CAR_Public/150520.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 100


                            Headlines


ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH: Seeks Cut in Bag Check Time Penalties
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: May 26 Last Day to Respond to Complaint
AIG INC: Judge Tosses Workers' Compensation Fraud Class Action
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $9.75MM
ANZ BANK: IMF Bentham May Appeal Class Action Ruling

ANZ BANK: Fee Suit Win Builds on Maturing Class Actions Market
APPLE INC: Court Tosses TRO Motion, Dismisses "Paulson" Action
ARC DOCUMENT: $900,000 Liability Related to Class Action Claim
ARIA RESORT: Obtains Final OK of "Berry" Class Action Settlement
AT&T INC: Cricket Communications Purchase Results in Class Suit

BALTIC TRADING: Merger a Slam Dunk for Board Members, Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Parents of Showbiz Kids Must Cover Bank Fees
BANK OF KENTUCKY: Agreed to Settle Kentucky Class Action
BE-THIN INC: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Geismann" Suit
BG RETAIL: Mag. Judge Recommends Sept 11 Hearing in Davis Case

BP PLC: 5th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Glenn" Case
BUCKLEY'S GREAT STEAK: "Foley" Class Certification Denied
CADIZ INC: Accused of Lying About Southern Calif. Water Pipeline
CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Party to 60 Pending Bodily Injury Claims
CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Faces Class Action in Israel

CAMPBELL-EWALD: High Court Asked to Decide on TCPA Suit Mootness
CANADA: High Court Won't Hear Farmers Appeal in Wheat Board Case
CAPITOL RECORDS: Davis, Tavares Suits Administratively Closed
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Girard Gibbs File Class Action Over Layoff
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held

CEPHALON INC: Court Declines to Certify Unlawful Marketing Class
CHICAGO: Godfrey Seeks Entry of Final Approval and Judgment Order
CHINA COMMERCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
CONWAY, AR: Firefighter Seeks Class Action Status for Pay Suit
COVENTUS INTER-INSURANCE: CFA Doesn't Apply to Med-Mal Insurance

CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Kahn Swick Files Securities Suit
DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Rejects $50MM Class Action Settlement
DEUTSCHE BANK: Nears $1.5-Bil. Libor Class Action Settlement
DOLLAR GENERAL: Request for EEOC Background Policy Details Denied
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Suit Dismissal

ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. to Hear Moldy Washer Class Cert. Challenge
ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed in Class Action
ENERNOC INC: $500,000 Cash Payment Received in Class Action
ENERNOC INC: MOU Filed in Delaware Court of Chancery
FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Set to Rule on Privacy Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Pushes for End to Austrian Privacy Class Action
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Judge Dismisses Concussion Class Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: Steven Antonik Class Action in Discovery Stage
FIRST NATIONAL: Charles Saxe Class Action in Discovery Stage
FLOWER FOODS: Appeals Employee Classification Class Action Ruling

FORD MOTOR: Court Hears Arguments in Mesothelioma Case
FTD COMPANIES: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Sues Milla Bjorn, Lidingo
GERON CORP: Shareholder Action Over Cancer Drug Trimmed
GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Szarek Case Adjourned to May 21

GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Gross Action Rescheduled
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Limits Set on Nature of Class Member Notice
HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Cosmetics Suit
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stein Class Action
HOPFED BANCORP: Negotiates Settlement in Class Action

HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed
HORIZON LINES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Class Action Now Concluded
IBM CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Sale of Hardware Biz
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Suit

IGNITE RESTAURANT: Expects Final Court Approval of Settlement
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit
INSTALLED BUILDING: Paid $1.2MM Related to Class Action
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Due Nov. 23
J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants Intend to Appeal Court Order

JIMMY JOHN'S: 'Oppressive' Non-compete Clause Survives Challenge
JOHNS HOPKINS: Attorneys in Levy Suit Set to Get $32MM in Fees
LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
LISA STEED: Judge Denies Class Action Status to Fraud Suit
LOUISIANA: PSC Commissioner Wants Name Off Class Action Motion

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Freeland Couple Files Flooring Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Has Expected to Face DOJ Criminal Charges
MASSACHUSETTS: Former Inmates Settle Strip Search Class Action
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 1st Phase of Fresno Case Was to End March 2015
MERCER CANYONS: Judge Allows Farm Workers' Class Suit to Proceed

MERCER CANYONS: Owner Disappointed With Certification Ruling
MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Suit Filed Over Gas Fireplaces
MILLER ENERGY: Final Settlement in Class Action Approved
MIMEDX GROUP: Law Firm Filed Class Action Lawsuit
MINNESOTA: Commerce Dept. Sued Over Unclaimed Property Program

MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Indicated It Would Approve Settlement
NEW JERSEY: Kelly, Wildstein in Default in Bridgegate Class Suit
OCEAN SPRAY: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
OMEGA FLEX: Judges Granted Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Discovery Stayed Under 2nd Scheduling Order
PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Actions Filed by Welch and Berliner
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Amend Class Action
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint
PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: HIPA Offers "No Shelter" to Class Suit

PLY GEM: Approval of Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
PLY GEM: Class Certification in "Memari" Case Not Yet Scheduled
PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling Yet in "Pagliaroni" Case
PLY GEM: Faces Class Action by Aaron Kraemer
PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Filed

PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Has Yet to File Amended Suit
QUIKSILVER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
REACHLOCAL INC: Lawsuit Filed by Former Clients in Early Stage
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
ROCK CREEK: Court Scheduled Final Approval Hearing for June 22

ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Deck Protector Product
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit
SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Kuhl" Class Suit Over Orca Mistreatment
SEAWORLD PARKS: Author of 'Beneath the Surface' Warned

SMITH & NEPHEW: Medical Device Class Certification Denied
SYNGENTA AG: Objections to Proposed Benefit Work Order Overruled
SYNGENTA AG: Two Cases in Corn Litigation Return to State Court
SYSCO CORP: Merger Trial Begins in FTC Antitrust Case
TARGET CORPORATION: Initial Injunction Bid in Breach Case Denied

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief in Appeal
TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Modify Case Mgmt Order
TWEEN BRANDS: Atty Objects to Proposed $6-Mil. Settlement
UBS GROUP: Has Settlement to Resolve Foreign Currency Actions
UBS GROUP: Added as Defendant to Silver Class Action

UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action on FX Futures Contracts
UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Swiss Franc LIBOR
UBS GROUP: Discovery Stayed in Euroyen TIBOR Lawsuit
UBS GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Affirmed
UBS AG: Class Action Over Funds Moved From Puerto Rico to NY

WACHOVIA CORP: Court Orders Wells Fargo to Donate $10,500
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in Alameda County
WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Class Suit by Robbins Geller
WORLD WRESTLING: Three Former Wrestlers File Class Suit
XARELTO: New Class Suit Filed in Canada

YOUKU TUDOU: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Shareholders Class Suit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Implant Product Liability Suits Head to Trial

* Accounting-Driven Class Actions Rising, Study Finds
* CFPB Study May Pave Way for Class Suits vs. Companies


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH: Seeks Cut in Bag Check Time Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that
Abercrombie and Fitch Stores Inc. moved on April 8 to trim a
request for waiting time penalties in a proposed class action in
California accusing the retailer of failing to pay employees for
time spent waiting to have their bags searched after their shifts,
saying the company had a policy that such checks be done on the
clock.

The company filed a motion for partial summary judgment over the
waiting time penalties, one of three claims brought in the lawsuit
against A&F.  Former A&F employees, who say they were not
compensated for the bag checks, have also leveled claims for
failing to pay all wages and violations of California's business
code.

A&F said in its motion that it sent out a directive in June 2010
advising supervisors in California that all bag checks, which are
done to ensure employees are not stealing merchandise from the
store, be done on the clock.  Despite the written policy, the two
named plaintiffs in the case -- Emily Pelz who worked at Hollister
and Jessica Valiente Chavarria who worked at a California
Abercrombie kids before transferring -- "never reported to
corporate headquarters that they allegedly clocked out before bag
checks."

"Accordingly, as of June 2010, managers were required to perform
immediate and brief bag checks on associates after their shift
ended, but before they clocked out, and the checks were to take
place at the cashwraps (i.e., P.O.S. areas) located throughout the
store," A&F said.

The question over whether time spent in line waiting for a
security screening is compensable was one of the biggest issues in
employment law over the last year.  In December, the U.S. Supreme
Court held unanimously that workers don't have to be paid for time
they spent passing through security screenings in a high-profile
lawsuit involving Amazon warehouse workers.

The lawsuit against A&F was filed in August, months before the
Supreme Court's decision came down.

A&F cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Amazon warehouse
workers' case that time spent during security screenings is not
compensable.  Further, the company added that "No reported
California state case has held that time spent passing through a
retail bag check is compensable under California law."  Both of
these facts, A&F argued, are reasons why a claim for waiting time
penalties in this case would not be appropriate.

The plaintiffs and the class are represented by Thomas Kearney --
tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- and Prescott Littlefield --
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com -- of Kearney Littlefield LLP and Gene
Stonebarger and Richard Lambert of Stonebarger Law.

A&F is represented by Mark Knueve -- maknueve@vorys.com --
Daren Garcia -- dsgarcia@vorys.com -- and James Pauley III of
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP and Daphne Bishop --
dbishop@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger
LLP

The case is Emily Pelz et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc.,
case number 2:14-cv-06327, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: May 26 Last Day to Respond to Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the last day for the
Company to respond to the amended complaint in a class action
complaint is May 26, 2015.

"On October 1, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers. The
complaint alleges that between December 2, 2013 and September 25,
2014, AcelRx and certain of our officers violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with statements related to our lead drug candidate, Zalviso. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. On December 1, 2014, three purported shareholders
filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff and to appoint lead
counsel," the Company said.

On February 24, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the
lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the matter. Lead Plaintiff has
until April 10, 2015 to file an amended complaint. The last day
for the Company to respond to the amended complaint is May 26,
2015.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.


AIG INC: Judge Tosses Workers' Compensation Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that a statute of
limitations doesn't start running when your lawyer tells you that
you could file a lawsuit.  That's the rationale behind a Chicago
ruling dismissing the last in a series of cases targeting AIG and
its former CEO Maurice Greenberg for a decades-old fraud involving
workers' compensation premiums.

In a 12-page ruling issued April 27, U.S. District Judge Robert
Gettleman rejected a proposed class action brought by employers
that claimed AIG's admitted misconduct had caused them them to pay
higher premiums to their insurers.  The judge held that the
plaintiffs had waited too long before suing AIG and Greenberg in
2013 for racketeering and various state law violations.  The
employers should have known of their injuries no later than 2005,
when the news media covered AIG's fraudulent workers' compensation
policy scheme and Greenberg was removed from AIG's board, Judge
Gettleman found.  The statute of limitations for RICO is four
years, and it's no more than six years for the state law claims.

The ruling is a win for Michael Carlinsky --
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart &
Sullivan, who represented AIG and related corporate co-defendants.
Carlinsky declined to comment.  R. Ryan Stoll --
ryan.stoll@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
represented Greenberg.

In April 2005 The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran
articles about practices dating back to the 1990s in which AIG
miscatagorized workers' compensation premiums that it received as
other types of premiums.  By doing so, AIG didn't pay its share of
state-levied taxes on the premiums, causing other insurers to make
up the difference, the papers reported. A month later, New York
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued AIG for this
underreporting.

AIG settled with New York in 2006 as part of a $1.64 billion deal
that resolved wide-ranging federal and state charges of fraud,
bid-rigging and improper accounting.  AIG apologized and stated
that the company's actions had been wrong.  The company in 2011
paid $450 million to settle related litigation brought by other
insurance companies.  Quinn Emanuel's Carlinsky also defended AIG
in that case.

The employer plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all
employers who paid workers' compensation surcharges in 12 states,
including New York, California and New Jersey.  To counter AIG's
defense that they filed their case too late, the employers argued
that they didn't learn that they were harmed by AIG's fraud until
class action attorneys advised them of their claims.  None of the
publicity about AIG's fraud mentioned how employers like them were
injured, they maintained.

In rejecting the employers' arguments, Judge Gettleman concluded
that they should have been aware of the impact of AIG's conduct as
early as 2005.  He pointed out that their workers' compensation
invoices showed surcharges based on the total premiums reported to
state insurance regulators.  And the complaint failed to allege
any new information that had emerged since 2005 that alerted
plaintiffs to their injuries, the judge found.

The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Elizabeth Fegan
-- beth@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Derek
Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy.
Fegan declined to comment.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $9.75MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Caspi, writing for Healthcare Dive, reports that
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. is set to pay nearly $9.75
million to settle claims of securities fraud, after the company
allegedly overstated its ability to integrate its systems and
products with those of Eclipsys following their $1.3 billion
merger in 2010.  Documents were filed on April 9 and the
settlement is now awaiting preliminary approval.

While the legal arguments swirl around exactly what was stated
regarding progress after the merger, the real question from an IT
perspective is where the attempts at integration went wrong.

While the lawsuit itself provides only one side of the argument,
it does reveal the technical and personnel issues that allegedly
occurred behind the scenes.

The plan

The court documents outline how the merger was intended to fill
the need for integrated EHR products that "would enable access to
a single patient record across the continuum of the patient's care
-- for example, data from hospitals, physician practices,
rehabilitation centers, pharmacies, etc."

They note that Allscripts was under time pressure to deliver due
to federal stimulus funding for healthcare providers that would
only remain available until 2016.

At the time of the announcement, Allscripts stated in a press
release that the merger would result in the most comprehensive set
of products and create a "clear leader in healthcare information
technology, with the most comprehensive solution offering for
healthcare organizations of every size and setting."

Former Allscripts CEO Glen Tullman told investors that the
integration of the two companies' products would be quick and
seamless because of their common Microsoft platform, and soon
after the merger, he told industry media that the products were
already working together.

Former Eclipsys CEO Phil Pead told Healthcare IT News, "We're both
Microsoft.NET and SQL Server.  That makes the level of integration
far less complex as a result of the platforms being the same . . .
Allscripts has an architecture called UAI and we have Helios.  The
similarities are quite amazing . . .  both of us have abilities to
actually integrate levels of applications at a speed that would be
very difficult if they were Oracle, Linux, MUMPS."

Apparently it wasn't that simple.

What went wrong

In a nutshell, the lawsuit states, "product integration was far
from easy and was never accomplished during the Class Period,
leading to customer defections, disappointing financial results
and the eventual abandonment of products."

The court papers also highlight extreme discord between management
teams, evidenced by a series of axings and departures among the
senior staff that included the head of sales, the CTO, the COO,
three directors, the CFO, Tullman, Pead and president Lee Shapiro.

Here are some of the specific technical failings according to
confidential witness accounts from former employees:

Allscripts' goal was to use native integration to allow its
Sunrise products to seamlessly integrate with its Enterprise,
Professional and MyWay products, and to allow the products to
update patient health records without the use of industry
standardized codes. Allscripts branded its native software as ADX.

During the Class Period, Allscripts had to completely rework ADX
1.0 and the company never achieved integration for its key
products -- including MyWay -- which it abandoned in the fall of
2012.  An upgrade known as ADX 1.5 changed the method and
interface for data integration, with one specific goal being to
allow users to approve changes before they were entered into the
system.

Before the merger, Eclipsys was utilizing Medicity as its third
party vendor for the interface, but Allscripts switched to
dbMotion, a move that caused internal dissent.

A proposed integration solution named Helios was never released
after being "touted as the 'magic' connection on data exchange for
all products, including Sunrise Clinical Manager 5.5, dbMotion,
other vendor products and all other Allscripts products."
Impacts

The lawsuit alleges that in late April 2012, after Allscripts
revealed difficulties with integration and disappointing earnings,
as well as the departure of several board members, the value of
the company's stock plummeted 35% as a result.

The papers add that several months after the disclosures,
disgruntled clients filed a class action lawsuit against
Allscripts for failing to follow through on integrating the MyWay
EHR product and then abandoning it.

In the end, the reason Allscripts faces its current deal of
providing $9.75 million to the proposed class is its alleged
misrepresentation of its technical abilities, according to the
suit. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants "repeatedly touted
that they had demonstrated and achieved product integration . . .
when in truth the products were not integrated and they would not
achieve product integration until July 2012 and even by December
2012 only one client site was live on a beta version of the
product."

The case, Bristol County Retirement System et al. v. Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions Inc. et al., was filed in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


ANZ BANK: IMF Bentham May Appeal Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates and Timna Jacks, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that a landmark ruling that credit card late
payment fees charged by ANZ were illegal has been overturned on
appeal in the full Federal Court.

The court said on April 8 that it would reverse last year's ruling
that late payment fees were an illegal penalty.  The original
ruling had threatened to cost the big banks tens of millions of
dollars,

The decision could come as a blow to a multimillion-dollar class
action running against several major banks over fees.

But the class action's principal financial backer IMF Bentham
Australia said it was likely to seek leave to appeal to the High
Court.

In a decision that also raised doubts about the validity of late
fees charged by companies such as telecommunications providers and
utilities, Justice Michelle Gordon last February ruled that ANZ's
late payment fees of up to $35 were "extravagant, exorbitant and
unconscionable".

Four other types of fee were ruled legitimate.

ANZ had been appealing against the judgment over credit cards.

Legal firm Maurice Blackburn, which is leading the class action
against the bank, had also been appealing against key parts of the
ruling that favored ANZ, namely that honor fees, dishonor fees,
and over-limit fees were acceptable.

On April 8, the court ruled that the late fee was not extravagant
nor unconscionable and ANZ's appeal should be allowed.  It also
dismissed Maurice Blackburn's appeal.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
said he would appeal against the Federal Court's ruling in the
High Court:

"Obviously we are still digesting the details of what is a very
large decision but based on what we've read we think there are
grounds for appeal and we will be making an application for
special leave of the High Court.

"It is perhaps appropriate that Australia's largest consumer class
action will ultimately be determined by Australia's highest court
and as a result of the decision that's where we're headed," he
said.

"Unfortunately, the decision runs the risk of turning the doctrine
of penalties and the statutory provisions on which in we rely into
empty vessels devoid of any practical or meaningful content ,and
significantly reducing the protection for all consumers in
Australia."

The chief executive of ANZ Bank's Australian operations,
Mark Whelan, said the bank hoped the April 8 ruling put an end to
the long-running litigation, which has been funded by IMF Bentham.

"Our long standing position has been these fees were lawful and
we're pleased this has been vindicated by the Full Federal Court,"
Mr. Whelan said.

"We were particularly pleased the Court found there was no
dishonesty on ANZ's part and these avoidable fees were fairly and
fully disclosed and there was no lack of good faith by ANZ.

The case against ANZ is viewed as a key test case for a broader
class action against several of the country's biggest banks
including Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and National Australia Bank.
With about 180,000 customers having signed up, it is being billed
as the biggest in Australian history.

Last year NAB signalled it was open to settling with its customers
over credit card late fees -- thought to number about 30,000.


ANZ BANK: Fee Suit Win Builds on Maturing Class Actions Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that ANZ's win in a multimillion-dollar case against it
concerning late fees on card payments in the Federal Court builds
on an already rapidly maturing class actions market which could
numb outlandish claims.

Courts are driving one of the key developments in the space, as
they increasingly require group members to play a more active role
instead of sitting in the background and awaiting the case
outcome, said Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ken Adams --
ken.adams@hsf.com

Mr. Adams, along with Clayton Utz partner Colin Loveday --
cloveday@claytonutz.com -- Jones Day class actions practice
Australasia head John Emmerig -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and
Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan are among the Best
Lawyers for this year.

Explore the full list of Australia's Best Lawyers, including the
222 Lawyers of the Year, using our exclusive interactive tool.

Mr. Adams said the way in which class actions were being managed
by the courts and the parties was also changing.

"The days when institutional investors can be assured of sitting
back while a small investor runs the case might be coming to an
end," he said.

"One can expect a more critical assessment of the different types
of group members' claims, particularly on the issue of whether
they suffered any loss, and if so, the cause of that loss."

Requirements could include having group members contribute to
security for costs, give details of their claims and documents in
support as well as give evidence at an initial trial.

Mr. Adams said while institutional shareholders pursued the
overwhelming value of the claims in a class action, none had yet
taken a lead plaintiff role in a shareholder class action in
Australia.

Requiring institutional shareholders to give evidence could lead
to a deeper understanding of what impact alleged
misrepresentations, or non-disclosures by a listed company, really
had on the day to day trading activities of these organizations,
he said.

SHARE PRICE MOVEMENTS

One issue that has vexed the courts in shareholder actions is
whether plaintiffs can claim for indirect losses arising from the
inflation of a share price where a defendant company fails to
disclose information.

The question was raised in a recently failed class action against
collapsed global investment house Babcock & Brown, but Mr. Adams
said it might become less relevant in the context of mega-
investors, with global management teams, proprietary investment
models and huge research resources.

Clayton Utz partner Colin Loveday said he did not expect an
explosion of class actions in the next year, but a steady growth
in class actions in the next year would be driven by
entrepreneurial litigants who were "testing the boundaries" with
different funding and return models.

EXACERBATE SITUATION

The introduction of contingency fees -- controversially backed by
the Productivity Commission -- could exacerbate the situation and
increase the number of speculative claims, he said.

"It would be a most unwelcome development."

Class actions were well suited to address some issues, but not all
-- for example, where the interests of class action group members
lacked uniformity, he said.

It was difficult to accurately assess the parameters of the class
members' interests when court documents commonly provided only a
description of the class without identifying group members,
details about their individual claims and the number of members,
he said.

"Managing conflicts of interest in this environment is extremely
difficult," Mr. Loveday said.

"Difficulties in identifying the nature and extent of these group
member interests makes class actions notoriously difficult to run
to trial," Mr. Loveday said.

It was one reason why so few class actions were fully heard and
determined and why court approved settlements could be difficult
to get as was demonstrated by cases against Macquarie Bank, Great
Southern and Vioxx, he said.

MORE DIVERSITY THAN EVER

Jones Day class actions practice Australasia head John Emmerig
said that the diversity of cases was broader than ever, spanning
shareholder actions, products liability claims, class actions
against governments, structured investment product claims, as well
as claims against directors and advisers, and consumer claim class
actions.

More defendants, however, were choosing to defend claims in court
rather than settle pre-hearing in the past year.

The class actions space has swollen in the past few years, with
the growth of the litigation funding market dominated by IMF
Bentham and the striking of the biggest ever settlement for a
class action of $500 million in the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire
case last December.

This followed a $300 million settlement in the
Murrindindi/Marysville class action, both run by Maurice
Blackburn.

DOMINATES MARKET

IMF Bentham, which is funding the ANZ class action and dominates
the litigation funding market in Australia, has contributed to a
significant increase in class actions in the past few years and
has a $1.94 billion investment portfolio available to absorb the
$4 million write-down in intangible assets and $1.5 million in
adverse costs from the ANZ decision.

The federal government has signaled a review of the class action
regime, but has left law firms in the dark over the details.

Upcoming new cases to be brought by Maurice Blackburn this year
include the QBE and Vocation shareholder actions. The Cash
Converters payday lending case and the Rivercity investor cases
could go to trial, and a trial against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson
is currently running.

On the plaintiff side, Maurice Blackburn -- spurring the ANZ
action -- remains head of the pack, along with Slater and Gordon,
though other law firms are nudging into the space and picking up
smaller cases.

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan said there were more
early interlocutory challenges in matters being conducted by less-
experienced practitioners.

"At some stage soon there will be a dispute or contest in relation
to the adequacy of representation," Ms. Gilsenan said.

She urged regulators not to lurch to any sides in undertaking
reform, saying Australia's class actions regime was mature and
well-structured.

The speedy resolution of the $69.45 million Leighton Holdings
shareholder class action was an example of efficient resolution
for all parties, Ms. Gilsenan said.

"We hope that legislators and regulators will bring a cool head
and fact-based approach to any consideration of reforms to further
improve this important system," she said.

Plaintiff lawyers have also been encouraged by recommendations
from the Harper review of competition law that admissions by
respondents in settling matters with the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission could be available to be used in follow on
cases for damages.

The courts have made clear their opposition to "lawyer-driven"
class actions, but class action lawyers are also keenly awaiting a
judgment in a shareholder class action against Allco Finance which
could determine whether litigation funders can adopt a "common
fund" approach to class actions.

A common fund would enable funder to take a proportion of damages,
to be set at the outset of a case, from all group members.


APPLE INC: Court Tosses TRO Motion, Dismisses "Paulson" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Lauren Paulson, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00556, (D. D. C.), the plaintiff is a resident of
Brookings, Oregon, who has submitted a "Motion for a Temporary
Restraint Order," a "Class Action Complaint," and an application
to proceed in forma pauperis, all dated August 6, 2014.

Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, in a memorandum opinion dated
April 13, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1Jt5gU4from Leagle.com, ruled that the application
to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, the motion for a
temporary restraining order will be denied and this case, brought
pro se, will be dismissed.

He said a TRO is warranted only if "it clearly appears from
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint
that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney
can be heard in opposition."  Plaintiff seeks an order to compel
"Defendant T-Mobile to immediately restore [his] telephone
service" and to "refund any and all sums automatically deducted
from Plaintiff's bank account from April 18, 2014 when T-Mobile
terminated" the service. . . ." The fact that plaintiff did not
prepare his TRO motion until August 6, 2014, nearly four months
later, belies any claim of immediate harm, and plaintiff has made
no showing of irreparable harm.

Judge Roberts added that the "Class Action Complaint" cannot
proceed because a pro se party, such as plaintiff, cannot
represent a class or any other individual in federal court. Hence,
the case will be dismissed.


ARC DOCUMENT: $900,000 Liability Related to Class Action Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arc Document Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has a
liability of $0.9 million as of December 31, 2014 related to a
class action claim.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange
County. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i)
provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof,
(ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper. On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in
a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did not
result in resolution of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation
session, the mediator issued a proposal that was accepted by both
parties. The Company has received preliminary court approval of
the settlement, and awaits final court approval. The Company has a
liability of $0.9 million as of December 31, 2014 related to the
claim, which represents management's best estimate based on
information available.


ARIA RESORT: Obtains Final OK of "Berry" Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order on April 24, 2015,
granting final approval of a collective and class action
settlement in JAMYE BERRY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARIA RESORT & CASINO, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01321-APG-VCF, (D. Nev.).

The Court concluded that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
adequate and reasonable, and directed the Parties to effectuate
the Settlement according to its terms.

The Court confirmed Thierman Buck LLP as Class Counsel in the
Action.

The Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
$281,666.67, and attorney costs in the amount of $5,000, to be
deducted and paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount, as final
payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys'
fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel and any
other person or entity related to the Action. The Court further
ordered that the award of attorneys' fees and costs will be
administered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, and transferred and/or made payable to Class Counsel
in the Action.

The Court approved and ordered Enhancement Awards to Class
Representative Jamye Berry in the amount of $15,000 to be paid
from the Maximum Settlement Amount as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement.

The Court also approved and ordered payment from the Class
Settlement for actual claims administration expenses incurred by
the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, to be paid from the Maximum
Settlement Amount.

A copy of the Final Order is available at http://bit.ly/1AaEf6d
from Leagle.com.

Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua D. Buck --
josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com --
THIERMAN BUCK LLP, Reno, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Elayna J. Youchah, Esq. -- YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- Peter D.
Navarro, Esq. -- Peter.Navarro@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS
LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Attorneys for Defendant.


AT&T INC: Cricket Communications Purchase Results in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that AT&T is the subject of a class-action
lawsuit filed on March 31 over its agreement to purchase Cricket
Communications.

Tim Bond filed the suit against AT&T alleging the company planned
to stop providing service to certain cell phones sold by Cricket
and those customers would be required to purchase other phones
covered by AT&T.

Bond owned a phone using Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
technology, and AT&T announced after the Cricket deal that it
planned to discontinue service to those devices this year, the
suit says. Customers who are on the CDMA service would need to
switch to Global Systems for Mobile communications technology, the
complaint says.

The lawsuit alleged Cricket knew that AT&T planned to stop
servicing those devices, but continued to sell them during the
class period and while it was actively attempting to sell the
business.

The lawsuit alleged the deal between AT&T and Cricket would result
in a breach of an implied warranty and Cricket's failure to
disclose that the CDMA phones wouldn't work with AT&T constitutes
fraudulent concealment.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those who purchased a CDMA
phone between July 12, 2013, and the present. Bond is also seeking
more than $5 million in damages plus court costs.

He is represented by Cory L. Zajdel, of Z Law, LLC in
Reisterstown, Md.; and Oren S. Giskan and Catherine E. Anderson,
of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP in New York City.


