case involved consumers, corporations and lower courts
have extended their interpretation of the ruling to cover
employees as well.

"This is a very live area right now," said Zachary Fasman, a
management-side attorney with Proskauer Rose LLP.  "Avoiding class
actions is very attractive to the extent that employers can avoid
the cost of litigation, the complexities of federal or even state
litigation, to the extent they can avoid jury trials."

Class actions are complex, expensive and lengthy, but they serve
multiple purposes for enforcing labor laws, say plaintiffs'
attorneys.  They afford anonymity to individual workers who might
be afraid to pursue a claim on their own.

Damages can be significant, so lawyers have more incentive to take
on the cases and also front the money for costly research and
statistical studies.  And they can lead to orders for injunctive
relief, forcing companies to make broad changes to their labor
practices rather than simply paying damages to a single victim.

Arbitration claims can be brought on a class basis, though
arbitrators have less discretion than judges over certain aspects
of the process, such as calling witnesses.  But when waivers leave
even that type of class action unavailable, workers frequently
abandon claims because individual damages are too small to
interest attorneys.

"If workers are forced to be atomized and alone, they won't be
able to find a lawyer to pursue the case, so the cases will just
disappear," said Paul Bland, director of Public Justice.

The Carlton Fields survey found that the percentage of class-
action lawsuits that address employment issues slipped to 23% in
2014 from 28% in 2011. Class-action suits from workers cost
employers $462.8 million in 2014, down from $598.9 million in
2011, according to the survey.

Before the Supreme Court's ruling, the vast majority of employers
didn't require employees to waive their right to join a class
action because lower courts routinely vacated such waivers.
Employers are now confident the waivers will stand up to legal
challenges, say lawyers for workers and companies.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that class-action
waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act.  Recent
decisions in two NLRB cases -- against gas station operator Murphy
Oil USA Inc. and home builder D.R. Horton Inc. -- put it at odds
with the Supreme Court.  But the NLRB's argument has been
challenged in circuit courts, which have ruled against it,
upholding the Supreme Court's direction.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are still arguing that the NLRB decision is a
precedent, but the Supreme Court has refused to take several
employment cases that might clear things up.

Craig Becker, a member of the NLRB's majority in the Horton case
and now general counsel at the AFL-CIO, says he sees no conflict
because the Concepcion case didn't explicitly consider labor laws.

"It's a lot scarier and the consequences are very different" than
a consumer suing a product maker, he said.  "Retaliation is much
more likely. Requiring people to proceed individually is a much
more serious threat to enforcement of the statutes."

Under employment arbitration, parties go before a single person,
usually a retired judge or attorney, who listens to evidence and
issues a decision.  Several private organizations, including the
American Arbitration Association and JAMS, formerly known as
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, offer the service.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Mr. Otis's lawyer, is trying to wear down
Arise by bringing claim after claim from different contractors.
An arbitrator in Texas ruled in favor of one Arise worker in
February, awarding her full damages and requiring Arise to pay her
legal fees.  Ms. Liss-Riordan hopes the company will decide facing
dozens of individual cases is no longer in its interests.  Arise
declined to comment.

Lawyers also argue that the agreements and waivers exist on an
unequal playing field, with workers either having no choice but to
accept the clauses in order to work or having to embark on an
arduous process to opt out, such as mailing a certified letter to
company headquarters, usually within 30 days.

"There's a fiction that workers' entry into these agreements is
fully voluntary," said Joseph Sellers, a leading plaintiff-side
attorney and a partner with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

Mr. Sellers recently represented a Spanish-speaking janitor named
Jose Sanchez who signed an arbitration clause and class-action
waiver in order to become a small franchisee -- essentially, an
independent contractor -- with a commercial cleaning business
called CleanNet USA Inc.  The clause was part of a franchise
agreement given to him only in English, with a representative from
CleanNet explaining elements of the 41-page agreement in Spanish,
Mr. Sanchez alleged; he said he was never told about the
arbitration clause.

After he sued CleanNet arguing that he and others should have been
classified as employees, the company moved to compel him into
arbitration and to drop his class claims.  In January, a federal
judge in Illinois sided with CleanNet.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 70 Suits Pending at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation had a total of 70 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois
have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers.
Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case
varies, with 78 as the average number of parties as of December
31, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded
at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

"As of December 31, 2014, there were a total of 70 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies.

"At December 31, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren
Illinois had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7
million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimates
of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

"Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of the cash expenditures in excess of the amount
included in base electric rates is to be recovered from a trust
fund that was established when Ameren acquired IP. At December 31,
2014, the trust fund balance was $22 million, including
accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the
amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the
difference to the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90%
of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be
recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff
rider. The rider will permit recovery from electric customers
within IP's historical service territory."

