CAR_Public/150511.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 93


                             Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Augustus Case Due
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal
ACN TRUCKING: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
AGRESERVES INC: Removes "Rivera" Class Suit to E.D. California

ALY CENTRIFUGE: "Mallett" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
AMEDISYS INC: Securities Class Action Returns to District Court
AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Wage & Hour Case Pursue Mediation
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

B FRANK JOY: Accused of Retaliation, Illegal Discharge Under FLSA
B&B COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
B&G FOODS: Class Actions Against Pirate Brands Dismissed
B&G FOODS: "Alduey" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
BARCLAYS PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

BARCLAYS PLC: MDL Court Wants Settlement Allocation Plan
BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery to be Completed by Yearend in Fraud Case
BARCLAYS PLC: Appellate Briefing to Be Done by Summer's End
BARCLAYS PLC: JPY LIBOR Case Discovery Stayed Thru at Least May
BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Proceedings Stayed Thru at Least May

BARCLAYS PLC: Defendants Move to Dismiss Amended ISDAfix Case
BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Civil Actions Consolidated for Pretrial
BARCLAYS PLC: 2 Foreign Exchange Trading Civil Actions Dismissed
BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Complaint Related to ADS in Discovery
BIG HEART: Defending Against "Thomas" Class Action

BIG HEART: Defending Against Gamez v. Del Monte Case
BIG HEART: May 18 Final Settlement Hearing in "Montgomery" Case
BIG HEART: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Miller"
BIG HEART: Updates on Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur Cases
BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure in Webster v. Del Monte

BLATT HASENMILLER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
BMW VEHICLE: RMBS Plaintiffs Win Dismissal of State Court Suit
BOB EVANS: Seeks to Have Class in "Snodgrass" Case Decertified
BP PLC: Deadline for Submitting Medical Benefits Claims Lapsed
BP PLC: Trial of Securities Fraud Claims Set for January 2016

BP PLC: Plaintiffs in ERISA Case Filed Amended Complaint
BP PLC: Briefing on Application in Canadian Action Concluded
BP PLC: Briefing on Appeal in Dividend-Related Proceedings Done
BP PLC: Amended Complaints in 15 Individual Securities Cases Due
BRANDED LLC: Recalls Kaleidoscopes Due to Laceration Risk

CALIX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Held
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Surrett" Case Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motions Due in "Wilson" Case
CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Woori Bank's Suit Over CDO Fraud

CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation
COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: Enters Into Settlement in LIBOR Manipulation Probe
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York

ELI LILLY: Faces "Courtney" Suit Arising From Cymbalta Injuries
FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Felt Cruiser Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
HY-VEE INC: Recalls Summer Fresh Pasta Salad Due to Listeria
IKEA NORTH: Recalls Sultan and Vyssa Crib Mattresses

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties Filed Bid to Stay Pending Mediation
KENT NUTRITION: Recalls Medicated Poultry Feeds Due to Salt
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing Suits Over Silicon Image Merger
LOS ALTOS BEACH: Judge Awards $4.5MM to Family in Bush Crash Suit
LYFT INC: Removes "Bekele" Suit to Massachusetts District Court

MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MICHAELS STORES: "Horton" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
NASDAQ STOCK: Settles Facebook IPO Suit for $26.5 Million
NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Hearing Stricken in MaxxForce Litigation
NAVISTAR INT'L: Ruling Date in Shareholder Litigation Extended

NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit by Transport Workers Union
NOMI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Charges Over Privacy Policy
ORTOVOX CANADA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers
PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Pinty's Eatwell Brand Chicken Products
POCO DOLCE: Recalls Individually Wrapped Tiles Due to Milk

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Defendant in Lax v. Toth Case
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
PRIME CONSULTING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Gabapentin Products
SABRE CORP: Class Suit Stayed Pending State Court Action Results

SABRE CORP: Court Closed Hotel Related Antitrust Case
SAFEWAY INC: Bid for Final Deal Approval to Be Filed Mid-2015
SENSO GROUP: Recalls Charcoal Products Due to Mislabeling
SMITH & WESSON: Defendant in Eight Product Liability Cases
ST. FRANCIS: Recalls All-Seasons Detox Kit Due to Excess Lead

ST. FRANCIS: Recalls Bulklax V Products Due to Arsenic & Lead
STATE AUTO: Proceedings in Schumacher Case Stayed
STRATASYS LTD: Faces Class Actions in Minnesota & New York
SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Actos Lawsuits for $2.4 Billion

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Deal Okayed in Canadian Horsepower Label Case
TIME WARNER: "Johnson" Suit Moved to S. Carolina District Court
TORO COMPANY: Recalls Walk-Behind Power Mowers
TRACER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Crash Injury
TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle With Front Quick Release Levers

TROPHIC CANADA: Recalls Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox Systems
UPM MARKETING: Expands Line Voltage Thermostats Recall
VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending as of December 31
VECTOR GROUP: 13 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Dec. 2015
VECTOR GROUP: Engle Payments Pegged at $3.5MM Per Year Thru 2028

VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Costs Total $9.9MM
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 155 Engle Progeny Cases
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Golf, GTI and A3 Models
WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case

WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Securities Litigation
WINE GROUP: Faces "Bithorn" Suit Over Arsenic-Contaminated Wine
YAMAHA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk

* Court Urged to Approve LSAT Disability Accommodations Plan


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Augustus Case Due
-------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that plaintiffs'
appeal in the Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County were due on or
before March 10, 2015.

"The Augustus case is a certified class action involving
allegations that we violated certain California state laws
relating to rest breaks," the Company said.  "The case centers
around whether requiring security guards to remain on call during
rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code.
On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million. Subsequently, the Superior Court also
awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million
in addition to approximately 30% of the $89.7 million common fund.
We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of Appeals
of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the
"Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued
its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and the attorneys'
fees award.  Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the Appeals Court's
decision to reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiffs and vacate
the damages award. On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied
the plaintiffs' request for rehearing, modified its December 31,
2014 opinion, and certified the opinion for publication.  The
Appeals Court opinion held that "on-call rest breaks are
permissible" and remaining on call during rest breaks does not
render the rest breaks invalid under California law.  The Appeals
Court explained that "although on-call hours constitute 'hours
worked,' remaining available to work is not the same as performing
work. . . .  Section 226.7 proscribes only work on a rest break."
If the plaintiffs choose to appeal this decision to the California
Supreme Court, their petition for review will be due on or before
March 10, 2015."


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled in the Consolidated
Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco (the "Bucio case").

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19,
2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification
issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the
decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed
their appellate brief on the class certification issues. We filed
our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating
to the appeal has not been scheduled.


ACN TRUCKING: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Raul Rodriguez, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ACN Trucking Corp. d/b/a American Foods,
Angelo Natoli, Nicole Natoli, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No.
1:15-cv-03052-PGG (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) seeks relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Kassab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02242 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (347) 526-4093
          Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
          E-mail: yzelman@gmail.com


AGRESERVES INC: Removes "Rivera" Class Suit to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rivera v. AgReserves, Inc., et
al., Case No. S-1500-CV-284358-SPC, was removed from the Kern
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Fresno).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00613-AWI-JLT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard D. Marca, Esq.
          Jamie E. Wrage, Esq.
          Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
          GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN
          3750 University Avenue, Suite 250
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 684-2171
          Facsimile: (951) 684-2150
          E-mail: Richard.Marca@GreshamSavage.com
                  Jamie.Wrage@greshamsavage.com
                  jeff.olsen@greshamsavage.com


ALY CENTRIFUGE: "Mallett" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mallett, et al. v. Aly Centrifuge,
Inc. aka Aly Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00085, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:15-cv-01026 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Esq.
          2842 Lawnview
          Corpus Christi, TX 78404
          Telephone: (361) 882-5747
          Facsimile: (361) 882-8926
          E-mail: cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com

               - and -

          Richard J. 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

               - and -

          Adam Poncio, Esq.
          PONCIO LAW OFFICES PC
          5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 109
          San Antonio, TX 78229
          Telephone: (210) 212-7979
          Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
          E-mail: salaw@msn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mario Kenny Castillo, Esq.
          Daniel N. Ramirez, Esq.
          MONTY & RAMIREZ LLP
          150 W Parker Road, Third Floor
          Houston, TX 77076
          Telephone: (281) 493-5529
          Facsimile: (281) 493-5983
          E-mail: mcastillo@montyramirezlaw.com
                  dramirez@montyramirezlaw.com


AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company will
vigorously defend against this class action suit, Amarin
Corporation plc, Securities Litigation.

On November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin
Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin
Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013),
Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No.
3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December
9, 2013, the cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
transferred to the District of New Jersey and all such cases are
now consolidated as In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities
Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The
plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former
officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding
the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and
related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data
from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

"We believe that we have valid defenses and we will vigorously
defend against this class action suit, but cannot predict the
outcome. We are unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure,
if any, associated with the claims. We have insurance coverage
that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that
may arise from this action after payment by us of the associated
deductible obligation under such insurance coverage," the Company
said.


AMEDISYS INC: Securities Class Action Returns to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the securities class
action complaint now returns to the District Court for further
proceedings.

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and
certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional
putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July
14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the District Court issued an order
consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and
the Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same
order, the District Court appointed the Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers'
Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead
Plaintiffs") for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the
District Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit
with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative
Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the
defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's
decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the case. The
case now returns to the District Court for further proceedings. No
assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this
matter.


AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Wage & Hour Case Pursue Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the
plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Litigation while they pursue a
mediated settlement.

The Company said, "On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three
former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former
employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours
worked over forty hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-
visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in
their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing
that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous
and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and
plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held
that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under
other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work,
in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based
on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of
current and former employees they allege are similarly situated,
plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages
going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the
Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the
statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs
who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the
date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for
conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this
lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a
motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3,
2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class
members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the
date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs'
July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA
claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members
to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April
17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The
period within which putative class members were permitted to opt
in to the action expired on July 16, 2014."

"On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new
claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that
the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were
owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from
overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not
properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.
On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five
years before the filing of their original complaint under the
KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to
add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs have
agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the
Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to
stay proceedings for six months while they pursue this process,
which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015. There can be
no assurance that the proposed mediation process will lead to a
resolution of this matter."


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. American Coradius International LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02243 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


B FRANK JOY: Accused of Retaliation, Illegal Discharge Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hill v. B. Frank Joy, L.L.C., Case No. 8:15-cv-01123 (D.
Md., April 20, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff against his
former employer for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and wrongful discharge and malicious use of process under
Maryland state law.

Mr. Hill is a resident of Laurel, Prince George's County,
Maryland.  He is a former hourly, non-exempt employee of the
Defendant.

B. Frank Joy, L.L.C., is a Maryland limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Hyattsville, Prince
George's County, Maryland.  The Defendant has operated in the
construction industry, specializing in the installation,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of underground infrastructure for
the public and private sectors.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are also parties to a Class Action
Complaint for unpaid regular and overtime wages filed
contemporaneously in this District by the Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated under the FLSA and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq.
          Nathan I. Finkelstein, Esq.
          THE FINKELSTEIN GROUP, P.C.
          4600 N. Park Avenue, Suite 101
          Chevy Chase, MA 20815
          Telephone: (301) 951-8400
          Facsimile: (301) 951-8401
          E-mail: Matt@fglawfirm.com
                  Nat@fglawfirm.com


B&B COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Coppahidric, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. B&B Collections, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-02772-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., April 20, 2015) seeks relief in
connection with alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


B&G FOODS: Class Actions Against Pirate Brands Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that each of the class action
lawsuits against Pirate Brands was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice by the respective plaintiffs for an immaterial
settlement amount.

"Beginning in December 2012, Pirate Brands was named as a
defendant in six duplicative putative class action lawsuits filed
in United States District Courts, two of which were filed prior to
our ownership of Pirate Brands, alleging that Pirate Brands'
products were improperly labeled as "natural" because they
contained "genetically modified" and "highly processed"
ingredients," the Company said.

"Each case was filed on behalf of a plaintiff and purported
similarly situated individuals. In 2013, all of the cases were
transferred to the Eastern District of New York. Pirate Brands had
moved to dismiss each of the actions when, in December 2014, each
case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the respective
plaintiffs for an immaterial settlement amount. The dismissal of
these actions did not have a material effect on B&G Foods'
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."


B&G FOODS: "Alduey" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that Carolina Alduey has
voluntarily dismissed her class action with prejudice for an
immaterial settlement amount.

B&G Foods was named as a defendant in two putative class action
lawsuits alleging that certain of the Company's products were
improperly labeled as "natural" because they contained
"genetically modified" and/or "highly processed" ingredients.

"The first case was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in September 2014 by Bonnie Jo
Pettinga, Caleb Johnson, Shawn Teufel and Joseph Grey,
individually and purportedly on behalf of similarly situated
individuals. This action was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the plaintiffs on or about October 17, 2014. The
second case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in October 2014 by Carolina Alduey,
purportedly on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals," the Company said.

In November 2014, Ms. Alduey voluntarily dismissed her action with
prejudice for an immaterial settlement amount. The dismissal of
these actions did not have a material effect on B&G Foods'
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


BARCLAYS PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Barclays
has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in a shareholder
securities class action.

Civil complaints have been filed in the New York Federal Court on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs against BPLC and others
generally alleging that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by participating in a scheme in which high-
frequency trading firms were given informational and other
advantages so that they could manipulate the US securities market
to the plaintiffs' detriment.