BALTIC TRADING: Merger a Slam Dunk for Board Members, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a merger between Baltic Trading and Genco Shipping & Trading
is a slam-dunk for directors serving on both companies' boards,
stockholders say in a class action lawsuit.

Baltic, founded by Genco in 2009, was organized under the laws of
the Republic of the Marshall Islands but maintains its
headquarters in New York.  The company operates a fleet of drybulk
ships that transport loads of iron ore, coal, grain and steel
products.

A merger agreement between Baltic and Genco was announced
April 8, 2015.  Under the agreement, Baltic stockholders would
collectively own 15.5 percent of the surviving company and Genco
stockholders 84.5 percent.  Both companies' board of directors --
some directors serve interchangeably between the two companies --
voted unanimously in favor of the merger, which benefits corporate
directors at Baltic stockholder expense, according to the 23-page
complaint filed in New York County court.

Lead plaintiff Edward Braunstein says Genco is pressing to acquire
the remaining publicly held Baltic shares on "unfair terms" and
without "regard to the best interests" of stockholders.

He sued Baltic and its chairman, Peter Georgiopoulos, and Baltic
directors Basil Mavroleon, Harry Perrin and Edward Terino.
Georgiopoulos is also Genco's founder and chairman.  Mavroleon and
Perrin also serve as Genco directors.

"Indeed, the consideration to be paid to the class members is
unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate consideration
because, among other things, the intrinsic value of the stock of
Baltic is materially in excess of the consideration offered, and
the consideration offered is not the result of arm's-length
negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by Genco to 'cap' the
market price of Baltic stock, as part of a plan for defendants to
obtain complete ownership of Baltic assets and business at the
lowest possible price," the complaint states.

The merger agreement is girded by protection devices that include
non-solicitation and matching rights provisions and a $3.2 million
termination fee, all of which lock up the deal by blocking
competing bids.

Genco is also in a position to control Baltic's board of directors
and matters submitted for vote to stockholders because it has
control of some 65 percent of the combined voting power of
Baltic's outstanding shares of stock, according to the complaint.

Under those circumstances, Baltic can't be expected to make
decisions that benefit anyone but Genco, Braunstein says.

"The proposed transaction serves no legitimate business purpose of
Baltic but rather is an attempt by defendants to enable Genco to
benefit unfairly from the transaction at the expense of Baltic's
public shareholders," the complaint states.

Braunstein is suing for breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and
abetting.  He seeks a temporary and permanent injunction
preventing the deal from going forward, or rescission if it has
already been consummated; disclosure of all transaction
information; and an injunction preventing "material transactions
or changes to Baltic's business and assets unless the individual
defendants have complied with their duties of good faith and
loyalty and do not constitute unfair dealing."

The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs, including
costs for expert witnesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER
          821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Parents of Showbiz Kids Must Cover Bank Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parents or guardians of showbiz kids must cover the fees banks
charge to service the protected accounts of those minors, a
California appeals court found, reports Karina Brown at Courthouse
News Service.

California's protections for the bank accounts of children in the
entertainment industry date back to the passage of the Coogan Law
in 1938, after "Addams Family" actor Jackie Coogan turned 18 and
found himself flat broke.  Though he had earned millions as a
child actor, his mother and stepfather spent all of his money.

Under the law, employers of child actors in California, New York,
Louisiana and New Mexico must deposit 15 percent of the child's
gross earnings into a "Coogan" trust account within seven days of
their employment.

A parent or guardian is named trustee, and account withdrawals are
prohibited until the actor turns 18 or is emancipated.

Noticing that Bank of America was charging service fees on two
such Coogan accounts, the trustees for two child actors, Alex
Gonzales and Jadon Monroe, filed a class action last year in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

Bank of America claimed that its fees are not the same as
withdrawals and that federal law guaranteeing the ability of
national banks to charge fees pre-empts any state laws barring
fees.

Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. dismissed the case against Bank of
America, but a three-justice panel for the Second Appellate
District reversed April 27.

"When a bank debits an account, it necessarily withdraws money
from that account," Justice Richard Mosk wrote for the panel.

Side-stepping the bank's federal preemption claim, Mosk noted that
the "plaintiffs' claims are premised on the theory that
withdrawing account service fees from the Coogan Trust Accounts
without court approval is inconsistent with the accounts being
Coogan Trust Accounts."

"Plaintiffs do not challenge defendant's right to 'charge' the
fee," he added.

Banks should apply the charges to the accounts held by the parents
or guardians of child actors, and can come from the other 85
percent of the children's wages, according to the ruling.  And if
the parents, guardians or banks want the fees to be applied to a
specific Coogan account, they can petition the court for approval.


BANK OF KENTUCKY: Agreed to Settle Kentucky Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that BKFC,
BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Kentucky
class action in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.

BKFC, certain members of BKFC's board of directors and BB&T
entered into an agreement in principle with plaintiff regarding
the settlement of a putative class action captioned Sector Grid
Trading Company v. Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation, et al.,
No. 14-C1-2302 (the "Kentucky Action"), pending before the Kenton
Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and relating to the
merger of BB&T and BKFC. The class action was filed by a
shareholder of BKFC on December 9, 2014, naming as defendants
BKFC, members of BKFC's board of directors and BB&T. The plaintiff
alleged that BKFC's board of directors had breached its fiduciary
duties to shareholders by entering into the merger agreement with
BB&T and further by failing to adequately disclose certain aspects
of the transaction. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the transaction
or compensatory and punitive damages to be paid to the putative
plaintiff class. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, BKFC,
with BB&T's concurrence, agreed to make available additional
information to BKFC shareholders. Such additional information has
been provided in a supplement filed as an exhibit to the 8-K (the
"Supplement") to, and incorporated by reference in, the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of BB&T and BKFC relating to the merger of
BKFC and BB&T, dated December 4, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement").

BKFC, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the allegations
made by plaintiff in the Kentucky Action and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, BKFC, BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Kentucky Action in order to avoid the costs,
disruption, and distraction of further litigation. BKFC's 2014
financial statements include a $500,000 accrual for the settlement
of this litigation, some of which may be covered by insurance.


BE-THIN INC: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Geismann" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber denied, without prejudice,
a motion for class certification in the case captioned RADHA
GEISMANN, M.D., P.C., Plaintiff, v. BE-THIN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15CV00615 ERW, (E.D. Mo.).

"This Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the majority of the
circuit courts and the majority of the district courts on this
issue. If a defendant makes an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule
68 satisfying all of Plaintiff's demands, Plaintiff will have the
opportunity to file a motion for class certification which relates
back to the date of filing of the original complaint, avoiding it
being deemed moot. While this Court appreciates Plaintiff's
efforts to protect her interests and prevent her claim from being
deemed moot, the Court finds her motion to be premature. There is
no suggestion in any of the filings that any defendant has made an
offer of judgment and the facts have not developed enough as to
allow for a ruling on class certification. The Court sees no
benefit in allowing a motion to languish on the dockets while
waiting for discovery to proceed which may take several months.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be
dismissed with leave to refile once an offer of judgment has been
made necessitating such a filing or when the facts have developed
enough to allow for a ruling on class certification," wrote Judge
Webber in his memorandum and order dated May 11, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/9EkVKofrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied, as moot.

Radha Geismann, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Max G. Margulis --
MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- MARGULIS LAW GROUP.

Be-Thin, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martin L. Daesch --
mdaesch@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. & Jesse B.
Rochman -- jrochman@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C..


BG RETAIL: Mag. Judge Recommends Sept 11 Hearing in Davis Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued on May 7, 2015,
findings and recommendations regarding preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in the case captioned JEROME DAVIS and
PRISCILLA HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BROWN SHOE
COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation doing business as Famous
Footwear, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01211-LJO-BAM,
(E.D. Cal.).

For clarity, the term "Defendant" means BG Retail, LLC d/b/a/
Famous Footwear, erroneously sued as Brown Shoe Company, Inc.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended that the Settlement Class
be conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and will
consist of all persons who are or were employed by Defendant in a
non-exempt, hourly-paid position in any of Defendant's California
Famous Footwear retail locations from June 4, 2009, until the date
of Preliminary Approval.

By stipulation of the Parties, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave
to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint, which adds
Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell as additional named plaintiffs.
The Defendant will not be required to file a responsive pleading
to the Second Amended Complaint, rather, Defendant's Answer to the
First Amended Complaint will be deemed an Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint.

The Court appointed Jerome Davis, Priscilla Humphrey, Jennifer
Carrow, and Sabrina Rowell as the Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class conditionally certified by the Order. The Court
appointed Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel.

The Court approved and appointed Simpluris, Inc. as the Claims
Administrator, whose fees and expenses will not exceed $60,000.

These dates will govern for purposes of this Settlement:

    Date                           Event
    -----                          ------
May 18, 2015        Last day for Defendant to produce the class
(or not later than  list to the Claims Administrator
10 calendar days
after the Court
grants preliminary
approval of the
Settlement Agreement,
if later)

May 28, 2015        Last day for the Claims Administrator to
(or not later than  mail Notice Packets to all Class Members.
10 calendar days
after the Defendant
produces the
class list,
if later)

June 26, 2015       Last day for the Claims Administrator to
(or not later than  mail postcard reminders to non-responsive
30 calendar days    Class Members.
after the Claims
Administrator mails
the Notice Packets,
if later)

July 16, 2015       Last day for Class Counsel to file the Motion
                    for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
                    Representative Incentive Awards.

July 27, 2015       Last day for Class Members to mail
(or not later than  Objections to the Settlement.
60 calendar Claim
days after the
Claims Administrator
mails Forms,
Requests for
Exclusion, or the
Notice Packets,
if later)

August 14, 2015      Last day for Plaintiffs to file the Motion
                     for Final Approval of Class Action
                     Settlement.

September 11, 2015   Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class
at 9:00 a.m.         Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
                     Fees, Costs, and Class Representative
                     Enhancement Payments.

The Findings and Recommendations, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/vWm0eDfrom Leagle.com, were submitted to the
district judge assigned to the action.

Jerome Davis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Melissa
Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC &
Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Priscilla Humphrey, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee,
Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC & Melissa Grant,
Capstone Law APC.

Brown Group Retail, Inc., a New York Corporation Doing business as
Famous Footwear also known as Brown Shoe Compay, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Christopher Hart Doyle -- CDoyle@jmbm.com -- Jeffer
Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP & Michael John Hassen --
MHassen@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP.


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Glenn" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, shortly after its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in
the Gulf of Mexico, BP p.l.c. ("BP") announced that its Board of
Directors had declared a quarterly dividend of $0.84 per American
Depositary Share ("ADS") for the first quarter of 2010, to be
payable on June 21 to its ADS shareholders as of May 7. On June
16, BP announced that its Board of Directors had canceled the
dividend. Robert R. Glenn, a citizen of Oregon, brought a putative
class action against BP, a British company headquartered in
London, on behalf of himself and all other BP ADS shareholders as
of May 7, 2010, arguing that BP's Board of Directors had no legal
authority to cancel the dividend under applicable law and BP's own
Articles of Association.

BP filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
arguing in part that dismissal was warranted under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, which "is simply that a court may resist
imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is
authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Under the
Supreme Court's framework, a plaintiff's choice of forum will only
be disturbed if the court determines, in its "sound discretion,"
that dismissal is fully warranted after considering "a list of
'private interest factors' affecting the convenience of the
litigants, and a list of 'public interest factors' affecting the
convenience of the forum."

The district court granted the motion pursuant to the doctrine.
The court found that Mr. Glenn's choice of forum was entitled to
deference and that the private interest factors weighed only
weakly in favor of dismissal, which alone would be insufficient to
warrant dismissal. It concluded, however, that the public interest
factors -- especially the court's need to apply uncertain English
law -- weighed so heavily in favor of an English forum that
dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was
warranted.  "The forum non conveniens determination is committed
to the sound discretion of the trial court" and "may be reversed
only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion."

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on May 11, 2015,
found no such abuse of discretion. To the contrary, it said, the
district court's opinion is well-reasoned and provides ample
support for its conclusion. Accordingly, it affirmed essentially
for the reasons given by the district court.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/e0i3q3from Leagle.com.

The case is ROBERT R. GLENN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C., Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 14-20466, CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 14-20499.


BUCKLEY'S GREAT STEAK: "Foley" Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, in an opinion dated April 9, 2015,
denied motion for class certification in the purported class
action lawsuit styled Margaret Foley on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc.; and
Michael Timothy's Dining Group, Inc., Civil No. 14-cv-063-LM
(D.N.H.).  A full-text copy of Judge McCafferty's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/K8sQz4


CADIZ INC: Accused of Lying About Southern Calif. Water Pipeline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Mike Heuer reports that a
Southern California water-resources company lied to shareholders
regarding the potential of proceeding with a proposed water
pipeline, a federal class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Nickolas Van Wingerden says in a complaint filed
April 24 in California's Central District says officials for Los
Angeles-based Cadiz knowingly disseminated false information
regarding its proposed 43-mile water pipeline.

The planned pipeline would run along a railroad right-of-way
leased from the Arizona & California Railroad, Van Wingerden says.

The problem, according to the complaint, is the U.S. Department of
the Interior in 2011 said the railroad could "authorize other
activities within" its right-of-way access only for "activities
that derive from or further a 'railroad purpose.'"

"If the use of a right-of-way was not a 'railroad purpose,' then
the use would require federal approval," Van Wingerden says.

In December 2011, Van Wingerden says Cadiz and the railroad
claimed the lease would provide water to suppress railroad fires.

The problem with that scenario is the Bureau of Land Management
"did not believe that fire suppression was an actual need, because
there had not been any trestle fires in the specific stretch," Van
Wingerden's complaint states.

Another problem is the "Federal Railroad Administration was
unaware of any railroads with hydrants along the tracks" and the
San Bernardino Fire Department said there are ample access roads
that enable rapid response to any potential railroad fires, Van
Wingerden says.

The 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act says the Secretary of the
Interior must approve of the proposed pipeline use within the
railroad's right-of-way and denies any federal funding for the
project, the complaint states.

Despite the federal laws and departmental rulings, Van Wingerden
says Cadiz "filed a materially false and misleading Form 10-K" for
the end of 2013 that claims federal law and the Department of
Interior affirms the railroad can approve access for the pipeline
due its alleged fire suppression purpose for the railroad.

The complaint cites the SEC filing as stating, "'As a result, we
do not believe federal right-of-way approval is required to
implement the project; however, this may be subject to
challenge.'"

While the SEC filing indicates a positive outcome for the project,
Van Wingerden says an April 21 report was published by
SeekingAlpha.com that is titled "Cadiz: Strong Sell On Project
Failure, Insider Enrichment, And Bankruptcy, Price Target $0."

That report claimed BLM documents indicate the project "already
effectively failed" its federal review and "the project is
impossible."

The report also claimed the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California "definitively said" they "'already made the
determination'" and "'don't see how'" the pipeline can be built.

"If lawsuits ensue, instant bankruptcy is a real possibility" for
Cadiz, the report stated.

In response to the report, Cadiz on April 22 issued a release
regarding the project that said federal approval is needed before
proceeding.

"The BLM must determine whether or not a railroad purpose is
served by the pipeline project and has requested information from
Cadiz, the [railroad] and Santa Margarita Water District over
several years in order to make this determination," Cadiz said in
its statement.

Cadiz also noted five railroad purposes served by the proposed
project.  They include an automated fire suppression system,
access road, fiber optic cable and related information systems, a
tourist-based steam engine, and power generation for lighting of
siding, crossing and trans-loading operations.

Cadiz said the project "will arrange for the construction of a 43
mile-pipeline and appurtenant facilities that convey water and
further, in part, railroad purposes."

Regarding federal approval, Cadiz said, "No determination has yet
been made or issued and the matter is presently under submission
with the BLM.  They are expected to present a determination later
this year."

Cadiz admitted to only having "informal conversations" with the
Metropolitan Water District regarding the proposed pipeline and
that no formal application has been submitted for review.

On its Web site, Cadiz describes itself as a "renewable resources
company" that was founded in 1983 after acquiring 11,000 acres of
land in the Cadiz Valley in San Bernardino County.  The company
now owns more than 45,000 acres, including 35,000 in the Cadiz
Valley, according to its Web site.

The water pipeline project would capture and store water in the
Cadiz Valley that otherwise would run to local dry lakes and
evaporate, carrying the water to the Colorado River Aqueduct that
provides water for Southern California, according to the Cadiz Web
site.

The class action accuses Cadiz and three executives of violations
of the Exchange Act and seeks class certification, compensatory
damages and legal costs.

The proposed class is comprised of shareholders who bought Cadiz
common shares from March 10, 2014, through April 21, 2015.

Named as defendants are Cadiz, company president and CEO Scott S.
Slater, chief financial officer Timothy J. Shaheen, and co-founder
and chairman Keith Brackpool.

Cadiz shares are traded publicly on NASDAQ under the "CDZI" symbol
and had a closing price of $8.86 a share on April 29.

Officials for Cadiz did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY, 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Party to 60 Pending Bodily Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a party
to 60 pending claims of bodily injury related to silicosis.

The Company said, "We are subject to a number of claims in Israel
by fabricators or their employees alleging that they contracted
illnesses, including silicosis, through exposure to silica
particles during cutting, polishing, sawing, grinding, breaking,
crushing, drilling, sanding or sculpting our products. Silicosis
is an occupational lung disease that is progressive and sometimes
fatal, and is characterized by scarring of the lungs and damage to
the breathing function. Inhalation of dust containing fine silica
particles as a result of poorly protected and controlled, or
unprotected and uncontrolled, exposure while working in different
occupations, including among other things, processing quartz,
granite, marble and other materials and working with quartz can
cause silicosis. Silica comprises approximately 90% of engineered
stones, including our products, and smaller concentrations of
silica are present in natural stones and, therefore, fabrication
of engineered stones may create higher exposure to silica dust
and, accordingly, may cause a higher risk of silicosis."

"As of today, we are party to 60 pending claims of bodily injury
that have been filed against us directly since 2008 in Israel or
that have named us as third-party defendants by fabricators or
their employees in Israel, by the injured successors, by the State
of Israel, or  by others. Such lawsuits include one lawsuit filed
by the Israeli NII which was filed with respect to three
individuals who filed personal claims against us and one lawsuit
where the claimants applied for its class certification. Of 63
claims that had been filed against us, including the 60 pending
claims, 62 were filed in Israel and one in the United States, two
claims were settled and one claim which was filed in the United
States was dismissed, as further detailed below. Out of the 63
claims mentioned above, one claim was filed in 2008, two in 2009,
four in 2010, seven in 2011, eight in 2012, eight in 2013, 28 in
2014 and five in 2015 through the filing of this annual report. As
of today, we have also received ten letters threatening to file
claims against us on behalf of certain fabricators in Israel or
their employees in Israel alleging that they contracted illnesses
as a result of fabricating our products. Each of the claims named
other defendants, such as fabricators that employed the
plaintiffs, the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and
Employment, distributors of our products and insurance companies.
The pending claims include one lawsuit filed with a petition to be
certified as class action, one lawsuit filed by three stone
fabricators together and one appeal which was filed in connection
with a judgment granted in one of the lawsuits. In addition, one
claim was filed by the NII for subrogation of compensation paid by
the NII to certain fabricators who allegedly contracted silicosis.
Various arguments are raised in the claims, including, among
others, product liability arguments and failure to provide
warnings regarding the risks associated with silica dust generated
by the fabrication of our products.

"Most of the claims do not specify a total amount of damages
sought, as the plaintiff's future damages will be determined at
trial; however, damages totaling approximately $22.3 million are
specified in 55 of the claims currently pending against us in
Israel (excluding the claim that is seeking class action
recognition). A claim filed with the  magistrates court in Israel
is limited to a maximum of NIS 2.5 million (approximately $642
thousands) plus any fees, and among the 60 pending claims filed
against us in Israel, 35 claims were filed in the magistrates
court. A claim filed in the district court is not subject to such
limitation. As a result, there is uncertainty regarding the total
amount of damages that may ultimately be claimed

"We intend to vigorously contest pending claims against us,
although there can be no assurance that we will succeed in these
claims and there is a reasonable possibility that we will be
liable for damages in such lawsuits. We currently estimate our
total reasonably possible exposure with respect to 47 pending
lawsuits (other than the lawsuits filed with a motion to be
recognized as a class action) to be approximately $12.1 million,
although the actual result of such lawsuits may significantly vary
from such estimate. As of today, only one claim was resolved by an
Israeli District court, imposing liability of 40% on the self-
employed plaintiff and dividing the remaining 60% liability
between the State of Israel and us, with 55% imposed on us and 45%
on the State of Israel. That judgment was appealed to the Supreme
Court by the plaintiff, the State of Israel and us.

"Israeli law, as well as the law of other jurisdictions,
recognizes joint and several liability among co-defendants in
civil suits. In cases where co-defendants are found liable, the
plaintiff is entitled to collect all damages from only one of the
liable defendants. Thus, even if we are found only partially
liable to a plaintiff's damages, the plaintiff may seek to collect
all his damages from us, requiring us to collect separately from
our co-defendants their allocated portion of the damages. If
defendants are insolvent or we are unsuccessful in collecting
their portion of the damages for any other reason, we may incur
damages beyond the damages we are liable for.

"We currently estimate that contingent losses related to the
pending claims mentioned above are no more than reasonably
possible. In addition, we believe that an adverse outcome to the
claims filed against us to date (other than the class action)
would not have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows, in part, due to
the current availability of insurance coverage; however, there can
be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate or
that we will prevail in these cases."


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Faces Class Action in Israel
--------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a lawsuit by a single
plaintiff and a motion for its class certification were filed
against the Company in Israel.

The Company said, "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion
for its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in
the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff claims to be
the owner of a fabrication plant and to have contracted silicosis
as a result of fabricating our products.  In connection therewith,
the plaintiff claims that we did not provide adequate warnings
with respect to the risks and protection measures required with
respect to fabrication of our products, and that we intentionally
hid and did not warn about the high risk and irreversible damages
that may occur to the persons processing our products and misled
the fabricators in Israel by comparing the hazards related to the
fabrication of our products to those associated with the
fabrication of natural stones.  In acting so, the plaintiff claims
that we did not act as a reasonable manufacturer; we violated the
law and Israeli standards, committed an assault, acted negligently
and are liable under the Israeli Law for Liability for Defective
Products, 1980. The plaintiff also claims that our products are a
"dangerous item" under the Israeli Tort Ordinance, 5728-1968 and,
therefore, the plaintiff claims that the burden of proof falls on
us to prove that there was no carelessness for which we are liable
in connection with our products. The plaintiff claims that by our
wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's freedom to choose
whether to be exposed to the risks associated with the fabrication
of our products."

"The plaintiff alleges that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a
class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216
million (approximately $56 million), calculated by claiming
damages of NIS 18,000 ($4,628) for each individual who worked in
fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative
roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the
fabrication of our products. The plaintiff claims that there are
12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in
Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five
administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant
period.  In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in
compensation for special and general damages, such as medical
disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical
expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof
and quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to compel us to
notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and
each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake
a medical examination and assert their rights.

"We intend to vigorously contest recognition of the lawsuit as a
class action and to defend the lawsuit on its merits, although,
considering the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, there can be no
assurance as to the probability of success or the range of
potential exposure, if any."


CAMPBELL-EWALD: High Court Asked to Decide on TCPA Suit Mootness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Fischler, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Navy's
advertising partner has renewed its request that the U.S. Supreme
Court hear its case challenging the Ninth Circuit's remand of a
potential class action over allegedly unsolicited text messages,
saying the court needs to relieve confusion among the circuits.

In a reply brief asking the court to take the case, Campbell-Ewald
Co. said the circuit courts are split on a key issue in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act case: whether an adequate offer
of settlement moots the complaint.


CANADA: High Court Won't Hear Farmers Appeal in Wheat Board Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janyce McGregor, writing for CBC News, reported that the Supreme
Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal from a farmer-led
group seeking $17 billion in damages from the federal government
for dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing monopoly.

The decision comes after the Federal Court of Appeal agreed in
October with a lower court ruling from 2013 that the grain
producers' class-action lawsuit claiming expropriation and breach
of trust should not proceed.

However, one smaller part of the case the Federal Court had
allowed, valued at around $100 million, will proceed for
certification as a class-action lawsuit in the coming months.

Four named farmers launched the lawsuit in 2012 on behalf of
former wheat board members and other stakeholders who fought the
Conservative government's 2011 legislation to dismantle the
Canadian Wheat Board's exclusive right to sell Prairie wheat and
barley.  They argued that the government's decision to end the
monopoly and commercialize the CWB as just one among many private
sector grain companies effectively seized collective assets
farmers had paid for over decades.

They also argued billions of dollars of goodwill was lost when the
CWB's main competitive advantage, its marketing monopoly, ended.

The farmers believe that the "highly dysfunctional" marketing
system now in place for Canadian wheat and barley cost producers
as much as $5 billion in 2013-14.

They say that the price spread between what farmers received and
what the grain was ultimately sold at in 2014-15 incurred some $3
billion in producer losses.

"Those price spreads have not returned to competitive levels, so
farmer losses continue to mount," a press release issued by the
Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board said.

"We have to recognize that Canada's position in the international
grain trade has now been severely damaged by Ottawa's
ideologically based exercise in grain marketing and quality
control," spokesman Stewart Wells said in the release.

'Marketing freedom' upheld

The government is currently proceeding with plans to commercialize
the CWB, which was run by a mixed board of farmer-elected and
government-appointed directors until 2011.

Late last year, it appeared the government was getting ready to
hand over the remaining assets of the CWB to a private sector
investor in a sort of reverse-nationalization of the former Crown
corporation.

In a statement, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the Supreme
Court's decision not to hear the farmers' appeal "once again
upholds Western Canadian farmers' right to marketing freedom."

"The overwhelming majority of farmers have embraced the new
economic opportunities created by marketing freedom and are taking
Canadian agriculture to record heights," the release said.
"Marketing freedom is and will remain the law of the land."

Many of the same farmers involved in the lawsuit fought and lost
an earlier court battle to stop the 2011 legislation that
dismantled the monopoly, based on arguments that the actions of
Stephen Harper's government broke the law. Wells said his group's
attention now turns to the remaining part of the lawsuit that will
proceed: an effort to recoup for farmers allegedly misallocated
pool account funds from 2011-12, the final year of the monopoly's
operations.

The final amount of this smaller class action, should it be
certified, could be in the tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars, as opposed to the billions the original application
sought.

Justice Marc Nadon from the Federal Court of Appeal, whose
appointment to the Supreme Court was declared unconstitutional a
year ago, delivered the October ruling which now stands.

A separate class-action suit organized by the Merchant Law Group,
launched in 2012 and seeking $15.4 billion on behalf of producers
remains.


CAPITOL RECORDS: Davis, Tavares Suits Administratively Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order on May 1,
2015, administratively closing the cases captioned MARTHA DAVIS,
as an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
RALPH VIERRA TAVARES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC,
et al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 12-CV-1602-YGR, 12-CV-3059-YGR,
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Martha Davis, Ralph Vierra Tavares, Arthur Tavares,
Feliciano Vierra Tavares, Antone Lawrence Tavares, and Perry Lee
Tavares, and Defendant Capitol Records LLC submitted a Joint
Supplemental Case Management Statement and proposed order to
administratively close these actions pending final approval of a
proposed class settlement.

As the parties previously advised this Court at a telephonic
conference, the Davis Action and Tavares Action are the subject of
a proposed class settlement pending before the Honorable Susan
Illston in Rick James et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., CV 11-01613
SI (MEJ) (the "James Action"). In connection with and solely for
purposes of effectuating that proposed class settlement, the
parties have stipulated to the filing of a consolidated complaint
that joins the Davis Action and Tavares Action with the James
Action before Judge Illston. To conserve private and judicial
resources, and in light of the pendency of the proposed class
settlement, which Judge Illston preliminarily approved on April
28, 2015, the parties stipulated and requested that the Davis
Action and Tavares Action be administratively closed, without
prejudice, pending final approval of the proposed class
settlement.

The parties will advise the Court regarding any ruling relating to
final approval of the settlement. Assuming final approval is
granted, the parties have stipulated that such approval will
function as dismissal of the Davis Action and the Tavares Action
with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Davis Action 12-CV-1602 and Tavares 12-CV-3059
are administratively closed without prejudice pending final
approval of a pending proposed class action settlement in the
James Action, wrote Judge Rogers in a ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/xibkEqfrom Leagle.com.


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Girard Gibbs File Class Action Over Layoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2014, the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a federal
class action lawsuit against Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. and
Food Management Partners, Inc. on behalf of restaurant workers
terminated from employment at Coco's Bakery and Carrows locations
within 30 days of April 3, 2015.  The lawsuit alleges that Food
Management Partners acquired Catalina on March 31, 2015, and
closed approximately 75 Coco's and Carrows restaurants the next
day.