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), Ameren Energy Resources
Generating Company (AERG), Ameren Energy Resources Company and
Ameren Energy Marketing Company (Marketing Company). Ameren's
portfolio of natural gas supply resources includes firm
transportation capacity and firm no-notice storage capacity leased
from interstate pipelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remy Int'l. Protected From GM Employee Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Remy International, Inc., was accorded protected party status,
which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by former
General Motors employees be directed to an asbestos trust,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have historically been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products by former GM employees. We were
successful in getting these matters dismissed on the grounds that
the plaintiffs were employees of GM, not our company, following
the 1994 asset purchase of the Delco Remy Division of GM. We also
received an indemnification from GM concerning costs associated
with asbestos exposure claims involving former GM employees.

"GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed on
June 1, 2009 for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. On July 10, 2009, a substantial portion of GM
began operations under a new corporate legal structure, called new
GM, which acquired substantially all of the assets of the pre-
bankruptcy GM. Following GM's June 2009 filing for protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the indemnification
and certain other arrangements were disputed. However, we
negotiated a settlement of these issues with new GM whereby,
through an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, we were accorded protected party
status, which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by
former GM employees be directed to an asbestos trust, rather than
brought against us directly."

Remy International (formerly Delco Remy International) revs up
cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks. The manufacturer and
distributor offers starter motors, alternators, hybrid electric
motors, and transmission components. Most parts are sold under the
Delco Remy brand, which debuted in 1918. The company holds the top
spot for remanufacturing starters and alternators for the
automotive aftermarket in North America. Its roster of customers
includes OEMs (General Motors is largest customer generating
almost 25% of annual sales) and aftermarket businesses, such as
Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone. Fidelity National, a title
insurance company, owns 49% of Remy, which filed to go public in
2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 82 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, had
82 asserted asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December
31, 2014, there were 54 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $11 million, and 28
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $7 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$575 million at December 31, 2014 and $616 million at December 31,
2013. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred
Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon
the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future
asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted
basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the
uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does
not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical
costs that might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential
claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos
liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages an
aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy
Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance
retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $616 million at December 31, 2014 and $649 million
at December 31, 2013. These amounts are classified in Other within
Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any
uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.
Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is
probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a
strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation is electric power holding company. The
Company is engaged in supplying and delivering energy to the
United States customers. The Company produces electricity with
nuclear and fossil fuels, and renewable hydropower. It has
approximately 57,500 megawatts of electric generating capacity in
the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida and natural gas
distribution services in Ohio and Kentucky in the United States.
The Company conducts its operations in three business segments:
Regulated Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power.
The Company also operates through its subsidiaries: Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Florida,
Inc., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Suit vs. Crane Co. To Be Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
filed by Gerald Suttner against Crane Co. will be heard this year,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was
accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. Oral argument will be
heard in 2015.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hellam" Suit vs. Crane Co. Is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit filed by James Hellam against Crane Co. remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,
the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the
Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this
ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to
recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in 2 Pa. Suit Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from ruling in asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits before a Pennsylvania state court remain pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial.  The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Peraica" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica
against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the
appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014.
On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million.
The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin
against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except
that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5
million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering
settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages
award to $3.5 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit vs. Crane Co. Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Richard
DeLisle against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.
On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied,
except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million,
and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Plaintiffs
subsequently requested judgments in the amount of $5.3 million in
Sweberg and $2.9 million in Hackshaw. The Company plans to pursue
appeals if necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group and the ORA filed with the CPUC, a
joint motion for approval of the asbestos litigation memorandum
settlement on February 6, 2015, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "From time to time, the Company has been named
as a co-defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits. Several of these
cases against the Company have been dismissed without prejudice.
In other cases, Company's contractors and insurance policy
carriers have settled the cases with no effect on the Company's
financial statements. As such, the Company does not currently
believe there is any potential loss that is probable to occur
related to these matters and therefore no accrual has been
recorded.

"On September 3, 2014, Cal Water filed an application with the
California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") requesting an
asbestos litigation memorandum account to record costs associated
with current and future asbestos lawsuits against Cal Water. Cal
Water and the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates ("ORA") engaged
in mediation and reached a settlement. Cal Water and the ORA filed
a joint motion for approval of the settlement with the CPUC on
February 6, 2015."

California Water Service Group is a holding company. The Company
through its subsidiaries provides regulated and non-regulated
water and wastewater utility services. Its business is conducted
through six operating subsidiaries: California Water Service
Company (Cal Water), New Mexico Water Service Company (New Mexico
Water), Washington Water Service Company (Washington Water),
Hawaii Water Service Company, Inc. (Hawaii Water) and CWS Utility
Services and HWS Utility Services LLC are collectively called
Utility Services. Cal Water, New Mexico Water, Washington Water,
and Hawaii Water are regulated public utilities. Utility Services
provides non-regulated services to private companies and
municipalities The Company's business consists of the production,
purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution and sale of
water for domestic, industrial, public and irrigation uses, and
for fire protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23-Mil. A&E Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s total net losses and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims was $23.0
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid-1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies.