In June 2014, the NYAG filed a complaint (Complaint) against BPLC
and Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York (NY Supreme Court) alleging, amongst other things,
that BPLC and BCI engaged in fraud and deceptive practices in
connection with LX Liquidity Cross, the Group's SEC-registered
ATS. Barclays filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in July
2014. The NYAG filed an amended complaint (Amended Complaint) on 3
February 2015 in response to Barclays' motion to dismiss. On 13
February 2015, the NY Supreme Court granted in part and denied in
part Barclays' motion to dismiss. Barclays will file a motion to
dismiss any remaining claims asserted by the NYAG in the Amended
Complaint. Proceedings in this matter are continuing.

Barclays has also been named in a class action by an institutional
investor client under California law based on allegations similar
to those in the Complaint. This California class action has been
consolidated with the class action filed in the New York Federal
Court.

Also, following the filing of the Complaint, Barclays was named in
a shareholder securities class action along with its current and
certain of its former CEOs and CFOs on the basis that investors
suffered damages when their investments in Barclays American
Depository Receipts declined in value as a result of the
allegations in the Complaint. Barclays has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

It is possible that additional complaints relating to these or
similar matters may be brought in the future against BPLC and/or
its affiliates.


BARCLAYS PLC: MDL Court Wants Settlement Allocation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the MDL
Court has granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
remaining Exchange-Based Class claims for $19.98 million and has
requested that the plaintiffs present a plan for allocation of the
settlement proceeds.

The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in
various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes before a single judge in the SDNY (MDL Court).

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, amongst other
things, that BBPLC and the other banks individually and
collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act,
the CEA, the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages with the exception of five
lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in
excess of $1.25bn in actual damages against all defendants,
including BBPLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also
seek trebling of damages under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and
RICO.

The proposed class actions purport to be brought on behalf of
(amongst others) plaintiffs that (i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked
over-the-counter transactions (OTC Class); (ii) purchased USD
LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an exchange (Exchange-Based
Class); (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities (Debt
Securities Class); (iv) purchased adjustable-rate mortgages linked
to USD LIBOR (Homeowner Class); or (v) issued loans linked to USD
LIBOR (Lender Class).

In August 2012, the MDL Court stayed all newly filed proposed
class actions and individual actions (Stayed Actions), so that the
MDL Court could address the motions pending in three lead proposed
class actions (Lead Class Actions) and three lead individual
actions (Lead Individual Actions).

In March 2013, the MDL Court issued a decision dismissing the
majority of claims against BBPLC and other panel bank defendants
in the Lead Class Actions and Lead Individual Actions.

Following the decision, the plaintiffs in the Lead Class Actions
sought permission to either file an amended complaint or appeal an
aspect of the March 2013 decision. In August 2013 and June 2014,
the MDL Court denied the majority of the motions presented in the
Lead Class Actions. As a result, the:

     * Debt Securities Class has been dismissed entirely;

     * The claims of the Exchange-Based Class have been limited to
claims under the CEA; and

     * The claims of the OTC Class have been limited to claims for
unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

Subsequent to the MDL Court's March 2013 decision, the plaintiffs
in the Lead Individual Actions filed a new action in California
state court (since moved to the MDL Court) based on the same
allegations as those initially alleged in the proposed class
action cases. The Debt Securities Class attempted to appeal the
dismissal of their action to the US Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (Second Circuit), but the Second Circuit dismissed
the appeal as untimely on the grounds that the MDL Court had not
reached a decision resolving all of the claims in the consolidated
actions. In January 2015, the US Supreme Court reversed the Second
Circuit's decision, ruling that the Second Circuit must hear the
Debt Securities Class' appeal. The OTC Class and the Exchange-
Based Class have received permission to join this appeal. Certain
other proposed class actions that had previously been stayed by
the MDL Court have also received permission to join the appeal as
to the dismissal of their antitrust claims.

In December 2014, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval for
the settlement of the remaining Exchange-Based Class claims for
$19.98m and has requested that the plaintiffs present a plan for
allocation of the settlement proceeds.

Additionally, the MDL Court has begun to address the claims in the
Stayed Actions, many of which, including state law fraud and
tortious interference claims, were not asserted in the Lead Class
Actions. As a result, in October 2014, the direct action
plaintiffs (those who have opted out of the class actions) filed
their amended complaints and in November 2014, the defendants
filed their motions to dismiss. In November 2014, the plaintiffs
in the Lender Class and Homeowner Class actions filed their
amended complaints. In January 2015, the defendants filed their
motions to dismiss.

Until there are further decisions, the ultimate impact of the MDL
Court's decisions will be unclear, although it is possible that
the decisions will be interpreted by courts to affect other
litigation, some of which concern different benchmark interest
rates.


BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery to be Completed by Yearend in Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery
is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2015 in the
securities fraud case.

Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery
is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2015 in the
securities fraud case.

BPLC, BBPLC and BCI have been named as defendants along with four
former officers and directors of BBPLC in a proposed securities
class action pending in the SDNY in connection with BBPLC's role
as a contributor panel bank to LIBOR. The complaint asserted
claims under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, principally
alleging that BBPLC's Annual Reports for the years 2006 to 2011
contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst other
things) BBPLC's compliance with its operational risk management
processes and certain laws and regulations. The complaint also
alleged that BBPLC's daily USD LIBOR submissions constituted false
statements in violation of US securities law. The complaint was
brought on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons or
entities that purchased BPLC-sponsored American Depositary
Receipts on a US securities exchange between 10 July 2007 and 27
June 2012. In May 2013, the district court granted BBPLC's motion
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed,
and, in April 2014, the Second Circuit issued an order upholding
the dismissal of certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but reversing
the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims that BBPLC's daily USD
LIBOR submissions constituted false statements in violation of US
securities law. The action has been remanded back to the district
court for further proceedings, and discovery is expected to be
substantially complete by the end of 2015.


BARCLAYS PLC: Appellate Briefing to Be Done by Summer's End
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal
in the complaint in the US District Court for the Central District
of California is expected to be fully briefed by the end of summer
2015.

In July 2012, a purported class action complaint in the US
District Court for the Central District of California was amended
to include allegations related to USD LIBOR and name BBPLC as a
defendant. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
purported class that includes holders of adjustable rate mortgages
linked to USD LIBOR. In January 2015, the court granted BBPLC's
motion for summary judgement and dismissed all of the remaining
claims against BBPLC. The plaintiff has appealed the court's
decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the
appeal is expected to be fully briefed by the end of summer 2015.


BARCLAYS PLC: JPY LIBOR Case Discovery Stayed Thru at Least May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all
discovery has been stayed through at least May 2015 in the
Japanese Yen LIBOR case.

A class action was commenced in April 2012 in the SDNY against
BBPLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff
involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint also names
members of the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which BBPLC is
not a member. The complaint alleges, amongst other things,
manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches
of the CEA and US Sherman Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss and, in March 2014, the Court
issued a decision granting in part and denying in part that
motion. Specifically, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
antitrust claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff's CEA
claims. The defendants' motion for reconsideration of the decision
concerning the CEA claims was denied by the Court in October 2014.
The plaintiff has moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint adding additional claims, including a RICO claim. All
discovery has been stayed through at least May 2015.


BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Proceedings Stayed Thru at Least May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all
proceedings have been stayed through at least May 2015 in the
EURIBOR cases.

In February 2013, a Euribor-related class action was filed against
BPLC, BBPLC, BCI and other Euribor panel banks. The plaintiffs
assert antitrust, CEA, RICO, and unjust enrichment claims. In
particular, BBPLC is alleged to have conspired with other Euribor
panel banks to manipulate EURIBOR. The lawsuit is brought on
behalf of purchasers and sellers of NYSE LIFFE EURIBOR futures
contracts, purchasers of Euro currency-related futures contracts
and purchasers of other derivative contracts (such as interest
rate swaps and forward rate agreements that are linked to EURIBOR)
during the period 1 June 2005 through 31 March 2011. All
proceedings have been stayed through at least May 2015.


BARCLAYS PLC: Defendants Move to Dismiss Amended ISDAfix Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
defendants, including BBPLC, will move to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in the civil Actions in respect of ISDAfix.

Since September 2014, a number of ISDAfix related civil actions
have been filed in the SDNY on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs, alleging that BBPLC, a number of other banks and one
broker, violated the US Sherman Antitrust Act and several state
laws by engaging in a conspiracy to manipulate the USD ISDAfix. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in mid-February 2015.
Pursuant to a schedule issued by the court, the defendants,
including BBPLC, will move to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.


BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Civil Actions Consolidated for Pretrial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all civil
actions in respect of the Gold Fix have been transferred to the
SDNY and consolidated for pretrial purposes.

Since March 2014, a number of civil complaints have been filed in
US federal courts, each on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs, alleging that Barclays entities and other members of
The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold
and gold derivative contracts in violation of the CEA, the US
Sherman Antitrust Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. All of the complaints have been transferred to the SDNY and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.


BARCLAYS PLC: 2 Foreign Exchange Trading Civil Actions Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two Civil
Actions in respect of Foreign Exchange Trading alleging classes of
non-US persons were dismissed on 28 January 2015.

Since November 2013, a number of civil actions have been filed in
the SDNY on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging
manipulation of Foreign Exchange markets under the US Sherman
Antitrust Act and New York state law and naming several
international banks as defendants, including BBPLC. The SDNY
before whom all the cases are pending, has combined all actions
alleging a class of US persons in a single consolidated action.
The two actions alleging classes of non-US persons were dismissed
on 28 January 2015.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action was denied
on 28 January 2015. The next step in the proceeding is discovery,
which is presently stayed.


BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Complaint Related to ADS in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
consolidated amended complaint related to the American Depositary
Shares is now in discovery.

BPLC, BBPLC and various current and former members of BPLC's Board
of Directors have been named as defendants in five proposed
securities class actions consolidated in the SDNY, alleging
misstatements and omissions in registration statements for certain
American Depositary Shares offered by BBPLC.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed in February 2010,
asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that
registration statements relating to American Depositary Shares
representing preferred stock, series 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Preferred
Stock ADS) offered by BBPLC at various times between 2006 and 2008
contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst other
things) BBPLC's portfolio of mortgage-related (including US
subprime-related) securities, BBPLC's exposure to mortgage and
credit market risk, and BBPLC's financial condition. These
complaints did not specifically identify what alleged damages
these plaintiffs sought to recover in connection with their
claims.

The claims concerning the series 2, 3 and 4 offerings have been
dismissed on the basis that they were time barred. Although the
SDNY also dismissed the claims concerning the series 5 offering,
the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal and ruled that the
plaintiffs should have been permitted to file a second amended
complaint in relation to the series 5 offering claims. This series
5 offering had an original face amount of approximately $2.5
billion.

In June 2014, the SDNY denied defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to the claims in the amended complaint concerning the
series 5 offering. The case is now in discovery.


BIG HEART: Defending Against "Thomas" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 2, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of Florida (Thomas v. Big Heart Pet Brands),
alleging false and misleading advertising and misbranding under
Florida's consumer protection laws, negligence and breach of
warranties. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Nature's
Recipe claims of "all natural" and "no artificial preservatives"
on its packaging are inaccurate and misleading. Plaintiff seeks
certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0
million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


BIG HEART: Defending Against Gamez v. Del Monte Case
----------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the case Gamez v. Del Monte.

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County (Gamez v. Del Monte)
alleging violations of various California wage and hour statutes.
This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods, Inc. pursuant to
the terms of the purchase agreement. However, liabilities
associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA facilities
were retained by the Company. On August 7, 2014, the Court
approved to transfer this case to the Superior Court of
California, Fresno County. On October 14, 2014, the Company was
served with the Complaint. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is maintaining
primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement made with
the class will likely include the Company. The Company denies
these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The
Company has accrued an estimated amount to resolve this matter
that is not considered material.


BIG HEART: May 18 Final Settlement Hearing in "Montgomery" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing for final
Court approval of the settlement in the case Montgomery v. Del
Monte is set for May 18, 2015.

On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees in Superior
Court of California, Alameda County (Montgomery v. Del Monte)
alleging, inter alia, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
pay wages properly in violation of various California wage and
hour statutes. This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods,
Inc. pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. However,
liabilities associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA
facilities were retained by the Company. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is
maintaining primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement
made with the class will likely include the Company. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Mediation was held on June 24, 2014. A settlement was
preliminarily approved by the Court on December 4, 2014. The
hearing for final Court approval is set for May 18, 2015. The
Company has accrued an estimated amount to resolve this matter
that is not considered material, and the Company's share of the
settlement is expected to be covered by the amount accrued.


BIG HEART: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Miller"
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed on January
20, 2015, in the case Miller v. Del Monte, formerly known as
Harmon v. Del Monte.

On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, (Miller v. Del Monte, formerly known as Harmon v. Del
Monte) alleging that Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats ("Chicken
Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen Chicken Grillers Recipe home-
style dog treats contain "poisonous antibiotics and other
potentially lethal substances." Plaintiff seeks certification as a
class action, as well as restitution and damages not to exceed
$75,000 per class member and the aggregated claim for damages of
the class not to exceed $5.0 million under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint also alleges the
Company continued to sell its Chicken Jerky Treats in Jackson
County, Missouri after it announced its recall of the product on
January 9, 2013. The Company successfully removed this case to
federal court on March 12, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Class Action Petition against the Company. The
Company filed its Motion to Transfer to the Western District of
Pennsylvania on April 19, 2013 and its Motion to Stay Pending the
Motion to Transfer on April 25, 2013. The Motion to Stay was
granted the same day it was filed. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed
an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer. The Company filed
its Reply in Support of its Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013.
The Court denied the Company's Motion to Transfer on July 22,
2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 13, 2013 and
discovery has commenced.