The complaint alleges that these closures violated federal and
state employment laws protecting workers' right to have advance
notice of certain mass layoffs.  Many employees showed up ready
for work only to find a sign on the door announcing that their
restaurant had closed.  Federal and state laws require companies
who perform certain work site closures or mass layoffs to give
employees up to sixty days advance written notice.  The complaint
seeks compensation for the employees who suffered sudden job
losses as a result of Coco's and Carrows closures.

"The WARN Act was enacted to protect employees, families, and
communities in the event of a mass layoff," said Eric Gibbs, a
founding partner at Girard Gibbs.  "If a company does not give the
required notice, the employer may be liable to each employee for
up to sixty days' back pay and benefits."

The lawsuit is entitled Ross v. Food Management Partners, Inc.,
No. 2:15-cv-2626, and is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Girard Gibbs is a national litigation firm with an employment
group that has represented millions of individuals in class action
lawsuits and delivered significant recoveries and benefits for
them.  The firm successfully represented hundreds of employees who
were terminated without receiving advance notice required by the
WARN Act in Cabreros and Refuerzo, et al. v. Spansion, LLC and
Spansion, Inc., No. 09-50409-KJC, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware; and Sandra Justice, et al. v.
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., et al., Adversary Case No. 6:09-ap-
01114-MJ (Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Cal.).

Girard Gibbs also represents employees seeking payment for hours
worked off the clock and unpaid overtime in Smith v. Family Video
Movie Club, Inc., No. 11-cv-1773, where Judge John Lee of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois largely
denied Defendants' challenges, allowing the case to proceed.

Girard Gibbs LLP encourages former Coco's Bakery or Carrows
employees who were terminated without notice to contact the firm's
employment attorneys at (866) 981-4800 to learn more about the
lawsuit.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
final hearing to determine the fairness of the settlement in a
class action lawsuit was scheduled for March 16, 2015.

The Company said, "In October 2013 and November 2013, three
securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain
of our executive officers and directors seeking unspecified
damages in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (the Court). These complaints, which were substantially
identical, purported to state a claim for violation of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our
common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of
the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on
January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days."

"On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against us and one of our executive officers seeking unspecified
damages. The amended complaint purports to state a claim for
alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of
Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who purchased shares of
our common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18, 2013. In
February 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which was granted in part and denied in part by the Court.
Subsequently, on September 29, 2014, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons or entities that purchased shares of our
common stock during the period from August 27, 2013, through
October 18, 2013 (the Class Period), and who did not sell such
securities prior to October 18, 2013 (excluding: defendants; any
entities affiliated with us, our present and former officers and
directors or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof; members of such
excluded persons' immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in
which any excluded person has or had a controlling interest).

"Following a mediation in mid-October 2014 conducted by an
independent mediator, we entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the lead plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit to settle the lawsuit. The settlement was then reduced to
a formal stipulation of settlement between the parties to the
lawsuit, which was filed with the Court on November 21, 2014. The
settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 3,
2014, and a final hearing to determine the fairness of the
settlement was scheduled for March 16, 2015.

In connection with the settlement, we will pay $3.5 million in
return for a dismissal and release of all claims against the
defendants. The settlement amount has been placed in escrow by our
insurance carrier, subject to final Court approval of the
settlement. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants, and
various of their related persons and entities, will receive a full
release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the
action, as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon,
or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts,
representations, omissions or other matters involved in the action
related in any way to the purchase or acquisition of our
securities by class members during the class period.

"The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues
to deny all of the allegations against each of them and believes
that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the
proposed settlement payment is to be paid by our insurance
carrier, the settlement is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on our financial position or results of operations. There
can be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved
by the Court."


CEPHALON INC: Court Declines to Certify Unlawful Marketing Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Pappas and Alina Alonso Rodriguez, writing for JD SUPRA
Business Advisor, reported that third party payors responsible for
paying the costs of prescriptions for their beneficiaries sued
Cephalon, Inc., alleging that it engaged in unlawful off-label
marketing of Actiq, a drug approved to manage breakthrough cancer
pain in certain patients. Plaintiffs argued that Cephalon's
conduct caused plaintiffs to make excessive off-label prescription
payments for Actiq to treat conditions not approved by the FDA and
for whom less expensive pain management drugs were appropriate and
less dangerous. The Pennsylvania district court declined to
certify the class.

The court's choice of law analysis and plaintiffs' attempt to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) by grouping the 50 states and Washington
D.C. based on their respective treatment of unjust enrichment are
of particular interest.

Choice of Law

The court presumed that putative class members will reside in
every state, so it sought to determine the laws of each state on
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs argued that no material difference
distinguishes the states' common law on unjust enrichment.
Cephalon, however, identified bases upon which states' laws
purportedly conflict, including differences in statutes of
limitations and accrual rules.

Cephalon's guilty plea established that it engaged in off-label
promotion of Actiq as early as 2001. Therefore, the filing of this
suit in October 2007 may or may not have been within a state's
statute of limitations and the court could not say that
application of different statutes of limitations would yield the
same result. It therefore concluded that a true conflict exists.

The court then analyzed the relevant contacts: First, the crux of
the parties' relationship is in the TPPs' home states because that
is where Cephalon directed its sales efforts, where the drug was
prescribed, and where TPPs conferred payments to Cephalon. Second,
the state where Cephalon received the alleged benefit was
Pennsylvania and, therefore, this factor favored application of
Pennsylvania law. Third, the place where the acts resulting in
enrichment occurred was the TPPs' home states because payments for
Actiq prescriptions originated there. Fourth, in considering the
parties' residence, the court found that this factor weighed
slightly in favor of applying Pennsylvania law because it is
likely that class members will reside in all U.S. jurisdictions
and, therefore, no single state has a greater relationship to the
case. Finally, the jurisdiction where a physical thing,
substantially related to the enrichment, was situated at the time
of the enrichment favors the TPPs' home states because the Actiq
lozenges purchased by beneficiaries were located in those states.
In sum, three of the five factors weighed in favor of applying the
laws of the TPPs' various home states.

Policy considerations also lead to the same conclusion.
Plaintiffs' home states have a regulatory interest in providing
redress to its citizens for acts of wrongdoing and in ensuring
that corporations conducting business within their borders are
doing so fairly.  The court concluded that these interests
outweighed Pennsylvania's interest in regulating a resident
corporation.

Predominance

The court pointed out that variations in the law do not
conclusively foreclose class certification if grouping is
possible. To this end, plaintiffs provided a chart demonstrating
how the 50 states and Washington, D.C. are grouped based on their
treatment of unjust enrichment claims. The court commented that
plaintiffs' notable grouping efforts still did not account for
individual fact issues such that common issues would predominate.

Because the polestar of the unjust enrichment inquiry is whether
the defendant has been unjustly enriched, resolution of this
question is, by nature, fact-sensitive. Plaintiffs had some common
proof regarding equitable circumstances. For example, Cephalon's
marketing and distribution of Actiq was coordinated across the
country and thus common to all class members.

Nevertheless, plaintiff's class-wide showing of whether Cephalon's
enrichment was unjust was more complicated. Plaintiffs were unable
to show how proving Cephalon's non-compliance with its risk
management program, designed to ensure proper use of the drug,
also proves that all payments for off-label prescriptions are
unjust. Moreover, if doctors would have written Actiq
prescriptions even if Cephalon complied with the risk management
plan, then payment for prescriptions beyond the set limit would
not be unjust. Patients also played a role, making their own
decisions regarding coverage for Actiq prescriptions.

The court similarly found that the TPPs had a variety of methods
by which they could manage prescription costs of Actiq and records
and employee testimony showed that TPPs treated claims for Actiq
reimbursement differently throughout the proposed class period.

Ultimately, the court concluded that an inquiry into equitable
circumstances cannot be undertaken by common proof since TPPs had
varying degrees of control over prescription benefits and various
cost-saving measures available to them.
Superiority

The court commented that the largest impediment to a finding of
superiority is the difficulty of managing a class action in which
the laws of TPPs' various home states apply and individual
questions of fact predominate. The court also noted that TPPs had
already brought and lost individual suits against Cephalon
alleging violations of RICO and state claims including consumer
fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. It acknowledged
that failure to certify a class could result in numerous
individual suits, but found that an interest in fairness in
adjudicating individual issues outweighed the judicial burden of
such suits. It therefore concluded that plaintiffs did not
establish that class action treatment was superior.


CHICAGO: Godfrey Seeks Entry of Final Approval and Judgment Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In KATHERINE GODFREY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a
municipal corporation, Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez Defendant,
CASE NO. 12 CV 08601, (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs, by and through
their Settlement Class Counsel, moved for entry of the Final
Approval and Judgment Order attached as Exhibit A.  Exhibit A
includes a Track Changes version of the proposed Order showing the
revisions from the proposed order included as an exhibit to the
Settlement.  The facts and law supporting Plaintiffs' Motion are
set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law. In addition, an
electronic version of the proposed Final Approval and Judgment
Order will be sent to Proposed_Order_Valdez@ilnd.uscourts.gov in a
format compatible with Word Perfect and Microsoft Word.

Plaintiffs and the City dispute whether the Court, in the Final
Approval and Judgment Order, should retain jurisdiction to
"administer, implement, interpret or enforce the Final Judgment"
-- as Article XIII of the Settlement expressly states. Contrary to
the Settlement, the City insists that the Court must terminate
this case and, thus, its own jurisdiction by entering a final
dismissal with prejudice before the City will release the
negotiated and approved settlement funds. The City's position is
contrary to the Settlement, which provides for the payment of
Settlement funds to the Claims Administrator within 30 days of
final approval -- a date that has already passed.

In addition, entry of an order dismissing the case with prejudice
contrary to Article XIII of the Settlement would void affirmative
relief that the Court already has approved, protecting Settlement
Class Members in the hiring process. Specifically, if the Court
were to relinquish jurisdiction now, which it must do if the case
is dismissed with prejudice, the parties cannot implement Article
V(B) of the Settlement, which provides for judicial review of
adverse decisions of the Chicago Fire Department Applicant Review
Committee ("ARC"). Thus, Settlement Class Members seeking hire but
disqualified by the ARC would be denied the protection of judicial
oversight of adverse ARC decisions -- negotiated and approved
relief that was expected to be implemented after a final judgment.
In addition to the jurisdictional issue, the initial proposed
order appended to the Settlement failed to incorporate several
provisions of the Settlement that afford relief to the Settlement
Class. These provisions include, among others, discontinuance of
the City's use of the physical performance test that was the
subject of this lawsuit, restrictions on the physical performance
testing that the City is permitted to conduct in the Fire Academy,
and other injunctive-relief-type terms. For Plaintiffs to secure
enforcement of these provisions through Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65, all of this negotiated and approved relief must be
expressly incorporated into the Final Approval and Judgment Order.
The proposed order attached as Exhibit A incorporates the missing
terms.

"Accordingly, as set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law and in
the attached Exhibit A, the final dismissal in this action should
without prejudice, to convert to prejudice after the terms of
Article V(B) are completed," wrote Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez
in a court document, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/idua7Hfrom Leagle.com.

Marni Willenson -- marni@willensonlaw.com -- WILLENSON LAW, LLC,
Chicago, IL, David Borgen -- DBORGEN@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- GOLDSTEIN,
BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO, Oakland, CA, Susan P. Malone, Chicago, IL,
Settlement Class Counsel and Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company and John F. Levy anticipate that they will file a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action is captioned Andrew Dennison v. China
Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956. The
action alleges that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen
Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting in prior public filings certain
material facts about the risks associated with its loan guarantee
business. On October 2, 2014, two purported shareholders Zhang Yun
and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially
similar claims against the same defendants in a putative class
action captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states
the amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff and the
Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group is to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
is within 60 days of that filing. The Company and Mr. Levy
anticipate that they will file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it. At this early stage
of the proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate the
probability of success or loss.


CONWAY, AR: Firefighter Seeks Class Action Status for Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that
attorneys for a Conway police officer and a firefighter asked a
judge on April 9 to certify as a class action a lawsuit they filed
against the city in 2012, contending that the city spent money
intended for employee pay raises for parks instead.


COVENTUS INTER-INSURANCE: CFA Doesn't Apply to Med-Mal Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
in a 2013 decision that only recently was approved for
publication, a New Jersey trial judge ruled in a case of first
impression that the state's consumer fraud statute doesn't apply
to medical-malpractice insurance.

"Medical malpractice insurance, because of its nonavailability to
the general public, is not subject to the strictures of the"
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Middlesex County Superior Court
Judge Barry Weisberg wrote in Khan v. Coventus Inter-Insurance
Exchange.

Judge Weisberg, in the process, wiped out CFA claims asserted
against Conventus and NIP Management in the matter, which sought
certification of a class of physician-policyholders.  The suit's
remaining claims were since thrown out.

According to Judge Weisberg's decision, named plaintiff Dr. Dewan
Khan obtained a policy in August 2010 from Conventus, which
required insureds to make an initial contribution to the company's
surplus fund equal to a one-year premium.  Khan exercised the
option to make that surplus payment over time, in 10 annual
installments.

Khan sought to terminate her policy as of March 2012, and wanted
to purchase tail coverage, which Coventus refused to provide until
she had fully paid the surplus payment, the opinion said.

Khan filed a suit in 2013 against Coventus and underwriter NIP,
asserting violation of the CFA and seeking certification of a
class.  She claimed in the suit that Coventus' requirement that
the surplus payment be satisfied on an accelerated basis was
contrary to the policy contract.  She also claimed Coventus and
NIP improperly withdrew automatic premium and surplus payments
from her business account.

The defendants moved for dismissal of the CFA claims, and
Judge Weisberg, in a decision issued on Aug. 23, 2013, obliged.
The CFA defines "merchandise" as "objects, wares, goods,
commodities, services or anything offered, directly or indirectly
to the public for sale," Judge Weisberg noted, and said it is "not
the nature of the parties to the transaction," but the "underlying
nature of the transaction itself that determines the applicability
of the CFA."

"Insurance products that are not offered to the general public are
not covered by the CFA," Judge Weisberg said.

Khan pointed out that other types of insurance, not just medical-
malpractice insurance, are unnecessary for many members of the
public.  But Judge Weisberg said Khan "confuses the concept of
availability to the general public with degree of use by the
general public."

"A product may be available to the general public but only
utilized by a small segment of the public," he added.  "That
description clearly applies to the many types of insurance that
the courts have held subject to the CFA.  What differentiates
medical malpractice insurance is that it is available for purchase
by only a tiny fraction of the population, a population that
requires one to meet strict licensure and ongoing regulatory
requirements."

Judge Weisberg noted that medical malpractice insurance, though
not covered by the CFA, is regulated by the state Division of
Banking and Insurance.

Judge Weisberg's decision was approved for publication April 29.
Khan also asserted common-law claims in the suit, though Judge
Weisberg dismissed those on a defense motion for summary judgment
late last year, according to Khan's lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock of Fox
Rothschild in Princeton.

Mr. Pollock didn't appeal the CFA ruling, but, "I thought then and
I think now that that decision was not right," he said.
The New Jersey Supreme Court, he said, "has never wavered from its
position that insurance policies are squarely covered by the
Consumer Fraud Act."

Mark Tract of Katten Muchin Rosenman in New York, the defendants'
counsel, didn't return a call for comment.


CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Kahn Swick Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until April 28, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against CTPartners Executive Search Inc. (NYSE: CTP) if they
purchased the Company's securities between February 26, 2014 and
January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of CTPartners and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 28, 2015.

About the Lawsuit CTPartners and certain of its executives are
charged with failing to disclose material information during the
Class Period, violating federal securities laws.

On December 8, 2014, the New York Post published a report that
female employees of CTPartners filed discrimination charges
against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Committee, claiming that the Company stripped female employees of
profitable accounts, held them to higher standards than their male
colleagues, and subjected them to lewd behavior, including a
booze-fueled naked romp held by a top partner. That same day,
CTPartners withdrew a stock offering that had been announced less
than a day before. On this news, the price of CTPartners's shares
plummeted by 24%.

On January 21, 2015, CTPartners announced preliminary results for
the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2014,
including a net loss for the fourth quarter expected to be in the
range of $0.3-$0.6 million, purportedly due to higher than
anticipated operating expenses related to business development
activity, increased marketing and upgrading the search process and
corporate infrastructure. On this news, the price of CTPartners's
stock fell by 30%.

Then, on January 28, 2015, CTPartners withdrew its preliminary
fourth quarter and year-end guidance provided only one week
earlier and revised downward its earnings guidance. CTPartners
stated that the downward revision was due to a $1.7 million
increase in "compensation expense" for employee bonuses.
CTPartners also withdrew a proposed stock offering that had been
announced only two days prior. On this news, the price of
CTPartners stock fell by over 33%.


DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Rejects $50MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that a
federal judge in Burlington has rejected a proposed $50 million
settlement in a lawsuit by Northeast dairy farmers against the
cooperative Dairy Farmers of America to settle antitrust
allegations from a 2009 class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit charged the cooperative, its marketing arm Dairy
Marketing Services and Dallas-based Dean Foods with working
together to monopolize the market for raw milk in the Northeast.

Dean Foods agreed to a separate $30 million settlement in 2011.
The remaining defendants, Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy
Marketing Services, agreed to pay $50 million, which would have
worked out to an average of $4,000 each for more than 7,000
farmers, including in Vermont.

In a March 31 opinion and order Chief Federal Judge Christina
Reiss denied final approval of the proposed settlement, citing
among other factors the reaction of dairy farmers to the
settlement.

Judge Reiss said the court received 23 letters objecting to the
proposed settlement, as well as letters from two individuals who
spoke against the settlement in a fairness hearing.  Judge Reiss
said the financial compensation of approximately $4,000 per dairy
farm was characterized as "functionally irrelevant," as it
reflects the cost of one "tractor tire."

Ben Brown, a partner at a Washington, D.C., law firm representing
dairy farmers said he would "continue to work in the class' best
interest."

"If that means at some point there's a settlement that meets
standards for approval the case may settle," Mr. Brown said.  "If
the case does not settle then it will go to trial.  We don't know.
We can't predict the future."

Mr. Brown also said some dairy farmers, disappointed with the
outcome of the proposed settlement, want to replace his law firm
as counsel.  He said there would be a hearing on April 20 in
Burlington to resolve that issue.

Officials with the Dairy Farmers of America also said on April 9
they were disappointed with the judge's decision and would
determine their next step going forward in the case.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Nears $1.5-Bil. Libor Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Deutsche Bank is
nearing a record settlement topping $1.5 billion to resolve the
German banking giant's alleged role in manipulating a global
financial benchmark.

Bank officials are in talks with federal prosecutors, British and
U.S. regulators and New York's financial services regulator over
evidence that Deutsche Bank traders tried to manipulate the London
Interbank Offered Rate, a person familiar with the discussions
said on April 9.

The resolution could be reached as soon as this month and is
expected to include a criminal guilty plea by a Deutsche Bank
subsidiary in the United Kingdom, said the person, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because there has been no authorized public
discussion of the continuing negotiations.

In an April 9 news account, The New York Times reported that
Deutsche Bank said it was continuing "to work with the authorities
that are reviewing interbank offered rates matters."

The pending agreement represents the last major unresolved bank
investigation involving the global financial standard popularly
known as Libor.  Set by the London-based traders of major banks,
Libor is used to set rates on trillions of dollars of loans,
credit cards and some complex financial derivatives.

Major U.S. and overseas banks collectively have been hit with
billions of dollars in penalties over the Libor rate-rigging
scandal.  Several former banks traders have also been personally
charged by authorities in the U.S and Great Britain.

The financial penalty under negotiation with Deutsche Bank,
Germany's largest financial institution, would top previous Libor-
related resolutions, including the $1.5 billion settlement Swiss
banking giant UBS reached with international regulators in Dec.
2012.

Although Libor rate-setting may seem arcane outside of banking
circles, the rate-rigging potentially affected millions of
consumers who paid financial rates that were artificially high or
low.

Deutsche Bank is among several major banks targeted in a civil
class-action lawsuit over their alleged roles in the Libor
scandal.  The multi-district federal case was filed by U.S.
municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered
financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on
transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation.

The banks have are pursuing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
grounds that they are legally subject to lawsuits in their home
countries, not cases filed in U.S. courts.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Request for EEOC Background Policy Details Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that facing
allegations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
that they discriminated against black job applicants by using
criminal background checks to vet potential hires, Dollar General
Corp. and BMW Manufacturing Co. both tried to shine a light on the
EEOC's own hiring policies.  While BMW's discovery bid on the
issue succeeded, Dollar General's has fallen short.

On May 5, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood in Chicago denied a
request by Dollar General lawyer Joel Allen --
joel.allen@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, who had
sought details on the EEOC's internal policies for running
background checks on prospective employees.

Dollar General argued that the information was necessary to back
its defense that the record checks were justified, and also to
make a case for estoppel.  But Judge Wood found that the estoppel
defense was "legally dubious" and improperly pleaded, and he
rejected the company's remaining arguments as well.

"Despite Dollar General's assertions to the contrary, the
requested information is not relevant to its business necessity
defense," the judge wrote.  Morgan Lewis' Allen didn't immediately
respond on May 6 to a request for comment.  An EEOC spokeswoman
declined to comment.

Judge Wood granted another discovery request by Dollar General,
however, ordering the EEOC to turn over information that explains,
more generally, what kinds of background check policies it would
consider to be reasonable or lawful.

The ruling also granted several discovery requests by the EEOC,
which asked for personal information -- such as names, Social
Security numbers and addresses -- for people the retailer
conditionally hired.  The EEOC sought that information so it could
link multiple Dollar General databases to help it analyze the
retailer's hiring practices.

In both the Dollar General case and the BMW case, which were filed
on the same day in June 2013, the EEOC alleges that the employers'
criminal record policies disproportionately screened out black job
applicants.

Like Dollar General, BMW, represented by Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, sought discovery on the EEOC's own background check
policies.  A federal magistrate judge in South Carolina initially
denied the request, finding that it wasn't relevant to BMW's
business necessity defense.  But U.S. District Judge Henry Herlong
Jr. was more receptive to BMW's plea, and in December he ordered
the EEOC to hand over the information.  The EEOC eventually
produced an internal handbook that revealed how the agency
evaluated various crimes in its hiring process, according to court
documents.

BMW and Dollar General aren't the first to try to use the EEOC's
own hiring practices against it.

Lawyers for Kaplan Inc., led by Seyfarth Shaw's Gerald Maatman
Jr., deployed a similar strategy when the EEOC sued over the
company's practice of running credit checks on potential
employees.  The effort made an impression on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the
EEOC's claims.

Though the Sixth Circuit didn't rule directly on Kaplan's estoppel
defense, it cited the irony of the situation in the very first
line of its decision: "In this case the EEOC sued the defendants
for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself
uses," U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote for the panel.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class
action have appealed the Court's dismissal of the case.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc. ("GLS"), the
County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania ("Allegheny County"), and the
Company are named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in June 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania (the "Court"). Between 1995 and 1997, GLS
purchased from Allegheny County delinquent property tax lien
receivables for properties located in the county. The purported
class in this action consists of owners of real estate in
Allegheny County whose property is or has been subject to a tax
lien filed by Allegheny County that Allegheny County either
retained or sold to GLS and who were billed by Allegheny County or
GLS for attorneys' fees, interest, and certain other fees and who
sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003. The
putative class allegations are that Allegheny County, GLS, and the
Company violated the class's constitutional due process rights in
connection with delinquent tax collection efforts. There are also
allegations that amounts recovered from the class by GLS and /or
Allegheny County are an unconstitutional taking of private
property. The claims against the Company are solely based upon its
ownership of GLS. The complaint requests that the Court order GLS
to account for amounts alleged to have been collected in violation
of the putative class members' rights and create a constructive
trust for the return of such amounts to members of the purported
class. On June 30, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs have
appealed.


ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. to Hear Moldy Washer Class Cert. Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that way back in
October 2013, the home appliances company Electrolux first
petitioned the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to permit its
appeal of the certification of a class of washing machine
purchasers.  At the time, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Comcast v. Behrend was only seven months old. Electrolux's lawyers
at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom cited the decision to
argue that U.S. District Judge Lisa Wood of Augusta, Georgia,
should not have granted certification to two statewide classes of
consumers who claimed their front-loading Electrolux washers were
defectively designed with a tendency to develop a moldy smell.

According to Electrolux, Comcast barred certification of class
actions in which damages are not based on classwide proof.
Electrolux's petition argued that most of the plaintiffs in the
Texas and California class actions Judge Wood certified hadn't
been damaged at all so, under Comcast, class membership was way
too broad. (The plaintiffs, represented by Wexler Wallace and two
other firms, responded that class members were all injured because
they all bought washing machines with a common defect.)

Much has transpired in the surprisingly wide world of moldy washer
litigation since Electrolux filed that petition for interlocutory
appeal.  The Supreme Court, which had signaled early interest in
the impact of Comcast on moldy washer cases, ended up refusing to
grant review of decisions from the 6th and 7th Circuits that
upheld the certification of moldy washer liability classes even in
light of Comcast. (The court also denied cert to another washing
machine maker rebuffed by the 9th Circuit.) Whirlpool went to
trial in Ohio to defend its washing machines -- and won a jury
verdict vindicating the design of 20 front-loading models. The
Ohio class has appealed, and its lawyers at Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein have vowed to move forward with other
statewide class actions despite the outcome in Ohio.

The Comcast decision, meanwhile, has been chewed over by several
circuit courts in the 17 months since Electrolux's petition.
Electrolux was hardly the only class action defendant to read the
Supreme Court opinion to require plaintiffs to present a classwide
damages model in order to be certified as a class.  But most of
the federal appeals courts that have interpreted Comcast have held
that the decision doesn't preclude certification of classes in
which class members' damages vary.  According to the most recent
of those circuit court decisions, a ruling from the 2nd Circuit in
a case involving a wage-and-hour class action by former Applebee's
employees, the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits have all
said that class members don't have to put forth a unified damages
model to be certified.

The Electrolux plaintiffs kept the 11th Circuit apprised of some
of these decisions, including the Supreme Court's denial of
certiorari in the 6th, 7th and 9th Circuit moldy washer cases.
Electrolux continued to insist that the other cases were distinct,
or that those other courts had interpreted Comcast too narrowly.
Electrolux could point to only two federal appellate decisions
that cited Comcast to overturn class certification.  In a 2014
decision in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals sent
a class of freight shipping customers back to the trial court for
reconsideration of certification because their damages model
yielded false positives.  And in Bussey v. Macon County Greyhound
Park, another 2014 case, the 11th Circuit decertified a class of
bingo machine customers because they hadn't tied their damages
model to their theory of the case and hadn't offered a plan to
allocate damages among the defendants.

On April 8, the 11th Circuit finally decided whether to grant
Electrolux leave to appeal -- and despite all of the post-petition
developments in the washing machine litigation and appellate
consideration of Comcast, the court wants to hear Electrolux's
appeal.


ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed in Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is stayed in a
class action pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of a motion to
dismiss.

The Company said, "On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and one of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014,
a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against us and one of our officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under the following caption: Vivian Oh Revocable Trust,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh Litigation"). On
September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh
Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation").
On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
against us, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C.
Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A. Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin,
Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley Russell (the
"Individual Defendants" and collectively with us, the "Endocyte
Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made
false and misleading statements relating to the efficacy of
vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The putative class related to these allegations consists of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff also
alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants and
the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by,
among other things, making or allowing us to make false and
misleading statements regarding positive opinions about
vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee
for Medicinal Products for Human Use in our Registration Statement
on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary prospectus filed
on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on March 28, 2014.
The putative class related to these allegations consists of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities pursuant
to or traceable to our April 2, 2014 public offering."

"Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Discovery
in this matter is stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of
that motion to dismiss. We believe that this lawsuit is without
merit and have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the Amended
Complaint."


ENERNOC INC: $500,000 Cash Payment Received in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the cash payment of $0.5
million was received and recognized in January 2015 in a class
action complaint.

The Company said, "On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of
ours, or the plaintiff, filed a derivative and class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, or the Court, against certain of our officers and
directors as well as the Company as a nominal defendant, which we
refer collectively to as the defendants. The complaint asserted
derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company,
for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity grants
(awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded an
annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be
contained in the Company's Amended and Restated 2007 Employee,
Director and Consultant Stock Plan. The complaint also asserted a
direct claim, brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed
class of our shareholders, alleging our proxy statement filed on
April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed to
disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff
sought, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper."