"The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these
claims was $23.0 million as of December 31, 2014 and $25.2 million
as of December 31, 2013. The emergence of these claims is slow and
highly unpredictable. For example, within our Standard Commercial
Lines book, certain landfill sites are included on the National
Priorities List ("NPL") by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines
an appropriate remediation plan for these sites. A landfill can
remain on the NPL for many years until final approval for the
removal of the site is granted from the USEPA. The USEPA has the
authority to re-open previously closed sites and return them to
the NPL. We currently have reserves for eight customers related to
four sites on the NPL.

""Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2014, asbestos claims constituted 32%
of our $23.0 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 30% of our $25.2 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2013.

""Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking
underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,
existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back
oil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new
homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible
for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific
eligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-
claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often
improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of
coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can
be applied, such models can produce significantly different
results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not
calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically,
our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly
lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of
our competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to the
introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in
the mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier and
therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the
majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our
reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace.

"Pension and Post-retirement Benefit Plan Actuarial Assumptions
Our pension and post-retirement benefit obligations and related
costs are calculated using actuarial methods, within the framework
of U.S. GAAP. Two key assumptions, the discount rate and the
expected return on plan assets, are important elements of expense
and/or liability measurement. We evaluate these key assumptions
annually. Other assumptions involve demographic factors, such as
retirement age, mortality, turnover, and rate of compensation
increases. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Society of Actuaries
issued their updated mortality table (RP-2014), which reflects
increasing life expectancies in the United States. We adopted
these mortality tables in the fourth quarter of 2014.

"The discount rate enables us to state expected future cash flows
at their present value on the measurement date. The purpose of the
discount rate is to determine the interest rates inherent in the
price at which pension benefits could be effectively settled. Our
discount rate selection is based on high-quality, long-term
corporate bonds. A higher discount rate reduces the present value
of benefit obligations and reduces pension expense. Conversely, a
lower discount rate increases the present value of benefit
obligations and increases pension expense. We decreased our
discount rate for the Retirement Income Plan for Selective
Insurance Company of America and the Supplemental Excess
Retirement Plan (jointly referred to as the "Retirement Income
Plan" or the "Plan") to 4.29% for 2014, from 5.16% for 2013,
reflecting lower market interest rates. We also decreased our
discount rate for the life insurance benefit provided to eligible
Selective Insurance Company of America ("SICA") employees
(referred to as the "Retirement Life Plan") to 4.08% for 2014 from
4.85% for 2013.

"The expected long-term rate of return on the plan assets is
determined by considering the current and expected asset
allocation, as well as historical and expected returns on each
plan asset class. A lower expected rate of return on pension plan
assets would increase pension expense. Our long-term expected
return on the plan assets was lowered 65 basis points to 6.27% in
2014 as compared to 6.92% in 2013. This expected return is within
a reasonable range considering the lower interest rate
environment, as well as our actual 8.3% annualized return since
the plan inception for all the plan assets.

"At December 31, 2014, our pension and post-retirement benefit
plan obligation was $337.4 million compared to $262.6 million at
December 31, 2013. Volatility in the marketplace, changes in the
discount rate assumption, and further changes in mortality
assumptions could materially impact our pension and post-
retirement life valuation in the future.

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is a New Jersey holding company
that was incorporated in 1977. It has ten insurance subsidiaries,
nine of which are licensed by various state departments of
insurance to write specific lines of property and casualty
insurance business in the standard market. The remaining
subsidiary is authorized by various state insurance departments to
write property and casualty insurance in the excess and surplus
lines ("E&S") market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Had $521-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation's gross loss reserves related to asbestos
claims was $521 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Asbestos remains the most significant and
difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims
volume and dollar exposure. Asbestos claims relate primarily to
bodily injuries asserted by those who came in contact with
asbestos or products containing asbestos. Tort theory affecting
asbestos litigation has evolved over the years. Early court cases
established the "continuous trigger" theory with respect to
insurance coverage. Under this theory, insurance coverage is
deemed to be triggered from the time a claimant is first exposed
to asbestos until the manifestation of any disease. This
interpretation of a policy trigger can involve insurance policies
over many years and increases insurance companies' exposure to
liability. Generally, judicial interpretations and legislative
actions have attempted to maximize insurance availability from
both a coverage and liability standpoint.

"New asbestos claims and new exposures on existing claims have
continued despite the fact that usage of asbestos has declined
since the mid-1970s. Many claimants were exposed to multiple
asbestos products over an extended period of time. As a result,
claim filings typically name dozens of defendants. The plaintiffs'
bar has solicited new claimants through extensive advertising and
through asbestos medical screenings. A vast majority of asbestos
bodily injury claims have been filed by claimants who do not show
any signs of asbestos related disease. New asbestos cases are
often filed in those jurisdictions with a reputation for judges
and juries that are sympathetic to plaintiffs.

"Approximately 110 manufacturers and distributors of asbestos
products have filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of
asbestos related liabilities. A bankruptcy sometimes involves an
agreement to a plan between the debtor and its creditors,
including the creation of a trust to pay current and future
asbestos claimants for their injuries. Although the debtor is
negotiating in part with its insurers' money, insurers are
generally given only limited opportunity to be heard. In addition
to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings not only result in increased settlement demands
against remaining solvent defendants, but also create the
potential for recoveries from multiple trusts by the same claimant
for the same alleged injuries.