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint and
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to include an additional named
plaintiff on April 22, 2014. The Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended
Complaint on July 14, 2014 to include an additional Plaintiff and
remove Harmon as a named Plaintiff. The Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed on January
20, 2015. The Company denies these allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


BIG HEART: Updates on Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the
Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases.

On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012, three
separate putative class action complaints were filed against the
Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v.
Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaints
allege that Plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption
of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaints also allege that the
Company breached its warranties and California's consumer
protection laws. Each of the complaints seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.

On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and
consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters. The Company
agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that
they should not be consolidated. The Court ordered the cases are
related in an Order on January 24, 2013. In the Langone case, the
Company filed a Motion to Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013.

Plaintiff in the Langone matter voluntarily dismissed his
Complaint without prejudice on February 21, 2013 and re-filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on May 21, 2013. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in the
Langone case with the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on August 2, 2013. The individual claims in the
Langone case were settled for a de minimus amount, and a
stipulation to dismiss with prejudice was filed on November 25,
2013. On April 9, 2013, the Court transferred Ruff and Funke to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
but denied without prejudice Defendant's motions to consolidate
and dismiss. On April 23, 2013, the Company filed its Motion to
Dismiss in Ruff and Funke with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania and its Reply in Support of its
Motion to Dismiss in both cases on June 3, 2013.

On February 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its objections to the Report and
Recommendations on March 5, 2014. The District Judge adopted the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on March 25, 2014.
The Company filed its Answer on April 8, 2014. The Company cannot
at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of
the potential liability.

On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product
liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Plaintiff's dog became ill and had to
be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.
The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its
warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself. On August 3, 2012,
Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate the previously
filed two similar class actions against Nestle Purina Petcare
Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of chicken jerky treats,
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
the federal rules for multi-district litigation ("MDL").
Plaintiff's Motion also sought to include the case against the
Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a "related case." On
September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL Motion. The case will
now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it was originally filed.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery
on the subject of the voluntary recall of Chicken Jerky Treats on
January 25, 2013. The Company filed its response opposing the
Motion on February 8, 2013. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion on
March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed until the Court rules on
the Company's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on September 24,
2012. On May 24, 2013, the Judge in the matter issued a Report and
Recommendation stating that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its Objections to the Report and
Recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Court issued an Order adopting
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2013.
The Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration on July
8, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 2, 2013. The
Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.

The Court denied the Company's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on February 20, 2014. The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure in Webster v. Del Monte
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands said, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company cannot at
this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability in the case Webster v. Del Monte.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court (Webster v. Del
Monte) alleging false advertising under California's consumer
protection laws, negligence, breach of warranty and strict
liability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false advertising by representing that the Chicken
Jerky Treats are healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by
dogs, and alleges that Plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming
Chicken Jerky Treats. The allegations apply to all other putative
class members similarly situated. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself. On September 6, 2012, the
Company filed a Notice of Removal to remove the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion to amend its complaint to remove the
federal class action claims and remand the case back to Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The Company subsequently stipulated
to Plaintiff's motion, and the case has been remanded to Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The Company filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings on July 3, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an
Opposition on August 21, 2013. The Company filed its Reply on
August 27, 2013. The Court denied the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings on February 20, 2014. The Company cannot
at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of
the potential liability.


BLATT HASENMILLER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Diefenbach, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00721-ESW (D. Ariz., April 21, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


BMW VEHICLE: RMBS Plaintiffs Win Dismissal of State Court Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2015-1 said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that disclosure received
from U.S. Bank National Association, the indenture trustee under
the indenture for the BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2015-1 transaction:

"In June 2014, a civil complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, by a group of
institutional investors against U.S. Bank National Association
("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as
the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts.  The plaintiffs are investment funds
formed by nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield,
DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport
to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that
issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities
between 2004 and 2008.  According to the plaintiffs, cumulative
losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of
the complaint.  The complaint is one of six similar complaints
filed against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank
of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo) by certain of these
plaintiffs.  The complaint against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee
caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the
sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS
trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee's
purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and
warranties concerning loan quality.  The complaint also asserts
that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported
events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan
servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by
appropriate standards of care following events of default.  Relief
sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable relief."

"In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily
dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a
substantially similar complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The federal civil
complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the
total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts.  In December
2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original
state court complaint was granted.  Other cases alleging similar
causes of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and
other trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions.

"There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation,
or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the
RMBS trusts.  However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes
that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in
good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to
investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to
contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously."


BOB EVANS: Seeks to Have Class in "Snodgrass" Case Decertified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the Company intends
to seek to have the class decertified in the case David Snodgrass
v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. and/or seek to have the case dismissed on
the merits.

In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court") in David
Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. The lead plaintiff alleged that
the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay overtime compensation during the period of time the employee
worked as an assistant manager.  The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages and attorneys' fees.  The lead plaintiff sought
to maintain the suit as a collective action on behalf of other
similarly situated assistant managers employed at Bob Evans
Restaurants between August 2009 and present. Unlike a class
action, a collective action requires potential class members to
"opt in" rather than "opt out."  In December 2013, the Ohio
District Court granted conditional certification of the class.

The Company intends to seek to have the class decertified and/or
seek to have the case dismissed on the merits. The proceedings,
including any attempts to resolve the claims through mediation,
remain in the early stages with significant uncertainty as to
factual issues, outcome of legal proceedings, and/or damages
claimed.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims and intend
to vigorously contest the action. At this time, the likelihood of
an unfavorable outcome cannot be determined with any certainty. An
amount or range of a reasonably possible loss cannot be
estimated," the Company said.


BP PLC: Deadline for Submitting Medical Benefits Claims Lapsed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the medical benefits class action
settlement provides for claims to be paid to qualifying class
members from the agreement's effective date. Following the
resolution of all appeals relating to this settlement, the
agreement's effective date was February 12, 2014. The deadline for
submitting claims under the settlement was one year from the
effective date.


BP PLC: Trial of Securities Fraud Claims Set for January 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the trial of the securities fraud
claims of the class of post-explosion ADS purchasers has been
scheduled to commence on 11 January 2016.

On February 13, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL
2185 issued two decisions (the February 2012 ruling) on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the two consolidated securities
fraud complaints filed on behalf of purported classes of BP
ordinary shareholders and American Depositary Shares holders. The
February 2012 ruling dismissed all the claims of the ordinary
shareholders, and the claims of the lead class of ADS holders
against most of the individual defendants while holding that a
subset of the claims against two individual defendants and the
corporate defendants could proceed. In addition, all of the claims
of a smaller purported subclass were dismissed with leave to re-
plead in 20 days.

On April 2, 2012, the plaintiffs in the lead class and subclass
filed an amended consolidated complaint with claims based on (1)
the 12 alleged misstatements that the court held were actionable
in the February 2012 ruling; and (2) 13 alleged misstatements
concerning BP's operating management system that the judge either
rejected with leave to re-plead or did not address in the February
2012 ruling. On May 2, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the
claims based on the 13 statements in the amended complaint that
the judge did not already rule are actionable.

On February 6, 2013, the court granted in part this motion to
dismiss, rejecting the plaintiffs' claims based on eight of the
statements at issue in the motion and also dismissing all claims
against former BP employee Andrew Inglis. On May 20, 2014, the
judge denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a proposed class of ADS
purchasers before the Deepwater Horizon explosion (from November
8, 2007 to April 20, 2010) and granted plaintiffs' motions to
certify a class of post-explosion ADS purchasers from April 26,
2010 to May 28, 2010 and to amend their complaint to add one
additional alleged misstatement. Both parties sought permission to
appeal from the district court's class certification decisions and
on July 3, 2014, the Fifth Circuit granted both parties' requests.
Briefing on those appeals is expected to conclude in March 2015.

The trial of the securities fraud claims of the class of post-
explosion ADS purchasers has been scheduled to commence on January
11, 2016.


BP PLC: Plaintiffs in ERISA Case Filed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed
an amended complaint on February 12, 2015.

On March 30, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL
2185 issued a decision granting the defendants' motions to dismiss
the ERISA case related to BP share funds in several employee
benefit savings plans. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiffs requested
leave to file an amended complaint, which was denied on August 27,
2012. Final judgment dismissing the case was entered on September
4, 2012 and, on September 25, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

On July 15, 2014, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the
district court in light of new pleading standards recently set
forth by the US Supreme Court. On September 18, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint.
Defendants opposed that motion. On January 15, 2015, the district
court granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend,
permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege some of
their proposed claims against certain defendants. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on February 12, 2015.


BP PLC: Briefing on Application in Canadian Action Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on an application in the
Canadian class action concluded on November 25, 2014.

On July 20, 2012, a BP entity received an amended statement of
claim for an action in Alberta, Canada, filed by three plaintiffs
seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP on behalf
of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered losses
because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs. This
case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds on November 14, 2012.
On November 15, 2012, one of the plaintiffs re-filed a statement
of claim against BP in Ontario, Canada, seeking to assert the same
claims against BP. BP moved to dismiss that action for lack of
jurisdiction, and on October 9, 2013 the Ontario court denied BP's
motion. On November 7, 2013, BP filed a notice of appeal from that
decision. On August 14, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal held
that the case should be stayed and that the claims made on behalf
of Canadian residents who purchased BP ordinary shares and ADSs on
exchanges outside of Canada should be litigated in those
countries, and granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the
complaint to assert claims only on behalf of Canadian residents
who purchased ADSs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On October 10,
2014, the plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada. Briefing on that application
concluded on November 25, 2014.


BP PLC: Briefing on Appeal in Dividend-Related Proceedings Done
---------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on an appeal in the
dividend-related proceedings concluded on December 24, 2014.

On July 5, 2012, the federal district court in Houston in MDL 2185
issued a decision granting BP's motion to dismiss, for lack of
personal jurisdiction, the lawsuit against BP p.l.c. for
cancelling its dividend payment in June 2010. On August 10, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which BP moved to
dismiss on October 9, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the court granted
BP's motion and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal
jurisdiction and on the alternative grounds of failure to state a
claim and that the courts of England are the more appropriate
forum for the litigation. On June 16, 2013, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to amend its decision so as to eliminate the
alternative grounds for dismissal. On November 22, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an additional and substantially identical action
against BP p.l.c. in federal court in New York, which was
transferred to the judge presiding over MDL 2185. BP p.l.c. moved
to dismiss that action on February 19, 2014. On June 18, 2014, the
court dismissed the case on the ground that the courts of England
are the more appropriate forum for the litigation. On July 18,
2014, the plaintiff appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit.
Briefing on that appeal concluded on December 24, 2014.


BP PLC: Amended Complaints in 15 Individual Securities Cases Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that amended complaints in the remaining
15 Individual securities litigation were due by April 1, 2015.

In April and May 2012, six cases (three of which were consolidated
into one action) were filed in state and federal courts by one or
more state, county or municipal pension funds against BP entities
and several current and former officers and directors seeking
damages for alleged losses those funds suffered because of their
purchases of BP ordinary shares and, in two cases, ADSs. The funds
assert various state law and federal law claims. From July 2012 to
April 2014, 27 additional cases were filed in Texas state and
federal courts (later consolidated into 24 actions) by pension or
investment funds or advisers against BP entities and current and
former officers and directors, asserting state, federal, and non-
US law claims and seeking damages for alleged losses that those
funds suffered because of their purchases of BP ordinary shares
and/or ADSs. Two cases were filed in New York federal court by
funds that purchased BP ordinary shares and ADSs, asserting state
and federal law claims. All the cases have been transferred to
federal court in Houston and, with the exception of one case that
has been stayed, the judge presiding over MDL 2185. One case was
voluntarily dismissed on May 9, 2013. On October 3, 2013, the
judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss three of the remaining 29 cases dismissing a subset of the
claims. The judge held that English law governs the plaintiffs'
remaining claims (with the exception of the federal law claims
based on purchases of ADSs and a potential claim under Ohio state
law against BP p.l.c. by certain Ohio funds). On December 11,
2013, defendants moved to dismiss 10 of the remaining cases and
answered the complaints in two others. On 5 December 2013, the
Ohio funds (plaintiffs in one of the first three cases defendants
moved to dismiss) filed an amended complaint withdrawing their
English law claim and asserting only a claim under Ohio state law.

On January 6, 2014, BP moved to dismiss that case for a second
time, and on April 7, 2014, the judge dismissed the Ohio action
with leave to replead English law claims within 30 days. On June
8, 2014, the Ohio funds filed a second amended complaint asserting
only English law claims. On September 30, 2014, the court granted
in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss 10
cases. The court dismissed the negligent misstatement claims in
all but one of the 10 cases and dismissed claims in these cases
based on certain public and private misstatements. The court also
rejected BP's arguments that the ordinary share claims of the non-
US plaintiffs should be heard in England. On October 29, 2014, the
case brought by the Ohio funds was transferred to federal court in
Houston for all purposes. On December 30, 2014, defendants
answered the complaints in 11 cases. Amended complaints in the
remaining 15 cases were due by April 1, 2015.


BRANDED LLC: Recalls Kaleidoscopes Due to Laceration Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Branded LLC, of Sammamish, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of
about 35,000 Kaleidoscope. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The end caps of the kaleidoscope can be removed and expose small
parts that can come loose and pose a choking hazard to small
children and internal components that pose a risk of laceration.

This recall involves H-E-Buddy kaleidoscopes. The recalled
kaleidoscopes are made of red plastic, about 5-3/4 inches long and
2 inches in diameter and have "H-E-Buddy" on the barrel.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at H-E-B
and H-E-B Plus stores in Texas from April 1, 2015 to April 3, 2015
as a prize for accumulated purchase points.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
kaleidoscopes, take them from children and return the
kaleidoscopes to an H-E-B store for a refund of purchase points
that can be used for another item.