"On June 27, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and reached
agreement in principle on the terms of a potential settlement. On
December 15, 2014, the Court held a fairness hearing and approved
the settlement, together with an award of attorneys' fees to
plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $0.4 million, a portion of
which was covered by our insurance. Pursuant to the settlement,
defendant members of our Board of Directors agreed to cause our
insurer to make a cash payment of $0.5 million to the Company, and
to cause the Company to undertake certain reforms in connection
with equity granting practices. The cash payment of $0.5 million
was received and recognized in January 2015."


ENERNOC INC: MOU Filed in Delaware Court of Chancery
----------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a memorandum of
understanding has been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Company said, "On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us, World Energy,
Wolf Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors
of World Energy arising out of the merger between us and World
Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of the
board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary duties
to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger
agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize
stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms.
The lawsuit also alleged that we and World Energy aided and
abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching their
fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the
acquisition of World Energy by us, or rescission of the merger in
the event it was consummated, and seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount to be determined at trial."

"The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and on December
24, 2014, without admitting, but expressly denying any liability
on behalf of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding, or the MOU, regarding a proposed settlement to
resolve all allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on December 24, 2014. Among other things, the MOU
provides that, in consideration for a release and the dismissal of
the litigation, World Energy would include additional disclosures
in a Form SC 14D9-A to be filed with the SEC no later than
December 24, 2014. The MOU also provided that the litigation,
including the preliminary injunction hearing, be stayed. The
merger closed on January 5, 2015.

"The settlement is subject to agreement of the parties upon a
formal stipulation of settlement which must then be approved by
the Delaware Court of Chancery. There can be no assurance that the
stipulation of settlement will be finalized or that the Delaware
Court of Chancery will approve the settlement."


FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Set to Rule on Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a court in Austria was slated to rule in the
next few weeks whether it has the jurisdiction to hear a class
action lawsuit brought against Facebook.

Some 25,000 users -- led by Austrian law graduate Max Schrems --
accuse Facebook of violating European privacy laws in the way it
collects and forwards data.

The case has been brought against Facebook's European HQ in
Dublin, which handles accounts outside US and Canada.

Facebook's lawyers have argued for the case to be dismissed.
They presented a list of procedural objections at a court hearing
in Vienna on April 9.

Mr. Schrems -- a campaigner for data protection -- said he brought
the claim to stop what he calls mass surveillance by the social
networking site.

The legal action claims privacy laws are breached in the way
Facebook monitors users when they activate the site's "like"
buttons.  It also alleges Facebook co-operated with Prism, a
surveillance system launched in 2007 by the US National Security
Agency.

The case -- which involves more than 900 UK-based users of
Facebook -- includes a compensation claim of about EUR500 ($539;
GBP362) per person.

The court will issue a written decision in the next few weeks on
whether it can handle the case, the BBC's Bethany Bell reports
from Vienna.


FACEBOOK INC: Pushes for End to Austrian Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reported that Facebook Inc.
urged an Austrian court to nix claims that the social media giant
disregarded European users' privacy rights by promoting policies
that enable government spying and capitalize on user data, arguing
that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the assertions.

In a hearing held in Vienna Regional Court, Facebook offered a
number of procedural objections to the class action privacy suit
filed by Austrian activist Max Schrems against the company's
European division.

                           *     *     *

The Financial Express reported that an Austrian law graduate
spearheading a class action case against Facebook for alleged
privacy breaches officially filed the suit in a Vienna court.

In a closely-watched case, Max Schrems and 25,000 other users are
suing the social media giant for various rights violations,
ranging from the "illegal" tracking of their data under EU law to
Facebook's involvement in the PRISM surveillance programme of the
US National Security Agency.

Each of the plaintiffs is claiming a symbolic sum of 500 euros
(USD 540) in damages.

However, Facebook's legal team argues that the case is not
admissible in an Austrian civil court because "there is no legal
basis for a US-style class action".  They also accuse Schrems of
launching the lawsuit for financial reasons rather than for his
rights as a consumer -- a claim denied by the activist's lawyer,
Wolfram Proksch: "He lives for, but not off the case."

The judge is expected to issue a written ruling at the earliest in
three weeks.

The case has been brought against Facebook's European headquarters
in Dublin, which registers all accounts outside the United States
and Canada -- making up some 80 percent of Facebook's 1.35 billion
users.

Schrems was able to file his action against the Irish subsidiary
at a civil court in Vienna because under EU law, all member states
have to enforce court rulings from any other member state.
At the hearing, Facebook's lawyers alleged that Schrems was trying
to organise a "pseudo-class action", and said he should try his
luck in California where such proceedings were legal.
In response, Wolfram Proksch accused Facebook of not wanting "to
be sued anywhere".

"The point is that under EU law, the consumer doesn't have to
travel all the way to California to sue giant tech companies, but
can do this in his or her home country," he said.
After the hearing, Schrems told reporters he felt confident the
case would go to trial.

"From the very start, we have only focused on things which are
unambiguous, verifiable, and don't require an expert," he said.
"If I didn't think my chances were good, I wouldn't have invested
so much effort into this."

He added that Facebook's legal strategy so far had consisted of
"completely avoiding the topic at stake, namely data protection".
"But the key point is whether my data will be safe online," he
said.


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Judge Dismisses Concussion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a lawsuit
seeking to change the way U.S. children play soccer was all but
kicked out of court on May 6 by a federal judge who called the
claims "fairly incomprehensible."

The sprawling, 138-page complaint failed to answer basic
questions, such as who the potential class members are, what they
are seeking and what power the court has to grant their demands,
U.S. District Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern
District of California complained.

"It should be pretty clear to you all that I'm going to dismiss
this complaint," she said at the tail end of a hearing in Oakland.
"I still, after more than three hours of discussion, have grave
concerns about inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of
clarity."

Judge Hamilton was still considering whether to grant plaintiffs
leave to amend.

The suit claims six of the main entities that oversee U.S. youth
soccer don't do enough to protect young players from concussions
sustained while heading the ball.  Though it deals with youth
sports, two big league law firms -- Latham & Watkins and Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison -- are fielding defensive
players.

Headers are a key part of most soccer games.  Plaintiffs lawyer
Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro contends that recent
studies show players who repeatedly strike the ball with their
heads can suffer attention and memory problems, and exhibit other
signs of brain injury.  The Federation Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA), and the U.S. organizations that operate under
its umbrella, fall short in their efforts to prevent and monitor
concussions sustained on the field, Berman says.

His suit asks the court to force FIFA, the international soccer
governing body, to limit heading for players ages 14 to 17, and to
impose stricter limitations or ban heading altogether for players
younger than 14.

"The science is very clear," Mr. Berman said on May 6, "that the
kids' necks aren't strong enough, and the coaches don't know
enough at that level to teach proper heading."

Mr. Berman also has asked the court to order medical testing for
anyone who played youth soccer in the United States starting in
2002.

The litigation faces significant hurdles.  FIFA is a Swiss entity
headquartered in Zurich, and the association's lawyers claim it
cannot be sued in the Northern District of California.  FIFA has
no offices, employees or bank accounts in California, argued Paul
Weiss partner H. Christopher Boehning -- cboehning@paulweiss.com

Mr. Berman countered that FIFA conducts sufficient business in the
state it sells FIFA-brand video games to tens of thousands of
California residents, and the organization has agents in the state
who arrange local soccer matches.

Mr. Boehning also pointed out that FIFA can't change the
international soccer rules on its own, and the organization with
that authority, the International Football Association Board,
isn't named as a defendant.  FIFA holds four out of the eight
seats on the board, but a three-quarters vote is required for rule
changes.

Judge Hamilton seemed concerned by that information, and pressed
plaintiffs lawyers to explain how they expect to instigate a
change in heading rules without targeting the board.

"There's 100 ways it can be done," said Hagens Berman counsel Jon
King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com

But he faltered when asked for specifics.

Mr. Berman argued FIFA is responsible for protecting its players
from injury because it bills itself as the worldwide governing
body of soccer.  The organization even regulates Berman's own
involvement in the sport as a referee for children ages 10 to 14.
FIFA, he said, supplies his rule book.

"The entire world looks to FIFA for guidance in soccer,"
Mr. Berman said.

Judge Hamilton seemed taken aback by the scope of Berman's
lawsuit.

"What are the limitations, if any? Are you suing the world?" she
asked.  "Are we talking 209 countries? Are we talking millions and
millions, perhaps billions, of players?"

Mr. Berman brought the suit on behalf of seven current and former
soccer players, five of whom are minors identified only by
initials in the complaint.

Only one plaintiff claims she suffered a concussion while playing
soccer, and it wasn't from heading a ball, said Russell Sauer Jr.
-- russell.sauer@lw.com -- a Latham & Watkins partner and counsel
for the United States Soccer Federation.  The other plaintiffs
failed to show they face a real risk of injury, he argued, adding
medical research has drawn no concrete link between heading soccer
balls and long-term brain injury.

"This is the classic case of a speculative chain of
possibilities," Mr. Sauer said.

Injuries that do occur on the field are part of the inherent risks
of the game.  FIFA and U.S. Soccer have no duty to reduce those
risks, Mr. Sauer argued.  Plaintiffs claim 30 percent of soccer
concussions are caused by heading the ball, he said, meaning the
majority are caused by other actions, such as colliding with
players.  And it's more common for soccer players to sustain
injuries to their feet and ankles than to suffer concussions.
"So what's next?" Mr. Sauer asked.  "Are we going to have a class
action that says we need to reduce the speed of running in
soccer?"

In response, Mr. Berman argued that protecting athletes from head
injuries is becoming a national priority, noting President Barack
Obama held a summit on concussions at the White House last year.
Mr. Berman recently reached a settlement with the National
Collegiate Athletic Association that would provide for $70 million
to test athletes for brain trauma, and require the NCAA to impose
stricter rules on players returning to games after concussion.
Last month a federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a $765 million
settlement over concussions suffered by players in the National
Football League, and earlier this year the National Hockey League
was hit with similar concussion litigation.

"Concussions are a major issue in the United States," Mr. Berman
said.  "[Obama's] not having a summit on ankles and feet.  There's
no ankles and feet litigation."


FIRST NATIONAL: Steven Antonik Class Action in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
class action filed by Steven Antonik is in the discovery stage.

On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator
of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A.
Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and
Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking
equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged
pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the
repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.
At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome
or potential range of loss.


FIRST NATIONAL: Charles Saxe Class Action in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
case filed by Charles Saxe, III, is in the discovery stage.

On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a consumer class
action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common
Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial
Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed
vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.  At this time
the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential
range of loss.


FLOWER FOODS: Appeals Employee Classification Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James McCarthy, writing for Mainebiz, reports that Flowers Foods
Inc., the owner of Lepage Bakeries in Lewiston, filed an appeal
seeking to overturn a federal court's ruling that its North
Carolina distributors can file a class-action suit challenging the
company's classification of them as "independent contractors."

The appeal represents the next stage in a high-stakes court battle
over whether its North Carolina drivers are independent
contractors or employees -- a legal question that could have
national implications.

"We intend to vigorously defend our position," Paul Baltzer,
managing director of media relations and HR communications for
Flowers Foods, wrote in an email to Mainebiz.  "As background,
most of Flowers' fresh bakery foods are sold direct to retail and
foodservice customers through a network of independent
distributors who own their own businesses and have the rights to
sell certain brands of our products within their respective
territories.  Our independent distributors are important business
partners.  We treat them fairly and do our best to address their
concerns.  We've had an independent distributor program since the
1980s."

The March 24 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina has been characterized by a Minnesota
attorney representing the North Carolina workers as a "significant
ruling" that could be applied to Flowers Foods' independent
contractors in other states since the company uses the same
distribution model throughout its network of regional bakeries and
distribution centers in 36 states across the eastern and southern
United States.

Mr. Baltzer disputed the opposing lawyer's assertion that the
North Carolina ruling could pave the way for "hundreds of
distributors" who deliver Flowers Foods products in other states
to file similar claims under state and federal laws on a class-
wide basis without having to bear all the costs and risks
associated with individual litigation.

"This ruling applies only to distributors contracted with one
subsidiary in the state of North Carolina, and it is a procedural
ruling only," he wrote.

In the appeal filed April 7 at the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals in Richmond, Va., Flowers Foods' attorneys criticized the
North Carolina ruling, arguing that the judge "relied on scant
record evidence, summarily dismissing and failing to rigorously
analyze the legal significance of the extensive record evidence
establishing significant differences in actual practice."
"Even taking into account the District Court's considerable
discretion, its order granting class certification contains
substantial weaknesses, is manifestly erroneous and constitutes an
abuse of discretion," the company's petition states.  "Prompt
appeal is appropriate given the nature and status of the
underlying litigation . . . and would resolve fundamental,
unsettled issues of law."

In their closing arguments seeking approval of their appeal
request, Flowers Foods' attorneys acknowledge the high stakes if
the North Carolina case is allowed to proceed as a class-action
lawsuit for a little more than 200 distributors the company now
classifies as independent contractors instead of as employees.

"Class action lawsuits challenging independent contractor status
are on the rise," the lawyers wrote.  "[T]he potential exposure to
defendants if classes are certified is enormous, creating
incentives to settle even non-meritorious cases, particularly
given the uncertain legal standard.  Resolving this unsettled
legal question is thus of significant importance and would resolve
an unsettled question of law."

Shawn J. Wanta, an attorney and partner with Minneapolis-based
Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, which successfully represented
the North Carolina workers in their effort to gain legal standing
as a class, reiterated his earlier remarks that the case could
pave the way for similar claims by Flowers Foods' distributors
being filed in other states under state and federal laws on a
class-wide basis without having to bear all the costs and risks
associated with individual litigation.

"It is instructive as to what other courts may do if faced with
the same legal questions," Mr. Wanta wrote in an email to Mainebiz
on April 8.

Flowers Foods, based in Thomasville, Ga., reported $3.75 billion
in sales in 2014.  In May 2012 it purchased Lepage Bakeries for
$370 million in cash and stock, noting in a company press release
that Lepage had 550 "experienced team members" and would help
expand Flowers Foods' market from 64% to 70% of the U.S.
population.


FORD MOTOR: Court Hears Arguments in Mesothelioma Case
------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the crossroads of medical and legal causation of mesothelioma was
on display before the state Supreme Court on May 6 in a case set
to determine whether a plaintiff's expert testimony was based on
an impermissible "any exposure" theory of causation.

Attorney Clifford A. Rieders, who represented the plaintiff in
Rost v. Ford Motor, told the justices that just because the
plaintiff's expert testified that, medically speaking, there is no
safe level of exposure to asbestos and a single fiber can
potentially cause fatal mesothelioma by damaging a cell's
structure, it does not mean that his testimony was substantively
based on the "any exposure" theory, which is insufficient to show
legal causation.

"You can't conflate the fact that there's a scientific reality"
and the expert gave "any exposure" testimony, said Mr. Rieders, of
Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.  "That theoretical
possibility was not the basis for his case."

But Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com
-- who argued the case for Ford Motor Co., contended that merely
showing exposure is insufficient to prove legal liability.

Mr. Byer contended the plaintiff, Richard Rost, had been unable to
link his exposure to brake linings manufactured by Ford during a
four-month period when he worked at a car dealership to the
mesothelioma he suffered, specifically in light of the fact that
Rost had worked at other facilities where he allegedly had been
exposed to greater levels of asbestos.

Mr. Byer contended that Mr. Rost's causation expert relied on a
"cumulative exposure" theory, which was substantially similar to
the "any exposure" theory, because he could not causally link the
asbestos-related disease to Ford products.

"Medical causation and legal causation are totally different,"
Mr. Byer said.  "Regularity, frequency and proximity is not enough
for causation."

According to court papers, Mr. Rost had testified that in 1950, he
worked in a Ford dealership for several months where he cleaned
the garage and removed brake linings, which generated dust in a
poorly ventilated area.

During trial, one of Mr. Rost's experts, Dr. Arthur Frank,
testified there were case studies that showed individuals who were
exposed to asbestos for only a day developed mesothelioma, court
papers said.  Dr. Frank also said certain animal studies showed
that any exposure from one day to one month doubles the risk of
developing mesothelioma.

That trial resulted in a $994,800 jury award out of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Justice Correale F. Stevens noted to both sides that both the
trial court and the state Superior Court had found that the
plaintiffs had shown substantial causation evidence.

Mr. Byer, however, said the causation testimony was insufficient
to create a question of fact, and the trial court should have
given the defendant a directed verdict.

But assuming that there was exposure, the question becomes whether
that exposure can create the basis for a finding of liability,
which then brings into question issues about the more significant
exposures, Mr. Byer said.

"If all you need to show is exposure, then exposure equals
liability," Mr. Byer said.

After Justice Max Baer asked where the line should be drawn in
terms of the significance of an exposure, Mr. Byer said the time
and proximity are insufficient factors, and that dosage should be
considered as well.  Mr. Byer suggested that pathology and
epidemiology could better support the scientific conclusions on
causation.

Regularity, frequency and proximity "shows exposure.  It doesn't
show causation and it doesn't show substantial causation,"
Mr. Byer said.  If the exposure "results in a dosage that could be
sufficient to cause this disease," then the exposure is sufficient
for legal causation.

Mr. Rieders countered that Ford's arguments were based on evidence
that was not in the record.  He contended that, while Mr. Rost had
admitted that, after working at the car dealership, he had worked
subsequently at other facilities that could have exposed him to
asbestos, the record was not further developed regarding the
levels of exposure at those facilities.

Mr. Rost, Mr. Rieders told the justices, was exposed to millions
of asbestos fibers during his time working with Ford products.  He
also noted that, although Mr. Rost only worked at the Ford
dealership for a few months in 1950 and his subsequent alleged
exposure occurred over a period of several decades after his time
at the dealership, mesothelioma has a latency period of at least
10 years.

Case law outlines "a legal standard requiring the evidence cannot
be de minimis, and it certainly wasn't de minimis here,"
Mr. Rieders said.

According to Mr. Rieders, Dr. Frank testified that Mr. Rost's
exposure to Ford's products was a causative factor, and Ford's
arguments were asking the court to reweigh evidence a jury already
evaluated.

However, Justice J. Michael Eakin, after noting that he had spent
some summers when he was young working in garages, said he did not
see how having minimal exposure to asbestos could be considered
substantial if Mr. Rost spent "that much time knee-deep" in
asbestos, referring to Mr. Rost's subsequent work history.

Mr. Rieders told Justice Eakin the court should stick to the facts
in the record, and added that he had also likely handled asbestos
as a child, as his father had worked in construction.

"You and I both have [the possibility of having] fibers in our
bodies," Mr. Rieders said.  "And unfortunately the latency period
is very long."


FTD COMPANIES: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal of a class
action settlement remains pending.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce and co-
defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International
("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next
three years into Case No. 09-CV-2094 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California under the title In
re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from
their online enrollment in subscription-based membership programs
known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred
Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs
claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide
Commerce's websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll
in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and
administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative
nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide
Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper
transferring of the putative class members' billing information to
EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their
credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the
Membership Programs.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August
13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended
complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14,
2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint.

Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in
the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against
Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only);
(3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9)
negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss
the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on
January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of
February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing
or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous
settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an
effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties
reached an agreement on the high-level terms of a settlement,
conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete
written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the
parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement
("Settlement" or "Agreement").

Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to
dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not
answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement.
The court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the
class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final
approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28,
2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of
the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final
order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and
overruling objections filed by a single objector to the
Settlement. The court entered judgment on the settlement on
February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013.

After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral
argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29,
2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and
resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a
matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. The Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+ on
February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a
settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers.
It is unclear whether any of the parties to the Frank v. Netflix
appeal will take further action before the Ninth Circuit or U.S.
Supreme Court or when final resolution of the Frank v. Netflix
appeal will occur. As such, the Ninth Circuit has not re-set oral
argument or entered any other order since in this matter. The
appeal of the Settlement remains pending.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Sues Milla Bjorn, Lidingo
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., hereby announce that
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon has
approved the following announcement concerning defendants Milla
Bjorn a/k/a Kamilla Bjorlin and Lidingo LLC in the shareholder
class action against Galena Biopharma, Inc. (GALE).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
IN RE GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC SECURITIES LITIGATION
CASE No.:3-14-cv-00367-SI

TO: MILLA BJORN A/K/A KAMILLA BJORLIN AND LIDINGO LLC

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days of the date
of first publication specified herein you must serve on the
plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or
motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are:

Patrick V. Dahlstrom
Pomerantz LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-377-1181

If you have questions, you should see an attorney immediately.  If
you need help in finding an attorney, you may contact the Oregon
State Bar's Lawyer Referral Service online at
www.oregonstatebar.org or by calling (503) 684-3763 (in the
Portland metropolitan area) or toll-free elsewhere in Oregon at
(800) 452-7636.

This is a securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Galena's common
stock between August 6, 2013 and May 14, 2014, inclusive, seeking
money damages in an amount to be determined at trial.


GERON CORP: Shareholder Action Over Cancer Drug Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge trimmed a consolidated proposed shareholder class
action accusing Geron Corp. of improperly touting the prospects of
its cancer drug imetelstat before the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration put a hold on the drug's clinical trial over
concerns of liver toxicity.

In a brief hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer
partially granted Geron's motion to dismiss the case based on some
of the drugmaker's statements that the plaintiffs claimed were
misleading -- and tossed many of them with prejudice.


GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Szarek Case Adjourned to May 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the New York Szarek
action, the Court has adjourned the initial pretrial conference
upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.

Following the announcement of the CME Group Inc. ("CME"), nine
putative class action complaints challenging the CME Merger were
filed on behalf of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which
also purported to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
six in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et
al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4,
2014), Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3,
2014), Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-
VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et
al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11,
2014), Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL
(Del. Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees'
Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil
Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and
Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed October 14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of
Chancery granted voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action. On
October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice
Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into the
Consolidated Delaware Action. The consolidation order designated
the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v.
Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the
operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action.

The Company said, "The complaints named as Defendants various
combinations of the Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the
members of our board of directors, GFI managing director Nick
Brown, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition
LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and
New JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among
other things, that the members of our board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to our stockholders during merger
negotiations by entering into the CME Merger Agreement and
approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME, Commodore
Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer, Cheetah
Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints
further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger
consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued
the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME
Merger was flawed due to the members of our board of director's
and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that certain
provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately favored CME
and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting potentially
superior proposals."

"In addition, the Hughes complaint asserts a derivative claim on
behalf of the Company against the members of our board of
directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care
to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger and
against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate
opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleges that the CME Merger is
not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions
and further alleges that the IDB Transaction must be approved by
an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms
of the Charter.

"The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a
declaration that the members of our board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the CME
Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members of
our board of directors to execute their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction in the best interest of our stockholders, (v)
rescission of the CME Merger to the extent already implemented,
(vi) granting of rescissory damages and an accounting of all of
the damages suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, (vii)
and reimbursement of fees and costs. The Coyne and Suprina
Plaintiffs also demand a jury trial.

"Certain Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative,
stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i)
the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina
actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for
consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii)
Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and
expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the
Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re
GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In
another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff
Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. The parties are
awaiting a ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay
the consolidated action.

"On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order
Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware
Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised
Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for
January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin
enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until
(i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) our
stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on the CME
Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January 8,
2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction
hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15,
2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January
20) was taken off the court's calendar.

"On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint.
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support
thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing
for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint,
seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On
February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties,
moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015)
to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March
4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that
an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary.

"In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial
pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court
adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and
adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.


GFI GROUP: Pretrial Conference in Gross Action Rescheduled
----------------------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court in Gross v.
GFI Group, Inc. rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to
March 27, 2015.

On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the
Company, Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as
Defendants.. The complaint seeks, among other relief: (i)
certification of the class, (ii) compensatory damages for
Defendants purported wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs
and expenses.

On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc.
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to
respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015;
granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16,
2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March
27, 2015.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Limits Set on Nature of Class Member Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Yates, writing for Mondaq.com, reported that once an action
has been certified as a class action, notice of certification is
required to be given to the class.  There are statutory
requirements that govern the matters to be addressed in such
notices, but the courts have responsibility for approving their
form, content and distribution scheme, as well as who pays for
them.

Bartram et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al

In a recent B.C. case, the representative plaintiffs had obtained
a certification order against two GlaxoSmithKline Inc. entities in
respect of an action alleging that their antidepressant drug Paxil
caused cardiovascular defects in children born to women who took
the drug during pregnancy, of which the defendants failed to
provide adequate and timely warning.  In Bartram et al., v.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al, 2015 BCSC 315, the court decided on
the form and timing of the required notice to class members,
including distribution of and payment for the notice.

The representative plaintiffs had sought approval of both a short
and long form notice.  The short form notice, to which the
defendants objected, "shows a picture of a crying baby under the
word Paxil in large type.  It refers to the fact that a class
action has been certified, describes the class and class period
and provides contact details for the reader to obtain further
information.  It does not include much of the other information
required by s. 19(6), such as the manner and time for members to
opt in or opt out of the proceedings" and other information (para.
5).  The plaintiffs proposed that the short form notice be sent to
doctors' offices with a request that it be posted in waiting
rooms.

The certification judge held "the proposed short form notice
resembles an advertisement for class counsel's firm.  It may be
appropriate for use in that manner, but it lacks the balance and
independence required of a court-mandated document.  I conclude
that notice will be only in the proposed long form" (para. 8).
The court went on to find that plaintiffs' counsel and the
defendants were to split the costs of notice evenly, and that
there was "no basis for requiring the defendants to effectively
advertise on their own website that their product, which is still
properly on the market, is the subject of litigation" (para. 10).
As such, even the long form was not required to be posted on the
defendants' website.

Conclusion

Notice of certification must be given as required by the statute.
Defendants should take some comfort that class counsel may well
have to contribute half the costs of the notice plan, and at the
court's confirmation that a "balanced and independent" notice:

   -- cannot resemble an advertisement for class counsel's firm;
      And

   -- need not be posted on the defendant's own website.


HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Cosmetics Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reported that the Ninth
Circuit revived a proposed class action accusing Hain Celestial
Group Inc. of misleading consumers by labeling cosmetics with
synthetic ingredients as "all natural," ruling the case should
have been stayed while the trial court sought U.S. Food and Drug
Administration advice.

The unanimous panel of judges found that while the lower court had
properly invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, concerning
whether agencies should consider various issues before a court
does, it should not have dismissed the suit outright.


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stein Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an amended complaint
was filed in the Stein class action.

On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division,
against Heritage, the members of its board of directors,
HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was
amended on February 18, 2015, asserts that the Heritage directors
breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger
Agreement and that Heritage, HeritageBank, Renasant and Renasant
Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin Heritage and
Renasant stockholders from voting on to approve the merger at
their respective special meetings of stockholders and to otherwise
enjoin the merger.


HOPFED BANCORP: Negotiates Settlement in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Hopfed Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has
negotiated a settlement in a class action lawsuit.

The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit concerning
the disclosure of ATM fees at Company owned ATMs that the
defendant claims were not adequately disclosed. The Company
asserts that fees were adequately disclosed and that portions of
the ATM's were vandalized by an unknown third party immediately
prior to the defendants using the Company's ATMs. At December 31,
2014, the Company has negotiated a settlement in this case and has
established a $90,000 reserve potential losses. The Company has
"not admitted to be a fault in the case but has determined that it
is more cost effective to come to a settlement as opposed to
continuing the defend ourselves in court."


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, writing for JDSupra, reported that a federal court
judge in New Jersey dismissed a putative class action lawsuit
against Horizon Blue Cross for a data breach involving two
unencrypted laptops that were lost in 2013. The case alleged that
close to 840,000 individuals' information was breached, including
names, addresses, dates of birth, health information and Social
Security numbers.

The plaintiffs alleged that Horizon failed to put appropriate
security measures in place following a data breach in 2008, and it
said it would implement security measures following a government
investigation of that breach, which involved 300,000 individuals'
information. However, it failed to implement the measures, which
contributed to the data breach in 2013 involving the unencrypted
laptops. Nonetheless, the judge dismissed the case because the
plaintiffs "have not alleged an 'economic injury' sufficient for
standing.


HORIZON LINES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 21, 2014, that the defendants and the
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action reached an agreement
in principle, subject to the court's approval, providing for the
settlement and dismissal, with prejudice of the Consolidated
Action.