"There have been some positive legislative and judicial
developments in the asbestos environment over the past several
years:

* Various challenges to the mass screening of claimants have
occurred, which have led to higher medical evidentiary standards
for asbestos and other exposure-type claims.

* A number of states have implemented legislative and judicial
reforms that focus the courts' resources on the claims of the most
seriously injured. Those who allege serious injury and can present
credible evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket, which preserves the right
to pursue litigation in the future.

* A number of jurisdictions have adopted venue reform that
requires plaintiffs to have a connection to the jurisdiction in
order to file a complaint, although in more recent years, this
type of reform has slowed.

* In recognition that many aspects of bankruptcy plans are unfair
to certain classes of claimants and to the insurance industry,
these plans are being more closely scrutinized by the courts and
rejected when appropriate.

* A number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering
legislation that will require fuller disclosure by plaintiffs of
amounts received from asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

"Our most significant individual asbestos exposures involve
products liability on the part of "traditional" defendants who
were engaged in the manufacture, distribution or installation of
asbestos products. We wrote primary general liability and/or
excess liability coverages for these insureds. While these
insureds are relatively few in number, their exposure has been
substantial due to the high volume of claims, the erosion of the
underlying limits and the bankruptcies of target defendants.
Our other asbestos exposures involve products and non-products
liability on the part of "peripheral" defendants, including a mix
of manufacturers, distributors and installers of certain products
that contain asbestos in small quantities and owners or operators
of properties where asbestos was present. Generally, these
insureds are named defendants on a regional rather than a
nationwide basis. As the financial resources of traditional
asbestos defendants have been depleted, plaintiffs are targeting
these viable peripheral parties with greater frequency and, in
many cases, for large awards.

"Asbestos claims against the major manufacturers, distributors or
installers of asbestos products were typically presented under the
products liability section of primary general liability policies
as well as under excess liability policies, both of which
typically had aggregate limits that capped an insurer's exposure.
In recent years, a number of asbestos claims by insureds are being
presented as "non-products" claims. In these instances, claimants
contend that they came into contact with asbestos at premises
owned or operated by our insureds and/or were exposed to asbestos
during asbestos installation at a particular location. These non-
products claims are presented under the premises or operations
section of primary general liability policies. Unlike products
coverage, the premises or operations coverages in these older
policies typically had no aggregate limits on coverage, creating
potentially greater exposure. Further, in an effort to seek
additional insurance coverage, some insureds with installation
activities who have substantially eroded their products coverage
are presenting new asbestos claims as non-products operations
claims or attempting to reclassify previously settled products
claims as non-products claims to restore a portion of previously
exhausted products aggregate limits. It is difficult to predict
whether insureds will be successful in asserting claims under non-
products coverage or whether insurers will be successful in
asserting additional defenses. Accordingly, the ultimate cost to
insurers of the claims for coverage not subject to aggregate
limits is uncertain.

"In establishing our asbestos reserves, we evaluate the exposure
presented by each insured. As part of this evaluation, we consider
a variety of factors including: the available insurance coverage;
limits and deductibles; the jurisdictions involved; the number of
claimants; the disease mix exhibited by the claimants; the past
settlement values of similar claims; the potential role of other
insurance, particularly underlying coverage below our excess
liability policies; potential bankruptcy impact; relevant judicial
interpretations; and applicable coverage defenses, including
asbestos exclusions.

"Various U.S. federal proposals to solve the ongoing asbestos
litigation crisis have been considered by the U.S. Congress over
the years, but none have yet been enacted. The prospect of federal
asbestos reform legislation remains uncertain. As a result, in
establishing our asbestos reserves, we have assumed a continuation
of the current legal environment with no benefit from any federal
asbestos reform legislation.

"Our actuaries and claim personnel perform periodic analyses of
our asbestos related exposures. The analyses performed in each of
the past three years noted modest adverse developments mostly
related to a small number of existing cases. The analyses also
indicated a slower than expected decline in the number of insureds
with first-time asbestos claim activity. Based on these
developments, we increased our net loss reserves related to
asbestos claims by $25 million in 2014, $51 million in 2013 and
$28 million in 2012.

"The Company's gross loss reserves related to asbestos claims for
the year ended December 31, 2014, was $521 million.

"At December 31, 2014, $321 million of the net loss reserves
related to asbestos claims were IBNR reserves.

"The Company had a total of 342 policyholders with open asbestos
claims at December 31, 2014.