CALIX INC: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the motion of plaintiffs requesting
leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former defense counsel in the lawsuit, as
defendants was scheduled to be heard by the Court on March 17,
2015.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these
stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt
complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which
has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint
did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the
"Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on
a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain
of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million to be distributed to the remaining members of the class of
former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the
motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek
Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and
Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non-
opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose
shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also
granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate
entity. The court left in place process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary
judgment on separate claims that the director and officer
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy
statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained
misleading disclosures and had material omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought
additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's
former advisor, and requested that the court impose severe
sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against
defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any
additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the
imposition of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court
denied the motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed
counsel for the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the
prior conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants'
document collection and review methodologies. The court also
ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents. Those
proceedings are ongoing, but the plaintiffs have indicated that
they do not intend to seek any sanctions against the defendants at
this time. Instead, plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting
leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former defense counsel in this lawsuit,
as defendants. That motion was scheduled to be heard by the Court
on March 17, 2015.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously contest the action as it moves forward toward trial.
However, there can be no assurance that the defendants will be
successful in defending this ongoing action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has stayed
the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California
Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc.,
pending a ruling on an appeal.

Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary
Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs
filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of
California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013.
Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement
rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the
culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus
loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the
appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Surrett" Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
awaiting the Court's decision in the appeal in the case Surrett,
et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education
Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008.

On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with
the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motions Due in "Wilson" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
ordered the parties in the case Wilson, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, to file summary judgment motions by March 24, 2015.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions
representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company said, "The two-count complaint asserts claims of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision
to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental
Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims,
Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly
situated admissions representatives who also were affected by
termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our
motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this
action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court.
Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was
held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings
on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we
filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's
decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of
question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was
denied."

"The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have
commenced fact discovery as to the issue of liability. The Court
has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that
issue by January 30, 2015 and to file summary judgment motions by
March 24, 2015."

"Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have
not recognized any liability associated with this action."


CITIGROUP INC: Must Face Woori Bank's Suit Over CDO Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a financial
crisis lawsuit that stumbled on South Korean law regained its
footing on April 22, when a U.S. appeals court revived claims that
Citigroup Inc. duped a Korean bank into investing in a complex
investment product that went belly-up in the global recession.

Siding with South Korea's Woori Bank and its lawyers at Hausfeld,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a prior
ruling that found Woori's case was brought too late.  Woori in
2007 invested $25 million into the Armitage ABS CDO, which, the
South Korean bank alleges, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. sold only
after ensuring -- and betting -- that an underlying collateralized
debt obligation would fail.

The appellate decision marks a loss for Citi's lawyers at
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who convinced U.S.
District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan last August that
Woori was aware of alleged fraud in the CDO market sometime in
2008 or early 2009.  Since Woori didn't sue until May 2012, the
district judge found the claims were brought outside of an
applicable three-year statute of limitations under Korean law.

To back their timeliness defense at the lower court, Citi's
lawyers had presented excerpts from some 69 news articles, legal
complaints and other public sources that, they said, should have
put Woori on notice of its potential fraud claims more than three
years before the suit was filed.  On April 22, the Second Circuit
examined those pieces of public information and held that they
shouldn't have rendered the case time-barred under the proper
application of Korean law.

"Even if the publicly available information would permit a
generalized finding of wrongdoing (even one captured in a set of
regulatory findings), the Korean statute of limitations does not
run until there are more specific facts of a tortfeasor's
identity, wrongful conduct, the existence of damages and a
connection between the conduct and the harm," the three-judge
panel wrote in the April 22 summary order.

Woori claims that when creating the Armitage investment, Citi
included a $20 million interest in a separate, toxic CDO known as
Class V Funding III.

The Class V CDO was also at the heart of Citi's $285 million
settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over
claims that the bank marketed the CDO while also betting against
it. (After initially rejecting the deal, U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff in Manhattan grudgingly approved the SEC settlement on
Aug. 5, 2014, the same day Forrest issued her timeliness ruling in
the Woori case.)

Woori sold its interest in the Armitage CDO in August 2008,
several months after it and the underlying Class V CDO had gone
into default.  The South Korean bank has maintained that it didn't
fully know about Citi's alleged wrongdoing until a federal
investigative report on the financial crisis came out in January
2011 and the SEC sued Citi in October 2011 over the Class V CDO.

Hausfeld's Christopher Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- argued
the Second Circuit appeal for Woori.  He praised the ruling in an
email on April 22, saying Korean Law strongly supported the
court's findings.

Jessica Carey -- jcarey@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss argued for
Citi and was joined on the appellate brief by firm chair Brad Karp
-- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- and partner Susanna Buergel --
sbuergel@paulweiss.com

Ms. Carey didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in a purported class action complaint filed in December
2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The named plaintiff purports to represent a "national class" of
customers who allegedly received automated calls to their cell
phones from the bank or its agents, without customer consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Company is
vigorously defending this matter, but is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in lawsuits in which allegations have been made that its
parent company, RBS Group, manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR to the
detriment of the Company's customers. The lawsuits include a
purported class action on behalf of borrowers of the Company whose
interest rates were tied to U.S. dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in
these cases assert various theories of liability, including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment. The Company is vigorously defending these matters, but
is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.


COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salim Minah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. d/b/a
CBHV, Case No. 1:15-cv-02241 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (347) 526-4093
          Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
          E-mail: yzelman@gmail.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Enters Into Settlement in LIBOR Manipulation Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Deutsche
Bank Group Services has agreed to pay $2.52 billion in a joint
settlement with British and American authorities after pleading
guilty to wire fraud.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison litigation co-chair
Theodore Wells, along with litigation partners Andrew Finch and
Roberto Finzi, advised the bank on the settlements with the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
and the New York State Department of Financial Services, according
to an agreement document.

Magic Circle firm Slaughter and May took the lead on a settlement
with the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority.  That team included
the head of Slaughter and May's dispute resolution and global
investigations practices, Deborah Finkler, as well as commercial
litigation partner Ewan Brown.

The U.K. publication Legal Business reports that the German firm
Hengeler Mueller handled the defense in Germany.

The settlement brings resolution to a long-standing investigation
into the bank's role in the manipulation of the London Interbank
Offered Rate (LIBOR) and other benchmarks used to set interest
rates.  Between 2003 and 2011, Deutsche Bank traders requested
that bank employees who report LIBOR submit rates that are
favorable to their trading positions, according to the Department
of Justice announcement.  The traders sometimes worked with other
banks to manipulate the interest rates as well, the press release
said.

Barclays Bank, UBS, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Cooperative
Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank and Lloyds Banking Group have
all also reached resolutions with the Justice Department on
interest rate manipulation investigations, but according to The
New York Times, Deutsche Bank's settlement is the biggest.

The bank says that the internal investigation conducted on the
matter included a review of more than 21 million electronic
documents and 320,000 audio files.  The bank's general counsel for
the Americas Steven Reich, who had been a partner at Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld until February, signed the agreements.
Paul Weiss has worked with the German bank before.  The firm
represented Deutsche Bank when U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald
in Manhattan dismissed several claims related to the benchmark
global interest rate, sibling publication Litigation Daily
reported at the time.


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuven Bolotin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Diversified Adjustment Service,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-02244 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ELI LILLY: Faces "Courtney" Suit Arising From Cymbalta Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Courtney, Debbie Head, Joianne Jones, Teresa Simmons,
Deona Mae Slabaugh, and Ashley Ruchelle Valentine v. Eli Lilly and
Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00643-TWP-MJD
(S.D. Ind., April 21, 2015) alleges personal injuries and damages
that the Plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's
failure to provide both adequate instructions for discontinuing
use of Cymbalta and an adequate warning that fully and accurately
informed them about the frequency, severity, and duration of
symptoms associated with Cymbalta withdrawal.

Cymbalta belongs to a class of antidepressants known as "Serotonin
and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors."

Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.  Lilly is a pharmaceutical company involved
in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production,
promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of numerous
pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.  Lilly is one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with annual revenues
exceeding $20 billion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
          SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
          4545 Northwestern Drive
          Zionsville, IN 46077
          Telephone: (317) 2363-2400
          Facsimile: (317) 363-2257
          E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Stein, Esq.
          KNOX RICKSEN LLP
          One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1101
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 285-2500
          Facsimile: (510) 285-2505
          E-mail: sbs@knoxricksen.com


FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Felt Cruiser Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 200 Felt Cruiser bicycles. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle's brakes can fail, posing a crash hazard.

This recall involves beach cruiser style Felt Deep Six and El
Guapo model bicycles with one speed and coaster brakes.  "Felt"
and "Deep Six" or "El Guapo" are printed on the bicycle's frame.
The Deep Six was sold in black cherry with white sidewall tires
and the El Guapo was sold in matte black with white tires. The
Deep Six has a serial number between YI31106188 and YI31106287.
The El Guapo has a serial number between YI31106288 and
YI31106387. The serial number is printed on the bicycle's bottom
bracket.

Felt Bicycles has received 26 reports of incidents with the
recalled bicycles. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/w7r8BJ

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from June 2014 through March
2015 for between $600 and $750.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact your local Felt bicycle dealer for a free inspection and
replacement of the rear hub cog/driver.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ephraim Steinwurzel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02273 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


HY-VEE INC: Recalls Summer Fresh Pasta Salad Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Hy-Vee, Inc. issued a recall for Hy-Vee Summer Fresh Pasta Salad
that is sold in its stores' kitchen department cold cases and
salad bars. The pasta was recalled after Hy-Vee was notified the
frozen vegetables used to make the ready-to-eat pasta were
potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The frozen
vegetables were produced by Inventure Foods, Jefferson, Georgia.

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

The Summer Fresh Pasta Salad is packaged upon customer request
from the kitchen cold case and would have been packaged in 16oz.
(1 lb.) or 32oz. (2 lb.) clear plastic containers. A light tan
scale-produced label with the product name, weight and price would
have been affixed to the container.

The recalled product would have been available in a limited number
of stores between April 9, 2015 and April 27, 2015.

Hy-Vee has since pulled the ready-to-eat Summer Fresh Pasta Salad
from its distribution channels and the stores in Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota to which it was
distributed. All stores that received the product have been
instructed to dispose of the product.

To date, Hy-Vee has not received any complaints associated with
the Summer Fresh Pasta Salad.

Customers who purchased Summer Fresh Pasta Salad from the Hy-Vee
kitchen department cold case or salad bar between April 9, 2015
and April 27, 2015, should dispose of the product or return it to
the store for a refund.

For questions, please call Hy-Vee Customer Care at 1-800-772-4098.

Hy-Vee, Inc. is an employee-owned corporation operating more than
235 retail stores across eight Midwestern states with sales of
$8.7 billion annually. Hy-Vee ranks among the top 25 supermarket
chains and the top 50 private companies in the United States.
Supermarket News, the authoritative voice of the food industry,
has honored the company with a Whole Health Enterprise Award for
its leadership in providing services and programs that promote a
healthy lifestyle. For more information, visit www.hy-vee.com


IKEA NORTH: Recalls Sultan and Vyssa Crib Mattresses
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 300,000 Sultan and Vyssa crib mattress
in the United States and about 44,000 in Canada. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The crib mattresses could create a gap between the mattress and
crib ends larger than allowed by federal regulations, posing an
entrapment hazard to infants.

This recall involves IKEA SULTAN and VYSSA crib mattresses with
the following model names: SULTAN BLUNDA, SULTAN DR™MMA, SULTAN
SNARKA, SULTAN SUSSA, VYSSA VACKERT, VYSSA VINKA, VYSSA SPELEVINK,
VYSSA SL™A and VYSSA SLUMMER. The recalled mattresses are 52
inches long and 27 1/2 inches wide and were manufactured on May 4,
2014 or earlier. An identification label attached to the mattress
cover has the date of manufacture in Month-DD-YY format or YY-WW
format and the SULTAN or VYSSA model name. In the YY-WW format,
mattresses with a date code of 14-18 or earlier are being
recalled. A gap between the mattress and crib ends larger than two
finger width is an indication of the defective mattress.

The firm has received two reports of infants becoming entrapped
between the mattress and an end of the crib. The children were
removed from the gap without injury.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ojlO2m

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico, Poland, China
and the United States and sold at IKEA stores nationwide and
online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2000 to May 2014 for about
$20 to $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using a recalled mattress and
inspect it by making sure there is no gap larger than the width of
two fingers between the ends of the crib and the mattress. If any
gap is larger, customers should immediately stop using the
recalled mattresses and return it to any IKEA store for an
exchange or a full refund.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties Filed Bid to Stay Pending Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties have filed a
motion to stay the federal securities litigation pending a
mediation in connection with a potential resolution of the action.

"Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints (captioned Larson
v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01043-GMS) and (Li vs.
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-01077-DGC) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or Arizona
District Court, against us and certain of our current officers,"
the Company said.  "The complaints were brought as purported class
actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In general,
the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations, therefore
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On
July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014. On December 11, 2014, we
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The parties
have filed a motion to stay the action pending a mediation in
connection with a potential resolution of the action."


KENT NUTRITION: Recalls Medicated Poultry Feeds Due to Salt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Nutrition Group, Inc. is recalling one lot of its Blue Seal
Home Fresh Starter Amp Medicated Poultry Feed. The recall is being
implemented due to the discovery of excess salt in the feed
concerning lot number 1015072.

Salt (sodium chloride) is an essential nutrient for all animals.
However, excess salt intake can be dangerous especially if access
to clean water is limited. Salt toxicity in birds results in
thirst, trouble breathing, fluid discharge from the beak, wet
droppings, weakness or paralysis of the legs, and even death.
Customers should contact their veterinarian if their birds
experienced adverse health effects while consuming the affected
product.