On November 25, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10399-VCL (the "Loken Action"). The complaint names as
defendants each member of the Company's Board (the "Individual
Defendants"), the Company, and Matson Navigation Company, Inc.,
Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition, Inc. (collectively, the
"Matson Companies"). The complaint generally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good
faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized
the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with
Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of
the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with
damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 1, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned J. Cola Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No.
10412-VCL (the "J. Cola Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the J. Cola Action filed an amended complaint, adding
a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 2, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No.
10418-VCL (the "Kristiansen Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the Kristiansen Action filed an amended complaint,
adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary
duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23,
2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On January 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case
No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty,
due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the
November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of
the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an order consolidating the four complaints into
"In re Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated
C.A. 10399-VCL (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 13, 2015
the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval
(the "Memorandum of Understanding"), providing for the settlement
and dismissal, with prejudice of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant
to such Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make
additional disclosures to the Company's stockholders through a
supplement to the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement and the
Company and Matson agreed to amend the Merger Agreement in order
to reduce the amount of the termination fee payable by the Company
to Matson under a Fiduciary Termination from $17.1 million to $9.5
million.  On February 13, 2015 the Company, Matson and Merger Sub
entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The Company
and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in the Actions
are entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement does
not resolve them, intend to contest them vigorously.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Class Action Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the settlement
amount was paid in full and the class action matter is now
concluded.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
(collectively, the "Company Defendants") have been named as
defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike
D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006
alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the
Company's homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building
codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the
Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is
1,065 homes. The Company Defendants filed a request to take an
interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision.
The Appellate Division denied the request, and the Company
Defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New
Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the
Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May
8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments
on December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court's original
finding of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate
Division affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the
Company Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division's
decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to
hear the appeal on October 22, 2013. The plaintiff class was
seeking unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to
the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants' motion to
consolidate an indemnity action they filed against various
manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants to require these
parties to participate directly in the class action was denied by
the Superior Court; however, the Company Defendants' separate
action seeking indemnification against the various manufacturers
and subcontractors implicated by the class action is ongoing. The
Company Defendants, the Company Defendants' insurance carriers and
the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May 15,
2014 in which the plaintiff class was to receive a payment of $21
million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the
settlement being funded by the Company Defendants' insurance
carriers. The Company had previously reserved for its share of the
settlement. The Superior Court approved the settlement agreement
on December 23, 2014, and the judgment became final on February
20, 2015, when no appeal was taken. The settlement amount was paid
in full and the class action matter is now concluded.


IBM CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Sale of Hardware Biz
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a workers union sued a major
technology company on April 1 over allegations it violated the
Securities Exchange Act while trying to sell part of its business.

The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers filed the lawsuit on April 1 against
International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation alleging the
company knew part of the business it was trying to sell was
virtually worthless.

The lawsuit said IBM was attempting to sell part of its hardware
business that designs and produces microchips for approximately
$2.4 billion.  The business included property, a plant and
equipment assets.  Investors, including the union, allegedly
didn't know that IBM struggled to find a buyer and that the
business had lost approximately $700 million in 2013.

The lawsuit alleged IBM knew that the microelectronics business
was worthless, but misrepresented the value of the
microelectronics business and artificially inflated the company's
results to stockholders.

Investors didn't find out about the $700 million loss until IBM
announced in October that it planned to transfer the
microelectronics business to GlobalFoundries Incorporated along
with a $1.5 billion incentive payment, the suit says.

The union is seeking class status for those who held IBM stock
between Jan. 22, 2014, and Oct. 17.  The plaintiffs are also
seeking damages, interest and court costs in the lawsuit.

The union is represented by Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Michael W. Stocker and Rachel A. Avan --
ravan@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow, LLP in New York City.

United States District Court Southern District of New York case
number 7:15-cv-02492


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces thata class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
comprising investors who purchased or otherwise acquired iDreamSky
Technology Ltd. ("iDreamSky"or the "Company") American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs"): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about August 7, 2014 (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between August 8,
2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
who purchased iDreamSky shares during the Class Period are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had
overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively
integrate its distribution channels; (2) that, as a result, the
Company had to lower its earnings guidance; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 13, 2015, the Company sharply lowered its revenue
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 due to the delay of a
popular game, launched on one of the Company distribution
platforms, and lower than expected revenues from another game
being launched simultaneously as other hit games on the same
distribution platform. On this news, ADS of iDreamSky declined
$3.60 per share, over 33%, during to close on March 16, 2015 at
$7.22 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than June 1, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class,
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, please
contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
by telephone at 215-638-4847, toll-free at 888-638-4847, or by
email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Expects Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the Company expects
final court approval of the settlement and termination of all
proceedings in a class action complaint in the second quarter of
2015.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us following our announced intention to
restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the
related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain
of our directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial
public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the
Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus
for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement
in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission
and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the court issued
preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount of $1.8
million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. We expect
final court approval of the settlement and termination of all
proceedings in this matter in the second quarter of 2015."


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the court has
granted conditional certification to the class in the lawsuit
filed by six former tipped employees.

The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States
District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped
employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint
against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees
were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as
the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked.
These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of
tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses
of tipped employees regarding their state law claims.  By order
dated January 27, 2015, the court granted conditional
certification to the class."

"We are vigorously contesting this matter and have answered and
asserted affirmative defenses. Discovery as to all issues is now
in the preliminary stages.  At this early stage, it is impossible
to predict with any certainty whether the former employees will
prevail or the amount of damages they might recover were they to
prevail."


INSTALLED BUILDING: Paid $1.2MM Related to Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Installed Building Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company paid $1.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2014,
related to a class action settlement.

The Company said, "A class action lawsuit was filed in February
2013 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2013 in the
Superior Court of King County, Washington, involving Installed
Building Products II, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, alleging
violations of Washington State wage and hour laws for failure to
pay prevailing and minimum wage and overtime wages. The plaintiffs
were former insulation installers for Installed Building Products
II, LLC in Washington who sought to represent all similarly
situated workers. They sought all unpaid wages, along with
litigation costs and fees."

"A lawsuit was filed in July 2013 in federal court in the Middle
District of Tennessee against one of our subsidiaries, TCI d/b/a
Installed Building Products of Nashville, alleging unpaid overtime
and failure to pay lawful wages under federal law and Tennessee
common law and in unjust enrichment and in breach of an alleged
contract. The named plaintiffs were former insulation installers
in Nashville. The plaintiffs sought to have this case certified as
a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
as a class action under Tennessee law. They sought reimbursement
of the overtime wages for all time worked over forty hours each
week, as well as liquidated damages and litigation costs and fees.

"Both lawsuits were settled in January 2014 for a total cost of
$1.4 million, $0.2 million of which we paid during the year ended
December 31, 2013 and $1.2 million of which we paid during the
year ended December 31, 2014. We recorded the $1.4 million charge
in Administrative and Other operating expenses in our Consolidated
Statement of Operations during the year ended December 31, 2013
and therefore recorded no related expense for the year ended
December 31, 2014."


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Due Nov. 23
----------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that summary judgment
briefing must be completed by November 23, 2015, in the Securities
Class Action.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2011, we became aware of a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY or the Court,
against us and certain of our current and former executive
officers. The complaint, or the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions
about our business prospects, financial condition and performance
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the
purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011, or the
Allegation Period. On December 27, 2011, a second purported class
action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as,
and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY
against us and certain of our current and former executive
officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the
Allegation Period."

"On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated
action, or the Consolidated Class Action. On June 15, 2012, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, in addition to the
original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
we, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and
the underwriters in our April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted material information required to be stated therein in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012.

"On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On October 15, 2013, the Court entered the parties'
pretrial scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the parties
served each other with document requests and discovery is ongoing.

"On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order entered by
the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition
to class certification on June 13, 2014 and plaintiff filed its
reply on July 18, 2014. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an
opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased our stock
between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of
persons who purchased our stock pursuant or traceable to our April
6, 2011 offering. On October 6, 2014, the Court entered the
parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the deadline to
complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015.

"Under that same stipulation, summary judgment briefing must be
completed by November 23, 2015. On October 14, 2014, the
defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014
opinion granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. On
December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition.
We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to
defend this lawsuit vigorously."


J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants Intend to Appeal Court Order
-------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants intend to
appeal on a court order finding it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over a case and remanded it to St. Clair County.

In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against
the Company and various subsidiaries. The original class action
complaint in this matter contained a single count alleging that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act by, among other things, marketing,
soliciting, and engaging in transfers of structured settlement
payment rights despite knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the
underlying structured settlement agreements. The plaintiff then
filed an amended complaint reciting the same facts and the same
claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, but adding causes of action for common law fraud,
breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and two
counts for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The first such claim alleges defendants
violated law that proscribes conduct amounting to a pattern of
racketeering activity conducted through an enterprise. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of mail in connection
with the transfers constituted mail fraud. The second such claim
alleged that the defendants conspired to commit other related
violations. The defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. One
defendant, Settlement Funding, LLC, filed a motion to defer
responding to the plaintiff's complaint pending a ruling on the
other defendants' motion to dismiss, and also filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the claims against it in
federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time
to respond to the motions to dismiss and motion to compel
arbitration based on intent to file a second amended complaint.
The plaintiff did file a second amended complaint asserting
substantially similar allegations to those set forth in the
initial amended complaint, and added four new named plaintiffs.
Settlement Funding, LLC filed a petition to compel individual
arbitrations in the Northern District of Illinois against those
four new named plaintiffs in the second amended complaint who had
previously entered into arbitration agreements with Settlement
Funding, LLC. Defendants filed various motions challenging the
second amended complaint in the Southern District of Illinois,
seeking dismissal and/or transfer to the Northern District of
Illinois. The Southern District of Illinois court granted transfer
of the whole case to the Northern District of Illinois and
deferred ruling on defendants' arguments for dismissal to the
Northern District court.

On March 5, 2015, the Northern District court entered an order
finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and
remanded it to St. Clair County. Defendants believe this ruling on
jurisdiction is incorrect and intend to appeal. Defendants also
believe that the plaintiffs' claims in the second amended
complaint are time-barred and/or without merit and defendants
intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual
and legal grounds in arbitration and/or litigation.


JIMMY JOHN'S: 'Oppressive' Non-compete Clause Survives Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jamieson, writing for Huffington Post, reported that the use
of restrictive noncompete agreements with low-wage workers may
have made a laughingstock of Jimmy John's last year, but so far
the sandwich chain is doing just fine defending those agreements
in court.

A federal judge in Illinois declined to grant an injunction that
would have prevented Jimmy John's franchisees from trying to
enforce the noncompete agreements.

As The Huffington Post first reported in October, the agreement is
quite shocking in its scope. An employee who signs it agrees not
to work for a competitor -- defined as any business that derives
at least 10 percent of its sales from sandwiches and that is
located within three miles of any Jimmy John's outlet -- for a
period of two years following the employee's departure from Jimmy
John's.

If enforced, the restriction would severely limit the erstwhile
employees' sandwich-making opportunities, effectively blacklisting
them from whole cities for a period of time -- as this map
demonstrates. It would also tend to depress the workers' earnings
by preventing them from taking their labor to the highest bidder.
Members of Congress have asked the Labor Department and the
Federal Trade Commission to investigate Jimmy John's over the
practice.

Last year, Emily Brunner, a Jimmy John's assistant store manager,
and Caitlin Turowski, a former assistant store manager, filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Jimmy John's and a
franchisee, claiming they were shorted on pay. As part of their
complaint, Brunner and Turowski asked that the judge effectively
bar Jimmy John's from maintaining the noncompete agreement with
the class of workers covered by the lawsuit. They argued that the
agreement is overly broad and "oppressive."

U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras wasn't buying it. In an
opinion, Judge Kocoras ruled that since the noncompete clause had
never been enforced against Brunner and Turowski, the two had
never been hurt by it and had no standing to seek an injunction
against it.

"The lack of any prior enforcement diminishes the Plaintiffs'
argument that the wrongful conduct will occur again because no
injury occurred to begin with," Judge Kocoras wrote.

As part of the case, Jimmy John's franchisee JS Fort Group
submitted affidavits pledging that it would not enforce the
noncompete agreements against Brunner and Turowski going forward.
Under Judge Kocoras' reasoning, that move "satisfied their burden
of establishing that the challenged conduct will not 'reappear in
the future.'"

The judge essentially accepted the franchisee's argument that
there was no controversy since the noncompete agreement was never
enforced.

"There has to be a real dispute," said Matthew Disbrow, a lawyer
for JS Fort Group. "The franchisee defendants said they had no
intention of enforcing these agreements as to these plaintiffs. It
never crossed their mind."

But Kathleen Chavez, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said she believes the
ruling missed the mark. Even if it goes unenforced here, the Jimmy
John's noncompete agreement still exists and can still have a
"chilling effect" on workers wondering if it will be used against
them if they jump to Quizno's, she said. Unlike Brunner and
Turowski, Chavez added, most low-wage workers don't have the
resources to hire a lawyer to fight back.

"This is really a setback for low-wage earners' rights," Chavez
said. "This is something very injurious to a demographic that
doesn't have good access to the courts. When you're making eight
bucks an hour, going in and hiring an attorney and paying filing
fees to find out whether you can work at Subway is just not
practical."

Nowadays, many employers make prospective employees sign
noncompete agreements, even in low-wage industries. As HuffPost
reported in November, the doggy day care chain Camp Bow Wow
requires pet sitters to agree they won't work at similar outfits
after leaving the chain. The Verge reported that Amazon warehouse
workers have been required to sign noncompete agreements
dramatically limiting their future employment opportunities. The
online retailer quickly said it would scrap the agreements.

Unlike, say, a software engineer who knows a company's trade
secrets, most of these workers don't have meaningful proprietary
information that they could take to a competitor. Since most
states say that noncompete agreements have to be reasonable in
scope, companies like Jimmy John's and Camp Bow Wow would likely
have a hard time trying to enforce such restrictions against a
low-wage worker. HuffPost knows of no instances at either company
in which a former worker was barred from employment with a
competitor.

Even if they're legally dubious, these agreements have probably
proliferated because companies feel they have little to lose by
asking workers to sign them. And under Kocoras' ruling, they have
nothing to lose whatsoever.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Attorneys in Levy Suit Set to Get $32MM in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys representing more than
8,000 women who were secretly recorded during pelvic exams by a
gynecologist at Johns Hopkins will receive $32 million in legal
fees from a settlement with the hospital system.

An order signed by a Baltimore judge on April 8 awarded attorneys
from eight law firms 17.25 percent of the $190 million settlement.
The settlement will be divided among patients of Dr. Nikita Levy,
a gynecologist who surreptitiously videotaped and photographed
thousands of women during gynecological exams at a Hopkins-
affiliated clinic.

The attorneys had initially asked Baltimore City Circuit Court
Judge Sylvester Cox to earmark 35 percent of the settlement for
legal fees.  Though the Judge dipped significantly below the
attorneys' request in his judgment, Judge Cox wrote in his order
that similar settlements over $100 million tend to show legal fee
percentages between 4 and 18 percent.  The order also says the
attorneys will be reimbursed $829,690 for expenses.

In his order the judge said the settlement "achieved extraordinary
results," calling it "unprecedented."

Jonathan Schochor, the lead attorney in the case, said he and the
other attorneys will not challenge the judge's order.  Mr.
Schochor would not elaborate on how the $32 million will be
divided among attorneys.

"We are very, very gratified," Mr. Schochor said on April 8.  "At
the end of the day when you can sit back and say that we have
achieved the highest settlement for a single sex-abuse perpetrator
in our nation's history, that we can utter those words on behalf
of our clients? We're elated as lawyers."

Dr. Nikita Levy was fired after 25 years with the Johns Hopkins
Health System in Baltimore in February 2013 after a female co-
worker spotted the pen-like camera he wore around his neck and
alerted authorities.  At the time of his firing he was practicing
at the Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Center.

Levy committed suicide days later, as a federal investigation led
to roughly 1,200 videos and 140 images stored on computers in his
home.

Hopkins agreed to the settlement last July.   Mr. Schochor said
the settlement has been fully funded as of March 2, and is in an
interest-bearing account.  Mr. Schochor said whatever interest
before the funds are allocated to the women will go to them, and
not the lawyers.

In determining the legal fee percentage, Judge Cox took into
account the time and labor required, the novelty of the case and
the skills necessary to adequately represent the class, as well as
the risks involved in taking on such an unwieldy case.

"We saved 9,000 women from having to potentially relive this
experience in the courtroom and through depositions, and that has
tremendous value," said attorney Howard Janet, who represents some
of the women in the class.  "The irony about class action is, the
quicker and more efficient the case and the better result you
accomplish can sometimes result in a lesser percentage of fee.
But it was always the clients first."


LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Life
Time Fitness Inc. (NYSE:  LTM) and its Board of Directors.  The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota and docketed under 0:15-cv-01911, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all current holders of Life Time
securities.

Life Time is a chain of fitness centers operating in the United
States and Canada based out of Chanhassen, Minnesota. On March 16,
2015, the Company announced its proposed acquisition (the
"Proposed Acquisition") by a consortium of investors for $72.10
per share of Life Time common stock.

The complaint alleges that, on April 3, 2015, Defendants filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a Proxy Statement
recommending the Proposed Acquisition to Company investors which
contained material omissions.  Among other things, the Proxy
Statement failed to sufficiently disclose the interest of the
Company's CEO in the Proposed Acquisition and the fair market
value of the Company's real estate holdings, which make up the
bulk of Life Time's assets.  As such, the Proxy Statement omits
material information necessary to make the Proxy not misleading to
investors attempting to evaluate the financial merits of the
Proposed Acquisition.

The class action seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with
the Proposed Acquisition until they have complied with the federal
securities laws.  In the event that the Proposed Acquisition is
consummated, the class action seeks to recover damages on behalf
of Life Time's investors.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 9, 2015.  As a member of the class, you may
seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you have questions
about your legal rights, would like a copy of the complaint or if
you have information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact
attorney Mark A. Delaney of Block & Leviton LLP, www.blockesq.com,
at (617) 398-5600 or at Mark@blockesq.com.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to the lawsuit is assured.


LISA STEED: Judge Denies Class Action Status to Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Aaron, writing for Good4Utah.com, reports that people who
claim they were improperly arrested for DUI by former Utah Highway
Patrol trooper Lisa Steed will not be able to file a class action
lawsuit, according to a ruling issued by Second District Court
Judge Michael Allphin.

Salt Lake City attorney Robert Sykes filed a motion for class
certification on behalf of three plaintiffs Thomas Romero, Julie
Tapia and Robert C. Anderson.  At a hearing February 9th, Sykes
argued that it should be certified as a class action suit based on
a "blanket of fraud" by Trooper Steed, who was fired in 2012.
Utah Assistant Attorney General Meb Anderson represents Steed and
claimed the cases did not meet the criteria for class
certification.  In a 20-page ruling issued on April 8, Judge
Allphin denied the motion for class certification, meaning all
lawsuits against Steed will have to be filed and tried
individually.

"We think the judge did a thorough analysis and a thorough job and
got it right," Anderson told ABC4 News on April 9.

"We think the judge made an error," Mr. Sykes stated in an
interview at his Downtown Salt Lake City office.

Mr. Sykes estimates that hundreds of plaintiffs could sue the
State of Utah over Steed's actions.

"You'd have about 1500 to maybe 2000 people filing individual
claims that have a value of about $5,000 to $20,000 and that's not
very efficient," Mr. Sykes said.  "So our belief is that this
should have been handled in a class action where it can all be
handled at once."

"The court said the circumstances vary greatly," Mr. Anderson
said.  "That's what Lisa Steed has maintained all along: that the
court should look at each of these cases individually and
determine whether she had reasonable suspicion to stop the person
and probable cause to arrest and she believes when the court does
that on an individual basis that the court will find she was
justified in each of her stops."

Mr. Sykes disagrees.

"I think once we proved that there was fraud involved by Lisa
Steed on a mass basis we don't have to prove each individual
case," Mr. Sykes said.  "She shouldn't be allowed to get away with
it."

With no class action certification, Mr. Sykes acknowledges that
most potential plaintiffs won't pursue any action because of the
expense and the hassle for a relatively small amount. Anderson
sees the ruling as the start of a final resolution to the pending
legal action against Steed.

"Just happy that the judge saw through some of the shenanigans and
is willing to give Lisa Steed her day in court in these individual
cases," Mr. Anderson said.  "She's happy about this.  She's hoping
that this is the beginning of the end to this case."

Mr. Sykes still feels the case will eventually be a class action
lawsuit against Steed, the Highway Patrol and the State.

"We're going to appeal this and I think it will be reversed,"
Mr. Sykes said.

Mr. Anderson says an appeal was fully expected.

Ms. Steed was fired by the Utah Highway Patrol in 2012.


LOUISIANA: PSC Commissioner Wants Name Off Class Action Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leader, writing for The News Star, reports that Public
Service Commissioner Foster Campbell wants his name off a motion
by the PSC to block a class action suit returning designated funds
it believes the Louisiana Legislature took illegally from the PSC
to the companies who paid the fees.

An amendment to the motion creating a class action suit was set be
heard in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge on April 13.

The Public Service Commission filed suit in 2010 against the
Legislature over $8.5 million -- $4 million in 2009 and $4.5
million in 2010 they say were swept into the state's general fund.

"Bobby Jindal has swept every account he can down there trying to
balance the budget," Mr. Campbell said.  "This is just more of his
money grabbing -- trying to fill in holes."

The PSC is not funded through the state's general fund but through
fees collected from those it regulates.

An amendment by former Chief Commissioner Jimmy Field seeks to
make the suit a class action that would allow the funds to be
returned to those who paid the fees if the fund sweep is ruled
unconstitutional.

According to the motion, the original suit did not seek relief or
remedy if the legislative acts were ruled unconstitutional.

The motion seeks recovery.

"It merely provides a remedy for the thousands of affected
ratepayers who paid into the three protected funds that were
raided by the Legislature in those two consecutive years in order
to attempt to balance the state's budget," the motion reads.

"It is also noteworthy that the PSC is now attempting to roadblock
any effort to return these funds to the rightful owners of the
same, if those legislative acts are ruled unconstitutional."

Mr. Campbell, along with mr. Field, Clyde Holloway, Lambert
Boissiere and Eric Skrmetta were the five commissioners who
originally filed the suit. Field is no longer a commissioner.

The motion to expand the plaintiff class is filed on behalf of
Mr. Field by attorney Glen Petersen.

"Field is the plaintiff and he is a former commissioner, and I
think he's right," Mr. Campbell said.

"That money came from the people and Jindal damn sure can't take
the people's money.  He's not providing a service; he just took
the money to put in his budget."

Both the Legislature and the Public Service Commission filed
objections to the motion.  The PSC argues that the addition of a
class would be too costly, would cause needless delays and the
"court's actions would impinge on the authority of the
commission."

The Louisiana Legislature argues that a petition that includes
having two legislative acts declared unconstitutional and a class
action tax refund petition for damages are two completely separate
causes of action and "amounts to an improper change in action."

"We are merely seeking a remedy for the actions of the Legislature
if indeed the two cited sweeps of funds are ultimately found to be
illegal by the court," Mr. Petersen said on April 9.

"If the court does that, and we believe that it would be correct
if it does, then the money should be returned to its rightful
owners.  We're not sure why the commission would have a
disagreement with that."

Mr. Holloway said that he wouldn't have his name taken off the
suit but would not object to whatever action is decided by the
court.  He said the PSC's desire to keep the money in its budget
could be motivated by the small amount of money available to the
commission to pay its staff and do its necessary work.

"However the court rules, I'm OK with it," he said.  "I'm not a
person that's ever going to stop the money from going back to the
people."

Mr. Campbell said Mr. Jindal is too focused on his political
aspirations and telling 'Louisiana's success story' to take care
of the state.

"He's going to rape and pillage everything down there to try to
balance the budget," he said.  "Bobby Jindal will go down as
Louisiana's worst governor in modern day times."

The News-Star has requested comment from the governor's office,
but has received no response.

                           *     *     *

Kevin Boyd, writing for The Hayride, reported that Louisiana
Public Service Commissioner "Bananas" Foster Campbell announced
that he was taking his name off a PSC motion to block converting
the PSC's lawsuit against the Louisiana Legislature into a class
action lawsuit. The class action request was filed by former PSC
Commissioner Jimmy Fields.

The lawsuit is about whether or not the Jindal administration and
the Legislature violated state law by scooping up surplus PSC
funds and transferring them to the state general fund. The PSC is
100% funded by the fees it collects from the companies it
regulates.

Here's why the PSC and the Legislature both oppose the Fields
motion:

Both the Legislature and the Public Service Commission filed
objections to the motion. The PSC argues that the addition of a
class would be too costly, would cause needless delays and the
"court's actions would impinge on the authority of the
commission."

The Louisiana Legislature argues that a petition that includes
having two legislative acts declared unconstitutional and a class
action tax refund petition for damages are two completely separate
causes of action and "amounts to an improper change in action."

Here's a question, does Bananas even attend his own PSC meetings?
If so, does he pay attention to them or is he too busy trying to
shakedown donations from utilities and trial lawyers for his
campaign?

A source at the PSC provided The Hayride some transcripts of a
couple of meetings where this issue was discussed. Allegedly,
Bananas was present at both.

Here's an excerpt from the meeting on May 19, 2010:

COMMISSIONER SKRMETTA: The second issue is I ask. . . direct Staff
to open a docket on . . . to study and report on the feasibility
of adopting -- that any amounts that the Public Service Commission
takes in as a budget surplus above the cost of its budget, a
mechanism for returning that surplus to the ratepayers. And if
they could develop a mechanism and a scheme for such a activity
and report back to the Commission when it's complete. Thank you.

This issue came up again on February 23, 2011:

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY: Okay, I want to do a directive to Staff. I
mean, we have the lawsuit pending and hopefully we win the suit at
some point. I know we are going into executive session on it, but
we oftentimes and I hear this on the radio now that we never
return any money anyhow, so my directive is that "If we should win
this suit and assuming that we will, or we shouldn't proceed if we
don't assume that, I would like Staff to look at how we would go
about once we accumulate the money, and I don't want to have to
wait to pay utility -- my bill at the office, I have to pay, or
their yard work, or whatever. But once we accumulate enough money
that we need to operate on the cushion; that we start looking into
how we refund or send the excess money back to the people we
collect it from. My feeling is that we oftentimes only want to
collect and we never look at where it should go and that is my
whole problem of the issue of the state seizing these funds is
"That is not our funds, that is not their funds, that is the
people's funds." And if someone is going to have that money in
another place it should go back to the people that paid it, so I
realize that oftentimes and I have talked to Ms. Gonzalez and she
told me we operate on a shoestring and didn't have money
sometimes. Well, it has changed a little to where we did
accumulate up to $8 million. I don't know what we need to keep as
a cushion, but whatever 15 that is we keep it and then we are look
into -- I don't care if it is three cents that goes back to a
ratepayer, that is three cents that should go back to them, and
not to the State to spend where they want to spend it, if they
want to have money in the budget. And now undoubtedly won't have
it in the budget right now. So my directive is that we look at how
we go about refunding when we got that $8 million again, to give
to someone, give back back to someone.

So the PSC was already drawing up plans to return the money back
to ratepayers. Converting the lawsuit into a class action would
lengthen the process and it would ensure trial lawyers would get a
handout from the state.

Bananas must have forgotten that the PSC had already decided the
issue. They were going to refund it back to ratepayers.
But Bananas works for the trial lawyers and his campaign
contributors, not the people of Louisiana.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Freeland Couple Files Flooring Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a Freeland couple is suing Lumber
Liquidators over flooring allegedly laced with toxic levels of
formaldehyde that exceed California Air Resources Board standards.

Carinne D. and Andrew M. Karlick filed a lawsuit March 9 in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  It is one
of dozens of class action lawsuits that have been filed against
Lumber Liquidators in the wake of a "60 Minutes" report.

The plaintiffs seek restitution of the money they spent on the
flooring products, as well as the cost of replacing the products,
injunctive relief and damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Noah Axler of Donovan Axler LLC
of Philadelphia.

U.S. District for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, case No.
3:15-CV-00474


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Has Expected to Face DOJ Criminal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators has told investors it expects to have to face
criminal charges from the U.S. Department of Justice related to an
ongoing investigation over imported products, reports Dan McCue at
Courthouse News Service.

In a regulatory filing on April 29, Lumber Liquidators, which
touts itself as the nation's largest specialty retailer of
hardwood flooring, said the Justice Department has informed the
company it is seeking criminal charges over its foreign sourcing.

A report on the CBS television news magazine "60 Minutes" in March
said that laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators sources from China
contains high levels of formaldehyde, a colorless but strong-
smelling chemical that has been classified as a probable human
carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In its most recent Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, covering the quarter that ended on March 31,
2015, Lumber Liquidators says sealed search warrants were executed
at its Toano, Virginia corporate headquarters in September 2013 by
the Department of Homeland Security's Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement Division and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Since then, the Company has been cooperating with the federal
authorities, including the Department of Justice, in their
investigation.  In recent communications, the DOJ indicated that
it is seeking criminal charges under the Lacey Act," the filing
says.