"Significant uncertainty remains as to our ultimate liability
related to asbestos related claims. This uncertainty is due to
several factors including:

* the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease
manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of
multiple policy periods for individual claims;

* plaintiffs' expanding theories of liability and increased focus
on peripheral defendants;

* the volume of claims by unimpaired plaintiffs and the extent to
which they can be precluded from making claims;

* the volume of claims by severely impaired plaintiffs, such as
those with mesothelioma, and the size of settlements and judgments
received by those plaintiffs;

* the volume of claims by plaintiffs suffering from other
malignancies such as lung cancer and their ability to establish a
causal link between their disease and exposure to asbestos;

* the efforts by insureds to claim the right to non-products
coverage not subject to aggregate limits;

* the number of insureds seeking bankruptcy protection as a result
of asbestos related liabilities;

* the ability of claimants to bring a claim in a state in which
they have no residency or exposure;

* the impact of the exhaustion of primary limits and the resulting
increase in claims on excess liability policies we have issued;

* inconsistent court decisions and diverging legal
interpretations; and

* the possibility, however remote, of federal legislation that
would address the asbestos problem.

"These significant uncertainties are not likely to be resolved in
the near future."

The Chubb Corporation (Chubb) is a holding company for several,
separately organized, property and casualty insurance companies
referred to informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
(the P&C Group). The P&C Group provides property and casualty
insurance to businesses and individuals worldwide. The P&C Group
operates through three business units: Chubb Personal Insurance,
Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty Insurance. The
Personal Insurance business offers personal insurance products to
individuals and homeowners. The Commercial Insurance business
offers underwriting business and commercial insurance to
commercial entities. The Specialty Insurance business offers
customized insurance products to variety of specialized
professional liability products for privately held and publicly
traded companies, financial institutions, professional firms,
healthcare and not-for-profit organizations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Continues to Defend Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to
defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that
was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The
subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining
assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements
received. As of December 31, 2014, the overwhelming majority of
these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have
been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a
continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims
against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the
subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these
claims is less than $3,800 (excluding costs of defense). Although
the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these
cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company,
and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement
of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases
were previously handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now
insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the
aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The
subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15,000 and
$20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are
restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense
associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. In 2007, the
subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered
into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the
carrier agreed to pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred
by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos
bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of December 31, 2014, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues
under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved
adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used,
the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in
respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to
the subsidiary."

Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces, and markets a
range of formulated chemical specialty products, and offers
chemical management services (CMS) for various heavy industrial
and manufacturing applications in a global portfolio throughout
its four regions: the North America region, the Europe, Middle
East and Africa (EMEA) region, the Asia/Pacific region and the
South America region. The products and services in the Company's
portfolio include rolling lubricants, corrosion preventives, metal
finishing compounds, machining and grinding compounds, forming
compounds, hydraulic fluids, chemical milling maskants,
construction products, specialty greases, die casting lubricants,
technology for the removal of hydrogen sulfide in various
industrial applications, and programs to provide chemical
management services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Has $36-Mil. Net A&E Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims were $36 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2014, known asbestos and
environmental claims at our insurance company subsidiaries have
not had a material impact on our operations. These claims have not
materially impacted us because these subsidiaries generally did
not insure the larger industrial companies which were subject to
significant asbestos or environmental exposures prior to 1986 when
an absolute pollution exclusion was incorporated into standard
policy language.

"Our net reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating
to asbestos and environmental claims were $36 million at both
December 31, 2014 and 2013. The Company's gross reserves for
losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and
environmental claims were $56 million and $59 million at December
31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Net incurred losses and loss
expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims increased
by approximately $4 million, $5 million and $2 million in 2014,
2013 and 2012, respectively. Net paid losses and loss expenses for
reported asbestos and environmental claims were approximately $3
million, $3 million and $2 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012,
respectively. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to
significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty
because it is difficult to make a reasonable actuarial estimate of
these liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted
actuarial methodology for these exposures and the potential effect
of significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues
as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally,
the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of
such damages to financially responsible parties are highly
uncertain."

W. R. Berkley Corporation (W. R. Berkley) is an insurance holding
company. The Company operates in the three segments of the
property casualty insurance business: Insurance-Domestic,
Insurance-International and Reinsurance-Global. The Company's
Insurance -Domestic operating units underwrite specialty risks
within the excess and surplus lines market and on an admitted
basis. The Company through its Insurance-International operating
units writes business in almost 40 countries across the world,
with branches or offices in 15 locations outside the United
States, including the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, South
America, Canada, Scandinavia, and Australia. The Company provides
other insurance companies and self-insureds with assistance in
managing their net risk through reinsurance on either a portfolio
basis, through treaty reinsurance, or on an individual basis,
through facultative reinsurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $81-Mil. A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation has $81 million reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims at December 31, 2014, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We carried $81 million of net loss and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and
$51 million of reserves for mold claims at December 31, 2014,
compared with $77 million and $51 million, respectively, at
December 31, 2013. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts
for each respective year constituted 2.0 percent and 1.9 percent
of total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end
dates.