The poultry feed being recalled was manufactured in Columbus,
Nebraska. Beginning March 18 through March 25 the product was
distributed to six dealerships in Nebraska. Product is sold in
50lb bags. At this time, 64- 50lb bags of Blue Seal Home Fresh
Starter Amp Medicated Poultry Feed Lot 1015072 remains unaccounted
for. The lot number of the product is located on the tape of the
sewed-end of the bag.

The recall is the result of routine sampling by Kent Nutrition
Group which indicated an excess amount of salt in the feed. Kent
Nutrition Group's products that are not from this specific lot are
not affected by the recall.

Customers who have purchased Blue Seal Home Fresh Starter Amp
Medicated from lot number 1015072 are urged to return it to their
Kent Dealer for a full refund. Customer questions or concerns may
be directed to the company at 1-800-552-9620 Monday through Friday
during the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing Suits Over Silicon Image Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that on or about
January 29, 2015, Silicon Image, Inc., members of its Board, the
Company and the Company's wholly-owned merger acquisition
subsidiary, were named as defendants in two complaints filed in
Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders of Silicon
Image in connection with the proposed merger of Silicon Image and
the Company. Both complaints were dated January 29, 2015 and were
captioned respectively Molland v. George, et al. and Stein v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. Five additional complaints were
subsequently filed on January 30, 2015, February 4, 2015 and
February 9, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court by alleged
stockholders of Silicon Image, Inc. in connection with the Merger,
captioned respectively Pfeiffer v. Martino et. al.; Lipinski v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.; Feldbaum et. al. v. Silicon Image,
Inc. et. al; Nelson v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Partansky
v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. The five Delaware matters were
subsequently consolidated into an action captioned In re Silicon
Image Stockholders Litigation by order of the Delaware Chancery
Court on February 11, 2015, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in the matter on February 13, 2015. Two complaints
captioned Tapia v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Caldwel v.
Silicon Image, Inc. were also filed on February 4, 2015 and
February 9, 2015 in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged
stockholders in connection with the Merger. Amended complaints
were filed in the Molland and Stein actions on February 11, 2015.

Each of these lawsuits are purported class actions brought on
behalf of Silicon Image stockholders, asserting claims against
each member of the Board for breach of fiduciary duty, and against
various of the Silicon Image, Silicon Image's Board, the Company,
and the Company's wholly-owned merger subsidiary for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege that the
Merger does not appropriately value Silicon Image, was the result
of an inadequate process, and includes preclusive deal devices.
The amended complaints also assert that the Silicon Image's
disclosures regarding the Merger in its Schedule 14D-9 omitted
material information regarding the Merger. Each of these
complaints purport to seek unspecified damages and may seek
injunctive relief preventing consummation of the transactions.

The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.
An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse
effect on the operations of the Company. A preliminary injunction
could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.


LOS ALTOS BEACH: Judge Awards $4.5MM to Family in Bush Crash Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has awarded $4.5 million to a family injured in
Costa Rica when a resort-owned shuttle bus crashed and partially
flipped over.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment against Los Altos Beach
Resort and Spa, a Costa Rica-based defendant that did not respond
to the Yuschak family's lawsuit.

The verdict was broken down into four parts for each member of the
family: $150,000 in pain and suffering for James Yuschak, the
father; $3.4 million in pain and suffering and lost wages for
Susan Yuschak, the mother; $300,000 in pain and suffering for
Caitlyn Yuschak, the daughter; and $700,000 in pain and suffering
for Eric Yuschak, the son.

Judge Goldberg wrote in the verdict order, "In short, in having to
undergo the trauma of a serious, frightening accident, resulting
in significant injuries with lasting effects, the Yuschak family
has endured and will continue to endure significant pain and
suffering."

Those injuries included significant head trauma to Susan Yuschak,
tearing of ligaments in Eric Yuschak's left knee, and fractures in
Caitlyn Yuschak's lower back.  According to Goldberg,
James Yuschak suffered no physical injuries, but instead made
claims of emotional trauma.

According to the family's attorney, Sayde J. Ladov, the next step
is getting a hold of the resort's lawyer in Costa Rica to get the
judgment paid.

Ms. Ladov said she does not expect the process to be completed
without difficulty.

"You're dealing with a foreign government, a language barrier;
it's not like taking a piece of paper and going to the next
county, registering the judgment, and doing what you need to do to
collect," Mr. Ladov said
.
"It's positively baffling to me why they never responded.  I
corresponded and interacted and told them very bluntly that they
were going to get sued," she added.

The accident occurred in October 2012 when the family boarded the
resort's shuttle bus, described by the plaintiffs as a converted
truck with a canvas cover and two benches positioned lengthwise in
the rear, according to Judge Goldberg.

The road descending to the beach was windy and hazardous, Judge
Goldberg said, and when the driver reached the bottom, he lost
control of the vehicle.  The bus crashed into a tree, partially
flipped, and the passengers were thrown to the driver's side of
the vehicle.

After the accident, the Yuschaks were taken to a local hospital.
Goldberg said Susan Yuschak was taken to a more modern facility to
address her head injuries while the children returned to their
hotel rooms after receiving rudimentary treatment and made
arrangements to return to the United States for further treatment
the next day.

Susan Yuschak was diagnosed with a depressed skull fracture
requiring immediate surgery.  The following December, back in
Pennsylvania, she was diagnosed by a neurologist as having a
traumatic brain injury.

According to Goldberg, a psychotherapist said, "Susan initially
described frequent bouts of tearfulness, unable to stop thinking
about the accident and injuries of her spouse and children,
persistent worry about her children's injuries with catastrophic
expectations about their recovery, suicidal ideation, poor sleep,
and inappropriate guilt blaming herself for extent of son's
injuries."  She also found concentration difficult and was unable
to return to her job as a part-time pharmacist.

"As a result of her head injury, her cognitive ability,
computational skills, ability to concentrate, and short-term
memory are impacted such that she cannot meet the demands of her
profession," Judge Goldberg said.

Eric Yuschak, whose left ACL and LCL were torn during the
accident, required surgery upon returning to the United States.
After the surgery, Eric Yuschak was able to return to college,
although he experienced difficulty traveling to and from classes.
He was also unable to play competitive basketball for roughly a
year.

Caitlyn Yuschak traveled back to the United States with her
brother to have her back examined. X-rays revealed that she had
fractures in her lumbosacral region.

According to Judge Goldberg, a doctor said she had a reduced range
of motion primarily because of the pain, but her fractures would
heal on their own in time.

James Yuschak testified as to the emotional stress he suffered as
a result of the accident.

In particular, Judge Goldberg said, "James testified that his
relationship with his wife is now different because of the effects
of her head injury. H e stated that Susan now gets frustrated
quickly, and, because of that, there can be more tension between
them and he has to carefully manage family situations to ensure
that Susan is not put into a position of making decisions on
behalf of the family."


LYFT INC: Removes "Bekele" Suit to Massachusetts District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Yilkal Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., Case
No. 15-0245E, was removed from the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-11650 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and seeks to recover
expenses that he claims were improperly incurred as a result of
his and the putative class members' alleged misclassification as
independent contractors, including "expenses for owning or leasing
their vehicles, maintenance, insurance, gas, and other expenses."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, Massachusetts 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Smeallie, Esq.
          David J. Santeusanio, Esq.
          Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
          Robert M. Shaw, Esq.
          Nathaniel F. Hulme, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          10 St. James Avenue
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 523-2700
          Facsimile: (617) 523-6850
          E-mail: jd.smeallie@hklaw.com
                  david.santeusanio@hklaw.com
                  michael.maroney@hklaw.com
                  robert.shaw@hklaw.com
                  nathaniel.hulme@hklaw.com


MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ciriello, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Michael Harrison, Case No. 2:15-cv-02759-MCA-JBC
(D.N.J., April 20, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


MICHAELS STORES: "Horton" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01644, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02750 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com


NASDAQ STOCK: Settles Facebook IPO Suit for $26.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC has agreed to pay $26.5 million
to settle claims that its negligence and misstatements about its
technical capabilities contributed to shareholder losses on the
day of Facebook Inc.'s 2012 initial public offering.

The settlement in the case brought by Facebook shareholders,
announced on April 23, comes two weeks before the Nasdaq's lawyers
were scheduled to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit to reverse a landmark 2013 ruling that denied a
motion to dismiss the shareholder claims against the stock
exchange.

The settlement is limited to those who bought shares on the day of
the IPO.

"This is a very good recovery for a one-day class period case,"
said Vincent Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- a lead
plaintiffs attorney in the consolidated shareholder class action
against the stock exchange stemming from Facebook's $16 billion
IPO.  "It was the largest technology initial public offering in
the history of the exchange -- an offering that presented
unprecedented volume and activity -- and this is a case where we
believe that the exchange really acted outside of what should be
commercially expected of them."

Nasdaq announced the deal in an earnings report with investors.
The settlement doesn't involve claims against Facebook, its
officers or directors, or the underwriters of its IPO. Separate
consolidated litigation is pending against those entities over
shareholder losses attributable to the IPO.

One of the most anticipated IPOs in recent years, Facebook's
public offering price of $38 per share plummeted soon after its
debut on May 18, 2012. Shareholder lawsuits over the IPO were
coordinated before U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the
Southern District of New York.  The Nasdaq, its parent, Nasdaq OMX
Group Inc., its chief executive officer, Robert Greifeld, and its
former chief information officer, Anna Ewing, argued in court that
the exchange was immune from liability as a self-regulatory
organization.

But in 2013, Judge Sweet refused to dismiss the case.  He agreed
with the plaintiffs that the Nasdaq could be held negligent for
software glitches that caused delays in trading on the first day
of the IPO that its officials could have misled investors about
the strength of its technology in statements made just prior to
the IPO.

"Those claims were sustained in a very significant decision -- the
first of its kind -- and that was the decision that was appealed,"
said Mr. Cappucci of New York's Entwistle & Cappucci.

Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the New York Stock Exchange
LLC had filed amicus briefs before the Second Circuit to reverse
what they called an overly broad and unprecedented ruling.
Oral arguments had been scheduled for May 7.

The April 23 settlement, Mr. Cappucci said, excludes any technical
changes to Nasdaq's system, which were addressed in an agreement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that included a
$10 million fine. It also excludes Nasdaq members who were
compensated through a $62 million accommodation program.

In its earnings report, Nasdaq announced a $31 million loss
reserve to pay for the settlement plus potential additional costs
in reopening the accommodation program to members that didn't get
paid, including UBS Securities.  On Oct. 31, the Second Circuit
refused to allow UBS Securities, which lost $350 million on
Facebook's IPO, to arbitrate its claim against the Nasdaq.

Still remaining are shareholder cases alleging that Facebook
executives and its underwriters failed to disclose enough to
investors about anticipated advertising revenue decreases due to
the increased use of mobile devices.  In 2013, Sweet refused to
dismiss that case.

Plaintiffs attorneys moved on Dec. 23 to certify a class of
investors, plus subclasses for retail and institutional investors.
A hearing on class certification is scheduled for May 20.

On April 27, the Second Circuit also will hear several appeals of
shareholders whose derivative claims over the Facebook IPO were
dismissed.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Status Hearing Stricken in MaxxForce Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on the
Court's own motion, a status hearing scheduled for February 20,
2015 was stricken in the MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc.,
and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (the "N&C Action").  Subsequently, five
additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts,
including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern
District of Texas, the District of Minnesota and the Middle
District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the
"U.S. Actions"). The U.S. Actions alleged matters substantially
similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian
Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class
Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada
or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or
other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed
to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions
assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty,
consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and
negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL Action") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge
Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then
pending, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced
EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On
December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel
issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on
the date the motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The MDL Panel also consolidated certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For
putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's
original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel
similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S Actions. At the
request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in
the U.S. Actions, Judge Gottschall set a briefing schedule for the
appointment of interim class counsel. On the Court's own motion, a
status hearing scheduled for February 20, 2015 was stricken.

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification
of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows," the Company said.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Ruling Date in Shareholder Litigation Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
extended the ruling date in the shareholder litigation to April
15, 2015.

The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants."

"These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain
similar factual allegations which include, among other things,
that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing
materially false and misleading statements concerning our
financial condition and future business prospects and that we
misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the SEC
concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our
EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs
in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees,
among other relief.

"In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The
consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period
to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen
additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants. In December 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

"In July, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to
Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and
gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated
amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a
Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways.
First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of
the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan
Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff
also shortened the putative class period by changing the class
period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010.
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff
filed its opposition to defendants Motion to Dismiss. In November,
2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of defendants
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also in November
2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a
defendant. The Court had set a ruling date on the Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for February 17, 2015. On the
Court's own motion, the ruling date was extended to April 15,
2015."


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit by Transport Workers Union
---------------------------------------------------------
Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, AFL-CIO, Local 100,
as the Representative of Bus Drivers Employed by the New York City
Transit Authority, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating
System, and MTA Bus Company; and Katherine Angotti, Jennine
Gregory, William Gonzalez, Angelo Crispin, Raymond Vega and
Christopher Magwood, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Bill De Blasio, as Mayor of the City of New
York, and The City of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-02225 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2015) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway, Suite 1902
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400
          Facsimile: (718) 228-5537
          E-mail: aschwartz@afjlaw.com


NOMI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Charges Over Privacy Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that a company whose
technology allows retailers to track customer movements through
their stores agreed on April 23 to settle Federal Trade Commission
charges that it misled consumers about privacy choices.