In response, Lumber Liquidators said it has formed a special
committee of its board of directors to make decisions surrounding
the matter, and to "continue to communicate with the DOJ regarding
its intentions and possible courses of action in this matter," the
filing says.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment
on the situation, saying only "This matter remains under
investigation."

Lumber Liquidators' filing also disclosed that it faces at least
100 pending class-action lawsuits related to its Chinese-made
laminate flooring.

During a conference call with investors on April 29, company CEO
Robert Lynch said, "We care deeply about our customers."

Lynch also said the company has sent worried consumers about
13,000 free air testing kits, but declined to discuss any results
he might be aware of and what Lumber Liquidators does or plans to
do when a test comes back positive for the presence of
formaldehyde.


MASSACHUSETTS: Former Inmates Settle Strip Search Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry, writing for MassLive.com, reports that more than
170 former inmates of the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's
Correctional Center have reached a preliminary settlement in a
class action lawsuit against the Hampden County Sheriff's
Department over strip search procedures at the Chicopee jail.

The plaintiffs settled for $675,000 with $500,000 going to
attorney's fees and expenses.  Of the balance, $20,000 will go to
lead plaintiff Debra Baggett, four additional plaintiffs who were
deposed in the case will receive $2,000 each and the rest of the
class members will receive around $850 apiece, according to the
settlement.

Lawyers and two of the plaintiffs, including Ms. Baggett, appeared
in U.S. District Court on April 9 for a hearing during which
attorneys from both sides asked Judge Michael A. Ponsor to approve
the preliminary settlement.

Class members objected to male corrections officers holding
cameras to photograph strip searches, although they had been
instructed to film the process without looking, according to
lawyers for Hampden County Sheriff Michael J. Ashe Jr.

The plaintiffs argued the strip search video process was
nonetheless degrading and unnecessary and violated their
constitutional rights.

"This is a good day but I know there are better days on the
horizon," Ms. Baggett said after the court hearing.  "These ladies
are coming out of prison traumatized and belittled . . . In the
meantime pompous blowhards get to have clambakes and tell everyone
what great fellows they are."

Ms. Baggett was referring to Mr. Ashe's annual clambake, which
historically has drawn politicians all the way up to sitting
governors and every candidate and incumbent in between.

However, Judge Ponsor recognized Mr. Ashe as a "progressive and
compassionate sheriff" during the hearing.

Afterward, Theresa Finnegan, an attorney for Mr. Ashe, said the
case has never been about male staff leering at women during strip
searches, in the jail's estimation.

"There was never any credible evidence that any male broke policy
and training and observed any portion of a strip search,"
Ms. Finnegan said.  "This included thousands of pages of
paperwork, several depositions, interviews with prior inmates and
staff. There were no written grievances that it happened by any
inmate."

Ms. Finnegan also said that the jail began revamping its policies
around strip searches by shuffling staff in 2010, and that no male
staffed had manned cameras in that context since 2013.

The plaintiffs were represented by Howard Friedman and David
Milton of Boston.

Ms. Baggett called them "Neiman Marcus attorneys that ended up
accepting a WalMart price."

The lawsuit was filed in 2011.


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 1st Phase of Fresno Case Was to End March 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the first phase of the
Fresno class action case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2014 and was expected to conclude in late March 2015.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno
Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno
County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a
substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have
certified the class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly
5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the
Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
damages for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento
case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed
and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage
reimbursement under the California Civil Code for mileage.  In the
Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code."

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address damages, if any.  On
September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for
the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The
Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage
reimbursement or owes any damages," the Company said.

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase will address independent
contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the
second phase will address damages, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and is
expected to conclude in late March 2015.

"We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will
ultimately prevail.  As a result, we have not established a
reserve in connection with the cases.  While we believe that a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely,
given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists
that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could
result in future charges that could have a material impact.  We
have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of
probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make
appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and
developments in litigation," the Company said.


MERCER CANYONS: Judge Allows Farm Workers' Class Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMATV.com reports that Judge Stanley A. Bastian ruled on April 8
that a case involving over 600 farm workers may move ahead as a
class action writing: "This case is a good reminder that employers
must take care to comply with all applicable employment laws and
regulations."

The case was filed last year alleging that, in 2013, Mercer
Canyons misled local farm workers when it failed to tell them
about available, higher paying jobs under the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program and underpaid those who did the work
in violation of federal and state law.  Bacilio Ruiz and
Jose Amador, two farm workers who filed the lawsuit, were
approved as class representatives.  Both worked or tried to get
work at Mercer Canyons in 2013 and contend that the corporation
failed to inform them that vineyard jobs were available paying $12
an hour, as required by law.

Mercer Canyons, one of the largest fruit and vegetable growers on
the West Coast based in Alderdale, WA, grows vegetables and
grapes.  In early 2013, Mercer Canyons applied for foreign H-2A
workers and promised the federal government that it would comply
with all federal and state employment laws.  However, the
corporation failed to notify all vineyard workers that there were
jobs available at $12 an hour as promised in their application.

"This is a case about a sophisticated employer taking advantage of
hard-working farm worker families who have contributed to the
company and our community," said Columbia Legal Services Attorney
Lori Isley.  "If a grower wants to benefit from importing foreign
labor through the H-2A program, they have to play by the rules."

As detailed in the case, when Amador and two family members
inquired about work at Mercer Canyons, they were told that none
was available.  Mr. Ruiz had worked at Mercer Canyons throughout
2012 and in 2013, but the company never told him that vineyard
work was available paying $12 an hour -- instead he made primarily
$9.88 an hour for his work.

"Clearly, there were experienced, local workers -- including the
Plaintiffs and others just like them -- who were ready, able, and
interested to work for Mercer Canyons," said Adam Berger, an
attorney with Schroeter Goldmark Bender which represents the
plaintiff farm workers along with Columbia Legal Services.  "When
corporations like Mercer Canyons deceive local workers and violate
federal and state employment laws, farm workers and their families
suffer."

The case is asking the court to award each of the Plaintiffs and
other members of the class wages unlawfully paid to foreign H-2A
workers and other damages.  Trial is scheduled for August 2015.


MERCER CANYONS: Owner Disappointed With Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley A. Bastian, of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington, delivered a disappointing and
surprising ruling for Mercer Canyons, Inc., granting plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of workers and over 600 alleged job
seekers who the plaintiffs claim were not informed about the
availability of 19 H-2A jobs and granting plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of vineyard workers who were allegedly underpaid
for certain work.

Mercer Canyons is a family-owned farm located south of Prosser,
Washington near the Columbia River. In 2013, out of a concern that
it would not be able to maintain a sufficient seasonal workforce,
Mercer Canyons elected to use the federal H-2A program to hire
foreign workers for temporary seasonal work in its vineyards.
Under this government-approved program, both the federal and state
government authorized Mercer Canyons to hire up to 44 foreign
workers to perform specific tasks in its vineyards. Through
efforts to recruit local workers, Mercer Canyons hired 22 local
workers to fill the 44 slots, and ended up hiring only 19 foreign
workers, all of whom were paid the higher wage rate required by
the H-2A regulations.

In addition, Mercer Canyons paid the same higher wage rate to
other domestic workers performing H-2A designated work. Plaintiffs
filed a lawsuit alleging that Mercer Canyons was misled farm
workers about the availability of jobs under the H-2A program and
failed to pay them the correct wages for some work performed in
2013.

No court or government agency has found that Mercer Canyons
violated any provision of the H-2A regulations. Mercer Canyons' H-
2A program was reviewed and approved by both the federal and state
government.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class that included vineyard
workers who had worked at Mercer Canyons in 2012, workers who
sought employment at Mercer Canyons in 2013, and vineyard workers
who had worked at Mercer Canyons in 2013. In addition, plaintiffs
sought to certify a subclass of 2013 vineyard workers who
allegedly were not paid the correct wages.

Judge Bastian certified a class of workers and job seekers
alleging that they were misled about the availability of the 19 H-
2A jobs filled by foreign workers. In this ruling, the court
appeared to rely upon plaintiffs' assertion that Mercer Canyons
had to inform every farmworker it had contact with about the
availability of H-2A work, without pointing to any legal
requirement to do so.

Judge Bastian also certified a class of 2013 Mercer Canyons
vineyard workers who allegedly were underpaid for certain work,
accepting plaintiffs' assertion that it is permissible to
determine underpayment in the aggregate without determining
whether any individual class member actually was injured, and
disregarding one of the plaintiff's testimony that Mercer Canyon
had paid him correctly.

"We are extremely disappointed in the decision and shocked in its
reasoning," said Rob Mercer, owner of Mercer Canyons. He added,
"Mercer Canyons has a rich and long tradition in that Yakima
Valley of treating its workers well, and we take the allegations
in the lawsuit very seriously. We will continue to vigorously
defend the farm against what we believe are misguided claims and
any court decision that is fundamentally flawed."


MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Suit Filed Over Gas Fireplaces
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit covering all of Canada was commenced in
December 2012 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Miles Industries Ltd., Canadian Heating Products, Inc., Monessen
Hearth Canada, Inc., and Monessen Hearth Systems Company, doing
business as Vermont Castings Group, alleging that between January
1, 2001 and December 31, 2014 these manufacturers installed gas
burning glass fronted fireplaces, fireplace inserts and stoves
that are a danger to anyone who touches the hot glass,
particularly young children.

A proposed settlement has been reached that must still be approved
by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to be effective.  The
settlement provides that all class members who have a fireplace,
fireplace insert or stove of one of those manufacturers may
receive free of charge a protective screen or barrier.


MILLER ENERGY: Final Settlement in Class Action Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the final
settlement in a class action was approved by the court, and the
case was dismissed with prejudice.

The Company said, "In August 2011, several purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The lawsuits made similar
claims and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. The suit
names us, along with several of our current and former executive
officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, David
Voyticky, and Deloy Miller, as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege
two causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money damages
against us and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. We have filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case, which was denied on February 4, 2014 as to all defendants
save Ford Graham. On July 3, 2014, we agreed upon a settlement
with the Plaintiffs under which the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
the lawsuit with prejudice in exchange for a settlement payment of
$2,950, which was within the remaining policy limits of our
director and officer insurance policy. The final settlement was
approved by the court, and the case was dismissed with prejudice,
as of February 3, 2015, subsequent to the end of the Company's
third fiscal quarter."


MIMEDX GROUP: Law Firm Filed Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Mimedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 19, 2015,
one of the law firms that filed one of the class action lawsuits
filed a separate purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to various statements
and alleged omissions related to the Company's receipt of a
subpoena from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, or OIG.  The Company has not yet been
served in the lawsuit. If and when it is served, the Company
intends to vigorously defend the suit. Currently, the Company
believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


MINNESOTA: Commerce Dept. Sued Over Unclaimed Property Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mohr, writing for Crime & Courts, reported that a class-
action lawsuit says the Minnesota Department of Commerce designed
a system to collect unclaimed property and money that benefits
government coffers but leaves rightful property owners in the
dark.

The suit, filed in Ramsey County District Court, says "Minnesota's
policy of taking possession of property it knows it does not own
and then selling, keeping, or otherwise benefiting from" the
property -- valued at more than $600 million -- "violates the due
process clauses of the United States and Minnesota constitutions."

The suit was filed by Timothy Hall Jr., who claims he didn't get a
final paycheck after he left a retail job and never got notice it
was available. He was alerted to his unclaimed property by his
father, who found it on missingmoney.com, the website the state
uses to help people track their property, the lawsuit said.

Hall's attorney, Dan Hedlund of the firm Gustafson Gluek in
Minneapolis, said his client pursued a class-action suit because
"he wasn't pleased with the situation of people not getting their
money back. And he was surprised to find out that he had money
owed to him that he hadn't received notice about."

The lawsuit's main points:

   -- The state has made great efforts to collect unclaimed
      property, which includes money and personal items, but has
      made little effort to notify property owners who can claim
      what belongs to them.

   -- The unclaimed money goes into the state's general fund,
      meaning the "state has profited enormously," the suit
      asserts.

The class action asks the court to determine whether the state's
seizure of unclaimed property without notifying owners constitutes
a "taking" -- in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which requires
"just compensation" if private property is taken for public use.

It also asks for a ruling on whether the state's use of a website
where people can search for their names is adequate notification.

Unclaimed property in Minnesota is overseen by the state
Department of Commerce and regulated by the state's Unclaimed
Property Act, which was enacted in 1969 and has been amended
several times.

Before the court weighs in on the issues, the Unclaimed Property
Act could change again.

Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, has introduced a bill
that addresses the same concerns as the lawsuit. It is awaiting a
floor vote in the House, Atkins said.

Atkins proposes adding three requirements:

   -- Publication of property owners' names in a newspaper.
   -- Proactive efforts to notify owners they have unclaimed
      property being held.
   -- Providing names of property owners to legislators, who
      would conduct their own outreach to constituents on the
      list.

"We have a lot of other people's money that belongs to them, not
us, and we ought to be doing a better job of getting it back to
the rightful owners," Atkins said.

Atkins said the state ramped up efforts about 10 years ago to
collect unclaimed assets from insurance companies and other
financial institutions, which resulted in huge increases to the
funds.

The value of unclaimed funds and property in the program at the
end of fiscal year 2006 was more than $318 million, according to a
spokesman for the Commerce Department. As of a few weeks ago, it
was more than $654 million.

"The number of claims being processed has increased
significantly," said Ross Courson, spokesman for the department.

In the first nine months of the current fiscal year, 13,759 claims
were processed, Courson said. That's more than the total 13,052
claims of the last fiscal year, he said.

"That's partly because the Commerce Department has revamped its
claims processing to make it more consumer-friendly," he said.
That includes an easier-to-use website and fewer documentation
requirements, he said.

While the commerce department has increased its efforts to reach
property owners, it hasn't been enough, Atkins said.

"Something has to change here," Atkins said. "Even with greater
efforts by the department, we're still falling behind in getting
people their money."

It's unclear what effect passage of Atkins' bill would have on the
class-action lawsuit.

In California, where a similar class-action suit was filed,
lawmakers changed the unclaimed property law, requiring the state
to notify owners before property was taken into state custody.

The California class action sought an additional effort of state
officials to track down property owners using all available
databases. On appeal, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
dismissal of the case, saying the law's new notification
requirements were sufficient.

Hall's class-action lawsuit says, "The purpose of the (Minnesota
law) is to protect consumers by placing unclaimed property in the
custody of the state pending its return to its rightful owners.

"But Minnesota seizes and uses private property for its own
substantial benefit under the (Unclaimed Property Act) without
making any meaningful effort to locate the rightful owners of this
unclaimed property."

Hedlund, Hall's attorney, said he sees this as a problem with a
solution.

"I think with some modest efforts, there could be great strides to
reunite people with their money," he said. "And our hope is that
this lawsuit will accomplish just that, either in law changes or
in how the Department of Commerce deals with it. Because just
setting up computers and telling people about missingmoney.com is
insufficient to do what needs to be done to reunite these people
with their money."


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Indicated It Would Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the
court has indicated that it would approve a class action
settlement.

The Company said, "On June 11, 2012, we announced the pending
restatement of the Company's financial statements for the periods
ending on or before April 30, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012
Announcement"), related to the Company's accounting treatment of
rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The
restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013.
After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company
commenced three purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the
circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the
"Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively:

* Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");

* Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

* Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.
On March 26, 2014, following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the
Company answered the Amended Complaint.

In October 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a
proposed $4 million class settlement to be covered by insurance
proceeds, subject to Court approval. On November 24, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, certification of the settlement class, and provision
of notice of the settlement to the settling class. The Court held
a final approval hearing for the settlement on March 11, 2015, at
which the Court indicated that it would approve the settlement and
enter an order as proposed by the parties. Once the Court has
entered its order of final judgment, this matter will be
concluded.


NEW JERSEY: Kelly, Wildstein in Default in Bridgegate Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, report that
Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein, two figures at the center of
the Bridgegate scandal, have been found in default in connection
with a putative class action suit brought on behalf of individuals
and businesses who experienced traffic delays caused by the
September 2013 closures of local access lanes to the George
Washington Bridge.

The clerk of court found Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein in default
May 4. Both were properly served, but neither filed a pleading or
response to the complaint, interim class counsel Barry Epstein
said in his request for default.

Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein are among the defendants named in the
class action, Galicki v. State of New Jersey, which seeks damages
for the traffic delays on the week of Sept. 9, 2013.  The civil
suit claims Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Gov.
Chris Christie, and Mr. Wildstein, a former Christie appointee to
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were part of a
scheme to cause extreme traffic delays in Fort Lee in retaliation
for the failure of the town's mayor, Mark Sokolich, to endorse
Mr. Christie's reelection campaign.

Ms. Kelly accepted service of the complaint in the civil suit at
her home in Ramsey in May 2014, according to a court document.
She was required to issue a response to the court by July 4, 2014,
but failed to do so, according to a filing by Mr. Epstein.

Mr. Wildstein was served in January 2015 when the complaint was
affixed to the door of his residence in Montville, a court
document said.  He was required to answer the complaint by
March 12, 2015, but failed to do so, Epstein said in a filing.

The default order comes on the heels of Mr. Wildstein's May 1
guilty plea to one count each of conspiracy to misapply Port
Authority property and conspiracy against civil rights in a
criminal case stemming from the lane closures, and the unsealing
of an indictment on the same date that charged Ms. Kelly with
conspiracy to misapply and misapplication of Port Authority
property, as well as counts for conspiracy to commit wire fraud,
wire fraud, conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of
civil rights.

The civil suit seeks to recover on behalf of individuals and
business owners who sustained physical or psychological injury or
economic damages as a result of the defendants' conduct.  In
addition to Kelly and Wildstein, the defendants include
Mr. Christie; his reelection campaign; the state of New Jersey;
the Port Authority; former Port Authority deputy executive
director Bill Baroni; Bill Stepien, a former deputy chief of staff
to Christie; and Michael Drewniak, a former press secretary to
Christie.  All of the defendants aside from Kelly and Wildstein
are represented by counsel.  The state, the Port Authority, the
Christie campaign, Stepien, Drewniak and Baroni have moved to
dismiss the class suit, and the state and Drewniak have also moved
to strike the class-action allegations and claims.  The plaintiffs
have until May 18 to file papers opposing those motions.

Mr. Epstein, the interim class counsel, said he sought to serve
Ms. Kelly through her lawyer in the criminal case,
Michael Critchley Sr., but he refused to accept service.

Mr. Epstein said events in the criminal case had served to delay
progress in the civil case.  Yet the criminal charges would also
help "show there was a conspiracy going on with multiple parties
that caused the traffic jam in violation of lots of laws,"
Mr. Epstein said, adding that the default would allow him to
collect against Ms. Kelly and Mr. Wildstein even if he does not
prevail against the other parties.  But the case is a long way
from any discussion of damages, Mr. Epstein said.

Mr. Epstein also said he does not plan, based on what he knows
now, to seek testimony from Christie in this case.

Mr. Critchley and Alan Zegas, who represents Mr. Wildstein in the
criminal case, did not return calls about the civil suit.


OCEAN SPRAY: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Weinstein, Esq. and Benjamin Rattner, Esq. of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for National Law Review, report that Class
certification in false advertising cases often fails due to
problems with the class itself such as ascertainability.  But what
happens when a class action plaintiff admits she didn't rely upon
the purportedly deceptive claims in making her purchasing
decision? A recent decision in California's "food court" may
provide an answer.

In Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. before a federal court
in the Northern District of California , the plaintiff alleged
that Ocean Spray labeled its 100% juice products deceptively.
Specifically, plaintiff claimed that Ocean Spray's 100% juice
products boasted that they had "no sugar added," but, contrary to
the requirements of 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.60(c)(2) which California
adopted, the labels of these juices omitted a disclaimer that they
were not a "low calorie" or "calorie reduced" food. Plaintiff
alleged that this omission rendered the 100% juice labels
misleading under California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, and its Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  She
further alleged that the "no sugar added" claim was literally
false because the 100% juice products allegedly included fruit
juice concentrate -- an ingredient banned from products labeled
"no sugar added" by federal and state regulations.

Ocean Spray moved for partial summary judgment on these claims,
while plaintiff attempted to certify a class with herself
appointed as the lead plaintiff.  Among other things, Ocean Spray
highlighted plaintiff's deposition testimony wherein she conceded
that she did not believe Ocean Spray's 100% juice products to be
low calorie drinks.  Ocean Spray also submitted evidence
supporting plaintiff's understanding that "no sugar added" meant
that there was no sugar present aside from what naturally existed
in the fruit matched the way Ocean Spray blended its 100% juice.

The Court granted Ocean Spray's motion for partial summary
judgment.  In granting Ocean Spray's motion, the Court held that
the "no sugar added" claim had not even deceived the plaintiff,
and therefore she had not relied upon the deception alleged in the
complaint when purchasing the 100% juice products.  Accordingly,
plaintiff could not establish the necessary causation for a false
advertising claim to advance.  The Court also found the "no sugar
added" claim was not literally false as plaintiff alleged because
Ocean Spray used fruit juice from concentrate, not concentrated
fruit juice, which contains sugar in excess of the amount that
naturally exists in the fruit.

Notably, the Court applied its summary judgment ruling against the
plaintiff's class certification motion.  In doing so, the Court
held that an individual plaintiff's lack of reliance on the "no
sugar added claim" prevented the Court from certifying a class.
It remains to be seen whether plaintiff will appeal this ruling
and whether other courts will follow the food court's lead in
holding that admissions of non-reliance by the lead plaintiff can
prevent a class from being certified.  However, class plaintiffs
that cannot substantiate causation and actual deception are liable
to see their unripe claims pulped and put on ice.


OMEGA FLEX: Judges Granted Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two putative class
action cases were filed against the Company; one in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida titled Hall v. Omega
Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega Flex, Inc.  In both
cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they are exposed to an
increased likelihood of harm if one of the plaintiffs' houses that
contain TracPipe corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) is
struck by lightning, that could damage the CSST causing a release
of fuel gas in the house and causing a fire.  However, none of the
lead plaintiffs have suffered any actual harm.  In 2014, the
judges in both cases granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the plaintiff's claims due primarily to a lack of jurisdiction
because there is no actual case or controversy posed by these
claims.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased Orexigen Therapeutics,
Inc. stock OREX, +0.20% between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015.
You are hereby notified that a class action has been commenced in
the USDC for the Southern District of California. If you purchased
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. ("Orexigen") securities between March
3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, your rights may be affected by this
action. To get more information, go to:
HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/OREX-INFOSHEET or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-
7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint alleges that as part of the FDA's post-marketing
approval process for its drug Contrave, Orexigen was required to
conduct a "new . . . study to evaluate the effects of long-term
treatment with Contrave on the incidence of [major adverse cardiac
events] in overweight and obese subjects with [cardiovascular]
disease or multiple [cardiovascular] risk factors." The complaint
alleges that on March 3, 2015, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim
results of its ongoing study despite the fact that the Company had
been previously admonished by the FDA for inappropriately
releasing interim study data. On March 5, 2015, a report published
by Forbes quoted a purported FDA official as saying the interim
data from the study was probably "unreliable" and "misleading" and
suggesting that Orexigen could "face fines, civil penalties, or
even the withdrawal of Contrave from the market."

If you suffered a loss in Orexigen you have until May 11, 2015to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Discovery Stayed Under 2nd Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Second
Scheduling Order in a class action lawsuit stays all discovery in
the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered
oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument
on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was
held on April 29, 2014. A decision from the court on the motions
to dismiss is pending.

The Second Scheduling Order stays all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informs the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
will be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

The matter is currently progressing through the legal process. The
Orrstown Defendants believe that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against those claims. Considering that no ruling has
been made on the motions to dismiss, discovery in the proceeding
remains stayed and class certification has not been granted, it is
not possible to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a
range of reasonably possible losses, at this time in connection
with SEPTA's putative class action complaint.


PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Actions Filed by Welch and Berliner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust is facing class actions filed by Thomas
Welch and Ralph Berliner, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in
connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and
provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to
the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any
such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may
ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the consolidated action, and has not established
any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold
estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs
associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any
time.


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Plaintiffs Have Yet to Amend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in a
class action have indicated that they intend to amend their
complaint but have not done so as of the date of this form 10-K.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Class Action)
was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the
County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with
Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, both currently in Chapter
11 bankruptcy. The lawsuit, which initally asserted two claims for
violations of state securities laws and a third claim for aiding
breach of tort duties, names Pacific Continental Bank, along with
the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb,
Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C. and Umpqua Bank, as
defendants. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with
Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs
and attorneys' fees. Those complaints indicate the range of
damages sought by the putative class, which are claimed to be in
excess of $10 million.

The Class Action was removed from Oregon state court to the
Federal District Court for the District of Oregon. On October 27,
2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case to state court under exceptions to the Class Action Fairness
Act but also referred the case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Oregon to resolve the issue of equitable remand of
the case to state court.

On January 14, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to remand. The Class Action is now pending in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. After
defendants filed motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint in the federal court proceedings, asserting one claim
for violations of Oregon securities laws and omitting the second
claim for violations of Oregon securities laws and the third claim
for aiding breach of fiduciary duty. The Federal Court did not
resolve the motions to dismiss before the case was remanded to
State Court. Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to amend
their complaint but have not done so as of the date of this form
10-K.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend a securities related class action
lawsuit, including seeking dismissal of any amended complaint.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2012, three complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against us and certain of our executive officers and
one consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of
certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been
brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general,
include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results of our
bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February
5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions with the low-
numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)). After the court
issued two separate orders granting the Defendants' two separate
motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the court issued a third order
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended
complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal with respect to the court's order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with
respect to the appeal was filed on December 15, 2014 and the
Defendants' answering brief was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead
plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 27, 2015. We believe
that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action, including seeking dismissal of any
amended complaint."


PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: HIPA Offers "No Shelter" to Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy G. Hulton, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that back in 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort
of invasion of privacy -- fast forward to the recent string of
privacy breaches of personal information held by health care
facilities in Ontario. Along comes Hopkins v. Kay, 2014 ONSC 321
(CanLII), where patients from the Peterborough Regional Health
Centre (the "Hospital") have launched a $5.6 million class action
lawsuit against the Hospital alleging that approximately 280
patient records were intentionally and unlawfully accessed and
disseminated to third parties without the patients' consent.

The Hospital, in response, brought a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of
action, arguing that the claim was precluded by the Personal
Health Information Protection Act, 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A
("PHIPA") because the legislature intended PHIPA to be a
comprehensive code that displaces any common law cause of action,
including intrusion upon seclusion (aka the tort of breach of
privacy). The Hospital's position is that the plaintiffs' only
recourse is a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Hospital's
motion to strike, concluding that it was not plain and obvious
that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the
Hospital launched an appeal of this decision.

The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently held that the Hospital
cannot escape from the proposed class action proceeding on the
basis of the provisions of PHIPA.

The proposed class action was launched by a former patient whose
records were improperly accessed. Her claim was based on the
common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a claim recognized by
Ontario courts in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241.

The representative plaintiff, Erkenraadje Wensvoort, claims that
she attended the Hospital on several occasions for treatment of
injuries inflicted by her ex-husband. She eventually left her
husband, but still feared for her safety. Along with two hundred
eighty other patients, the plaintiff received two notices from the
Hospital notifying her that the privacy of her personal health
information has breached. The plaintiff was afraid that her ex-
husband had paid someone to access her records in order to try to
find her.

Wensvoort initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a cause
of action, but she later amended her statement of claim to contain
only the common law cause of action identified in Jones v. Tsige
for intrusion upon seclusion.

PHIPA is an Ontario law that governs the collection, use and
disclosure of personal health information. It also provides rules
to protect the confidentiality of that information and the privacy
of individuals, while facilitating the effective provision of
health care.

PHIPA provides that an individual may make a complaint to
Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission for contravention of
the Act and the Commissioner has powers to make a variety of
orders to ensure compliance with the Act.

The Court also noted that:

The possibility of recovering damages as a result of a breach of
PHIPA is the subject of s. 65:

65. (1) If the Commissioner has made an order under this Act that
has become final as the result of there being no further right of
appeal, a person affected by the order may commence a proceeding
in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that
the person has suffered as a result of a contravention of this Act
or its regulations.

(2) If a person has been convicted of an offence under this Act
and the conviction has become final as a result of there being no
further right of appeal, a person affected by the conduct that
gave rise to the offence may commence a proceeding in the Superior
Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has
suffered as a result of the conduct.