"We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or
below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines
company in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s and early 1990s,
commercial lines grew as a percentage of our overall business and
our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew
accordingly. Over that period, we included an asbestos and
environmental exclusion in most policies or endorsed the exclusion
to the policies. We have not engaged in any mergers or
acquisitions through which such a liability could have been
assumed. We continue to monitor our claims for evidence of
material exposure to other mass tort classes such as silicosis,
but we have found no such credible evidence as of December 31,
2014."

Cincinnati Financial Corporation is an insurance holding company.
The Company operates through its three subsidiaries: The
Cincinnati Insurance Company, CSU Producer Resources Inc. and CFC
Investment Company. The Company operates through five segments:
Commercial lines property casualty insurance, Personal lines
property casualty insurance, Excess and surplus lines property
casualty insurance, Life insurance and Investments. Commercial
Lines Property Casualty Insurance Segment includes the commercial
lines premiums, which are written to provide accounts with
coverages from over one of the Company's business lines. The
personal lines property casualty insurance segment writes personal
lines coverage in accounts. The excess and surplus lines property
casualty segment generally covers business risks with unique
characteristics. The life insurance segment supports the Company's
agency-centered business model. The investments segment are
primarily from net investment income.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,730 Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending against 7,730 asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay
Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate
defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named
as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,730 claims as of
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of December 31,
2014, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
9,875 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance
carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8%
of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

"For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as
the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon
claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be
made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these
remaining claims.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from
Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the
Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a
number of actions.

"Although we do not believe, based on currently available
information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible
loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our
understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement
amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement
experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or
Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and
the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any
material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits.

"Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently
available information, that the ultimate resolution of the
aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp., is an advanced textiles and materials
processing company. The Company operates through two business
segments: The Machine Clothing (MC) segment and The Albany
Engineered Composites segment (AEC). The Machine Clothing (MC)
segment includes paper machine clothing, engineered fabrics and
belts used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard as well as
engineered fabrics and belts used in many other industrial
applications. The Company is engaged in design, manufacture, and
market paper machine clothing for each section of the paper
machine. The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC), including
Albany Safran Composites, LLC (ASC), in which its customer SAFRAN
Group owns a 10% noncontrolling interest, provides custom-designed
advanced composite structures based on proprietary technology to
customers in the aerospace and defense industries. AEC's largest
development program relates to the LEAP engine being developed by
CFM International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Has $1.7-Bil. Fibro Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., has $1.7 billion of
net asbestos reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "The Company continues to receive asbestos and
environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily
injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or
products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate
primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs.

"The Company wrote several different categories of insurance
contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims. First,
the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of
coverage in an insured's liability program. Second, the Company
wrote excess policies providing higher layers of coverage for
losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the
Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks
assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess and reinsurance
coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries of the Company participated in the
London Market, writing both direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business.

"Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of reserve estimates
for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more
traditional exposures.

"In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and
inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time,
insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant
changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the
claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims,
making predictions of future exposure from past experience
uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use
bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to
accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition,
some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for
coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply.
Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and
unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company's ability to
recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims.
Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in
the near future.

"In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding
theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major
litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and
scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to
the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured.

"The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including
those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much longer
than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or
years to determine that the policyholder's own obligations have
been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such
claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures
adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves.

"It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and
legislative environment and their effect on the future development
of asbestos and environmental claims.

"The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it
employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in
estimating reserves for certain of its asbestos and environmental
exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on
exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these
claims and regularly evaluates new account information in
assessing its potential asbestos and environmental exposures. The
Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations
of the Company's historical direct net loss and expense paid and
reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported
experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging
trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate
paid and reported activity.

"As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company reported $1.7
billion of net asbestos reserves and $247 and $276 of net
environmental reserves, respectively. The Company believes that
its current asbestos and environmental reserves are appropriate.
However, analyses of future developments could cause The Hartford
to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos and
environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could be
material to the Company's consolidated operating results and
liquidity."

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
property and casualty and life insurance, as well as investment
products to both individual and business customers in the United
States. The Company conducts business in six segments, including
Property & Casualty Commercial, Consumer Markets, Property &
Casualty Other Operations, Group Benefits, Mutual Funds and
Talcott Resolution, as well as a Corporate category. The Company
includes in its Corporate category the Company's debt financing
and related interest expense, as well as other capital raising
activities, and purchase accounting adjustments related to
goodwill and other expenses not allocated to the segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 9, 2012, George C. Gutschall and Pamela M. Gutschall,
husband and wife, commenced suit against several defendants
contending that Mr. Gutschall contracted lung cancer as a result
of being exposed to asbestos at various sites.  With regard to
Metropolitan Edison Company, the Gutschalls contend that Mr.
Gutschall was exposed to asbestos while working as a boilermaker
at MetEd's facilities located at Three Mile Island, Portland and
Titus.

MetEd and Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. filed motions for summary
judgment, which the trial court granted.  On June 3, 2014, the
case settled as to all remaining defendants.  On June 27, 2014,
the Gutschalls filed a notice of appeal from the orders granting
summary judgment in favor of MetEd and PP&L.