The FTC said Nomi Technologies Inc. wrongly stated in its privacy
policy that it would provide an opt-out mechanism for consumers at
stores using its services, and that consumers were not informed of
in-store tracking.

The case prompted sharp dissents from the agency's two Republican
commissioners, who criticized the majority for going after a
start-up company absent any showing of consumer harm.

The majority "adopts an approach that places legal form over
substance, is inconsistent with the available data, and defies
common sense," wrote Commissioner Joshua Wright.

Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen argued the enforcement action
actually "encourages companies to do only the bare minimum on
privacy, ultimately leaving consumers worse off."

The commission's three Democrats issued a separate statement
rebutting the dissents. They defended the action as "carefully-
tailored relief designed to prevent similar violations in the
future."

New York-based Nomi tracks consumers' smart phone signals to
provide retailers with information such as how many consumers
passed by their store instead of entering, how long consumers
stayed in the store and how many repeat customers enter a store in
a given period.

Nomi collects MAC addresses -- unique 12-digit identifiers
assigned to individual mobile devices -- that are picked up by in-
store sensors.  The addresses are cryptographically "hashed" so no
individuals are identified.

The problem, the FTC said in its complaint, is how Nomi described
its opt-out policy.  Nomi pledged to "Always allow consumers to
opt out of Nomi's service on its website as well as at any
retailer using Nomi's technology."

According to the FTC, there was no in-store opt-out.

"It's vital that companies keep their privacy promises to
consumers when working with emerging technologies, just as it is
in any other context," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection, in news release.  "If you tell a
consumer that they will have choices about their privacy, you
should make sure all of those choices are actually available to
them."

In his dissent, Wright argued that the majority makes too much of
the retail opt-out provision. "The evidence strongly implies that
specific representation was not material and therefore not
deceptive," he wrote.

To presume it was material "requires one to accept the proposition
that the privacy-sensitive consumer would be more likely to bypass
the easier and immediate route (the online opt out) in favor of
waiting until she had the opportunity to opt out in a physical
location," he wrote.

The settlement does not -- and cannot -- compel retailers to
disclose the tracking technology, he said.  All it does is order
Nomi to take the claim out of its privacy policy (which the
company had already done).

"Nomi was under no legal obligation to post a privacy policy,
describe its practices to consumers, or to offer an opt-out
mechanism.  To penalize a company for such a minor shortcoming --
particularly when there is no evidence the misrepresentation
harmed consumers -- sends a dangerous message," he wrote.

Ms. Ohlhausen echoed the concern, writing that Nomi is "a young
company that attempted to go above and beyond its legal obligation
to protect consumers but, in so doing, erred without benefiting
itself," she wrote.

The majority -- Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and commissioners
Julie Brill and Terrell McSweeny -- rebutted their arguments.
"Nomi's express representations regarding how consumers may opt
out of its location tracking services go to the very heart of
consumers' ability to make decisions about whether to participate
in these services.  Thus, we have ample reason to believe that
Nomi's opt-out representations were material," they wrote.

Nomi in a statement said, "We are pleased to reach this agreement.
We continually review our privacy policies to ensure that they
follow best practices and had already made the recommended changes
in pursuit of that goal by updating our privacy policy over a year
and a half ago, while we were still an early-stage startup that
was less than a year old."


ORTOVOX CANADA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2015
Posting date: April 14, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52897

This recall involves the Ortovox S1+ Avalanche Transceiver, which
is used as a transmission device to locate the user if caught in
an avalanche. The Ortovox S1+ Avalanche Transceiver is a flip-open
design, is powered by two AAA batteries and is black and green in
colour.  The item code is 11380 and the UPC is 4250091798867.

The potential failure of a component may prevent the transmission
of a reliable signal to searchers in the case of an avalanche.

Neither Health Canada nor Ortovox Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

In total, 750 units of the affected transceivers were sold in
Canada.

The affected product was sold from September 2011 to March 2015.

Manufactured in Germany.

Manufacturer: Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
              Taufkirchen
              GERMANY

Distributor: Ortovox Canada Ltd.
             Calgary
             Alberta
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/40q97P


PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Pinty's Eatwell Brand Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 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: Pinty's Delicious Foods Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9792

  Brand name     Common name   Size   Code(s)     UPC
  ----------     ----------    ----   on product  ---
                                      ----------
Pinty's Eatwell  Chicken       810 g  Lot 5061    0 69094 62592 6
                 Breast Strips        BB/MA 2016
                                      MR 02 EST
                                      232
Pinty's Eatwell  Chicken      810 g  Lot 5061    0 69094 62591 9
                  Nuggets             BB/MA 2016
                                      MR 02 EST 232


POCO DOLCE: Recalls Individually Wrapped Tiles Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Poco Dolce Confections of San Francisco, CA is recalling all
Almond, Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger, and
Sesame Toffee Individually Wrapped Tiles. These varieties of
individually wrapped Tiles are being recalled because of their
label's failure to identify the food allergen (Milk) in addition
to the listing for "Butter" in the label's ingredient statement.
People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to specific type of
allergen (e.g., peanuts, tree nuts {chestnuts, brazil nuts,
walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, pine nuts, cashews}, eggs, and
sulfites) run the risk of life threatening allergic reaction,
anaphylaxis, that requires immediate medical care if they consume
these product.

Poco Dolce Confections immediately segregated its entire
Individually Wrapped Tiles inventory and is notifying consumers
and customers not to consume this product.

The Individually Wrapped Tiles are individually wrapped 2" square
pieces of Bittersweet Chocolate in glassine envelopes which come
in 18pc trays. They are available in seven varieties though only
the following six flavors are subject to this recall: Almond,
Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger, and Sesame
Toffee.

Poco Dolce Confections wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
California Department of Public Health, Poco Dolce Confections is
voluntarily recalling all Individually Wrapped Tile Varieties
(Almond, Aztec Chile, Burnt Caramel, Almond Coconut, Ginger,
Sesame Toffee) from all of its customers. Consumers in possession
of these Chocolates should not eat the product and should return
the product to the place of purchase.

Poco Dolce Confections will be sending recall notices to all of
its direct customers. Please call Albert Moriguchi at 415-255-1443
(8:30-5, M-F) for further information.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm445559.htm


POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Defendant in Lax v. Toth Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Polypore International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Lax v. Toth, et al., Case No. 10741 (Del.
Ch.) (the "Action") was filed on March 3, 2015, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the current
members of the Board of Directors, Asahi Kasei and EMS.

"The Action, filed by a purported shareholder of the Company's
common stock, challenges the contemplated integrated transactions
with 3M, Asahi Kasei and EMS and alleges, among other things, that
the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process,
agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate our stockholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal
protection terms. The Action also alleges that Asahi Kasei and EMS
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Action seeks various remedies, including declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as damages and costs," the Company
said.


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to dismiss
the securities class action lawsuit was filed on February 26,
2015.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10,
2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed. A consolidated amended complaint was
filed on December 29, 2014, purportedly on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported
class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014. The action
alleges that certain statements made by the defendants during the
applicable class period violated federal securities laws. The
amount of damages has not been specified, and no determination has
been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed as class actions.
We filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 26, 2015. The
plaintiff is expected to file its response to our motion to
dismiss, to which we will file a reply, before the court rules on
our motion to dismiss. We cannot provide any assurance on the
timing or the outcome of a court ruling on our motion to dismiss."


PRIME CONSULTING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Jackson, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Prime Consulting Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00938-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls RAN-Gabapentin Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 10, 2015
Posting date: April 14, 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-52913

Possibility of contamination with trace amounts of the active
ingredient Etodolac.

Depth of distribution: Retailers

RAN-Gabapentin
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02319055
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Gabapentin 100 mg
Lot or serial number: 2582026

Recalling Firm: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.
                200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East
                Mississauga
                L4W 0A5
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada
                                Inc.
                                200-2680 Matheson Blvd. East
                                Mississauga
                                L4W 0A5
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


SABRE CORP: Class Suit Stayed Pending State Court Action Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that one class action is
pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome
of the Texas state court action.

"Four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in
which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations
concerning the description of the fees received in relation to
facilitating hotel reservations," the Company said.  "Generally,
the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided
adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and
the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits
was dismissed by the trial court and this dismissal was
subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court; one was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas
state court, where the court is currently considering the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is
pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome
of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided
was appropriate."


SABRE CORP: Court Closed Hotel Related Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has closed the
Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings and the Company regard this
matter as fully and finally resolved.

On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a
putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a
complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several
other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint
alleged generally that the defendants conspired to enter into
illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30
copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States.

In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The
proposed class period was January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013.
Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a
motion to dismiss.

On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed
the plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had moved
for leave to file an amended complaint but the judge denied the
motion on October 27, 2014 and dismissed the claims with
prejudice. The plaintiffs did not appeal and their opportunity to
appeal has expired. The Court closed the case on January 17, 2015
and the Company regard this matter as fully and finally resolved.


SAFEWAY INC: Bid for Final Deal Approval to Be Filed Mid-2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for final
approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit would be
filed in mid-2015.

On August 18, 2001, a group of truck drivers from the Company's
Tracy, CA distribution center filed an action in California
Superior Court, San Joaquin County entitled Cicairos, et al. v.
Summit Logistics, alleging that Summit Logistics, the entity with
whom Safeway contracted to operate the distribution center until
August 2003, failed to provide meal periods, rest periods and
itemized wage statements to the drivers in violation of California
state law. Under its contract with Summit, Safeway is obligated to
defend and indemnify Summit Logistics in this lawsuit.

On February 6, 2007, another group of truck drivers from the Tracy
distribution center filed a similar action in the same court,
entitled Bluford, et al. v. Safeway Inc., alleging essentially the
same claims against the Company. Both cases were subsequently
certified as class actions. After lengthy litigation in the trial
and appellate courts on February 20, 2015, the parties signed a
preliminary agreement of settlement that calls for the Company to
pay approximately $31 million in total. This amount consists of a
settlement fund of $30.2 million, out of which will be paid relief
to the class, and attorneys' fees and costs as awarded by the
court. In addition to this settlement fund, the Company will pay
interest of $10,000 if the distribution to the class is made in
August 2015, with additional monthly amounts of interest if later.
The Company will also pay third party settlement administrator
costs, and its employer share of FICA/Medicare taxes. The Company
anticipates that a motion for preliminary court approval of the
settlement will be heard in the Spring of 2015. If such
preliminary approval is granted, class members will be notified
and given the opportunity to file objections to the settlement.
Following that, a motion for final approval of the settlement
would be filed in mid-2015.


SENSO GROUP: Recalls Charcoal Products Due to Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2015
Posting date: April 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52987

This recall involves Senso brand Charcoal. Senso Charcoal is an
all-natural wood charcoal used for barbeque cooking.  The product
comes in green bags with red, black and white writing.  It is
available in 2 sizes.  The 10 kilogram bag has the product code:
795005 and UPC 5600259123335.  The 15 kilogram bag has the product
code 795007 and UPC 5600259123342.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program project has
revealed that the Senso Charcoal does not meet the warning label
requirements under Canadian Law.

Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is
burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning
labels help to protect the public by telling them about this
hazard.

Neither Senso Group Building Supplies nor Health Canada have
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of this product.

Approximately, 10,987 units of the 10 kilogram bag and 15,789
units of the 15 kilogram bag were sold in the Greater Toronto
Area.

The recalled product was sold in the Greater Toronto Area from
February 2012 to April 2015.

Manufactured in Portugal.

Manufacturer: Zeva Green
              Vila Facaia
              PORTUGAL

Importer: Senso Group Building Supplies
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should stop using the product and contact Senso Group
Building Supplies at 1-416-658-8300 for information on how to
receive a corrective label.

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/E0JsU2


SMITH & WESSON: Defendant in Eight Product Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in eight product liability cases and is
aware of approximately eight other product liability claims,
primarily alleging defective product design, defective
manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings.

"In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27,
1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm
manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover
damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third
parties. We believe that the various allegations as described
above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any accident and any
results from them were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm
by the claimant or a third party," the Company said.

"In addition, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations,
and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and
employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of
business.

"The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes
compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the
cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive
damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from
less than $75,000 to approximately $1.5 million. In our
experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable
relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular
matter.

"We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we
are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could
harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive and
time consuming and diverts the time and attention of our
management."


ST. FRANCIS: Recalls All-Seasons Detox Kit Due to Excess Lead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Posting date: April 20, 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-52991

Heavy Metal limits exceeded for lead.

Depth of distribution: Naturopaths, Retailers and Pharmacies

All-Seasons Detox Kit
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80054551
Dosage form: Kit
Strength: Althaea officinalis 0.175 g
          Arctium lappa 0.1 ml
          Ceanothus americanus 0.18 ml
          D-Galacto-L-arabinan 1.26 g
          Echinacea angustifolia 0.11 ml
          Galium aparine 0.18 ml
          Iris versicolor 0.18 ml
          Lobelia Inflata 0.04 ml
          Mentha x piperita 0.035 g
          Pectin 0.35 g
          Phyllanthus emblica 0.165 g
          Phytolacca americana 0.07 ml
          Pimpinella anisum 0.175 g
          Plantago ovate 1.428 g
          Rheum palmatum 0.0225 ml
          Rumex acetosella 0.3675 ml
          Schisandra chinensis 3.0 g
          Terminalia bellirica 0.165 g
          Terminalia chebula 0.165 g
          Ulmus rubra 0.0925 g
          Verbascum thapsus 0.08 ml
          Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 0.06 ml
          Zingiber officinale 0.042 g

Lot or serial number: 001115;
                      002115;
                      003115;
                      004115;
                      005115;
                      006115

Recalling Firm: St. Francis Herb Farm
                104 Maika Road
                Combermere
                K0J 1L0
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: St. Francis Herb Farm
                                104 Maika Road
                                Combermere
                                K0J 1L0
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


ST. FRANCIS: Recalls Bulklax V Products Due to Arsenic & Lead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Posting date: April 20, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products, Affects children, pregnant
or breast feeding women
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52989

Heavy Metal limits exceeded for arsenic and lead.