(3) If, in a proceeding described in subsection (1) or (2), the
Superior Court of Justice determines that the harm suffered by the
plaintiff was caused by a contravention or offence, as the case
may be, that the defendants engaged in willfully or recklessly,
the court may include in its award of damages an award, not
exceeding $10,000, for mental anguish.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that PHIPA does not allow the
Commissioner to award damages, and instead requires individuals to
bring an action in Superior Court to seek compensation for any
harm caused. The Court found that this undermines the argument
that the legislature intended to exclude courts from resolving
disputes governed by PHIPA.

The Court ultimately concluded that PHIPA does not confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the Commissioner to resolve all disputes
over misuse of personal health information, holding:
PHIPA's highly discretionary review procedure is tailored to deal
with systemic issues rather than individual complaints.

There is no basis to exclude the jurisdiction of the Superior
Court from entertaining a common law claim for breach of privacy
and, given the absence of an effective dispute resolution
procedure, there is no merit to the suggestion that the court
should decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

The health care community needs to be even more vigilant in its
efforts to protect the privacy of health information, now that
Hopkins has thrown the doors wide open to tort claims against
custodians of health information for privacy breaches.


PLY GEM: Approval of Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court's final
approval order of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement is under
appeal.

In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers,
Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Court"), plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of
the defective design and manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows.

In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc.
("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the
Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows.

On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn
cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making
similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's
V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The
plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and
compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages,
and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 that
would settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement
applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from
January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash
payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims
showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW
vinyl clad windows. The Court granted preliminary approval of this
settlement on May 23, 2014, and issued a Final Approval Order,
Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on December
29, 2014, granting final approval of the settlement as well as
MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel
in the amount of $2.5 million. On January 13, 2015, notice of
appeal of the final approval was given by certain objectors to the
settlement, Karl Memari, Joelene Connor-Hethcox and Vincent Cecil
Garrett, Jr.

As the Court's final approval order is under appeal, the
settlement is not yet final, and if the Court's final approval
order is overturned on appeal, the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement
will not be binding on the parties. The Company and MW deny all
liability in the settlement and with respect to the facts and
claims alleged.

"We, however, are aware of the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and agreed
to settle the litigation to avoid these," the Company said.

"As a result of this settlement, we recognized a $5.0 million
expense during the year ended December 31, 2014 within selling,
general, and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement
of operations in the Company's Windows and Doors segment. It is
possible that we may incur costs in excess of the recorded
amounts; however, we currently expect that the total net cost to
resolve the lawsuits will not exceed approximately $5.0 million.
Approximately $4.6 million of this liability is currently
outstanding, with $2.6 million as a current liability within
accrued expenses and $2.0 million as a noncurrent liability within
other long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet as
of December 31, 2014."


PLY GEM: Class Certification in "Memari" Case Not Yet Scheduled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing regarding
class certification has not yet been scheduled as the Memari case
is currently stayed pending the appeal in the Gulbankian and
Hartshorn matters.

In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive
damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Discovery regarding class certification has closed, however, the
hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled
as this case is currently stayed pending the appeal in the
Gulbankian and Hartshorn matters. While the damages sought in this
action have not yet been quantified, it is expected that, if the
settlement of the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases receives final
approval after appeal, it will result in the dismissal of this
action.


PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling Yet in "Pagliaroni" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not yet
ruled on the class certification in the case filed by Anthony
Pagliaroni.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff
seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Discovery regarding class certification has closed and the hearing
regarding class certification was held on March 10, 2015, although
the Court has not yet ruled on this hearing. Deceuninck, as the
manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify
MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the
sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck
and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is,
however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.


PLY GEM: Faces Class Action by Aaron Kraemer
--------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in Aaron Kraemer v. Ply
Gem Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in
February 2015 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of MW's Mira aluminum clad wood
windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i)
actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, (iii)
injunctive and declaratory relief, and (iv) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not
yet been quantified.


PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have filed
their motion to dismiss the Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Securities
Litigation.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers.

"We believe the purported federal securities class action is
without merit and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit," the
Company said.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Has Yet to File Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of
March 4, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has
yet to file a consolidated amended complaint.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously
against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this
litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this
time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be
reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements as the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not
estimable at this time.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order. As of
March 4, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff has yet to file a consolidated
amended complaint.


QUIKSILVER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased  securities of  Quiksilver, Inc., from
June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who
suffered losses on Quiksilver securities purchased within the
Class Period to contact us immediately at (800) 575-0735 or email
classmember@whafh.com

According to the lawsuit, during the period between March 4, 2015
and March 27, 2015, the Company revealed that it would delay its
first quarter earnings report due to its audit committee
investigation of a "revenue cut-off issue," and that its internal
controls over financial reporting were not effective as of October
31, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the Company announced that its Chief Executive
Officer, Andy Mooney, and Chief Financial Officer, Richard
Shields, had left the Company.  In addition, the Company restated
its selected quarterly fiscal year 2014 balance sheet data and
income statement data as a result of a write-down concerning the
sale of its stake in Surfdome Shop Ltd.

If you purchased Quiksilver securities during the Class Period,
you may, no later than June 1, 2015, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Quiksilver
Investigation."


REACHLOCAL INC: Lawsuit Filed by Former Clients in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
ReachLocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lawsuit filed by one
of the Company's former clients is at an early stage.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a
class action, was filed by one of our former clients in the United
States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.
We filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was denied on
December 4, 2014. While the case is at an early stage, we believe
that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. Our
insurance carrier is providing us with a defense under a
reservation of rights."


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the Company expected final court approval hearing of a class
action settlement to take place in April 2015.

On March 1, 2013, Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Burger King
Corporation, Civ. Action No. 8-13-CV-00662 (U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland), a putative class action lawsuit,
was filed against Burger King Corporation in the U.S. District
Court of Maryland. The complaint alleges that Burger King
Corporation and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements by
fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the
United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of
the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff sought
monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 19, 2014, Burger
King Corporation agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit.
On December 2, 2014, the parties finalized a settlement agreement
which received preliminary court approval on December 2, 2014.

"We expect the final court approval hearing to take place in April
2015," the Company said.


ROCK CREEK: Court Scheduled Final Approval Hearing for June 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
scheduled a final approval hearing for June 22, 2015, in the
Securities Class Action Lawsuits.

Three individuals, Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty
Cole, filed separate similar purported class actions on behalf of
putative classes of persons or entities collectively encompassing
those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013. The
first action was filed on or about March 25, 2013 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Francis J. Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va.
Richmond Division, 13-00183-JAG (the "Reuter Action"). The Reuter
Action named as defendants the Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP Development,
Inc.), and certain of the Company's current or former officers
and/or employees. The second action was filed on or about March
26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al. D. Mass.
13-1-695-DJC (the "Boravian Action"). The Boravian Action named as
defendants the Company and Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. and was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The third action was filed
on or about May 7, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Cole v. Star Scientific, Inc. et
al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00287-JAG (the "Cole Action").
The Cole Action named as defendants, the Company, its subsidiary,
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP
Development, Inc.), and certain of its officers and employees.

In general, the complaints collectively allege that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder as related to statements made regarding its past and
future prospects and certain scientific data relating to its
products, as well as related to unspecified private placements and
related party transactions engaged in since 2006.  The Reuter
Action and the Cole Action have been consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court in the consolidated cases on
June 21, 2013. Pursuant to a joint scheduling order in place in
these cases, plaintiff filed a consolidated operative complaint on
September 5, 2013 and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated operative complaint on October 25, 2013.

Following full briefing and argument on January 7, 2014, the Court
indicated that it would not grant the motion at that time and
would allow the case to proceed to discovery, but ordered
additional briefing.  Also, the Court entered a scheduling order
for discovery and an order directing the parties to participate in
mediation before a Magistrate Judge. Defendants thereafter filed
answers.  Subsequently, the United States, on January 28, 2014,
moved to stay discovery in the case pending the completion or
other disposition of the criminal trial of former Governor
McDonnell and his wife. That motion was granted by the Court on
January 28, 2014. On February 12, 2014, the Court granted a joint
motion by the parties to stay all deadlines other than a court
sponsored mediation session and the issuance of the Court's
opinion on the motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2014, defendants
filed a motion for leave to submit new authority in support of
their motion to dismiss. On March 13, 2014, the Court granted
defendants' motion and ordered the submission of additional
supplemental briefs by the parties. Those briefs were filed on
March 19, 2014 and March 26, 2014. On June 11, 2014, a mediation
conference was held before Magistrate Judge David J. Novak. On
July 29, 2014, the parties participated in a private mediation and
reached an agreement in principle on a settlement dependent on
certain material conditions within the control of third-parties.

Following a status conference on October 10, 2014, which the court
ordered since the parties had not yet been able to finalize the
preliminary settlement, the court lifted the discovery stay, set a
trial date for May 18, 2015, and ordered briefing on class
certification and for the defendants to submit any motion to
dismiss. The parties continued to litigate.

On January 15, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of
settlement. On February 5, 2015, the parties filed an amended
stipulation of settlement and the lead plaintiff moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement. A preliminary approval
hearing was held on February 12, 2015, after which the Court
entered an order indicating that preliminary approval of the
settlement would be conditional on counsel submitting a new notice
to shareholders that the Court finds acceptable. The Court also
scheduled a final approval hearing for June 22, 2015. After the
parties filed a revised notice, the court on March 2, 2015 entered
an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for
notice. The Company has recorded the obligation and related
insurance proceeds receivable as of December 31, 2014.


ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Baldwin
filed an Amended Complaint against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific, Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock
Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc. in the Consumer
Class Action.

On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class
action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants.  The case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for
the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product.  The complaint purported to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.  The Company has
agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the
purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent
with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense
of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24,
2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint
against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific,
Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and GNC Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The Amended
Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van
Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri.
The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois
Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part,
for Anatabloc dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1,
2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and
a "Missouri Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole
or in part, for Anatabloc dietary supplement in Missouri between
August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household
uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1)
violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under Illinois law;
(4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7)
unjust enrichment.

Like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc, a dietary
supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid, and
promoted Anatabloc as a "wonder drug" with a number of medical
benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation
(associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic
brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these
claims in clinical trials or received FDA approval for Anatabloc,
and that Anatabloc "was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be."
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Anatabloc based upon claims
that it provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges
that he purchased Anatabloc to "reduce inflammation and pain in
his joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and
knee problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc to be
effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc to
help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that
Anatabloc did not provide the relief promised by the Defendants.

Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on
the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of
several additional states like the original Complaint, on February
10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant
to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535;
California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399;
Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5,
Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3);
Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code
Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as
state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to
Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of
similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated
state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and
deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc," and
demanding that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the damage
caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches and
return all monies paid by putative class members."


RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Deck Protector Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline, reported that a company that sells deck treatments
was sued on April 1 over allegations its newest product failed to
live up to claims of protecting decks for 10 years.

Michael Baden, Michael Allen, Cynthia Scaglione and Inese
Blanchard filed the lawsuit against Rust-Oleum alleging its
Restore product would chip and peel months after it was applied to
decks.

The lawsuit alleged that after months of using the product it
began to bubble and peel away, leaving the decks looking worse
than before applying the Restore.  The lawsuit alleged Rust-Oleum
continues to violate state law by marketing and selling the
product when it doesn't perform as advertised.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those who purchased the Restore
product and is asking for $5 million plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward A. Wallace and Amy E.
Keller, of Wexler Wallace, LLP in Chicago; Eric H. Gibbs, A.J. De
Bartolomeo and Steve Lopez, of Gibbs Law Group, LLP in Oakland,
Calif.; and William M. Audet and Theodore H. Chase, of Audet &
Partners, LLP in San Francisco.


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Sturms, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that on March 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit made a number of significant holdings in a case involving
a mutual fund advised by Charles Schwab Investment Management,
Inc. (CSIM). The following is a summary of the litigation to date,
including the recent findings by the Ninth Circuit:
In August 2008, North star Financial Advisors, Inc., on behalf of
its clients, filed a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Schwab Investments, a Massachusetts business trust, the board of
trustees of Schwab Investments and CSIM, setting forth a number of
claims based on allegations that the Schwab. Total Return Bond
Fund, a series of Schwab Investments for which CSIM serves as
investment adviser, deviated from its fundamental investment
policies. Specifically, between September 2007 and February 2009,
the Fund is alleged to have: (1) deviated from its fundamental
investment objective to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate
Bond Index, the Fund's benchmark, by investing in non-U.S. agency
collateralized mortgage obligations that were not included in the
Index; and (2) invested in non agency mortgage-backed securities
and collateralized mortgage obligations in excess of fundamental
investment policies prohibiting the Fund from investing more than
25% of its total assets in any industry and investing more than
25% of its total assets in U.S. agency and non-agency mortgage-
backed securities and CMOs. As a result of these investments, the
Fund significantly underperformed its benchmark during the
relevant period.

The plaintiffs' initial complaint asserted a number of claims
relating to this activity, including: a violation of Section 13(a)
of the 1940 Act, which prohibits a fund from, among other things,
deviating from a fundamental investment policy without shareholder
approval; a breach of fiduciary duty by the Fund's board of
trustees relating to a denial of voting rights; a breach of a
purported contract between Fund shareholders and Schwab
Investments created when shareholders voted in 1997 to change the
Fund's fundamental investment policies to those alleged to have
been violated; and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

The defendants initially moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that
North star, the lead plaintiff, had no standing to sue because it
never itself invested in the Fund, and that there is no private
right of action under Section 13(a). The U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California agreed that Norths tar had no
standing to sue but allowed a shareholder's claim to be assigned
to North star to cure the deficiency. While the District Court
initially ruled against the defendants on the Section 13(a) claim,
the defendants ultimately prevailed on appeal, where the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that there was
no private right of action under that section.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to re
move the Section 13(a) claim and add a claim for breach of the
investment advisory contract between Schwab Investments and CSIM,
which required CSIM to manage the Fund in accordance with the
Fund's fundamental investment objectives and policies, on a theory
that plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of the contract.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that all
of the plaintiffs' claims should be precluded by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which prohibits class
actions brought by more than 50 plaintiffs if the action is based
on state law claims and alleges either a material
misrepresentation or omission or the use of manipulation or
deception in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
On this point, the District Court agreed that all of the
plaintiffs' claims, with the exception of the fiduciary duty claim
to the extent it was based purely on Massachusetts law, should be
precluded by SLUSA because such claims all related essentially to
misrepresentations by the defendants, in the Fund's prospectuses
and other documents, relating to how the Fund would be managed.
The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing claims, determining that the plaintiffs had failed to show
that the 1997 proxy vote created a contract between Schwab
Investments and Fund shareholders. The District Court also
determined that the harm from the purported breach of fiduciary
duty affected all shareholders equally and therefore was properly
viewed as being inflicted on the Fund; accordingly, the District
Court determined that the claim must be brought in a derivative
suit rather than individually by Fund shareholders. The District
Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to
reassert the fiduciary duty claim in a manner so as not to be
derivative or to implicate SLUSA. Finally, while the District
Court was not fully persuaded by the defendants' arguments that
Fund shareholders were not third-party beneficiaries of the
investment advisory contract, the District Court noted that this
claim, as previously presented, was precluded by SLUSA. The
District Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint to re-assert the third-party beneficiary claim in a
manner that did not trigger SLUSA preclusion.

In March 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint, w
hich contained revised breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Schwab Investments' board of trustees and CSIM as well as updated
breach of contract claims against CSIM under the third-party
beneficiary theory. The defendants again moved to dismiss all
claims. The District Court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs'
additional pleading on the fiduciary duty claims and dismissed
with prejudice all of the claims, determining that such claims
failed to allege a breach of duty owed directly to shareholders,
and that these claims would need to be brought derivatively. The
District Court also dismissed the third-party beneficiary claims
with prejudice, having not been persuaded by additional pleading
that shareholders should be considered third-party beneficiaries
of an investment advisory contract under California law.

The plaintiffs thereafter appealed a number of the claims
previously dismissed by the District Court, including the breach
of contract claim relating to the 1997 proxy vote, the fiduciary
duty claims and the third-party beneficiary claim relating to the
Fund's investment advisory contract.

On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the prior dismissal of these claims and remanded the case
for further deliberation. In reversing the prior dismissal of the
breach of contract claim relating to the 1997 proxy vote, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that "the mailing of the proxy statement
and the adoption of the two fundamental investment policies after
the shareholders voted to approve them, and the annual
representations by the Fund that it would follow these policies
are sufficient to form a contract between the shareholders on the
on e hand and [Schwab Investments] on the other." The Ninth
Circuit concluded that the Fund offered investors the right to
invest on the terms set forth in its proxy statement and
prospectuses, that shareholders accepted the offer by so
investing, that the investment or continued investment by
shareholders was the consideration and that the parties' object
was lawful, thereby satisfying the requirements for a contract.
The Ninth Circuit also vacated the prior dismissal of the plain
tiffs' fiduciary duty claims, disagreeing with the District
Court's determination that the plaintiffs "failed to successfully
allege a breach of any duty owed directly to Fund investors." The
Ninth Circuit pointed to the Fund's declaration of trust, which
states that "the Trustees hereby declare that they will hold all
cash, securities and other assets, which they may from time to
time acquire as Trustees hereunder IN TRUST to manage and dispose
of the same . . . for the pro rata benefit of the holders from
time to time of Shares of the Trust." In addition, citing cases
under Massachusetts law and various secondary sources, the Ninth
Circuit determined that trustees of a Massachusetts business trust
owe a fiduciary relationship to all trust shareholders, and that
"there is no logical basis for the argument that the trustees of a
mutual fund organized as a Massachusetts business trust owe a
fiduciary duty to the trust, rather than the shareholders, and
that for this reason they are limited to a derivative action on
behalf of the trust." The Ninth Circuit further identified general
differences between when a derivative action should be required in
the case of an operating corporation, where share prices rise and
fall as a by-product of business success and share price declines
may result from either unsuccessful decisions or fiduciary
misconduct, and in the case of a mutual fund, where there is no
business other than investing and any decrease in share price
flows directly and immediately to shareholders, which would
especially be true when such a decrease results from the violation
of a fundamental investment policy.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision below to dismiss
the third-party beneficiary claim relating to the Fund's
investment advisory contract, concluding that plaintiffs
adequately alleged that the investment advisory contract was
entered into with the intention to benefit Fund shareholders.
Among other things, the Ninth Circuit cited as evidence that
shareholders should be considered third party beneficiaries of the
investment advisory contract the requirement of the 1940 Act that
investment advisory contracts be approved by fund shareholders.

The Ninth Circuit declined to address the effect of SLUSA on the
various common law causes of action in the case and remanded the
case to the District Court to determine the applicability of SLUSA
to the plaintiffs' various claims.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Kuhl" Class Suit Over Orca Mistreatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that a
South Carolina woman has become the second plaintiff in the past
30 days to file a proposed class action lawsuit against SeaWorld
over allegations of deceptive marketing about whales in captivity.

The lawsuit is part of continuing fallout from attacks on
SeaWorld's culture, which came under fire in a 2013 documentary,
Blackfish, and again in a recent book by a former trainer, John
Hargrove.

The new lawsuit, filed in Orlando federal court, takes aim
specifically at the Florida SeaWorld location. A similar suit
filed in California in March targeted the SeaWorld locations in
San Diego and San Antonio also.

The new suit was filed by Gainesville attorney Paul Rothstein, on
behalf of South Carolina resident Joyce Kuhl.  Kuhl said she
bought a $97 ticket to SeaWorld Orlando in December of 2013.
The lawsuit alleges that Kuhl "relied on a false understanding of
the conditions and treatment of SeaWorld's orcas, given SeaWorld's
omission of fact regarding the treatment, longevity and well-being
of the orcas."

The suit includes a lengthy list of allegations about mistreatment
of whales at SeaWorld, including sunburn, living in cramped
spaces, short life spans, broken teeth, broken up whale families,
and intentional witholding of food.

SeaWorld said in a statement about the previous suit in California
that "SeaWorld is among the world's most respected zoological
institutions, regularly inspected by the U.S. government and two
professional zoological associations. The Association of Zoos and
Aquariums recently granted SeaWorld accreditation from its
independent Accreditation Commission. There is no higher priority
for SeaWorld than the health and well-being of its animals."

The Florida lawsuit proposes to eventually include all people who
bought a ticket at SeaWorld Orlando in the past four years.
Although the company doesn't release attendance figures for
individual parks, it reported in 2014 that annual attendance for
the three parks dropped 4.1 percent to 24.4 million visitors.
The California lawsuit was filed in March by an attorney that also
worked for Hargrove.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Author of 'Beneath the Surface' Warned
------------------------------------------------------
Ken Stone, writing for Times of San Diego, reported that a lawyer
writing on behalf of SeaWorld warned former killer whale trainer
John Hargrove against disclosing "confidential information" in his
then-upcoming book "Beneath the Surface."

Attorney Lawrence Iser, in a 580-word letter to Hargrove in mid-
November, said SeaWorld didn't consent to use of such information
in the book and demanded that he "immediately certify, in writing
and under oath," that he wouldn't divulge company secrets.

"Should you fail to make this certification as requested, SeaWorld
reserves its right to exercise all of its rights and remedies
against you (and Macmillan Publishing) at law and in equity, all
of which are hereby expressly reserved," said the letter.

The letter was provided to Times of San Diego by Hargrove.

When Hargrove described the letter as a threat intended to block
the critical book, SeaWorld spokesman Fred Jacobs said: "We never
threatened Hargrove with a lawsuit."

Hargrove signed an employee agreement in February 2008 but not the
"declaration" demanded by SeaWorld in the Nov. 13 letter from
Iser.

Was the letter a threat of legal action?

Iser said no, writing:

The concluding paragraph of my letter does not contain a threat to
sue Mr. Hargrove. Quite to the contrary, it constitutes a
reservation of rights that is typical of letters of this type.
You should be aware that when SeaWorld did not sue Mr. Hargrove,
his attorneys filed a meritless class action lawsuit against the
company in what appeared to be an attempt to garner publicity for
his book. The fact that Mr. Hargrove subsequently released to the
news media my letter is consistent with his apparent desire to
obtain additional publicity for himself and his book.
But experts with Californians Aware, a journalist resource group,
saw a threat in the letter.

"Yes," said a representative of CalAware, which mainly focuses on
government transparency. "It states that a book about his
experiences with SeaWorld would violate the nondisclosure
agreement that bound him as an employee and continues to bind him
as a former employee, and that SeaWorld intends to take legal
action to enforce the agreement."

However, CalAware said SeaWorld's power to enforce the agreement
was "very dubious."

"Generally, NDAs are enforceable to the extent they expressly
protect specific intellectual property, such as trade secrets that
would have demonstrable utility to a competitor if revealed,"
CalAware said. "This agreement purports to make all that the
employee learns about the company by working there confidential
and subject to the NDA in perpetuity -- a little like the British
Official Secrets Act."

SeaWorld itself didn't respond to requests for comment. Neither
has MacMillan, publisher of the book by the former SeaWorld San
Diego trainer.

Hargrove, 41, has said that MacMillan also received lawsuit
threats to block the book, which is No. 2 on The New York Times'
bestseller list for animal books.

CalAware cautioned that the SeaWorld letter, "coming from a
private, nongovernmental employer," is not a First Amendment
issue.

"Employers are free to try their best to gag employees from
disclosing what they learn on or because of the job," CalAware
said. "Whether a particular NDA will work is another question."

But Hargrove, who calls himself an orca advocate rather than
activist, says the letter is part of SeaWorld's efforts to silence
him. The Orlando-based company released a 5-year-old video showing
its former senior killer whale trainer drunk and using the N-word
seven times.

Hargrove, who also appeared in the documentary "Blackfish," has
repeatedly apologized for his taped behavior.

SeaWorld, meanwhile, has begun soliciting the public to join its
"Truth Team," part of a push to improve its reputation and blunt a
decline in stock value and attendance that led to the December
resignation of James Atchison, its CEO and president.

People who sign up for the SeaWorld newsletter are told: "As a
member of our special Truth Team, you'll receive weekly emails on
current topics and specific ways you can help spread the truth."
It told subscribers to be on the alert for "rapid response"
messages with "urgent action items" that require "immediate
attention."


SMITH & NEPHEW: Medical Device Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton, writing for Norton Rose Fulbright, reported that
a recent Alberta decision refusing to certify a proposed medical
device class action illustrates that in some cases a class action
is not preferable given the individual nature of the claims.

Overview of the case.

The defendant manufactured a hip resurfacing system used by
members of the proposed class as an alternative to a total hip
replacement. The representative plaintiff underwent the procedure
to implant this system and allegedly experienced problems,
including cobalt poisoning, which led to the system's removal.

Class counsel said he had been retained by nine additional class
members who had experienced similar problems with the resurfacing
system. The representative plaintiff sought to certify a class
action on behalf of all individuals in Canada who had had the
defendant's hip resurfacing system implanted.

Certification denied

The court rejected certification based on the following reasons.
First, the court found no evidence of a second individual who
suffered the same harm as the putative representative plaintiff.

In the court's view, it was not sufficient that counsel had
identified nine other individuals with similar problems without
identifying any of the other putative class members or their
evidence, or indeed any particulars at all beyond "similar
problems." The court viewed this as a description "so brief and
generic as to defeat any attempt to evaluate whether there is
'some basis in fact' to bare, conclusory allegations."

The court also rejected what little evidence it did have of other
class members as being hearsay and "double hearsay," with the
plaintiff describing claims that had been described to her
counsel.

Second, many of the common issues proposed by the plaintiff, such
as the question of whether a duty of care existed, were not in
dispute. Moreover, the plaintiff's proposed common issues did not
speak to the real issue of whether the product should have been on
the market at all.

Third, and most importantly, the court concluded that a class
action was not preferable. The court found that, contrary to the
requirements of section 5(2)(a) of the Alberta Class Proceedings
Act, a class action in relation to these claims would be
predominated by questions affecting individual class members.

Considering the many possible causes of the harm and the known and
disclosed risks of the procedure, the court held that causation
would be a significant issue for each individual class member. The
court rejected the argument that defining the issue as whether the
product should be on the market at all would result in the common
issue taking precedence.

Even if that were the common issue, the court noted that the
individual facts of each class member would still be important
with respect to consideration of causation and damages. In
addition, the court held it was unlikely a court could find the
product should not have been on the market considering it was
licensed both provincially and federally and had never been
subject to a recall.

Ultimately, the court held it would not be in the interests of
judicial economy to proceed with a class action where the common
issues are of little import compared to the individual ones.

Conclusion

This case is significant given the court's preferability analysis
and its consideration of the multitude of other potential causes
of injury to the putative class members, all of which made
individual considerations overwhelming compared to the proposed
common issues. The decision underlines and accepts many of the
arguments that defendants have been making for years in relation
to the individual nature of inquiries for claims in this area.


SYNGENTA AG: Objections to Proposed Benefit Work Order Overruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 14-MD-2591-JWL, (D. Kan.), Co-Lead-Counsel
(CLC) for plaintiffs have submitted to the Court on February 20,
2015, a a proposed Order Establishing Protocols for Common Benefit
Work and Expenses and Establishing the Common Benefit Fee and
Expense Funds. By order of March 6, 2015, the Court set a
telephone hearing to discuss the proposed order, set a deadline
for the filing of any objections to the proposed order, and
ordered CLC to respond to certain questions from the Court
concerning the proposed order. On March 20, 2015, CLC filed their
response to the Court's questions. On March 20, 2015, Syngenta
filed its objections, and CLC responded to those objections on
March 31, 2015. On March 25, 2015, a group of plaintiffs'
attorneys designated the Byrd Objectors or the Byrd Group filed
their objections to the proposed order, to which CLC responded on
March 31, 2015.

According to District Judge John W. Lungstrum's memorandum and
order entered May 8, 2015, a copy of which is available
http://is.gd/CcIqiWat from Leagle.com, the Court has overruled
all objections to CLC's latest proposed common benefit order other
than Syngenta's objection to the application of the order to cases
outside the MDL (including after remands to state court) where the
plaintiff's counsel has not agreed to be bound to the order. The
Court finds that other terms in the proposed order to which no
objection was lodged are reasonable and appropriate.

Thus, Syngenta's remaining objection is sustained; and objections
submitted by the Byrd Objectors and attorney Brandon Wise (by
letter of April 22, 2015) are overruled, ruled Judge Lungstrum. In
addition, the Court denied CLC's motion for approval of certain
agreements, and it denied the Byrd Objectors' motion to unseal
CLC's motion for approval.

CLC was directed to submit another revised proposed order that
conforms to the Court's rulings. Specifically, CLC must remove the
"Non-Paticipating Counsel" category; revise the "MDL Counsel"
category to exclude cases outside the MDL, including cases that
are remanded to state court; and revise the "Participating
Counsel" category to provide for execution of the agreement by
attorneys with respect to their non-MDL cases (even if they also
have cases within the MDL). Moreover, CLC must add language to
make clear that to the extent that funds collected from
assessments exceed the amounts approved by the Court for
distribution to attorneys performing common benefit work, that
excess will be refunded to those who have paid assessments on a
pro rata basis.


SYNGENTA AG: Two Cases in Corn Litigation Return to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Lungstrum issued on May 5, 2015, a
memorandum and order in IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN
LITIGATION, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/eaYjTu
from Leagle.com.  The document relates to: Cargill Inc., et al. v.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., No. 15-2018-JWL Archer Daniels Midland Co.
v. Syngenta Corp., et al., No. 15-2240-JWL Fornea-5, LLC v.
Syngenta AG, et al., No. 15-2017-JWL W. Edgar Wilman 2000 Trust,
et al. v. Syngenta Corp., et al., No. 15-2012-JWL, CASE NO. 14-MD-
2591-JWL, (D. Kan.).

In this multi-district litigation (MDL), various plaintiffs assert
claims against various entities related to Swiss company Syngenta
AG. Prior to their transfer to this Court, many of the cases were
removed to federal court by Syngenta from the state courts in
which they were originally filed. Although in some cases (for
instance, when the parties were diverse or when federal claims
were asserted) it cited additional bases for federal jurisdiction,
in each case Syngenta relied on the federal common law of foreign
relations in asserting that federal question jurisdiction arose
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. In four such cases, plaintiffs have
moved for remand back to state court, based on their argument that
the federal common law of foreign relations does not give rise to
federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 in these cases.

As an initial matter, in two of these four cases, Case Nos. 15-
2012-JWL and 15-2017-JWL, Syngenta also asserted federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d). In its Scheduling Order No. 1, the Court ordered
that any remand motion addressing any such basis for removal be
filed by March 12, 2015, but plaintiffs in those two cases have
not filed any motion addressing the removal of their cases under
CAFA.  Accordingly, because an independent basis for federal
jurisdiction exists in those two cases, the Court denies the
motion for remand as applied to Case Nos. 15-2012-JWL and 15-2017-
JWL.

In the remaining two cases, the Court concludes that the federal
common law of foreign relations does not give rise to federal
question jurisdiction under Section 1331. Accordingly, in Case
Nos. 15-2018-JWL and 15-2240-JWL, the Court grants the motion for
remand to state court in which they were originally filed.
Because the Court concludes that the federal issue in these cases
is not substantial, there is no basis for federal question
jurisdiction here, and these cases must be remanded to the state
courts for this reason as well.


SYSCO CORP: Merger Trial Begins in FTC Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Kicking off his opening arguments in a merger trial that pits the
Federal Trade Commission against Sysco Corp. and US Foods Inc.,
O'Melveny & Myers partner Richard Parker got a big laugh.

"You know you're in Washington when an antitrust trial draws a
crowd. If this was Minneapolis, no one would care," said
Mr. Parker, who represents Sysco in the contested $8.2 billion
deal.

Indeed, Courtroom 5 on the second floor at the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia was packed shoulder-to-shoulder with
about 100 onlookers including FTC Bureau of Competition head
Deborah Feinstein, FTC staff, private antitrust lawyers, investor
representatives and lawyers from state attorneys general offices.
Roughly 20 more people waited in the hallway outside, reduced to
peering through the windows in the courtroom doors until
courthouse staff made arrangements to put an audio feed in a
vacant room.

"I have to confess, I didn't expect this many people to be here,"
said U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who has scheduled four days
of hearings on the matter.

Litigated merger trials are rare, and the antitrust bar is keenly
following the showdown.

In February, the FTC voted 3-2 to oppose the merger, arguing it
would reduce competition and raise prices.  Sysco and US Foods
sell and deliver food to restaurants, hotels, hospitals and other
institutions.  Market leader Sysco has about 425,000 customers
across the United States, with sales of $46.5 billion in fiscal
year 2014, according to the FTC.  US Foods is number two, with $22
billion in sales to 200,000 customers.

The agency wants Judge Mehta to issue a preliminary injunction to
halt -- and effectively kill -- the deal pending a full
administrative trial at the FTC on the merits.

Judge Mehta, in his questions and comments in court, gave some
hint of how he'll evaluate the proposed combination.  He noted
that the FTC's case is based "in large part on dividing up" the
food distribution market.  "How am I supposed to analyze those
arguments? That's where the rubber meets the road," the judge
said.

The FTC argues that Sysco and US Foods are "national broadline
foodservice distributors," distinct from other foodservice
channels, like specialty distributors and cash-and-carry stores
like Costco, and "systems" distributors that mainly service chain
restaurants.

Moreover, the FTC argues that there is a separate market of
"national customers" that require a distributor with nationwide
coverage.  The FTC says there are only two such distributors:
Sysco and US Foods.

Food service distribution, Mr. Parker said in court on May 5, is
"a large, sprawling industry," with more than 15,000 companies
that compete with each other.  The firms "may have different
business models, but it all comes down to the same thing:
delivering food from point A to point B."  He said the FTC "tries
to put up brick walls between all these different models.  The
markets are not as neat as they pretend they are."

Judge Mehta responded, "I understand your point.  The FTC's
definition of the national market may be over-inclusive."

Judge Mehta also seemed to grapple with how to evaluate the
proposed merger's effect on pricing.  The companies don't offer a
single product or service, like tax preparation, he said, a likely
reference to the Justice Department's successful challenge to the
merger of H&R Block Inc. and TaxACT in 2011.

"One key thing is the impact of this merger on prices," the judge
said. The food distributors offer "a whole host of different
services" and products, Judge Mehta said.  "How am I supposed to
assess the question of pricing?"

Stephen Weissman, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of
Competition and a former partner at Baker Botts, handled opening
arguments for the FTC.

U.S. Foods lawyer Joseph Tringali, of counsel to Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, argued for 10 minutes.


TARGET CORPORATION: Initial Injunction Bid in Breach Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs in In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, NO. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK),
(D. Minn.).

The Motion followed the April 2015 announcement that Target and
MasterCard had settled a dispute over the amount Target owed
MasterCard's issuing banks for the December 2013 data breach.
These issuing banks are all members of the putative class in this
case, although no class has yet been certified. MasterCard is,
however, not a party to this action.

The Court agreed with Plaintiffs' counsel that the terms of the
settlement do not appear altogether fair or reasonable.  "At the
very least, the way this issue has arisen is neither fair nor is
it how the Court expects attorneys to conduct themselves in
litigating matters before the Court. But the Court cannot enjoin a
proposed settlement in this situation because it suspects that
neither the settlement nor the putative class's options are
completely fair. The Court may act only if there is "misconduct of
a serious nature." . . . Although the settlement may not "pass the
smell test," as the saying goes, it is not serious misconduct,"
wrote Judge Magnuson in his memorandum and order entered May 7,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1PRdfKDfrom
Leagle.com.

The document relates to Financial Institution Cases.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief in Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs have
filed an opening brief in their appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief
executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired
companies as defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of
the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement
relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger
with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the
proposed class members.  In connection with this action, we are
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  On March 11, 2014,
the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") and filed an
opening brief on December 19, 2014."


TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Modify Case Mgmt Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE ST. LOUIS, LLC D/B/A PLAZA MOTOR COMPANY,
Plaintiff, v. TRAVERS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, and JASON CATLIN,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1796-JAR, (E.D. Mo.) came before the
Court on Defendant Jason Catlin's motion to modify the amended
case management order. Plaintiff Asbury Automotive Group d/b/a
Plaza Motors has responded. The Court abbreviated the timeline for
Catlin to reply. Subsequently, Catlin requested, and the Court
granted, an extension of time, up to and including April 29, 2015
to file his reply. As of May 8, 2015, Catlin has not filed a
reply.

Against this backdrop, District Judge John A. Ross denied
Catlin's Motion to Modify in a memorandum and order dated May 8,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/VP3iXqfrom
Leagle.com.

Judge Ross concluded that Catlin has not demonstrated good cause
to allow amendment of his pleadings to assert a counterclaim
alleging a class-action.

"While Catlin may have acted with diligence in his attempt to meet
the Case Management Order's requirements, allowing an amendment to
add the class action counterclaim would clearly prejudice Plaza.
At this late stage, discovery is nearly complete and the
consolidated preliminary and permanent injunction hearing is
scheduled for May 19, 2015, less than two weeks from today's date.
Granting such an amendment would require considerable additional
discovery and would result in a delay to the proceedings, both of
which would prejudice Plaza," Judge Ross added.

Asbury Automotive St. Louis, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Corey
L. Kraushaar -- ckraushaar@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.

Travers Automotive Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles
F. Dufour, Jr. -- dufourbdy@aol.com -- BECKER AND DUFOUR.

Jason Catlin, Defendant, represented by Brian E. McGovern --
bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- MCCARTHY AND LEONARD & Bryan M. Kaemmerer
-- bkaemmerer@mlklaw.com -- MCCARTHY AND LEONARD.


TWEEN BRANDS: Atty Objects to Proposed $6-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Feran, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported that
Central Ohio lawyer Sean Costello has filed an objection to a
proposed $6 million settlement of an Ohio class-action suit
against Tween Brands, the owner of Justice stores.

In a filing, Costello argues that the settlement is rigged against
class members, and he faults it for "tossing peanuts to the class"
while rewarding the original plaintiff's attorney with a much
larger sum.

A spokeswoman said Tween Brands does not comment on pending
litigation.

In May, Marian Perez, a shopper from Lake County, sued Tween
Brands, alleging that the chain's practice of offering sales of 40
percent off was deceptive because the sale price "is actually the
everyday price."

And that, the suit said, violates Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices
Act. Ohio law says that stores can advertise a "sale price" on
items only if the items were sold at a higher, regular price for a
run of at least 28 days in the previous 90.

Tween Brands, the owner of Justice stores, denies it violated Ohio
law. But it agreed to a settlement, offering refunds to people who
bought items at an Ohio Justice store between July 1, 2012, and
Aug. 31, 2014, and submit a claim form.

The refunds could be a one-time $12 payment; a 40 percent-off
coupon to Justice stores for future purchases; or, if the
customers can provide receipts, 20 percent off purchases made
during the 2012-2014 period.

Those who do not submit a claim get no relief but are still barred
from suing Tween Brands unless they have asked to "opt out,"
Costello said.

Meanwhile, Costello said, the attorney who filed the suit will ask
for as much as $3 million in fees.

A hearing on the proposed settlement and objections was scheduled
for May 8 in Lake County Common Pleas Court in Painesville.


UBS GROUP: Has Settlement to Resolve Foreign Currency Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that putative class actions
have been filed since November 2013 in US federal courts against
UBS and other banks. These actions are on behalf of putative
classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions
with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the
defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for
unjust enrichment. In March 2015, UBS entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve those actions. The settlement, which is
subject to court approval, requires among other things that UBS
pay USD 135 million and provide cooperation to the settlement
class.


UBS GROUP: Added as Defendant to Silver Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, UBS was
added to an ongoing putative class action against other banks in
federal court in New York on behalf of a putative class of persons
that transacted in physical silver or a silver financial
instrument priced, benchmarked, and/or settled to the London
silver fix at any time from January 1, 1999 to an unspecified
date. The complaint asserts claims under the antitrust laws and
the Commodity Exchange Act and for unjust enrichment.


UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action on FX Futures Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in February 2015, a
putative class action was filed in federal court in New York
against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of
persons who entered into any standardized FX futures contracts and
options on FX futures contracts on an exchange since January 1,
2008. The complaint asserts claims under the Commodity Exchange
Act and the antitrust laws.


UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Swiss Franc LIBOR
----------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in February 2015, a
putative class action was filed in federal court in New York
against UBS and other financial institutions on behalf of parties
who entered into interest rate derivatives linked to Swiss franc
(CHF) LIBOR. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to
manipulate CHF LIBOR and the prices of CHF LIBOR-based derivatives
from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009 in violation of US
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act, among other
theories, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, including
treble damages.


UBS GROUP: Discovery Stayed in Euroyen TIBOR Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in 2013, a federal court
in New York dismissed the federal antitrust and racketeering
claims of certain US dollar LIBOR plaintiffs and a portion of
their claims brought under the Commodity Exchange Act and state
common law. The court has granted certain plaintiffs permission to
assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract against
UBS and other defendants, and limited the CEA claims to contracts
purchased between April 15, 2009 and May 2010. Certain plaintiffs
have also appealed the dismissal of their antitrust claims. UBS
and other defendants in other lawsuits including the one related
to Euroyen TIBOR have filed motions to dismiss. In March 2014, the
court in the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuit dismissed the plaintiff's
federal antitrust and state unfair enrichment claims, and
dismissed a portion of the plaintiff's CEA claims. Discovery is
currently stayed.


UBS GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appellate court has
affirmed the district court's dismissal of a securities fraud
class action.

In 2012, a consolidated complaint was filed in a putative
securities fraud class action pending in federal court in
Manhattan against UBS AG and certain of its current and former
officers relating to the unauthorized trading incident that
occurred in the Investment Bank and was announced in September
2011. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of parties who purchased
publicly traded UBS securities on any US exchange, or where title
passed within the US, during the period 17 November 2009 through
15 September 2011. In 2013, the district court granted UBS's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, from which
plaintiffs filed an appeal. In 2015, the appellate court affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the action.


UBS AG: Class Action Over Funds Moved From Puerto Rico to NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reported that a
Puerto Rico federal judge has moved to New York federal court a $5
million putative class action alleging UBS AG and a Banco Popular
subsidiary steered older investors into risky and volatile mutual
funds, denying the plaintiffs' arguments that Puerto Rico has a
public interest in the case, according to court documents.

In an order dated March 30, District Judge Carmen C. Cerezo denied
the plaintiff's request to keep the case in Puerto Rico.


WACHOVIA CORP: Court Orders Wells Fargo to Donate $10,500
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE WACHOVIA CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION, CIVIL CASE NO.
3:09-CV-00262-MR, (W.D. N.C.), the Defendants moved the Court for
approval to rectify a recently discovered inadvertent error in the
administration of the Settlement of this matter. Pursuant to
Section 12.1 of the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court
retained jurisdiction over the parties to resolve issues
concerning the administration of the Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs in this action asserted claims for breaches of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.  The
Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the Wachovia Savings Plan and
A.G. Edwards, Inc. Retirement and Profit Sharing Plan fiduciaries
failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plans' investment in
Wachovia stock. The Defendants included, among others, Wachovia
Corporation and thirty individual defendants

In an order entered May 6, 2015, District Judge Martin Reidinger
ruled that the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Approve Corrective
Action of a Settlement Administration Error is granted, and Wells
Fargo & Company will make a donation of $10,500.58, payable to the
North Carolina Interest on Lawyers Account with the funds to be
split between the North Carolina State Bar and the Indigent
Person's Attorneys Fund as directed by N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 1-
267.10.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/tBRQidfrom
Leagle.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in Alameda County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Mark, writing for East Bay Express, reports that Walmart is
facing a class action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court
that alleges that the giant retailer has been engaging in wage
theft by using so-called "assistant store managers" to do the work
of lower-level employees in order to avoid paying overtime.  The
suit was filed earlier this year by Bonnie Cardoza, an assistant
manager at Walmart for close to five years.  According to the
suit, Ms. Cardoza, as an assistant manager, performed many of the
same tasks as hourly employees -- greeting customers, taking
inventory, operating self-checkout areas, among many other duties.
But unlike hourly employees, she performed these duties for more
than eight hours each day without receiving overtime.

"[Cardoza] and all the other [Walmart] Assistant Store Managers
were 'managers' in name only because they did not have the
managerial duties or authority and should therefore have been
properly classified as non-exempt employees," the lawsuit states.

The suit further alleges that Walmart has "willingly" and
"deceptively" incorporated the practice of misclassifying its
employees as assistant managers into company policy in an attempt
to cut costs.  The lawsuit claims that, in addition to overtime
pay, Ms. Cardoza and other assistant managers were deprived of
rest and meal breaks, and that they weren't provided with pay
stubs detailing how many over hours they actually worked.

Ms. Cardoza filed the suit on behalf of any Walmart employee who
has worked as an assistant store manager since January 2011 to
January 2015.  On behalf of the class, Cardoza is suing for back
wages for unpaid overtime, as well as compensation for missed rest
breaks.  Nicholas De Blouw of the law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug,
& Bhowmik, the firm handling the case, said it's still too early
to know the size of the class, how much a settlement could total,
and even if the lawsuit will achieve class action status.


WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Class Suit by Robbins Geller
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of purchasers of Walgreen Co., (now trading as NYSE:WBA)
common stock during the period between March 25, 2014 and August
5, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a
copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/walgreenco/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Walgreens and certain of its former officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walgreens
is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects,
including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic
partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH. Specifically, defendants
publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in
combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings
before interest and taxes ("EBIT") for the combined entity, but
concealed a $1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings
shortfall and the reasons for the shortfall from the investing
public. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements
and/or omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens
stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of
$76.08 per share.

Then on August 4, 2014, Walgreens announced that its CFO,
defendant Wade Miquelon, would be resigning. Two days later, on
August 6, 2014, defendants lowered the fiscal year 2016 EBIT
target to $7.2 billion, $1.8 billion below the low-end and $2.3
billion below the high-end of the range that they had previously
announced to investors. Following these disclosures, Walgreens'
share price declined, falling from a close of $69.12 per share on
August 5, 2014 to a close of $59.21 per share on August 6, 2014, a
drop of over 14% on volume of more than 84 million shares traded.

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

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Three Former Wrestlers File Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Stav Ziv, writing for Newsweek, reported that three former World
Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) wrestlers filed a class action
in California against their onetime employer, claiming it "has for
decades subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that
it knew, or should have known, caused . . . latent conditions and
long term irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage."
News of the lawsuit filed was first reported by TMZ.

Russ McCullough (a.k.a., Big Russ McCullough), Ryan Sakoda and
Matt Wiese (a.k.a., Luther Reigns) seek damages for what they
charge is WWE's "egregious mistreatment of its wrestlers for its
own benefit, as well as its concealment and denial of medical
research and evidence concerning traumatic brain injuries suffered
by WWE wrestlers," according to the court document.

They are represented by Michael McShane and Jonas P. Mann of Audet
& Partners LLP in San Francisco.

The class action was filed on behalf of all current and former
wrestlers who claim to have suffered as a result of injuries
sustained while working for the WWE. The plaintiffs allege that
the WWE "disavowed, concealed, and prevented any medical care for
these head injuries after they were sustained and to date."

The court document demands a jury trial, an injunction prohibiting
WWE from continuing the alleged conduct and an order for medical
monitoring, in addition to damages.

Jerry McDevitt of the law firm K&L Gates, who acts as WWE's
outside counsel, calls the lawsuit "defective," "fraudulent" and
"frivolous," and says it contains "fabricated claims" and
"nonsense." He adds that this is not the first lawsuit to have
been filed making virtually "identical allegations," pointing to a
lawsuit filed last year in Oregon and one filed in January in
Pennsylvania.

"All it takes is 50 bucks and a pen to file a lawsuit," he says.
"Whether you can prove the things you allege is another."

The National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association and other sports bodies have faced similar litigation
concerning concussions suffered by players.


XARELTO: New Class Suit Filed in Canada
---------------------------------------
Eric T. Chaffin, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that all
U.S. federal Xarelto lawsuits were consolidated in one court in
the Eastern District of Louisiana in December 2014.  Now,
plaintiffs have filed a new Xarelto class action case in Canada,
seeking to gain compensation for Canadian patients who took the
drug and later suffered serious side effects.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Betty Samson, who according to
her complaint, suffered uncontrolled bleeding after taking Xarelto
in 2012. When doctors weren't able to stop the bleeding, she went
into cardiac arrest.

According to the Calgary Sun, another Xarelto class action lawsuit
is forthcoming in Ontario. The lead plaintiff allegedly suffered
serious bleeding after taking the anticoagulant drug, and later
bled to death. Both plaintiffs name joint manufacturers Bayer and
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, as
defendants.

Number of Xarelto Lawsuits Climbing

So far, about 220 Xarelto lawsuits are pending throughout the
United States. A so-called "new generation" blood thinner, Xarelto
was approved in 2011 for preventing blood clots in patients going
through hip and knee replacement surgeries, and later in 2012 for
reducing the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial
fibrillation.

When manufacturers released the product on the market, they
advertised it as a superior alternative to warfarin, the leading
anticoagulant. Unlike patients taking warfarin, those taking
Xarelto didn't have to go through blood monitoring or alter their
diets. Defendants failed to highlight the fact that there was no
readily available antidote to Xarelto bleeding, however. While
patients taking warfarin who suffer uncontrollable bleeding can be
treated with vitamin K injections, there is apparently no such
solution for Xarelto bleeding.

Recent studies have suggested that many patients taking Xarelto,
would have benefitted from blood monitoring to keep tabs on how
they were responding, particularly patients with poor kidney
function.

Canada Receives Over 1,000 Xarelto Adverse Event Reports
Health Canada has so far received about 1,100 reports of problems
connected to Xarelto, with twelve of those involving patient
deaths. According to her case, Samson came close to death when her
doctors had trouble stopping her Xarelto bleeding. She includes in
her complaint reports from Germany that linked Xarelto to 130
deaths between 2012 and 2013.

Xarelto lawyers in Canada have been approached by other claimants
with similar experiences. According to the Calgary Sun, one of the
claimants lost her mother when she bled to death in the shower.
This is the case that will likely represent the other class action
from Ontario.

A class action lawsuit differs from an individual lawsuit in that
one plaintiff or group of plaintiffs represents a larger group
seeking compensation from the defendants. The issues at dispute
are the same among all members of the class -- in this case, all
members would have been injured by Xarelto and suffered
uncontrolled bleeding. There must be enough members in the class
to make individual cases impractical. Any jury award is split up
among the members.


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

If you are a shareholder who purchased Youku securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 25, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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

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

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

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

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

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Implant Product Liability Suits Head to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a leading hip implant manufacturer facing about 400 products
liability lawsuits goes to trial in two separate cases this month,
starting on May 6 with the first federal court suit.

Zimmer Holdings Inc. is one of several manufacturers that recalled
metal-on-metal hip implants after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration began questioning the safety of the devices, which
have been known to cause bone and tissue damage that could lead to
pain and replacement surgeries.

Hip implant manufacturers DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., a unit of
Johnson & Johnson, and Stryker Corp. have reached settlements of
$2.5 billion and more than $1 billion, respectively, to resolve
litigation over their devices.

Zimmer, based in Warsaw, Indiana, has settled some cases involving
its Durom Cup, which was implanted in about 13,000 patients before
it withdrew the hip device from the U.S. market in 2008, but still
faces hundreds of lawsuits.
Most are pending as multidistrict litigation before U.S. District
Judge Susan Wigenton in New Jersey, who is overseeing the May 6
trial, expected to last a month.  Another trial is scheduled for
May 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

"These cases have also been pending for nearly five years, and we
are excited that these claimants will also begin to see their long
awaited day in court," Kyla Cole, a partner at Dallas-based
Waters, Kraus & Paul, wrote in an email to The National Law
Journal.  Ms. Cole is lead plaintiffs counsel in the federal
litigation and the Los Angeles case.

Zimmer spokeswoman Monica Kendrick declined to comment.
So far, Zimmer has had success before jurors.  On Nov. 26, Zimmer
won the first Durom Cup non-MDL trial in the country in a case
brought in St. Clair County, Illinois, Circuit Court on behalf of
John Pugliese, who had the device implanted in him in 2008 but
removed later.  The jury rendered a complete defense verdict in a
case alleging the Durom Cup was defective and that Zimmer failed
to warn of its risks.

The May 6 trial comes in a case brought by retired Louisiana
schoolteacher Christine Brady, 65, who had the device implanted in
2006 but removed three years later.  Ms. Cole said the trial will
be in two phases: The first will decide whether Ms. Brady filed
her case within Louisiana's statute of limitations; if so, a
second will start May 18 focused on liability.

Zimmer is represented by J. Joseph Tanner --
joe.tanner@FaegreBD.com -- an Indianapolis partner who is head of
the product liability and environmental group at Faegre Baker
Daniels, and Edward Fanning -- efanning@mccarter.com -- head of
the products liability group at Newark's McCarter & English.
Neither of them responded to requests for comment.

The California case, pending before Angeles Superior Court Judge
Amy Hogue, goes to trial on behalf of Gary Kline, who had the
device implanted in 2007 but later removed.  Mr. Kline is one of
more than 25 plaintiffs in the case, which has additional trials
scheduled this year.

Zimmer is in the midst of completing a $13.35 billion acquisition
of rival Biomet Inc., which last year settled its own hip implant
litigation for $56 million.


* Accounting-Driven Class Actions Rising, Study Finds
-----------------------------------------------------
Katie Kuehner-Hebert, writing for CFO.com, reported that now that
securities litigation related to the 2008 financial crisis has
largely petered out, accounting-driven class-action suits based on
regulatory enforcement actions are on the rise, according to PwC's
2014 Securities Litigation Study released.

There were 53 accounting-driven cases filed last year,
representing 31% of all federal securities class-action cases
filed during the year, according to the report. In 2013, 46 cases
were filed, representing 29% of all cases that year. PwC tracks
U.S. federal securities class-actions filed since the passage of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995.

"There have been numerous cases, regulations, and technological
advances which may indicate that accounting enforcement actions
from regulators -- and federal securities class action litigation
from shareholders -- could continue to grow in the years ahead,"
the authors wrote. "This trend may be driven by increased public
attention on financial fraud, in addition to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission's and other regulators' focus on detecting
and prosecuting various forms of improper financial reporting."

Twenty of the accounting-related cases included allegations of
improper revenue recognition. Of those, at least four cases
involved revenue-related fraud in the form of fictitious contracts
and/or sales invoices in order to inflate company revenue and
earnings, according to the report.

The report's authors advise companies to be alert to the
proliferation of the enforcement of anti-corruption statutes such
as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; cyber breaches with
lasting effects;  lawsuits stemming from such capital-market
complexities as high frequency trading and "dark pools"; the
increase of initial public offerings involving emerging growth
companies; and the robust mergers and acquisitions market.

PwC tracks all cases filed and more than 50 data points related to
each case, including court, circuit, company location, SIC code,
class period, stock exchange, and lead plaintiff type. The firm
also analyzes a variety of issues, including whether the case is
accounting related, a breakdown of accounting issues, and
settlement data.


* CFPB Study May Pave Way for Class Suits vs. Companies
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Farbiarz and Kim Rinehart, writing for JD SUPRA Business
Advisor, reported that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently released a study examining the prevalence, perception and
effects of arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial
products. Although the study purports to be only "empirical, not
evaluative," leading consumer advocacy groups have seized on the
study's findings to urge the CFPB to prohibit the inclusion of
what the advocacy groups term "forced" arbitration clauses in
contracts for consumer financial products. Under the Dodd-Frank
Act, the CFPB has authority to promulgate regulations, through
formal rulemaking, that "prohibit or impose conditions or
limitations" on the use of arbitration provisions in contracts
between consumers and companies who offer or provide consumer
financial products, if the regulations are in the public interest
and are consistent with the findings of the CFPB's study of
arbitration provisions. 12 U.S.C. Section 5518(b). CFPB Director
Richard Cordray has stated that now that the study is complete,
the agency would "consider what next steps are appropriate."

According to the CFPB's study, around half of credit-card and
checking-account balances currently outstanding are subject to
arbitration provisions, and nearly all of these provisions contain
class-action waivers. Thus, these clauses have dramatically
restricted class action suits against companies in this sector.
The study further finds that consumers are generally unaware of
the arbitration provisions.

The CFPB also compared changes in consumer prices for issuers that
eliminated their arbitration provisions to changes in prices for
issuers that did not change their provisions in the same period.
The CFPB concluded that there was no reliable evidence that the
elimination of an arbitration provision raised consumer prices.
This finding cuts against prior scholarship concluding that
arbitration agreements reduce costs to businesses, which in turn
pass on these savings to consumers.

The results of the study suggest that the CFPB is likely to take
some action to restrict the use of arbitration agreements in
contracts for consumer financial products. If the CFPB does so,
this is likely to spur a substantial uptick in class actions
against businesses in the consumer financial product sector.
Companies operating in this space should consider undertaking a
fresh review of their marketing, fee practices, and other
consumer-facing aspects of their businesses now. Enhanced
compliance today could mean avoiding a costly class action in the
future.

The 728-page study, which the CFPB was required to undertake
pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, purports to be the most
comprehensive empirical study of consumer financial arbitration
carried out to date. The study is available on the agency's
website.


                            *********

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  * * *