In a memorandum dated May 1, 2015, the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that,
assuming arguendo that the Appellants established that Mr.
Gutschall was exposed to asbestos on MetEd's premises, that
showing alone would not be sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Therefore, the Superior Court held, if it was to address the
issue, it would not agree that the trial court abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of MetEd.

The case is GEORGE C. AND PAMELA M. GUTSCHALL, H/W, Appellants, v.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.,
A/K/A PPL CORPORATION, Appellees, NO. 1973 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MXTNuUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Wins Summary Judgment in "Wommack" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. moved for summary
judgment, claiming that it is not liable for Robert Wommack's
occupational disease of asbestos-related disease on several
theories, including: (1) under the 1973 and 1983 statutes, notice
was not timely given, and the statute of repose barred recovery;
(2) under the last injurious exposure rule, regardless of which
Occupational Disease Act applies, it cannot be held liable for
Wommack's OD; and (3) it was not the insurer at the time Wommack's
asbestos-related disease was first diagnosed, and thus not liable
pursuant to Section 39-72-303(2), MCA.

Wommack opposes the motion but does not dispute that he was
exposed to asbestos after September 30, 1985, when National
Farmers Union ceased its workers' compensation coverage for his
employer.  Neither Respondent Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. nor
Respondent Montana State Fund opposes the motion.  Liberty Mutual
Fire Ins. Co. is the sole insurer opposing National Farmers
Union's motion.  It does so for the purpose of proclaiming itself
not liable for Wommack's OD, and that the 1997 ODA governs
Wommack's claim.

Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana, in an order dated April 28, 2015, granted National
Farmers Union's motion for summary judgment is granted, holding
that "no party has presented any argument that National Farmers
Union is or could be liable for Wommack's OD under Montana law.
Neither Nationwide nor State Fund opposed National Farmers Union's
motion for summary judgment, thereby tacitly agreeing that
National Farmers Union is not liable for Wommack's OD.  Liberty
argues the 1997 WCA applies to this case and that it is not liable
for Wommack's OD under the last injurious exposure rule because
Wommack's last injurious exposure occurred before it became the
insurer at risk.  However, Liberty does not argue that National
Farmers Union is or could be liable for Wommack's OD.  Wommack,
who has the burden of proving which insurer is liable, argues that
he was exposed to asbestos during his entire 30 years of
employment with Cenex and that "liability for [his] last injurious
exposure lies among the insurers responsible for these time
frames,"  but does not specifically argue that National Farmers
Union is liable for his OD.  National Farmers Union is therefore
entitled to judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Section
39-72-303(1), MCA, In re Mitchell, and Nelson."

The case is ROBERT WOMMACK, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
PROPERTY & CASUALTY, CO.; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INS CO.; MONTANA
STATE FUND; CHS INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO.; and DOES 1-5,
inclusive Respondents/Insurers, WCC NO. 2015-3518 (WCC).  A full-
text copy of Judge Sandler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vfaZTtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. App. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Management Inc. appeals from a judgment of dismissal
entered in Superior Court following the allowance of Transatlantic
Reinsurance Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint
pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974).  The
complaint asserted claims of tortious interference with
contractual relations and violation of G. L. c. 93A.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, in an opinion dated
April 29, 2015, concluded that the judge correctly dismissed the
claims of Resolute for tortious interference with contractual
relations as Resolute is not a party to the contracts at issue.
However, the Appeals Court concluded that the allegations of the
complaint do not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiffs
cannot maintain a cause of action under G. L. c. 93A, or whether
New York or Massachusetts law should apply to the claims of
National Indemnity Company for tortious interference with
contractual relations.  Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed so
much of the judgment as dismisses the plaintiffs' c. 93A claims
and National's claims for tortious interference with contractual
relations.

National is an eligible surplus lines insurer and reinsurer in
Nebraska whose business includes issuing reinsurance contracts and
contracting to manage asbestos-related personal injury claims for
Massachusetts-based insurers.  National's business, in part, is to
enter contracts with other insurers' clients, pursuant to which it
(or Resolute, as National's agent) resolves claims against those
other insurers and collects reinsurance.

The case is RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC. & another vs. TRANSATLANTIC
REINSURANCE COMPANY & another, NO. 14-P-573 (Mass. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/97e1dafrom
Leagle.com.

Bryce L. Friedman, of New York (Kevin O'Connor with him) for the
plaintiffs.

John N. Thomas, of New York (Ben T. Clements with him) for the
defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. App. Remands "Sorenson" Suit for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
George Sorenson's estate filed strict-products-liability and
negligence claims, based upon a failure to warn, against Building
Service Industrial Sales, Inc., a company that supplied asbestos
insulation products to Sorenson's employers.  Following a motion
for summary judgment, the circuit court dismissed Sorenson's
claims against BSIS, concluding that those claims were barred by
the construction statute of repose, WIS. STAT. Section 893.89(2)
(2013-14).  Sorenson appeals, arguing that material issues of fact
exist regarding whether BSIS was "a person involved in the
improvement of real property."