Depth of distribution: Naturopaths, Retailers and Pharmacies

Bulklax V
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80048371
Dosage form: Powder
Strength: Althaea officinalis 0.175 g;
          D-Galacto-L-arabinan 1.26 g;
          Mentha x piperita 0.035 g;
          Pectin 0.35 g;
          Phyllanthus emblica 0.165 g;
          Pimpinella anisum 0.175 g;
          Plantago ovate 1.428 g;
          Terminalia bellirica 0.165 g;
          Terminalia chebula 0.165 g;
          Zingiber officinale 0.042 g
Lot or serial number: 10600114
                      10600214
                      10600314
                      10600815

Recalling Firm: St. Francis Herb Farm
                104 Maika Road
                Combermere
                K0J 1L0
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: St. Francis Herb Farm
                                104 Maika Road
                                Combermere
                                K0J 1L0
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


STATE AUTO: Proceedings in Schumacher Case Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
has stayed the proceedings in the case Schumacher vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al., to allow the parties
to engage in settlement discussions.

In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C
in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in
connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto
companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that
which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages to be
determined by the court, as well as class certification. On
February 2, 2015, the Court struck the class allegations, and on
February 13, 2015, the Court stayed the proceedings to allow the
parties to engage in settlement discussions.


STRATASYS LTD: Faces Class Actions in Minnesota & New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Stratasys Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 5, 9, and
20, 2015, lawsuits styled as class actions were commenced in the
United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota, the
Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of New
York, respectively, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements concerning our business and
prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and awards of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. These lawsuits are
in their initial stages and no substantive proceedings have
occurred to date.

"We intend to mount vigorous defenses to these lawsuits," the
Company said.


SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------
Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc. of Richmond, BC, Canada is voluntarily
recalling sliced apple and products containing sliced apples, from
its Northeast Fresh Facility located in Brampton, ON, Canada
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Apple slices and products containing sliced apples were
distributed to IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, ND, OH, WI and WV through
retail stores, distributors and food service establishments. The
recall is limited to product produced out of the Brampton, ON
Canada facility which is identified by a 7 digit numerical lot
code that begins with the number 2.

  Brand  Product   Size  Package      UPC       Lot    Best
  -----  -------   ----  Description  ---       Code   Before
                         -----------            ----   Date
                                                       (up to and
                                                       including)
                                                       ----------
Sun Rich Apple     6x6oz Parfait Cup  060243- 2510041  2015 MA 15
         Slices    (170g)             004647  2513041
         with Dip                             2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2520041
                                              2522041
                                              2524041
Sun Rich Apple     4x3lb, Bag in      060243- 2510041  2015 MA 17
         Slices    2x3lb  a Box       004586  2511041
                                              2512041
                                              2513041
                                              2514041
                                              2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2518041
                                              2519041
                                              2520041
                                              2521041
                                              2522041
                                              2525041
                                              2526041
  Sun Rich Apple   100x2oz, Bags      a06024- 2510041  2015 MA 17
           Slices  24x2oz,            3004531 2511041
                   (57g)                      2512041
                                              2513041
                                              2514041
                                              2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2518041
                                              2519041
                                              2520041
                                              2521041
                                              2522041
                                              2524041
                                              2525041
                                              2526041
  Sun Rich Apple   3lb      Bag       060243- 2512041  2015 MA 17
           Slices           in Box    005088  2514041
                                              2515041
                                              2518041
                                              2519041
                                              2521041
                                              2522041
                                              2525041
                                              2526041
  Sun Rich Apple   3lb      Bag in    060243- 2510041  2015 MA 16
           Slices           Box       012932  2511041
                                              2513041
                                              2514041
                                              2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2518041
                                              2520041
                                              2521041
                                              2522041
                                              2524041
                                              2525041
Subway     Apple    2.4oz   Bags      308251- 2510041  2015 MA 14
           Slices   8g)              46031272 2511041
                                              2512041
                                              2513041
                                              2514041
                                              2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2518041
                                              2519041
                                              2520041
                                              2521041
                                              2522041
                                              2524041
                                              2525041
                                              2526041
Sun Rich   Sunshine  10lb    Boxed   060243-  2513041  2015 MA 12
           Salad             Kit     012963   2515041
                                              2517041
                                              2520041
                                              2522041
                                              2524041

The voluntary recall was the result of an abundance of caution by
Sun Rich following a routine sampling program by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) which revealed that the finished products
possibly contained the bacteria.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.  Customers have been
contacted with regards to handling of affected product.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-661-0087 between
the hours of 8am - 7pm EST Monday thru Sunday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm445392.htm


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Actos Lawsuits for $2.4 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Takeda
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. has agreed to pay $2.4 billion to settle
lawsuits by 9,000 people alleging that the company failed to warn
of bladder cancer risks from taking its Type 2 diabetes drug
Actos.

The settlement, announced on April 28, resolves a "high
percentage" of the Actos cases, according to Takeda's parent
company, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., which said it would take
a $2.7 billion charge in its quarterly earnings to cover the
settlement and related costs.  The company did not admit
liability.

"This settlement allows Takeda to reduce the uncertainties of
complex litigation and focus on providing medicines for patients
around the world," Sandy Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for Takeda
Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., said in an emailed statement.  "We remain
committed to Actos, which continues to be available as a treatment
option in the U.S., Japan and other countries."

Takeda said it would set up a fund of between $2.37 billion to
$2.4 billion, depending on how many Actos litigants opt into the
settlement.

The settlement involves more than 4,000 cases coordinated in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, as well
as lawsuits filed by about 4,000 people in Cook County, Ill.,
according to Peter Flowers of Meyers & Flowers Law Firm in
Chicago, who is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the state
court cases in Illinois.

"Due to Takeda's negligence in informing the public of the cancer
risk, this settlement will recover some compensation for the
victims who have been injured and, in some cases, maimed by
bladder cancer while taking Actos, a drug that was designed to
improve their health, not make it worse," Mr. Flowers said.

Although Takeda has won some verdicts in state court cases over
Actos, the settlement comes about a year after a landmark $9
billion verdict in the first federal bellwether trial against
Takeda and co-promoter Eli Lilly and Co.  Prior to trial, U.S.
District Judge Rebecca Doherty had sanctioned Takeda for
destroying and losing key files in the case.

On Oct. 26, she reduced the jury's award, most of which was
punitive damages, to less than $37 million.  Takeda, which was due
to file its opening brief on April 27 in its appeal of that
verdict before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
was granted an extension to May 11.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Deal Okayed in Canadian Horsepower Label Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement involving
all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and
Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court in the
Canadian Horsepower label litigation.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray
Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other
defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings
Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs &
Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products
Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and
Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen
competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and
to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers
in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy
prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within
the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or
their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of
judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition,
Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock
Purchase Agreement with them."

"A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki,
American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by
the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor
is it determinative of their liability, if any.
At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows.

"On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior
Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against us and several other defendants (including those listed
above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately
above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above,
Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock
Purchase Agreement with them.

"As was the case with the Ontario litigation, a settlement
involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American
Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court.
It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it
determinative of their liability, if any.

"At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows."


TIME WARNER: "Johnson" Suit Moved to S. Carolina District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Johnson v. Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., Case No. 2015-
CP-40-01935, was removed from the County of Richland to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01727-CMC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN LAW OFFICE
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: cpk@harpootlianlaw.com
                  rah@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Tobias Gavin Ward, Jr., Esq.
          TOBIAS G. WARD LAW FIRM
          Six Calendar Court, Suite Three
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 403-8754
          E-mail: tw@tobywardlaw.com

Defendant Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership,
doing business as Time Warner Cable, is represented by:

          Frank Rogers Ellerbe, III, Esq.
          Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq.
          ROBINSON MCFADDEN AND MOORE
          PO Box 944
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 779-8900
          Facsimile: (803) 252-0724
          E-mail: fellerbe@robinsonlaw.com
                  kbell@robinsonlaw.com


TORO COMPANY: Recalls Walk-Behind Power Mowers
----------------------------------------------
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: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52929

This recall involves the 2015 22-inch walk-behind power mower. The
mower has a red base on four wheels, a black motor and handle, and
a white bag attached for catching the clippings. A black plate on
the front of the mower says "Toro Recycler 22." The recalled
mowers have model number 20337 and serial numbers ranging from
315000101 to 315000983. The model and serial numbers are located
on a label found on the back of the machine.

The mowers were assembled with an incorrect blade driver and blade
combination, which may cause the blade to break, posing an injury
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor the Toro Company has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 100 recalled mowers were distributed in Canada and
800 in the United States.

The affected products were sold from February to March 2015 in
Canada and in the United States at various retailers.

Manufactured in Mexico.

Distributor: The Toro Company
             Bloomington
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES


TRACER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Crash Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015153TC
ID number: 2015153

On certain travel trailers, the slide room mechanisms may be
defective. The cables slide that controls the inward and outward
motion of the room could be fastened with defective 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.

   Make     Model         Model year(s) affected
   ---      -----         ----------------------
TRACER      TRT270AIR     2016
TRACER      TRT3200BHT    2016


TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle With Front Quick Release Levers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 21, 2015
Posting date: April 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product
Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53009

This recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from years 2000
through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver
quick release lever on the front wheel hub that opens far enough
to contact the disc brake.

Bicycles with front quick release levers that do not open a full
180 degrees from the closed position are not included in this
recall.

When a quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub is
capable of opening more than 180 degrees, improperly adjusted or
left open, it can come into contact with the front disc brake
assembly causing the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or
separate from the bicycle. This poses a crash and injury hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Trek has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
bicycles in Canada.

Trek Bicycle Corporation has received 3 reports of consumer
incidents in the United States.

Approximately 98,000 recalled bicycles were sold in Canada, and
approximately 900,000 were sold in the United States.

The recalled bicycles were sold from September 1999 to April 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Trek Bicycle Corporation
             Waterloo
             Wisconsin
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact
an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick
release on the front wheel.

For additional information, consumers may contact Trek toll-free
at 1-800-373-4594, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CST, Monday
through Friday. Consumers may also visit Trek's website and click
on Safety & Recalls at the bottom 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/oC7yqq


TROPHIC CANADA: Recalls Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
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-52951

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

Depth of distribution: Distributors, Retailers

Maximized Living 7 Day D-Tox System
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80051962
Dosage form: Capsule
Lot or serial number: 07233991
                      07234571

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

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


UPM MARKETING: Expands Line Voltage Thermostats Recall
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Posting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52863

This recall expansion involves line voltage thermostats with
various brand names.

The following brand names and model numbers are included in this
recall; all serial numbers are included :

   Brand Name     Model Number
   ----------     ------------
   Maison         HTM511
                  HTM611
   NOMA           HTM211
                  HTM611
                  HTM621
   RONA           HTM611
   UPM            HTM211
                  HTM311
                  HTM511
                  HTM611
                  HTM621

Note that some thermostat model numbers may have a letter after
them, for example HTM221A.  This letter indicates a minor, non-
electrical variation in the product such as the shape of the LCD
window or buttons or the colour of the unit.  The presence of
these letters does not affect which model numbers are included in
the recall.  The recalled units were certified to Canadian
Standards by CSA International.

The units may overheat, emit smoke and damage the wall, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

Since June 2011, Health Canada has received 24 reports of
incidents from consumers and retailers regarding the use of these
thermostats including overheating, melting, smoke and damage to
the wall.  No injuries have been reported.

The number sold to consumers is unknown; however the thermostats
were known to be sold at Canadian Tire, RONA and various other
hardware and building stores.

The time period sold is unknown.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: ESIC Technology Inc.
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Mandolyn Electronic Technology
              CHINA

Importer: UPM Marketing Inc.
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled thermostats
and contact the retailer from whom they purchased the product as
the importer is no longer in business.  Otherwise, consumers
should remove and throw the thermostats away according to their
local municipal disposal requirements.

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/INP9fP


VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending as of December 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
there were four actions pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where
Liggett is a named defendant, including one alleged price fixing
case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these
actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case. The defendants did not oppose and the
stay was entered by the court.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was commenced
on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke
and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the
defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, a class was commenced against cigarette manufacturers
alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in
November 2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral
argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March
2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the lower court's decision. On August 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the
jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for
the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes sold
between 1964 and 1969 should have included instructions on how to
use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further
proceedings that have not yet been scheduled. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims lost by the
plaintiffs. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The defendants
did not appeal the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the
"failure to instruct" claim which impacted less than 30
plaintiffs. A hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2015 to
address the remaining ventilated filter claim. If the case were to
proceed against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a
defendant in approximately 100 of the individual cases.

Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against
cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use of
the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the United States
Supreme Court, in Altria Group v. Good, ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state
law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed
with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The
Good decision resulted in the filing of additional "lights" class
action cases in other states against other cigarette
manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the Good
case, and is not currently a defendant in any other "lights" class
actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional "lights"
related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


VECTOR GROUP: 13 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Dec. 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
there were 13 Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial through
December 31, 2015, where Liggett (and in many cases, the Company)
is a named defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject to change.

In May 2003, a Florida intermediate appellate court overturned a
$790.0 million punitive damages award against Liggett and
decertified the Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. smoking and
health class action. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 2003 intermediate
appellate court decision. Among other things, the Florida Supreme
Court affirmed the decision decertifying the class on a
prospective basis and the order vacating the punitive damages
award, but preserved several of the trial court's Phase I findings
(including that: (i) smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii)
defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and
unreasonably dangerous; (iv) the defendants concealed material
information; (v) all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
were defective; and (vi) all defendants were negligent) and
allowed plaintiffs to proceed to trial on individual liability
issues (using the above findings) and compensatory and punitive
damage issues, provided they commence their individual lawsuits
within one year of the date the court's decision became final on
January 11, 2007, the date of the court's mandate. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that defendants
sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply,
did not conform to the representations made by defendants.

Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle,
former class members had until January 2008 to file individual
lawsuits. Cases were commenced on behalf of approximately 8,000
plaintiffs. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the
Engle ruling are referred to as the "Engle progeny cases." In
October 2013, the Company announced a settlement of the claims of
approximately 4,900 of the remaining 5,300 Engle progeny
plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this comprehensive settlement, the
claims of approximately 320 state court Engle progeny plaintiffs
remain outstanding.

As of December 31, 2014, there were 13 Engle progeny cases
currently scheduled for trial in 2015. Through December 31, 2014,
14 adverse verdicts had been entered against Liggett in Engle
progeny cases. Several of these were affirmed on appeal and were
satisfied by Liggett. The remaining verdicts are at various stages
of appeal although appellate efforts, to date, have not been
successful. Liggett faces outstanding judgments of $28.2 million,
plus interest and attorney fees, for the cases currently on
appeal.


VECTOR GROUP: Engle Payments Pegged at $3.5MM Per Year Thru 2028
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's future
payments in the Engle Progeny Settlement are estimated to be
approximately $3,500,000 per annum though 2028, with a cost of
living adjustment in 2021."

The Company said, "On October 23, 2013, a settlement was reached
between us and approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and
their counsel. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett
will pay a total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately
$61,600,000 paid in a lump sum, which was paid in 2014 and the
balance to be paid in installments over the next 14 years, with a
cost of living adjustment beginning in year eight. We recorded a
charge of $86,213,000 for the year ended December 31, 2013 in
connection with the proposed settlement. Of this amount,
$25,213,000 is related to certain payments discounted to their
present value because the timing and amounts of such payments are
fixed and determinable. The present value of the installment
payments was computed using an 11% annual discount rate. The
installment payments total approximately $48,000,000 on an
undiscounted basis. Our future payments are estimated to be
approximately $3,500,000 per annum though 2028, with a cost of
living adjustment in 2021."

"Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 320 plaintiffs did not participate in
the settlement and, therefore, we and Liggett may still be subject
to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material adverse
affect on the our consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows."


VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Costs Total $9.9MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2014, Liggett incurred tobacco product
liability legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling
$9,944,000.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen
into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual
plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals
requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny
cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging
personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing
medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the
terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and
unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal
law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery
actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental
plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement
for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery
Actions"). With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs
and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation
increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of
litigation are not quantifiable. For the twelve months ended
December 31, 2014 and 2013, Liggett incurred tobacco product
liability legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling
$9,944,000 and $9,321,000, respectively. The 2013 costs exclude a
charge of $86,213,000 associated with the Engle progeny
settlement.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 155 Engle Progeny Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual
basis, settled 155 Engle progeny cases for approximately
$1,983,000 in the aggregate.

Judgments have been entered against Liggett and other industry
defendants in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments have
been affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of
December 31, 2014, 21 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a
defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. Fourteen verdicts were
returned in favor of the plaintiffs and seven in favor of Liggett.
Excluding the Lukacs case, which was tried in 2002, seven years
before the trials of Engle progeny cases commenced, the
compensatory verdicts against Liggett have ranged from $1,000 to
$3,600,000. In certain cases, the judgments entered have been
joint and several with other defendants. In four of the cases,
punitive damages were awarded against Liggett.

Management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss from the remaining Engle progeny cases as there are currently
multiple defendants in each case and, in most cases, discovery has
not occurred or is limited. As a result, the Company lacks
information about whether plaintiffs are in fact Engle class
members (non-class members' claims are generally time-barred), the
relevant smoking history, the nature of the alleged injury and the
availability of various defenses, among other things. Further,
plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand for damages.
Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing
litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant
challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle
progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past
litigation experience will be representative of future results.
Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in
Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those
judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is
possible that the consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any
of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the
litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal
of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be,
vigorously defended. Liggett may, however, enter into settlement
discussions in particular cases if it believes it is in its best
interest to do so, including the remaining Engle progeny cases.

As of December 31, 2014, Liggett (and in certain cases the
Company) had, on an individual basis, settled 155 Engle progeny
cases for approximately $1,983,000 in the aggregate. There were 11
settlements in the fourth quarter of 2014. In October 2013,
Liggett announced a settlement of the claims of over 4,900 Engle
progeny plaintiffs.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Golf, GTI and A3 Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 0
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015161TC
ID number: 2015161
Manufacturer recall number: 20V5

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
VOLKSWAGEN   GOLF       2015
VOLKSWAGEN   GTI        2015
AUDI         A3         2015


WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2015
Posting date: April 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52869

This recall involves Husky(R) Securelock(TM) vertical bike hooks
model number THD208CAN, SKU 1000726802 used with a Husky(R)
Securelock(TM) Trackwall garage storage system.  The 7.5 cm by 9
cm black metal plate is mounted to the grooves in the Trackwall
and the bike's tire is attached to a hook protruding from the
plate. There are no markings on the hook. The Trackwall has
"Husky" printed on the lower left corner. The hook holds up to a
15 kg bike.

The mounted bike hooks can unexpectedly detach, allowing the bike
to fall. This poses a risk of injury to bystanders.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these bike hooks.

Waterloo Industries has received two reports in Canada of the bike
hook cracking the Securelock(TM) Trackwall, causing the attached
hook and bike to fall, with one incident resulting in property
damage. No injuries have been reported.

Waterloo Industries has received 20 reports of incidents in the
United States of the bike hooks falling from the mounted
Securelock(TM) Trackwall, including 11 reports of property damage
to bicycles and/or nearby vehicles. No injuries have been
reported.

Approximately 15,000 of the recalled products were sold in Canada
and about 105,000 were distributed in the United States,
exclusively through Home Depot.

The recalled product was sold from May 2012 to March 2015 in
Canada and from April 2011 to March 2015 in the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Yanbu Youncheng Hardware
Manufacturer: Foshan Guangdong
              CHINA

Distributor: Waterloo Industries
             Waterloo
             Iowa
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bike hooks
and return the product to any Home Depot location in Canada for a
refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Waterloo Industries at
1-800-833-8851 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the Home Depot website and click on "product
recalls."

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/6Fhs5k


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the Court
provided final approval of the settlement in the case Jeri
Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc., and the
Company made the corresponding settlement payment in January 2015.

In August 2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel
in the previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers
North America, Inc. case, or Sabatino, threatening to file a new
class action on behalf of the Company's current and former service
providers in California asserting various wage and hour claims,
including but not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and
minimum wage violations, which allegedly accrued after the
effective date of the Sabatino settlement. On March 17, 2014, the
parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the matter on
a class-wide basis for $1.7 million. On April 29, 2014, the
parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding to document the
terms and conditions of settlement and, the following day,
plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the claims at issue in the
Northern District of California. On June 11, 2014, the parties
filed a formal settlement agreement and other required documents
for the Court's preliminary approval. On July 21, 2014, the
parties received the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. On August 11, 2014, notices of settlement
were sent out to the class members advising them of the settlement
and their right to object or opt-out of the settlement; no class
members did so by the deadline of September 22, 2014. At a
December 2014 hearing the Court provided final approval of the
settlement and the Company made the corresponding settlement
payment in January 2015.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend vigorously the case In re Weight Watchers
International, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the Class Period). The complaints
allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed
material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014,
the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to
between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all
current officers and certain directors previously named as
defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants'
motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a
reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014.
The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.


WINE GROUP: Faces "Bithorn" Suit Over Arsenic-Contaminated Wine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zahira Crespo Bithorn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Wine Group, Inc. a California
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01424 (D.P.R., April 20,
2015) alleges that the Defendants' sale of arsenic-contaminated
wine violates the laws of all 50 states and federal laws and
standards, poses a risk to the public, and unfairly undercuts
those wine makers and sellers, who do not make or sell arsenic
tainted wines.

Inorganic arsenic is an odorless, colorless, and highly toxic
poison known to cause illness and death when ingested by humans,
according to the complaint.

The Wine Group, Inc., is a parent company of The Wine Group, LLC.
The Companies are headquartered in Tracy, California.  The
Defendants sell and distribute wine.

The other Defendants are The Wine Group, LLC, a California
Corporation; Sutter Home Winery, Inc., d/b/a Trinchero Family
Estates, a California Corporation; Folie A Deux Winery, a
California Corporation; California Natural Products, a California
Corporation; Rebel Wine Co., LLC a California Corporation; Golden
State Vinters, a California Corporation; Varni Brothers, Corp., a
California Corporation; Treasury Wines Estates Americas Co., a
California Corporation; Treasury Wines Estates Holding, Inc., a
California Corporation; Beringer Vineyards, a California
Corporation; Seaglass Wine Co., a California Corporation;
Constellation Wines, US, a California Corporation; Smith & Hook
Winery Corporation, a/k/a Smith and Hook, a California
Corporation, d/b/a Hahn Family Wines, a California Corporation;
Raymond Vineyard and Cellar, Inc., a California Corporation; Jean-
Claude Boisset Wines, USA, Inc., a California Corporation; Fetzer
Vineyards, a California Corporation; F. Korbel & Bros., Inc., a
California Corporation; Megan Mason and Randy Mason, d/b/a Mason
Cellars, a California Corporation; Oakville Winery Management
Corp., GP, a California Corporation; Woodbridge Winery, Inc., a
California Corporation; Simply Naked Winery, a California
Corporation; Winery Exchange, Inc., a California Corporation;
Sonoma Wine Co., LLC, a California Corporation; Don Sebastiani &
Sons International Wine Negociants, Corp., a California
Corporation; and Don Sabastiani & Sons International Wine
Negociants, a California Corporation; Bronco Wine Company, a
California Corporation; Trader Joe's Company, a California
Corporation, and Does 1-200, Inclusive.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Nevares, Esq.
          JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOCIATES, PSC
          P.O. Box 13667
          San Juan, PR 00908-3667
          Telephone: (787) 722-9333
          Facsimile: (787) 721-8820
          E-mail: jfnevares@nevareslaw.com


YAMAHA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 62
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015152TC
ID number: 2015152
Manufacturer recall number: M15-093

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 replace the rear shock absorber with a
correctly manufactured one.

   Make      Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----         ----------------------
   YAMAHA                  2015


* Court Urged to Approve LSAT Disability Accommodations Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Department of Justice has urged a federal court to
approve extensive reforms to the process for evaluating whether
people who want to take the Law School Admission Test are disabled
and require accommodations to make the test fairer.

The department and the California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing on April 27 filed court papers in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California defending a five-member
panel's recommendations for making it easier for disabled people
receive accommodations including extra time, breaks between test
sections or specialized computer software.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which administers the
test, in March objected to the proposals, claiming the panel
exceeded its authority and seemed more bent on ensuring test
takers received accommodations than making sure their requests are
evaluated fairly.  The proposed procedures would undermine the
exam's integrity, the council argued.

"This is an attempt to avoid the recommendations of a panel of
experts proposing best practices for protecting a class that has
long been discriminated against," said Kevin Kish, director of the
California agency.

"Full and prompt implementation of the panel's recommendations is
an essential step in ensuring full access to law school and the
legal profession for students with disabilities," he said.

A council spokeswoman declined to comment, but administrators have
acknowledged the organization's procedures historically have been
more rigorous than that of other standardized testing bodies.
They argue that the outsized role of LSAT scores in law school
admissions require it to accommodate only people who can prove
they need it.  People denied disability accommodations routinely
sue the council.

In 2012, the state agency filed a class action alleging the
council's policies were too burdensome and violated the Americans
With Disabilities Act.  The Justice Department joined that action.
The parties signed a consent decree in May 2014, the council
agreeing to pay $7.73 million to more than 6,000 people it had
refused accommodations and to end "flagging" -- that is, alerting
law schools when giving someone extra time to complete the test, a
common accommodation.

The consent decree established the expert panel to devise an
improved accommodations process.  In January, the panel concluded
that the council's documentation requirements were excessive.  It
recommended adding specialists to review requests, placing greater
weight on previous testing accommodations granted applicants and
establishing a formal appeals process, among other changes.
The council in March filed an appeal, opposing six of the panel's
10 recommendations.

"Many of the recommendations challenged by LSAC would require LSAC
to approve accommodation requests when the requested
accommodations are not warranted," the counsel said in its appeal.
But the council takes too narrow a view of the panel's mandate,
the state and federal governments argued.  "The panel's
recommended best practices appropriately reflect and respond to
the charge that the parties agreed to delegate to it," they said.
"And, significantly, they represent practical solutions to the
very real problems identified by the panel.  The LSAC's proposed
'revisions' to the panel's recommendations would gut the best
practices."

Ruth Colker, a professor at Ohio State University Michael E.
Moritz College of Law and one of the five panel members, said the
group quoted in its report each of the 10 matters set forth in the
consent decree, to ensure it worked within the proper framework.

"I'm glad the Justice Department vigorously defended our report,"
she said.  "I'm optimistic the court will uphold our report and
say it is consistent with our charge.  I hope the LSAC doesn't
spend any more money challenging our report."


                             *********

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  * * *