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, in an opinion dated
April 28, 2015, agreed that a genuine issue of material fact
exists and remanded the case back to the circuit court for trial.

The case is RODNETTE SORENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE SORENSON,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BUILDING SERVICE INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC.,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
OAKFABCO, INC. AND TRANE US, INC., DEFENDANTS, LOCAL 19 & 27
HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, SUBROGATED DEFENDANT, APPEAL NO. 2014AP964
(Wis. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/lKe3rRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Cos. in PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, recommended that the District
Court grant summary judgment and dismiss with prejudice several
defendants in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit after
the plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the defendants'
motions for summary judgment.

The case is CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-406-SLR-SRF (D. Del.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate
Fallon's April 24, 2015, Report and Recommendation is available at
http://is.gd/uYYPWpfrom Leagle.com.

Charles D. Malone, Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael L. Sensor, Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC & Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham
Lawler & Buba.

Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP,
Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey
& Chilcote, P.C..

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher C.
Popper, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Krista Reale Samis,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E.
Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Joseph W. Benson,
Esq..

Cummins Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
Nathan David Barillo, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn
Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Hopeman Brothers Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by R. Stokes Nolte, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC,
Stephanie S. Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC & Mary
Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn
Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C..

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer &
Turchi LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger,
P.C..

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli
& Hanna LLP.

Riley Power Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC &
Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

William Powell Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Anne Kai Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte,
Pinnie and Seelaus.

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli
& Hanna LLP.

Trane US Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand
J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
& Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger,
P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Hockler" Suit Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, allowed the withdrawal of an appeal, previously
perfected for the June 2015 Term, filed in the lawsuit captioned
IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HOCKLER, v.
3M COMPANY -- AURORA PUMP COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1424 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Zb8h58from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dugas" Suit Partially Dismissed vs. UTC, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl S. Dugas and his wife Marsha Dugas filed a second amended
complaint setting forth four causes of action: (1) negligence; (2)
strict liability; (3) fraudulent concealment; and (4) loss of
consortium.  The gravamen of the SAC is that Darryl Dugas was
exposed to asbestos fibers which led to his development of
malignant mesothelioma.  Mr. Dugas' exposure to asbestos came from
his contact with asbestos-containing products during his tenure
with the United States Navy.  The products were either mined,
processed, supplied, manufactured, or distributed by Defendants,
or their predecessors.  Following Mr. Dugas's filing of the SAC,
Defendants 3M Company, United Technologies Corporation, Shell Oil
Company, and IMO Industries, Incorporated, filed motions to
dismiss arguing that the SAC fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and fails to plead fraudulent concealment
with the requisite level of specificity.

In an order dated April 27, 2015, Judge Brian J. Davis of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  Judge Davis dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims of fraudulent concealment against
UTC, IMO and Shell.

The case is DARRYL S. DUGAS and MARSHA DUGAS, his wife,
Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-
1096-J-39JBT (M.D. Fla.).  A full-text copy of Judge Davis'
Decision is available at http://is.gd/mbokKjfrom Leagle.com.

Darryl S. Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M. Pickert,
Terrell Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, The Lanier Law Firm, H.W. Trey
Jones, Lanier Law Firm & Mark A. Linder, Lanier Law Firm.

Marsha Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M. Pickert, Terrell
Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, The Lanier Law Firm, H.W. Trey Jones,
Lanier Law Firm & Mark A. Linder, Lanier Law Firm.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Dara D. Mann, McKenna, Long
& Aldridge, LLP, Monica L. Irel, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP &
Sada J. Baby, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eduardo J. Medina,
Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm,
PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole,
Bice Cole Law Firm, PL.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eduardo
J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice
Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL &
Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL.

Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, represented by Billie Jo
Taylor, Esq. -- btaylor@boyd-jenerette.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA
& Kristen M. Van der Linde, Esq. -- kvanderlinde@boyd-
jenerette.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Billie Jo Taylor,
Boyd & Jenerette, PA & Kristen M. Van der Linde, Boyd & Jenerette,
PA.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Evelyn Fletcher
Davis, Hawkins & Parnell, LLP & Todd Carlton Alley, Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph C.
Wilson, IV, Pierce, Herns, Sloan & Wilson, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Inmates' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of claims filed by
James Templeton and David Cowden under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Messrs. Templeton and Cowden, inmates at the Fremont Correctional
Facility, filed suit alleging that numerous prison officials
violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment when they allowed
the inmates to be exposed to mastic and asbestos within the
premises of the correctional.

The appeals case is JAMES TEMPLETON; DAVID COWDEN, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, and ROBERT GALLOB; DAVID ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. PETER
ANDERSON; JEFF SMITH; JAMES CHANEY; TIMOTHY CREANY; JAN SYLVIA;
STEVEN GALLEGOS; CHERI DRENNON; STEPHEN ENGLE; THOMAS MARTIN,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-1334 (10th Circ.).  A full-text copy
of the April 15, 2015 Decision penned by Judge Carlos F. Lucero is
available at http://is.gd/qyVyLlfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *