CAR_Public/150522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 102


                            Headlines


33RD RESTAURANT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
42ND STREET: "Stress" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AARON SCHOCK: Campaign Contributor File Class Action
AHD HOUSTON: Faces "Deshayes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALL IN ONE: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Whalen" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach
ARLINGTON, NY: Ex-Fighfighters File Class Suit Over Lost Benefits
ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed on Class Action Dismissal
ASTORIA WORLD: Faces "Turino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Forex Antitrust Litigation
BANKSIA: Class Action Heads to Trial After Mediation Fails
BARRETT OUTDOOR: Settles Suit Over Defective Plastic Brackers
BFC FINANCIAL: Trial Court Dismissed BFC-BBX Capital Merger Case
BFC FINANCIAL: BBX Settles NJ Tax Sales Certs. Antitrust Suit

BEACH TYREX: Faces "Alfonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUE EARTH: Defending Against "Cianci" Class Action
BONGO ROOM: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BREADFRUIT RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Response Deadline Indefinitely Extended

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Recorded Provisions for Class Action Settlements
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action by Subscribers
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Appeal
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Lim" Suit Over Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
CHATHAM LODGING: Defending Against Island Hospitality Mgmt Action

CITIBANK NA: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COMPACT PUMPING: Faces "Carlson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COOPER VISION: Faces "Targum" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
CORDIAL CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
COTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DAE & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Wootan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action
DELL INC: Transferred City of Pontiac Suit to W.D. Texas
DEX MEDIA: To Defend Suit Over Verizon & SuperMedia Retiree Plans
DEX MEDIA: Ex-SuperMedia Employee Files Second Amended Complaint

DEX MEDIA: Distribution to Class in Employee FLSA Suit Begins
DOWNTOWN MAGAZINE: Faces "Prejbisz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DR PEPPER: "Sweet" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Denied
EBIX INC: Appeal Period in Securities Litigation Has Lapsed

EBIX INC: Bid to Dismiss Suits Related to Goldman Merger Filed
EL RINCON: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ELLY'S PANCAKE: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Suit Over 2008 Lehman Collapse
FBR & CO: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Expired

FXCM INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
GENERAL MOTORS: Bankruptcy Ruling Averts Ignition-Switch Suits
GENIE ENERGY: Parties Await Court Decision in Ferrare Class Suit
GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Action Engage in Discovery
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit

HIKO ENERGY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Rotating Assembly
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Suit in New York
ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Threatens High School Football
KASIA'S DELI: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KEY ENERGY: Faces "Marion" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LENDINGTREE INC: Home Loan Center Intends to Renew Appeal
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Musgrave" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MAJOR ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Carrera" Suit Claims
MASTEC INC: Faces "Wrigley" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Ruling Unfavorable for Game Companies
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending
MOLYCORP INC: Intends to Defend Against SDNY Class Action Claims
MONTERREY MONEY: Faces "Garcia-Calvo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MVP WORKFORCE: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Proposed Concussion Settlement Filed in April
NESET CONSULTING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Humphreys" Suit Says
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Floorboards
NORTHERN BEEF: Class Action Over Idled Beef Plant Settled
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Remaining Settlement Shares Deposited

NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: To Defend Against 2013 Shareholder Action
OIL STATES INDUSTRIES: Transferred "West" Suit to S.D. Texas
OPTIMUM GRANITE: Faces "Zavala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ORIGINAL PIZZA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OVASCIENCE INC: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss

OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Briefing in Class Action Ended in April
PAPA MURPHY'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
PHOTOMEDEX INC: District Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Settlement
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Plaintiffs in Tel Aviv Case to Join US Deal
PHOTOMEDEX INC: To Contribute Less Than $100,000 in Settlement

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. Radiancy Still Pending
PHOTOMEDEX INC: "Cantley" Class Action in Discovery Phase
PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martin" Suit Claims
PJCM RESTAURANT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RANDY'S TRUCKING: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

RANDY'S TRUCKING: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Due
REMINGTON ARMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
ROCKET FUEL: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Class Action
SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports

SEIS VECINOS: Faces "Urtecho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SIMPLY RIGHT: "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOURCE 1: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOUTHERN STAR: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPECIAL SECURITY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

SQUARE 1: Faces "Lakowitz" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
SQUARE 1: Faces "Li" Suit in N.C. Over Illegal Company Merger
STM: Accesibility Rights Group Files Class Action
SUPERIOR TANK: "Galvan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SYNGENTA AG: Case Over China's Rejection of GMO May Set Precedent

TOP RANK: Faces "Alessi" Suit in D.Conn. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Bobadilla" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Capo" Suit in E.D. Pa. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Scheffer" Suit in Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Tjaden" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury

TOP RANK: Faces "Bouchier" Suit in Texas Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Constantino" Suit in Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Miller" Suit in Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in D.P.R. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Toll Fees

TREMOR VIDEO: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Overcharging Air Delivery Service Rates
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Clements" Suit Over Railroad Subsurface
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Royalties Class Action for $11.5MM
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Product Charges


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Lawrentz" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calaveras Dropped as Defendant in "Johnson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Pa. Appeals Vacated, Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Abutahoun" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Won in Coverage Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Wins in Legal Malpractice Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 254 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,137 Fibro Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Had 186 Fibro Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Responds to "Skrzypek" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $454.5MM Gross Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $9.4-Mil. A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust To Be Removed From Dougherty School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Richmond River Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Sued Over Injuries From Fibro Products


                            *********


33RD RESTAURANT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosendo Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 33rd Restaurant Group Inc. d/b/a Statler Grill, Joseph
Lavelle, Leonard Passarelli and Vincent Polsinelli, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03605-AKH (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a steakhouse restaurant located at
136 West 33 Street, New York, New York, 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


42ND STREET: "Stress" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Stress, Paul Shreves, Donald Shorter, Donald Shorter, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly-situated v. 42nd
Street Kitchen LLC et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-03635 (S.D.N.Y., May 7,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

42nd Street Kitchen LLC owns and operates a restaurant, event
space, and dance club in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


AARON SCHOCK: Campaign Contributor File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Cinewsnow.com reports that a campaign contributor of Aaron Schock
has filed a class-action lawsuit against the former U.S.
Congressman, seeking refunds for thousands of his donors.

Attorneys at national law firm Hagens Berman say the contributors
allege that Mr. Schock ran a campaign "full of corruption and lies
about his integrity," intended to defraud contributors.

The plaintiff, Howard Foster, contributed $500 through Schock's
campaign committees.

The lawsuit, filed on April 14, alleges Mr. Schock committed fraud
and racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act in an organized scheme to defraud
campaign contributors.  The suit also accuses Mr. Schock of common
law fraud, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Foster, according to the lawsuit, donated to Mr. Schock
because he thought he "was ethical, (and) a breath of fresh air,"
but that Mr. Schock instead engaged in "political sleaze for
personal gain."

Individuals who contributed to Schock's campaign from Jan. 1, 2010
to Mar. 31, 2015 may contact Hagens Berman by emailing
schock@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292.


AHD HOUSTON: Faces "Deshayes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Twana Deshayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A.H.D. Houston, Inc. d/b/a Centerfolds, Ali Davari and
Hassan Davari, Case No. 4:15-cv-01243 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate adult entertainment clubs in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL IN ONE: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Filadelfo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. All In One Deli Mart, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02639 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

All In One Deli Mart, Inc. operates a 24-hour supermarket with a
principal place of business at 79 Henry Street, Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guidano Napoli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael Macaluso, Mark D.
McGregor, and Gregory A. Gould, Case No. 2:15-cv-03474-TJH-PJW
(C.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
primarily on the development of therapies to treat prevalent
inflammatory conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Whalen" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-02529-MMB (E.D.
Pa., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing patient's personally identifiable information and
personal health information from data breach.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
      Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
      MESSA & ASSOCIATES PC
      123 South 22nd St
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 568-3500
      Facsimile: (215) 568-3501
      E-mail: EWeitz@messalaw.com


ARLINGTON, NY: Ex-Fighfighters File Class Suit Over Lost Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gerlach, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that a
half-dozen former firefighters have filed a lawsuit against the
Arlington Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners, which carries
with it the possibility of a looming class action.

The firefighters object to a resolution passed by the board last
October to end the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premium costs
from their retirement plans.

The six plaintiffs "satisfied their contractual commitment
entitling them to lifetime medical benefits without cost," the
complaint said.  The document was obtained by the Poughkeepsie
Journal after a Freedom of Information Law request was submitted
to the Arlington Fire District.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for what they're calling a
"breach of contract," as well as compensation for expenses
incurred because of the resolution, attorney fees and for the
resolution to be "revoked," the court document said.

The six plaintiffs, who were employed in the district between the
years of 1962 and 2014, include Barry Ireland, Edward Ireland Jr.,
Earle Bunn, Patrick McDonald, Arthur Rose and Victor Zamiloff.
The complaint was filed in Dutchess County Supreme Court last
February.

The Board of Fire Commissioners passed a resolution on Oct. 20,
2014 to stop the reimbursement of costs associated with Medicare
Part B premiums for employees that retired from the district
before the meeting date.

Board chairman James Beretta, as well as commissioners Joseph
Armstrong and Peter Valdez voted in favor of the resolution, which
passed 3-2. Commissioners Richard Dore and Kenneth Muckenhaupt
voted against it.

The resolution had been "thoroughly researched" by the district's
labor attorneys, Mr. Beretta said at the October meeting, which is
available for audio playback on the district's website.

"The board and the district has been making payments since I
believe 1986 that the district was not obligated to make," said
Mr. Beretta last October.  "This is an open and shut case," he
said.  "It's air tight."

Nathaniel Charny of Rhinebeck-based Charny & Associates is
representing the plaintiffs.  Laura Matlow Wong-Pan an associate
at Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow and Mayle is representing the
fire district. Both attorneys also declined comment.

Medicare Part B premiums in 2015 are $104.90 per month for most
recipients, according to the Medicare website. Part B coverage
includes medically necessary and preventative services, the
website said.  In order to be eligible for Medicare most
recipients have to be 65 or older.

In addition to the six firefighters, the complaint expands to
others who retired during the same time frame.

A subhead of the court document called Class Action Allegations
said there are more than 25 putative class members.  The class
includes those that retired from the district between the years of
1974 and 2014.  Before the case is deemed a class action, a court
must approve the certification.

"Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals," the court document said.


ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed on Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly Biosciences, Inc., (formerly Ventrus Biosciences, Inc.)
said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no appeal has been filed
on the dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

In June 2012, the Company announced that its product iferanserin
(VEN 309), failed to meet its end point at the completion of its
Phase III clinical trial. In May 2013 two purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were
filed in New York against the Company, two of its executive
officers and the lead underwriter of its initial public offering.
The lawsuits included allegations that, during the class period
between December 17, 2010 and June 25, 2012, the Company and its
executive officers and underwriter made various statements related
to the Company's product, iferanserin (VEN 309), including but not
limited to, the market for the product, the potential competitors,
and the results of clinical trials, thereby inflating the price of
our common stock. The complaints sought unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On July 23, 2013, the
Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel. On September 16, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. On November 22, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (the
"Motion to Dismiss").

On May 5, 2014, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the class action with prejudice.  On May 19, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order
dismissing the class action with prejudice (the "Motion for
Reconsideration"). On July 2, 2014, the Court entered an order
denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Lead plaintiffs had until
August 2, 2014 to file notice of an appeal, but no appeal was
filed.


ASTORIA WORLD: Faces "Turino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose G. Munoz Turino, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. The Astoria World Manor, Inc.,
Daniel Ahn, and Ike Ahn, Case No. 1:15-cv-02646 (E.D.N.Y., May 7,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants is engaged in catering business in Queens County,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Forex Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Saks-McLeod, writing for LeapRate, reports that Scott +
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on April 16 announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with Bank of America, N.A., on
behalf of a proposed class action lawsuit in relation to Foreign
Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-
7789 (S.D.N.Y.), clearly showing that the fiscal penalties for
large banks involved in the FX rate manipulation case did not stop
with the regulators.

The settlement agreement includes both monetary relief and
cooperation to the plaintiffs in their prosecution of claims
against the remaining defendants.

The terms of the agreements will mirror those that Scott + Scott
previously reached in two other settlements in the lawsuit which
was originally filed in November of 2013.  In January 2015, the
firm announced a settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)
and JPM Chase Bank, N.A. for $99.5 million, in addition to their
cooperation.

In March 2015, Scott+Scott announced that it had reached a
settlement with UBS AG (SWX:UBSN), UBS Group AG, and UBS
Securities LLC for $135 million, in addition to their cooperation.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, before Judge Lorna G. Schofield,
who denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on January 28, 2015.
"This latest settlement sends a message to Wall Street banks that
their longstanding practice of putting their own interests ahead
of their customers in the foreign exchange market must end,"
commented David R. Scott, Managing Partner of Scott+Scott. "We
look forward to prosecuting our claims against the remaining
defendants."

"This latest agreement with Bank of America will offer further
compensation for victims," said Christopher M. Burke, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs.  "Equally important, the agreement ensures
crucial cooperation that will assist victims in obtaining
additional monetary relief from other financial institutions that
took advantage of their clients."

Remaining defendants in the foreign exchange antitrust litigation
include Barclays, BNP Paribas Group, Citigroup, Credit Suisse
Group AG, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, and
Royal Bank of Scotland PLC.  The litigation alleges that since
2003, the financial institutions have conspired to manipulate the
WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in the $5.4 trillion-per-day foreign
exchange market.

Scott+Scott's main business is prosecuting high-stakes antitrust
and securities lawsuits throughout the United States on behalf of
institutional investors, businesses, and corporations.


BANKSIA: Class Action Heads to Trial After Mediation Fails
----------------------------------------------------------
The Standard reports that the Banksia class action is headed to
trial next year after mediation talks failed to reach a settlement
to the long-running case.

Mark Elliott, the Melbourne solicitor coordinating the class
action over the failed finance company, said mediation talks were
held for two days but no settlement was reached with any of the
defendants.

Mr. Elliott declined to say why mediation had broken down.  The
class action involves about 16,000 investors, including many in
the south-west.

With mediation failing, the class action will head to trial on
February 8 next year before Justice James Judd in the Supreme
Court.

Mr. Elliott said the class action would seek $203 million, charged
at 11 per cent interest, from Banksia directors and other parties,
including Banksia's trustee, Trust Co.

The mediation talks, before former High Court justice Michael
McHugh, also involved Banksia's receivers, McGrathNicol, which is
taking separate legal action against Banksia.  The failed talks
were the second attempt at mediation to reach a settlement without
the expense of a lengthy trial.


BARRETT OUTDOOR: Settles Suit Over Defective Plastic Brackers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that a
class of consumers who claim that they bought outdoor railing
products with defective plastic brackets reached a settlement on
April 14 with manufacturer Barrette Outdoor Living Inc. and
retailer Home Depot USA Inc.

U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree gave preliminary approval
to a $350,000 settlement and also certified a slightly different
class than the one certified in September.  The minor differences
between the previously certified class and the proposed settlement
class only strengthened the case for certification, the judge
ruled.

The previous class comprised all people or other entities who
purchased the Barrette guardrail products with the plastic
brackets from Home Depot in Kansas from June 2008 to the present.

Lead plaintiff Frederick Aloysius Nieberding filed the original
complaint after his son allegedly fell two stories and suffered an
injury because of the defective railings.  His suit alleged that
the top bracket that connects the railing to a permanent structure
is defectively brittle, the wrong shape to withstand force and has
inadequate screws, and, as a result, all of the class members have
been harmed, according to the order.

The new class extends the class period to include consumers who
bought the brackets up to April 14, identified the three specific
products with the allegedly defective brackets, and now includes
those consumers who sold or gave away the guardrails or the
brackets.

However, the judge said that the parties would have to find
another way of disseminating the class notice.

The plaintiffs had proposed distributing the class notice by
taking out ads in major Kansas newspapers, according to the
ruling.  The plaintiffs had said that Home Depot's records
couldn't identify all of the buyers of the brackets, but Judge
Crabtree said that didn't mean Home Depot couldn't identify any of
the buyers.

"Because actual notice, when possible, is 'an unambiguous
requirement of Rule 23,' the court denies approval of the proposed
manner of notice," the judge said.

Judge Crabtree rejected the same argument from Home Depot and
Barrette -- which said that class recovery was impossible because
the retailer didn't keep records of buyers of the allegedly
defective brackets -- when he first granted class certification in
September.

"In a consumer class action where the potential recovery for each
class member is relatively small, a class action is the only
realistic option for recovery," the September order said.
"Because sellers of the products like the brackets here are
unlikely to keep perfect records of every individual who purchased
the product in question, alternative methods to identify class
members must be permitted."

The judge ordered the plaintiffs to work with Home Depot to
determine which, if any, class members could be identified
specifically.

Under the terms of the settlement, each class member would receive
about $13 for each purchased bracket, which the judge deems fair
given that the brackets cost $2.50 at retail.

"Our position is and has been that it's a great settlement and we
expect the class members to get all the damages the yave
sustained," Andrew J. Schermerhorn of The Klamann Law Firm,
counsel for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on April 15.

The judge also noted that the plaintiffs requested about $126,000
in attorneys' fees and Nieberding requested an incentive reward of
$7,000.

The plaintiffs are represented by John M. Klamann and Andrew J.
Schermerhorn of The Klamann Law Firm, Ronald P. Pope of Ralston
Pope & Diehl LLC, and Mark P. Schloegel and William Dirk Vandever
of The Popham Law Firm.

Barrette is represented by Gary T. Jansen --
gjansen@cremerspina.com -- and Nicole D. Milos --
nmilos@cremerspina.com -- of Cremer Spina Shaughnessy Jansen &
Siegert LLC, and James C. Morrow -- jmorrow@mwklaw.com -- of
Morrow Willnauer Klosterman & Church LLC.

Home Depot is represented by Adam K. Fuemmeler --
afuemmeler@polsinelli.com -- and Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin of
Polsinelli PC, and S. Stewart Haskins, Nicholas G. Hill, Zachary
A. McEntyre and Ronni D. Solomon of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is Nieberding v. Barrett Outdoor Living Inc et al., case
number 2:12-cv-02353, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.


BFC FINANCIAL: Trial Court Dismissed BFC-BBX Capital Merger Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a trial court entered a
final order vacating the dismissal order and dismissing as moot
without prejudice, the litigation relating to the previously
proposed BFC-BBX Capital Merger.

On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against
BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's
board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital's shareholders
in a lawsuit challenging the previously proposed merger between
BFC and BBX Capital. In this action, which was styled Haim Ronan,
On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B.
Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L.
Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis
N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC
Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high
enough price for the shares of BBX Capital's Class A Common Stock
to be acquired by BFC in the merger.  Mr. Ronan also asserted a
cause of action against BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Mr. Ronan sought an
injunction blocking the proposed merger.

On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital
Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren,
Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B.
Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto,
Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation
and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P.
Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the
defendants named in Mr. Ronan's complaint, challenging the merger
for substantially the same reasons as set forth in Mr. Ronan's
complaint, but asserting an additional, direct cause of action for
breach of fiduciary duties against BFC, Alan B. Levan and John E.
Abdo.  Mr. Lauterbach also added as defendants Norman H. Becker,
who was appointed to BBX Capital's board of directors on May 7,
2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who serves as an executive officer
and director of BFC and as an executive officer of BBX Capital,
and John K. Grelle, an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital.

On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were
consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in
the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the
consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated action.  In the amended
complaint, which included the same causes of action set forth in
the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) alleged that the
merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and
conditions of the merger agreement, was unfair to BBX Capital's
minority shareholders and was the product of unfair dealing on the
part of the defendants; (ii) alleged that the defendants
initiated, timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the
benefit of BFC and to the detriment of BBX Capital's minority
shareholders, including that BFC and its and BBX Capital's
management caused BBX Capital to engage in transactions which had
the effect of reducing BBX Capital's intrinsic value; (iii)
challenged the independence of the members of BBX Capital's
special committee and the process pursuant to which BBX Capital's
special committee engaged its legal and financial advisors, and
negotiated and approved the merger agreement, including
limitations on its ability to pursue alternative transactions;
(iv) asserted that BBX Capital's shareholders' rights to appraisal
did not constitute an adequate remedy; and (v) alleged that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger contained
material misrepresentations and did not contain adequate
disclosure regarding the merger and specifically the value of BBX
Capital and the shares of its Class A Common Stock, and failed to
provide the plaintiffs and BBX Capital's minority shareholders the
information necessary to determine whether the merger
consideration was fair.

On November 5, 2014 the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fourth District Court
of Appeal (which was later dismissed), and after BBX Capital and
BFC publicly disclosed that they mutually agreed to terminate the
proposed merger, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to
vacate the dismissal order and to dismiss the action as moot. On
January 27, 2015, the trial court entered a final order vacating
the dismissal order and dismissing the action as moot without
prejudice.


BFC FINANCIAL: BBX Settles NJ Tax Sales Certs. Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that BBX Capital has reached
an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the
action, In re:  New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust
Litigation v. BBX Capital Corporation f/k/a BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., Fidelity Tax, LLC, Gary I. Branse, Michael Deluca and BB&T
Corporation, and multiple other individuals and entities who
purchased New Jersey tax certificates between 1998 to February
2009, Case No.12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB, United States District Court,
District of New Jersey (Trenton).

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to
Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to
plaintiffs' main antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014.  While BBX Capital believes
the claims to be without merit, BBX Capital has reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this action,
subject to execution of a definitive agreement and court approval.


BEACH TYREX: Faces "Alfonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Alfonso and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Beach Tyrex LLC, Yossel Bruk, Case No. 1:15-cv-21733-JLK
(S.D. Fla., May 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in automobile renting and leasing
business in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BLUE EARTH: Defending Against "Cianci" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported Class Action
lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc., Johnny R.
Thomas [an executive officer], John Francis [a non-executive
officer], and Brett Woodard" [an executive officer] was filed on
October 24, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Case No: 2:14-cv-08263).  The complaint is
based, in large part, on the allegations contained in an anonymous
article posted on October 21, 2014 on the website
"SeekingAlpha.com".  The Company has previously responded to the
"SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press release dated October 21,
2014 and refuted the veracity of the claims made in the article.
The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are
without merit and is vigorously defending this matter with counsel
appointed by the insurance carrier.


BONGO ROOM: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salome Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. The Bongo Room III, Inc.,
and John J. Latino, Case No. 1:15-cv-04112 (N.D. Ill., May 8,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5022 N.
Clark Ave., Chicago, IL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


BREADFRUIT RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Bennett v. The Breadfruit Restaurants, LLC, an Arizona
company, Dwayne Allen and Danielle Leoni, husband and wife, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00826 (D. Ariz., May 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Response Deadline Indefinitely Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the deadline to
respond to the Nevada class action lawsuit over the CAC-CEC Merger
has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, Caesars Entertainment Corporation ("CEC" or
"Caesars Entertainment"), and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the proposed merger between CAC and CEC
announced on December 22, 2014 (the "Proposed Merger"),
specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with
bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions,
(b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors'
personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such
conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to
protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC
Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by
the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed
Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and
attorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors
believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves
vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been
indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Recorded Provisions for Class Action Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has recorded
appropriate provisions for each of the settlement agreements filed
with the courts in class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "46 purported class actions have been filed
against us in connection with allegations that we (i) unlawfully,
in violation of our license or agreements with our subscribers,
charged or overcharged our subscribers for our services, or (ii)
misled our subscribers or unlawfully sent our subscribers and
other parties commercial messages, or (iii) unlawfully, in
violation of our license or agreements with our subscribers,
discriminated among our subscribers, or (iv) failed to provide
customer care in accordance with the provisions of our license and
applicable law. The amount claimed estimated by the plaintiffs in
these purported class actions ranges from approximately NIS 0.9
million to NIS 606 million, or was not estimated by the plaintiffs
if the lawsuits are certified as class actions or were filed
against us and other defendants without specifying the amount
claimed from us.  Three purported class actions, for which the
amount claimed estimated by the plaintiffs ranges from
approximately NIS 220 million to at least hundreds of millions of
NIS or no amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs, were
dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs appealed the ruling.
In seven purported class actions, for which the amount claimed
estimated by the plaintiffs ranges from approximately NIS 15
million to NIS 75 million, or no amount claimed was estimated by
the plaintiffs, or were filed against us and other defendants
without specifying the amount claimed from us, settlement
agreements or an agreed motion for dismissal of a purported class
action were filed with the court and the proceedings are still
pending."

"We have recorded appropriate provisions for each of the
settlement agreements filed with the courts."


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action by Subscribers
-------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015, a
purported class action was filed against the Company, by
plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming
compensation for non monetary damages in connection with
allegations that the Company unlawfully violated the privacy of
its subscribers. "The amount claimed from us, if the lawsuit is
certified as class action is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS
15 billion, all for alleged non monetary damages," the Company
said.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed an appeal in respect of the settlements
approved by court with Pelephone and Partner, inter alia.

The company said, "In November 2013, the District Court of Central
Region approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against us in
September 2011 as a class action, relating to an allegation that
we breached the agreements with our subscribers by failing to
provide them with the full rebates they are entitled to under
their agreements. The total amount claimed was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 15 million."

"In July 2014, the Court dismissed the motion to certify two class
actions filed against us in May 2010 and June 2011 with prejudice
except in respect of three issues that were detailed in
settlements of similar class action claims made against Pelephone
and Partner and approved by the court, which the Company was
willing to adopt as well. These three issues relate to the
cellular operators undertaking to provide certain information
regarding non-ionizing radiation, sell certain accessories at a
discount and conduct certain tests to handsets at certain
circumstances. We estimate the settlement's costs to be
immaterial. In October 2014, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in
respect of the settlements approved by court with Pelephone and
Partner, inter alia, with respect to the tests to be conducted as
aforesaid.

"The purported class actions were filed against us in connection
with allegations that we unlawfully build and operate our network
and sell handsets and related equipment, including in relation to
alleged hazards relating to non-ionizing radiation emitted from
cell sites and end-user equipment in amounts estimated by the
plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS 1 billion to approximately
NIS 3.7 billion, had the lawsuits been certified as class actions,
as filed."


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Lim" Suit Over Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Lim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02074
(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's breach of
fiduciary duty, specifically by failing to use reasonable
diligence to ascertain the best market, and best execution in
routing its clients' investment trades.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is a brokerage firm that executes
orders for stock and other investment trades on behalf of its
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      Sarah Boot, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com
              sboot@bholaw.com

         - and -


      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      William R. Restis, Esq.
      David J. Harris Jr., Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1333
      Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
              wrr@classactionlaw.com
              djh@classactionlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com


CHATHAM LODGING: Defending Against Island Hospitality Mgmt Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an affiliate of the
Company is currently a defendant, along with Island Hospitality
Management Inc. ("IHM"), in a class action lawsuit pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court.  The class actions were filed on
April 25, 2012 and February 27, 2013, and have subsequently been
consolidated on November 8, 2013 under the title Martinez et al v.
Island Hospitality Management, Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012-
00096221-CU-OE-CTL.  The class actions relate to fifteen hotels
operated by IHM in the state of CA and owned by affiliates of the
Company, NewINK JV, INK JV, and/or certain third parties.  Both
complaints in the now consolidated lawsuit allege various wage and
hour law violations including unpaid off-the-clock work, failure
to provide meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and
interest.

"We are defending our case vigorously. As of December 31, 2014,
included in accounts payable and expenses, is $0.3 million, which
represents an estimate of our exposure to the litigation and is
also estimated as the maximum possible loss that the Company may
incur," the Company said.


CITIBANK NA: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-03549-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
May 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Citibank, N.A. is one of the largest banks in the United States
with operations throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Raymond DiChiara, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
      77 Market Street, Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Telephone: (212) 588-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com

         - and -

      Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
      WILLS LAW FIRM
      1776 Yorktown, Suite 600
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 528-4455
      Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
      E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com


COMPACT PUMPING: Faces "Carlson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
James Carlson, et al. v. Compact Pumping & Coil Specialists LLC,
Case No. 6:15-cv-00030 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Compact Pumping & Coil Specialists LLC is in the oil well services
business in the Southern District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clark Woodson III, Esq.
      601 East Myrtle
      Angleton, TX 77515
      Telephone: (979) 849-6080
      Facsimile: (832) 202-2809
      E-mail: clark@woodsonlaborlaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Targum" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Targum, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Concise
Optical Group, Case No. 4:15-cv-02065-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 7,
2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to
impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by
subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs)
and eliminate price competition on those products by big box
stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent
them from discounting those products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
              bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
              clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      Wolf Haldenstein Adler
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              burt@whafh.com

         - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      Wolf Haldenstein Adler, Esq.
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com
              wadler@whafh.com


CORDIAL CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denia Gonzalez Espana, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees v. Cordial Concepts LLC d/b/a Bottle
Up, Wai Ying Lam a//k/a Jeff, and John Doe a/k/a Jonathan, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02648 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bottle redemption facility
located at 37-40 12th Street, 38th Avenue, Long Island City, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
      150 East 58th Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10155
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
      E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com


COTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Estrada a.k.a. Ismael Valenzuela v. Juan R. Cota d/b/a Cota
Environmental Services, Juan R. Cota and Jane Doe Cota, Case No.
2:15-cv-00818 (D. Ariz., May 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants operated a business in which they would contract
with trains and other transportation companies to remove
contaminated or otherwise tarnished dirt and other debris and
other material from trains, trucks, or other vehicles and to
properly discard the debris.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


DAE & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Wootan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer Wootan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Dae & Associates, Ltd., Case No. 4:15-cv-01236 (S.D. Tex., May
7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dae & Associates, Ltd. is a geotechnical engineering firm based in
Houston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Andrew Speese, through
his attorney, filed on January 7, 2015, a purported shareholder
class action and derivative suit on behalf of himself and Legacy
Dawson's other shareholders in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division),
against the Company, Legacy Dawson, the members of the Legacy
Dawson Board and Merger Sub.

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the Legacy Dawson Board breached their fiduciary duties to the
Legacy Dawson shareholders in connection with the strategic
business combination with us, and that our registration statement
dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and our
prospectus filed on December 31, 2014, contain material omissions
and materially misleading statements. The complaint sought to
enjoin the Company, Legacy Dawson and Merger Sub from taking any
actions that would allow the consummation of the strategic
business combination contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or, now
that the strategic business combination is consummated, a judgment
for damages."


DELL INC: Transferred City of Pontiac Suit to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled City of Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System v. Dell Inc., Michael S. Dell, Brian T. Gladden,
and Stephen J. Felice, Case No. 1:14-cv-03644, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court Western District of Texas (Austin). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00374-LY to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RRUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrlaw.com
              drosenfeld@rgrlaw.com

         - and -

      Cynthia J. Billing, Esq.
      SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & PATTON, PC
      100 Maccabees Center
      25800 Northwestern Highway
      Southfield, MI 48075-100
      Telephone: (248) 746-2760
      E-mail: cbillings@swappc.com


DEX MEDIA: To Defend Suit Over Verizon & SuperMedia Retiree Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
retirees lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee
benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee
benefits committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to
SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both
the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary
duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other
class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.  The SuperMedia
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on
March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the
pending motion dismissing all the claims against the SuperMedia
pension plans and all of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC
relating to the production of documents and statutory penalties
for failure to produce same. The only claims that remained against
SuperMedia were procedural ERISA claims against SuperMedia's EBC.

On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the
complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to
dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against
the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained
class certification against the Verizon defendants. After
obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another
amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against
SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before
the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the
court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss. On September
16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' summary judgments,
denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and entered a take
nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs filed
an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The briefing
is complete and oral argument was held on September 4, 2014.

On October 14, 2014, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 17, 2015.
The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.


DEX MEDIA: Ex-SuperMedia Employee Files Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, filed their second amended
complaint with the same basic allegations as the first complaint.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current
and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's EBC.
The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various
savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the defendants in
administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009.

The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed
all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the
defendants made material misrepresentations regarding SuperMedia's
financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had
divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets,
and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and
inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June
22, 2010. On March 16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia
defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the
plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants
filed another motion to dismiss the new complaint. On March 15,
2012, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' second motion
dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal. On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On
July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied.
The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court's decision in
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the court granted plaintiffs'
writ, vacated the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and
remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule
in conformity with the Fifth Third opinion. Subsequently, the case
has been remanded to the trial court.

On February 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint with the same basic allegations as the first complaint.
The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.


DEX MEDIA: Distribution to Class in Employee FLSA Suit Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in a
class action by former employees has been approved by the court,
distribution to the class has been made, and the matter has been
dismissed with prejudice.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia, all
its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the
former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The complaint alleges
that SuperMedia improperly calculated the rate of pay when it paid
overtime to its hourly sales employees. On July 29, 2011,
SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the
individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims for unpaid
overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion to dismiss
in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective
action and to issue notice.

On March 29, 2012, the court denied the SuperMedia's motion to
dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify the class. SuperMedia's motion seeking permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has
been sent to SuperMedia's former and current employees. The time
for opting into the class has expired. On February 24, 2014,
SuperMedia filed a motion to decertify. The plaintiffs that failed
to file their opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the
same allegations. In early August, 2014, terms of a tentative
settlement were reached by the parties; the settlement has been
approved by the court, distribution to the class has been made,
and the matter has been dismissed with prejudice.


DOWNTOWN MAGAZINE: Faces "Prejbisz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Prejbisz and Paulina Prejbisz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Downtown Magazine NYC, Inc. and
Grace Capobianco, Case No. 1:15-cv-03573-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 7,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Downtown Magazine NYC, Inc. is a New York corporation that is
engaged in the business of creating editorial content and
photography for Downtown Magazine, a lifestyle magazine that is
distributed in New York and New Jersey, and is available on the
internet, on international flights, and hotel and store chains
such as The W Hotel, Barnes & Noble, Whole Foods, and Duane Reade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Kenneth J. Katz, Esq.
      Yesenia Francisco Capalbo, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 460-0047
      Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
      E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
              yfcapalbo@katzmelinger.com


DR PEPPER: "Sweet" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Sweet, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00479-PLM (W.D. Mich., May 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and distributes flavored carbonated soft drinks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Lee Randolph Young, Esq.
      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
      One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              mturner@sommerspc.com
              kstoops@sommerspc.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action litigation has been denied and the case is
proceeding.

Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ('SOP') and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was denied
on December 17, 2014 and the case is proceeding. On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.


EBIX INC: Appeal Period in Securities Litigation Has Lapsed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal period related to the
Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation has passed and these matters are
now concluded.

In connection with the shareholder class action styled In re:
Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-
RWS (N.D. Ga.), which as previously disclosed was settled in 2014
and is now concluded, there have been three derivative complaints
brought by certain shareholders on behalf of the Company, which
name certain of the Company's officers and its entire board of
directors as Defendants. The first such derivative action was
brought by an alleged shareholder named Paul Nauman styled Nauman
v. Raina, et al., Civil Action File No. 2011-cv-205276 (Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia), filed September 1, 2011. The
second such derivative action was brought by an alleged
shareholder named Gilbert Spagnola styled Spagnola v. Bhalla, et
al., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00062-RWS (N.D. Ga.), filed January
7, 2013. The third such derivative action was brought by an
alleged shareholder named Hotel Trades Council and Hotel
Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund styled Hotel
Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc.
Pension Fund v. Raina, et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00246-RWS
(N.D. Ga.), filed January 23, 2013. These derivative actions are
based on substantially the same factual allegations in the now
settled shareholder class action suit, but also variously claim
breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
the wasting of corporate assets, negligence, unjust enrichment by
the Company's directors, and violation of Section 14 of the
Exchange Act. The Nauman case was stayed pending the completion of
expert discovery in the shareholder class action suit. On April
12, 2013, the Federal Court entered an Order consolidating the
Spagnola and Hotel derivative cases under the style In re Ebix,
Inc. Derivative Litigation, File No. 1:13-CV-00062-RWS (N.D. Ga.),
appointing Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York
City, Inc. Pension Fund as Lead Derivative Plaintiff, and
appointing the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Lead
Derivative Counsel and The Law Offices of David A. Bain LLC as
Liaison Counsel. Lead Derivative Plaintiff filed its Consolidated
Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint on May 20, 2013.
Thereafter, the Federal Court entered a Consent Order on June 4,
2013, setting a schedule for Lead Derivative Plaintiff to amend
its Complaint in light of the anticipated preliminary proxy
related to a proposed transaction announced on May 1, 2013 with
affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co.

On September 23, 2014, following several months of extensive arms-
length negotiations, the parties to both the Federal Court and
Fulton Superior Court derivative actions entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement, which, together with the exhibits
annexed thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a
proposed settlement of both the derivative actions and for
dismissal of both the derivative actions with prejudice upon the
terms and conditions set forth therein. On September 30, 2014, the
Federal Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the
proposed settlement. On December 2, 2014, following a final
fairness hearing, the Federal Court entered a Final Order and
Judgment Approving Settlement and Dismissing Actions with
Prejudice. On December 12, 2014, the Fulton Superior Court entered
a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. As part of
the settlement, the Company has agreed to adopt, implement, and/or
maintain certain corporate governance measures and to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel in the amount
of $690,000. The appeal period has passed and these matters are
now concluded.


EBIX INC: Bid to Dismiss Suits Related to Goldman Merger Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint related to the
Company's execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of
Goldman Sachs & Co.

The Company said, "Following our announcement on May 1, 2013 of
the Company's execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of
Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action complaints
challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery. These complaints name as Defendants some combination
of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were
consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In
re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN. On June 19,
2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been
terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement.
After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding,
Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to drop their
claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on
an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and
Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss
the Amended Consolidated Complaint."

"On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion. The
only surviving counts are as follows: (i) Counts II and IV, but
only to the extent the Plaintiffs seek non-monetary relief for
alleged material misstatements related to the ABA base price in
the 2010 Proxy Statement; (ii) Count II, but only to the extent it
challenges the continued existence of the ABA as an alleged
unreasonable anti-takeover device; and, (iii) Count V, but only to
the extent that it relates to the compensation the Board received
under the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan. On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum
Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order
permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented
Complaint. On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which is
pending. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend
the action vigorously."


EL RINCON: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen R. Sanchez, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. El Rincon Asturiano, Corp., Esther Quinones, and
Antonio Hidalgo, Case No. 1:15-cv-04067 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell
      J. H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ELLY'S PANCAKE: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Coss, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Elly's Pancake House, Inc.,
and John Georges, Case No. 1:15-cv-04073 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Suit Over 2008 Lehman Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that Ernst & Young
LLP will pay $10 million to settle a New York lawsuit accusing the
accounting firm of helping Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc deceive
investors in the years leading up to its 2008 collapse, the New
York attorney general said on April 15.

The 2010 lawsuit claimed Ernst & Young's auditing facilitated a
"massive accounting fraud" and sought $150 million in fees that
the firm earned from Lehman between 2001 and 2008, plus investor
damages and equitable relief.

While the $10 million was much smaller than what the attorney
general's office had sought, Ernst & Young agreed to pay $99
million in damages to investors in a class action settlement
approved a year ago.

The case was the only action by a law enforcement authority in
connection with Lehman's 2008 collapse, New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.

"If auditors' reports . . . provide cover for their clients by
helping to hide material information, that harms the investing
public, our economy and our country," Mr. Schneiderman said.

Nearly all the $10 million will go to investors in Lehman
securities, the office said.

The case was the last significant lawsuit against Ernst & Young
over Lehman, according to a spokeswoman for the accounting firm.

"After many years of costly litigation, we are pleased to put this
matter behind us, with no findings of wrongdoing by EY or any of
its professionals," the firm said in a statement.

According to the complaint, Ernst approved the "surreptitious"
removal of tens of billions of dollars of debt from Lehman's
balance sheet to make the investment bank appear less indebted at
the close of financial quarters.

Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008, helping to trigger
the global financial crisis.  Once the fourth-largest U.S.
investment bank, Lehman held large quantities of risky subprime
mortgage securities.  The complaint alleged that, for more than
seven years before Lehman's bankruptcy, the bank made use of
transactions known as "Repo 105s," short-term financing that
temporarily moved as much as $50 billion from its balance sheet.
The lawsuit followed a report about the transactions by former
federal prosecutor Anton R. Valukas, who served as a bankruptcy
court examiner for Lehman.

The attorney general's office took more than a dozen depositions
in the case and elicited information that also helped the earlier
class action, the office said.

Ernst & Young in March agreed in principle to settle lawsuits
filed by New Jersey and California municipalities over their
losses from the Lehman collapse.

A year ago, an arbitration panel found no basis for a Lehman
malpractice claim against Ernst, ruling that any wrongdoing linked
to the accounting maneuver was "overwhelmingly attributable to
Lehman."

"Lehman's audited financial statements clearly portrayed Lehman as
what it was -- a highly leveraged entity operating in a risky and
volatile industry; and Lehman's bankruptcy was not caused by any
accounting issues," Ernst & Young said in a statement after the
class action settlement.

In 2012, the trial judge in the New York case ruled that the state
had no authority to obtain the accounting fees because they were
not paid by consumers or the state. But an appeals court reversed
him last year, saying that a forced repayment could deter
wrongdoing, an important decision for future cases.

The attorney general's case also was the first against the auditor
of a public company under New York's Martin Act, the powerful
securities fraud statute Mr. Schneiderman used last year to sue
Barclays Plc over high-speed trading in its "dark pool" trading
platform.

Lehman ended its three-year Chapter 11 in 2011 with a liquidation
plan slated to repay creditors about $65 billion, or an average of
about 21 cents on the dollar for allowed claims.

The case is People of the state of New York v. Ernst & Young, New
York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451586/2010.


FBR & CO: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Expired
----------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' deadline to file a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint expired.

FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBRCM"), an SEC-registered broker-
dealer, has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs.
Regional Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended
complaint, filed on November 24, 2014 (the "Amended Complaint"),
names FBRCM as a co-managing underwriter of offerings in September
2013 and December 2013.  Plaintiffs allege that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus used in connection with these offerings
were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The Amended
Complaint asserts claims against all the underwriters under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act.  Regional Management has
agreed to indemnify all the underwriters, including FBRCM,
pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. In response to
the defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on January 23, 2015, the
putative class plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint"), which shall serve as the operative
complaint.  The defendants had until April 28, 2015 to file a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.


FXCM INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
International Union Of Operating Engineers Local No.478 Pension
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. FXCM Inc., Dror Niv, and Robert Lande, Case No. 1:15-cv-03599-
KMW (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), asserts that the Defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business operations and the strength of its financial prospects,
while concealing significant weaknesses concerning its core
business.

FXCM Inc. provides online foreign exchange (FX) trading and
related services to retail and institutional customers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington A venue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Bankruptcy Ruling Averts Ignition-Switch Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson and Melissa Burden, writing for Detroit News,
report that General Motors will not have to face dozens of
lawsuits -- and as much as $10 billion in damages -- stemming from
its decade-long failure to disclose an ignition-switch defect that
has been blamed for more than 200 deaths and injuries.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber on April 15 upheld a legal
shield that protected the "new" GM from claims originating before
its 2009 bankruptcy and restructuring.  That includes millions of
vehicle owners -- 2.59 million of whom had cars with the faulty
ignition switch.

Judge Gerber's ruling applies to a small number of suits stemming
from crashes before July 2009, but the vast majority of claims
seeking as much as $10 billion are for economic losses -- such as
diminished resale value due to the defects or those who
unknowingly bought used cars.  It applies to as many as 70 million
GM cars and trucks that were on the road before the company's exit
from bankruptcy.

The decision stalls more than 140 lawsuits across the country.

GM praised the ruling, saying Judge Gerber "properly concluded"
that claims based on old GM's conduct are barred.

But Bob Hilliard, a Texas lawyer who represents numerous
plaintiffs suing GM, blasted Judge Gerber's decision.

"This ruling padlocks the courthouse doors. Hundreds of victims
and their families will go to bed tonight forever deprived of
justice," Mr. Hilliard said.  "GM, bathing in billions, may now
turn its back on the dead and injured, worry-free."

Observing that "this is a matter of considerable public
importance," Judge Gerber ruled that the suing owners may
immediately seek an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a law firm representing owners of
millions of recalled GM vehicles in litigation against GM, said it
plans to do just that.

"It cannot be the law that Old GM could hide the defects, and
subsequently use the bankruptcy court as a shield.  As Judge
Gerber agreed, due process required that Old GM give notice to
owners of cars with defects, and consumers did not get notice,"
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and co-lead
counsel representing plaintiffs in nationwide litigation against
GM, said in a statement.  "The law must provide a remedy."

Savings for shareholders

The ruling is a potential win for shareholders, as it could save
GM billions in payouts.  Shares of GM stock were up about 1
percent after trading closed to $37.26, up $0.32.

Some Wall Street analysts had worried that if the bankruptcy
shield were set aside, new GM could face other claims against the
old company.

"New" GM, established after the automaker's bankruptcy in 2009 as
part of a $50 billion U.S. bailout, has accepted legal liability
for crashes and death and injury claims for accidents that took
place after June 2009, even if the vehicles were built by GM
before the bankruptcy.  GM also has extended the ignition
compensation program to cover crashes that took place before the
2009 bankruptcy.  But consumers who hoped to sue GM over the lower
values of older cars, particularly Saturn Ions and Chevrolet
Cobalts with the defective ignition switch, may be out of luck.

Lawyers representing GM owners argued that they had been given no
formal notice in 2009 that they were losing their rights to sue in
the bankruptcy.  They also argued that GM committed fraud by not
disclosing, until after bankruptcy, the ignition switch defects
that dated back to 2005 -- or that some GM employees allegedly
knew about the problems but didn't tell superiors.

Judge Gerber noted that GM was in bankrutpcy for just 40 days in
2009 and faced "extraordinary urgency" and "was bleeding cash at
an extraordinary rate."  The U.S. Treasury had threatened to
withdraw support, which came in the form of a bailout, without a
speedy exit from bankruptcy. Gerber said it would have been
"wholly unreasonable to expect actual notice . . . to have been
mailed to the owners of the 70 million GM cars on the road."

The Detroit-based automaker may face class action or injury
lawsuits for conduct that took place after it became a new
company.

Gerber said GM owners claiming economic losses can sue "new" GM
"for any causes of action that might exist arising solely out of
new GM's own, independent, post-(bankruptcy closing) acts, so long
as those plaintiffs' claims do not in any way rely on any acts or
conduct by old GM."

GM still faces a long road before the ignition switch issue is
behind it.  The Justice Department aided by the FBI and a federal
grand jury in New York, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 49
state attorneys general and Transport Canada are all
investigating.  Many Wall Street analysts think GM will have to
pay billions to resolve the investigations into its delayed
recalls.

The company has retained Kenneth Feinberg, an attorney who headed
the government's U.S. Sept. 11 victims' compensation fund and
administered the assistance fund for victims of last year's Boston
Marathon bombing, "to advise the company what options may be
available to deal with those obligations."

GM's compensation fund has approved 84 death claims and 157 injury
claims and promised to pay at least $1 million for all death
claims.  GM has set aside $400 million to $600 million to pay all
claims.  Mr. Feinberg's team is still reviewing about more than a
thousand claims.


GENIE ENERGY: Parties Await Court Decision in Ferrare Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties are awaiting
a decision from the Court in a class action lawsuit by Anthony
Ferrare.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.  On
August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended by the named plaintiff ("Motion
to Dismiss").  On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed
IDT Energy's Motion to Dismiss and on November 20, 2014, filed a
reply memorandum of law in further support of its Motion to
Dismiss.  The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court.
IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. However,
because the outcome of this matter is uncertain, the Company is
unable to make an assessment of the final result and its impact on
the Company.


GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Action Engage in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties are
currently engaged in discovery in the class action by Kimberly
Aks.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present. IDT Energy filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the Court on November 6, 2014. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.  IDT Energy believes
that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action. However, because the outcome of this
matter is uncertain, the Company is unable to make an assessment
of the final result and its impact on the Company.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that the Court of
Appeals on May 7 reinstated a fraud action against Goldman Sachs &
Co. for allegedly inducing an insurer to cover a mortgage-backed
security that was designed to fail.

The 5-2 majority reversed a finding by the Appellate Division,
First Department, which found in 2013 that ACA Financial Guaranty
Corp. failed to establish that it justifiably relied on
misrepresentations by Goldman to sustain causes of action for
fraud in the inducement and for fraudulent concealment.

The Court of Appeals also issued rulings on May 7 on whether
judges can compel prosecutors to call witnesses or take other
actions within their discretion under threat of contempt and
whether a nolo contendre plea in another state is equivalent to a
guilty plea in New York.

Concerning the ACA fraud action, the court said that when weighing
a justifiable reliance allegation, a plaintiff should consider if
it had the means to gauge whether representations were reliable
and whether the plaintiff had hints of its falsity.

Using that standard, ACA had adequately alleged justifiable
reliance at the pleading stage of the case, the court said in an
unsigned memorandum decision in ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. v.
Goldman Sachs & Co., 49.

Alternately, the court found that Goldman Sachs and its co-
defendant, Paulson & Co., did not produce evidence to conclusively
show ACA Financial's lack of justifiable reliance, as required by
CPLR 3211[a][1].

The court also noted that issues about whether justifiable or
reasonable reliance was present are "not generally a question to
be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss," citing DDJ
Mgt., LLC v. Rhone Group LLC, 15 NY3d 147 (2010).

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Eugene Pigott Jr., Jenny
Rivera, Leslie Stein and Eugene Fahey were in the majority.

Judge Susan Phillips Read, in a dissent joined by Judge Sheila
Abdus-Salaam, said ACA did not comply with a well-established
principle of fraud jurisprudence that was articulated by the Court
of Appeals in a seminal 1892 ruling.

In Schumaker v. Mather, 133 NY 590, the court said a party could
not claim it was induced to enter a transaction by
misrepresentation if it had the "means available to him of
knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or
the real quality of the subject of the representation."

Here, the dissenters said, "ACA manifestly took no step" to
safeguard its interests, thereby negating its justifiable reliance
claim.

"Savvy commercial and financial players and inventive lawyers
abound in New York," Judge Read wrote.  "Our venerable rule . . .
is designed to make sure that the courts 'reject the claims of
plaintiffs who have been so lax in protecting themselves that they
cannot fairly ask for the law's protection' and 'may truly be said
to have willingly assumed the business risk that the facts may not
be as represented' [quoting DDJ Mgt.]."

The ACA-Goldman dispute dates back to 2007, when hedge fund
Paulson & Co. asked Goldman to package residential mortgages into
a security known as a collateralized debt obligation.  The
obligation was called ABACUS.

ACA agreed to insure ABACUS but said it did not know that Paulson
intended to take a "short" position on the obligation, thereby
exposing the insurer to substantial liability that ACA said it
never would have assumed had it known the true intentions behind
ABACUS' creation.

ABACUS investors lost nearly all their money amid the collapse of
the mortgage-backed securities market in the late 2000s, while
Paulson made about $1 billion by shorting ABACUS.

In 2010, Goldman agreed to pay the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission $515 million to settle a complaint over ABACUS.
Goldman acknowledged as part of the settlement that it was a
"mistake" to have marketed ABACUS to investors without disclosing
that Paulson had helped create it and was taking a short position
on it.

The dissenters on May 7 said ACA failed to take an "obvious and
easy step" to avoiding what it claims was fraud by simply asking
Paulson what its investment position was in ABACUS.

The majority decision reversed the First Department's 3-2 ruling
dismissing the fraud action against Goldman and Paulson (NYLJ, May
15, 2013).

Sullivan & Cromwell partner Richard Klapper argued for Goldman.

Marc Kasowitz -- mkasowitz@kasowitz.com -- a partner at Kasowitz
Benson Torres & Friedman, represented ACA.  He called the May 7
ruling "correct and well-grounded" and said the complaint seeks
$120 million due to the alleged fraud.

"ACA looks forward to proceeding in the case against Goldman Sachs
and Paulson & Co.," he said.

Compelling Prosecution

Also on May 7, the Court of Appeals sided with Albany County
District Attorney P. David Soares in what became a protracted
dispute with Albany City Court Judge William Carter over the
disorderly conduct prosecutions of Occupy Albany demonstrators in
2012.

The 6-0 court said judges may not compel prosecutors to call
witnesses or take other actions within the district attorneys'
discretion under threat of the court's power of contempt.

"Any attempt by the judge here to compel prosecution through the
use of his contempt power exceeded his jurisdictional authority,"
the court said in an unsigned memorandum ruling in Matter of
Soares v. Carter, 70.  "It is within the sole discretion of each
district attorney's executive power to orchestrate the prosecution
of those who violate the criminal laws of this state."

Mr. Soares, who said he agreed with the economic equality goals of
the protesters, declined to prosecute four demonstrators while
Judge Carter said their sentences should include a community
service component.  The two sides went to court after the
prosecutions of the demonstrators stalled in late 2012 and early
2013.

Judges Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Fahey
joined in the decision.  Judge Stein, who was on the Third
Department panel that also backed mr. Soares' authority to
prosecute the cases as he saw fit (NYLJ, Jan. 24, 2014), took no
part.

Christopher Horn, a special prosecutor to Mr. Soares, argued for
the district attorney.  James Knox of the E. Stewart Jones Hacker
Murphy firm in Troy represented Mr. Carter after Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman's office recused itself, citing a conflict of
interest.

Mark Mishler of Albany represented the Occupy Albany protesters.

Nolo Contendre Pleas

In another ruling, the court unanimously found in Matter of
Kasckarow v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New
York, 56, that the entry of a nolo contendere plea in another
jurisdiction is a prior conviction for purposes of New York state
sentencing statutes and mandatory listing on the state's sex
offender registry.

Daniel Kasckarow had disputed his inclusion on the registry when
he moved to New York, arguing that his plea in Florida to sexual
battery on a child under 16 was not the equivalent of a conviction
qualifying him for the sex offender list.  Mr. Kasckarow entered
the nolo contendere plea in response to a charge that he had
consensual sex with a minor in 1997 in Florida when he was 18 and
the girl was 15 (NYLJ, Nov. 1, 2011).

The court said it decided as early as People v. Daiboch, 265 NY
125 (1934), that nolo contendere pleas, while not recognized in
New York state, may be seen as the equivalent of a criminal
conviction when made in other states.

Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey
joined in the decision.

Assistant Solicitor General Claude Platton argued for the state.
Anna Pervukhin of Appellate Advocates represented Kasckarow.


HIKO ENERGY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a 2002 prediction from the Third Circuit that Pennsylvania
courts would bar contract actions from being brought under
statutory fraud claims because of the economic loss doctrine is no
longer valid, a federal district judge has ruled.

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn't spoken directly on
the question, lower state courts have ruled differently than the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had predicted, U.S.
District Judge Timothy J. Savage of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania said in his opinion rejecting an energy company's
motion to dismiss a potential class action alleging that it lured
customers to switch their energy supplier with low initial rates,
but ended up charging significantly more than local suppliers.

The suit includes a claim brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the UTPCPL.

The energy company, Hiko Energy, argued the UTPCPL claim would be
barred by the economic loss doctrine, citing to the Third
Circuit's 2002 opinion in Werwinski v. Ford Motor.

"Werwinski no longer has any vitality," Judge Savage said.  "When
it was decided, there was no guidance from Pennsylvania courts,
leading the Third Circuit to predict how Pennsylvania's highest
court would rule. . . . Since Werwinski issued, the Pennsylvania
courts have spoken.  They have held that the economic loss
doctrine does not apply to UTPCPL claims."

The economic loss doctrine keeps plaintiffs from recovering for
purely economic losses under tort theories, according to the
opinion.

Hiko had argued "that [Michael] Kantor, by invoking the UTPCPL,
improperly attempts to convert his breach of contract claim into a
fraud claim," Mr. Savage said.

Plaintiff Kantor responded that his breach of contract claim is
separate from his UTPCPL claim -- they are separate causes of
action -- and the economic loss doctrine doesn't apply to fraud
claims brought under the UTPCPL.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not expressly held that the
economic loss doctrine precludes recovery for economic losses
resulting from violations of the UTPCPL.  But, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court has, holding that the doctrine does not bar
statutory fraud claims brought pursuant to the UTPCPL," Judge
Savage said, citing to that court's 2013 opinion in Knight v.
Springfield Hyundai.

In 2009, the state Supreme Court did define the economic loss
doctrine, saying, "No cause of action exists for negligence that
results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical
injury or property damage," in its opinion in Excavation
Technologies v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania.

But, the Superior Court in Knight distinguished statutory UTPCPL
claims from negligence claims, holding the economic loss doctrine
doesn't apply to the UTPCPL, Judge Savage said.

"The Superior Court's holding, unless and until it is overruled by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, is the law of Pennsylvania," the
judge said.

For further support, Savage noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
had granted an appeal to address whether a section of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts would impose liability for a
contractor's economic loss from a public utility's failure to
properly mark a gas line -- the court ruled that it didn't, Judge
Savage said.

"In its analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no
statutory basis to impose liability for economic losses," Judge
Savage said.  "Here, there is a statutory basis for a cause of
action for fraud under the UTPCPL."

Also, Judge Savage said, the Supreme Court didn't say the economic
loss doctrine would bar the negligent misrepresentation claim.
"The Supreme Court's approval of the Superior Court's en banc
conclusion that a negligent misrepresentation claim is beyond the
reach of the economic loss doctrine indicates that the Supreme
Court determined that the Superior Court correctly concluded that
a cause of action for negligently supplying information seeking
economic damages is not barred by the economic loss doctrine," the
judge said.

Allowing Mr. Kantor's UTPCPL claim to survive means that he can
seek treble damages and attorney fees, according to the opinion,
while his contract claim would only recover the difference between
what Hiko had indicated he'd pay and what he actually paid.

"Kantor's entitlement to recovery arises from both the contract
and the UTPCPL, that is, from common law and statutory law -- two
separate and distinct sources that are not mutually exclusive,"
Judge Savage said.

The judge also rejected Hiko's bid to dismiss the other claims in
the case and what he called a "pre-emptive attack" to strike the
class allegations at this early stage.

Kenneth Grunfeld of Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia represented
Kantor and Andrew Dressel -- adressel@bsfllp.com -- of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner in Armonk, New York, represented Hiko. Neither
could be reached for comment.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Rotating Assembly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Graham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02071
(N.D. Cal., May 7, 2015), is brought on behalf of similarly
situated persons or entities, who purchased, own or leased a
Hyundai Sonatas model years 2011 to 2015, with a defect in the
engine's rotating assembly.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is headquartered in Fountain Valley,
California. Hyundai is the manufacturer, distributor, and
warrantor of all Hyundai vehicles sold within the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Dylan Hughes, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              dsh@classlawgroup.com
              sal@classlawgroup.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against iDreamSky Technology Limited and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-
02944, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased iDreamSky American Depositary Shares: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering on or about August 7, 2014; and/or (2) on the open
market between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive.
Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased iDreamSky securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 1, 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.

iDreamSky is purportedly the largest independent mobile game
publishing platform in China based on the number of active users
in 2013.  International mobile game developers grant the Company
access to the source codes of their games, purportedly allowing
for greater control and efficiency in redesigning their games for
the China market.  The Company distributes these games through
both its proprietary distribution channels and third-party
channels, such as app stores and device pre-installations.

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: (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 August 7, 2014, iDreamSky priced its IPO of 7,700,000 American
depositary shares, with each ADS representing four Class A
ordinary shares of the Company, at a price of $15.00 per ADS,
exclusive of the underwriters' exercise of their over-allotment
option to purchase 1,155,000 additional ADSs.

On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, the Company lowered
its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 to be between
RMB327.0 million (USD $52.7 million) and RMB329.0 million (USD
$53.0 million), as compared to the previously announced revenue
guidance of between RMB390.0 million (USD $62.9 million) and
RMB410.0 million (USD $66.1 million).  According to the Company,
the revised guidance reflected 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, ADSs 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.

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


ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Threatens High School Football
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Bernstein, writing for CBSChicago, reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging failure by the Illinois High School Association
to properly protect football players from the dangers of head
injuries is the first of its kind at that level, mirroring
successful efforts challenging the NFL and NCAA.  That this
contention is now being made in regard to the local grassroots
comes as no surprise, nor did the feeble response from the
defendants that only raised tougher questions.

The deeper pockets of the pros and colleges might be more
attractive targets for those chasing settlement dollars, but any
reckoning forced by this and any other actions against high
schools may ultimately end up being more significant.  Football's
head-trauma enlightenment is only growing, and the illumination of
the perils to children brings it even closer to home.

In a motion filed in Cook County Circuit Court to dismiss the
suit, the IHSA alleges that it "threatens high school football,"
apparently not understanding that high school football might
deserve to be threatened.  On top of that, its executive director
used another argument that further undermined his side's position
when he essentially stated that high schools don't have the
resources for the kind of proper management and safety protocols
the plaintiffs demand.

Standing at a press conference flanked by notable area coaches,
Marty Hickman tried the populist political play, casting himself
as a fighter for all the schools that would have to shutter their
programs due to prohibitive costs to better protect players.  But
he overreached with his logic and made it worse.

"Mount Carmel (High) isn't the Dallas Cowboys," Mr. Hickman said,
"in spite of what Mount Carmel fans might think.  Wilmington
(High) isn't the Alabama Crimson Tide."

So keeping kids safer costs too much, then.  We are left to
conclude that this is an admission, of sorts -- whatever flimsy,
inconsistent system currently in use by the schools to supervise
head-injury issues must not be brought up to any kind of accepted
code, simply due to expense.  This is like the airlines banding
together to argue against the costs of regulated maintenance of
their planes.

Whether it's this particular suit succeeding in Illinois or any
next one making the inroads long expected to keep administrators
honest about the inherent dangers of football, an inexorable
process has been initiated.

There was a time when high school boxing was a thing, too,
remember. Youth boxing clubs were immensely popular in this
country in the first half of the 20th century, and two states -
Wisconsin and Louisiana -- sanctioned prep boxing, in large part
to feed their high-profile college programs. The former ended its
official sponsorship of the activity 10 years after a 15-year-old
sophomore collapsed and died following a bout.

In the wake of that tragedy, the Wisconsin Interscholastic
Athletic Association called boxing "at best a questionable high
school sport," instituted new guidelines and began to wind down
its involvement until the programs disappeared, per the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel.  Louisiana stopped in 1958, in part due to
increased coaching-certification requirements that rendered many
of them unqualified.

Football and boxing are blood brothers in their ability to inflict
irreversible injury with the insidious accumulation of sub-
concussive blows, as well as with the knockout shots that draw a
largely disproportionate amount of media attention.  A likely
outcome of what has started with the IHSA suit is analogous to
what has already occurred with boxing in both high schools and
colleges, as youth participation continues with independent clubs
unaffiliated with schools in any official capacity.

Privatization would keep a talent pipeline intact enough for the
sport's upper levels and would put an end to the deep irony of
institutions of learning so deeply wedded to something that can be
so unhealthy for the human head.

This lawsuit is the first of its kind, but it won't be the last.
Costs will rise because they must to keep players safer, and
insurance companies will begin to give district superintendents
bad news about their premiums covering exposure to football-
related concerns.

Yes indeed, this "threatens high school football," because it's
more than fair to wonder why our schools are still in the brain-
injury business.


KASIA'S DELI: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Flores, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Kasia's Deli, Inc. and Kazimiera Bober, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04060 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a Polish deli shop in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


KEY ENERGY: Faces "Marion" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Marion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Key Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01222 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Key Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company with
locations throughout the United States providing flow control,
well testing, and other oilfield related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


LENDINGTREE INC: Home Loan Center Intends to Renew Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Home Loan Center, Inc.,
intends to renew its appeal following the issuance of a final
order by the district court related to the Dijkstra class action.

Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et
al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV).  In November
2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit
Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC,
HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting
persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West
Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to
the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The
plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt,
injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia
Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and
negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr.
Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case
was removed to federal court in October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In
February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June
2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been
established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2014, of which some or all may be
covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014,
and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet
final, and accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. HLC intends to
renew its appeal following the issuance of a final order by the
district court. The district court has stayed this matter pending
plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district
court as to whether any class members will seek trials on
individual damages.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Musgrave" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Musgrave, on behalf of himself v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02082-EDL (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
      Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
      Heather B. Dobbs, Esq.
      KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
      2041 Rosecrans Avenue
      Third Floor
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 536-1000
      Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
      E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
              bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
              hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


MAJOR ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Carrera" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Carrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Major Energy Services, LLC, Respond Power,
LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03208 (D.N.J., May 7,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellular telephones advertising
their energy and power services without the prior express written
consent of the called party.

The Defendants are suppliers of electricity service to
residential, commercial and industrial customers and maintains a
principal place of business at 100 Dutch Hill Rd. Suite 310,
Orangeburg, New York 10962.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTEC INC: Faces "Wrigley" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Wrigley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mastec, Inc., Jose R. Mas, and George L. Pita, Case
No. 1:15-cv-21740-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Mastec, Inc. owns and operates an infrastructure construction
company that provides engineering, building, installation,
maintenance, and upgrade services for energy, utility, and
communications infrastructure throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
      60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Ruling Unfavorable for Game Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juthamas Judy Suwatanapongched, Esq. --
jsuwatanapongched@sheppardmullin.com -- and Andrew S. Kreider --
akreider@sheppardmullin.com -- Esq. of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reports that
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district
court's decision to strike the class action allegations of a
putative class action against Microsoft.  The Ninth Circuit's
decision means that the district court must reconsider whether to
allow the case to proceed as a class action.  Because the decision
as to whether to certify a class generally determines whether a
class action will proceed, the Ninth Circuit's decision is an
important one for game companies, which are often confronted with
class action lawsuits.

The Baker lawsuit alleged that a design defect in Xbox 360 video
game consoles caused the consoles to malfunction and scratch game
discs -- although only 0.4% of Xbox console owners reported such
problems.  The majority opinion held that the district court
misapplied the law and should have followed an earlier Ninth
Circuit decision rejecting the notion that individual
manifestations of a defect preclude resolution of claims on a
class-wide basis.  Rather, the majority held, where a lawsuit
presents issues as to whether a defect exists and whether the
defect breached an express warranty that are common to all of the
would-be members of the class, proof that the alleged defect
caused any damages to any individual in the class is not necessary
for a class action to be certified.

The takeaway for game companies?  The Ninth Circuit's decision in
Baker v. Microsoft isn't a road map for obtaining class
certification in defective product cases, but it may smooth the
path to certification in such cases, and thereby encourage more
class actions.  On the other hand, companies may give greater
attention to limiting or disclaiming warranties, in order to avoid
the kind of claims that the decision addresses.

If you want a more detailed explanation of the Ninth Circuit's
reasoning, and the concurring judge's suggestion that the Ninth
Circuit needs to take on the issue of "comity" and what it means
for class action lawsuits, read on.

The Gory Details

The district court's decision to strike the class action
allegations was based on two prior district court decisions that
denied class certification in similar cases.  In Gable v.
LandRover N. Am., Inc., the putative class action plaintiffs
alleged that the defendant's vehicles had a defect in their
alignment that caused uneven and premature tire wear.  The
district court denied class certification because the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate that the purported defect manifested in a
majority of vehicles.  In In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc
Litigation,[6] a 2009 case with claims very similar to those in
Baker, the district court relied on the Gables decision to deny
class certification on the basis that individual issues of fact
and law predominated over common issues of fact and law.  As was
the case in Gable and Baker, the alleged defect manifested in
fewer than one percent of the total number of Xbox consoles
purchased.  The district court ruled that the need to consider
damages on an individual basis and the lack of any uniform
manifestation of the common design flaw prevented class
certification in both Gableand Scratched Disc Litigation.

In Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, however, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the Gabledecision and held that proof of the
manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class
certification in cases asserting a diminution in the value of a
product as the result of a breach of warranty.  In Wolin, the
Court decided that, regardless of when the premature tire wear was
experienced, all class members at some point experienced the same
injury due to the same defect.  The Court rejected the notion that
differences in individual manifestations of the defect precluded
resolving the claims on a class-wide basis, because all
prospective class members alleged the same injury from a defective
alignment in their vehicles and sought recovery under the same
legal theories.


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to dismiss the
class action filed in Colorado Federal District Court is pending.

The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also
names most of our Board members and some of our stockholders as
defendants, along with other persons and entities. That Complaint
alleges 18 claims for relief arising out of alleged: (1)
securities fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, or the Exchange Act, during the proposed class period from
February 11, 2011 through November 10, 2011; and (2) materially
untrue or misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses for our public offering of preferred stock in
February 2011 and of common stock in June 2011, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933. Our motion to dismiss that Complaint
was filed in October 2012 and is pending. We believe that this
lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims."


MOLYCORP INC: Intends to Defend Against SDNY Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend against claims in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on May 19, 2014, also names us and certain of our current
and former executive officers. The Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint alleges claims for relief arising out of alleged
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act, during a
purported class period from February 21, 2012 through October 15,
2013. Our Motion to Dismiss the consolidated lawsuit was filed on
August 13, 2014. On March 12, 2015, the Federal Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing the
lawsuit with prejudice. The plaintiffs have 14 days to move for
reconsideration of the order, and 30 days from the date of entry
of the judgment by the Court clerk to file a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We believe that
this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims."


MONTERREY MONEY: Faces "Garcia-Calvo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Garcia-Calvo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Monterrey Money Services, Inc. d/b/a Monterrey
Produce and Conrado Ayala, Case No. 1:15-cv-21734-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
May 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide consumer financing, debt recovery and loan
services and regularly transacts business within Collier County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MVP WORKFORCE: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cortez De Jesus, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. MVP Workforce, LLC and Lawrence Gold, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04072 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a staffing agency in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Proposed Concussion Settlement Filed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Strauss, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
N.C.A.A. filed a new proposed settlement on April 14 in a class-
action lawsuit brought against the association over its handling
of concussions and head injuries.  It is the second attempt by
plaintiffs' lawyers and the N.C.A.A. to settle the case after a
federal judge asked for changes to the original proposal in
December.

The core terms of the new plan are similar to the original -- a
$70 million medical monitoring fund for athletes, $5 million for
research and stricter return-to-play guidelines for athletes who
sustain head injuries -- but several tweaks were made to satisfy
Judge John Z. Lee, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer Steve
Berman.

The adjustments include new plaintiffs from noncontact sports like
golf, softball and track and field to address concerns about the
scope of the settlement. Universities would also now have six
months to adopt the new return-to-play guidelines or lose
protection from the settlement.  As for the money, if the full $70
million fund is not used, the remainder would go to research,
rather than be returned to the N.C.A.A.; and if the fund is
depleted, the N.C.A.A. would have the option to replenish it or
leave itself open to another class-action suit in the future.

"We took each of the judge's concerns and responded to them,"
Mr. Berman said.  "He said there's many things he liked about this
in December, and he wouldn't be putting us through all this work,
in my view, if he didn't want to find a way to approve the
settlement."

Another plaintiffs' lawyer, Jay Edelson, who was critical of the
original terms, said he was encouraged by the new settlement but
not satisfied, noting there was still no compensation for athletes
suffering from the effects of head trauma.

"Over all, we think that it's moving in the right direction, but
it's still problematic," Mr. Edelson said.  "It's not the type of
wholesale improvements that were needed.  The class is still
neglected."

A status hearing was scheduled for April 17 in Judge Lee's court,
but given that the settlement was only just filed, Mr. Berman said
he did not expect the judge to grant approval.


NESET CONSULTING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Humphreys" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Humphreys, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Neset Consulting Service, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-00052
(D. Mont., May 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in
a week.

Neset Consulting Service, Inc. is a well-site geology and geo-
steering services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan S. McConnell, Esq.
      McCONNELL LAW OFFICE
      114 West Pine Street
      Missoula, MT 59802
      Telephone: (406) 721-1262
      Facsimile: (406) 543-2557
      E-mail: nate@mcconnell-law.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Floorboards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North America
Inc. was hit on April 14 with a putative class action in Illinois
federal court, alleging the automaker concealed from consumers
that certain Altima vehicles were equipped with defective
floorboards that "substantially deteriorate" to the point where
the roadway under the vehicle becomes visible.

The suit claims model year 2002-2006 Nissan Altima vehicles
feature floorboards that cannot withstand normal exposure to the
elements, do not drain properly and rust to the degree where the
floorboards deteriorate and holes open up.  The putative class
says Nissan failed to disclose the defect to consumers and refuses
to cover the cost of repairs.

"Because the replacement of the floorboard can cost several
thousand dollars, and because Nissan refuses to recognize the
existence of the defect or to cover the full cost of repairs, many
owners of class vehicles are not in a position to replace the
defective floorboard when they discover the problem," the
complaint said.

Lead plaintiff Marie DeMaria filed suit on behalf of herself and
other consumers who purchased 2002-2006 Altima cars.  She says at
least one accident with injuries has been reported as a result of
the defect, and that "hundreds" of other drivers have complained
about the defect to Nissan and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, saying they no longer feel safe in their vehicles.

The Altima has "consistently accounted for a significant portion
of Nissan's sales," according to the complaint, and the automaker
represents the car as a "top safety pick."

As with other cars, the Altima comes factory-equipped with
floorboards at the bottom of the passenger cabin, made of metal
and covered by carpet on the interior side, while the exterior
side is exposed to metal, the complaint says.  But while
floorboards are "intended" to last the life of the vehicle, the
affected Nissan models are "prone to rusting and corroding in the
course of normal operation of the vehicles, which can lead to
large holes developing in the floorboards," the suit alleges.

Nissan allegedly knows of the defect, yet refuses to cover the
cost of repairs, according to the lead plaintiff. Drivers are
forced to pay for their own replacement floorboards, and the
automaker provides no guarantees that the replacement parts won't
suffer from the same problem, the suit says.

The complaint asks that the judge certify a class of Illinois
consumers who purchased the affected vehicles.

The plaintiff is represented by Edward A. Wallace, Amy E. Keller
and Adam Prom of Wexler Wallace LLP, John A. Yanchunis of Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Gregory F. Coleman, Mark E.
Silvey and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC, and Eric H. Gibbs
and Dylan Hughes of Gibbs Law Group LLP.

The suit is DeMaria v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al, case
number 1:15-cv-03321, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


NORTHERN BEEF: Class Action Over Idled Beef Plant Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a preliminary agreement has been
reached in a lawsuit filed by more than 250 former employees of
Aberdeen's idled beef plant who claim they weren't properly
notified before they were laid off.

Federal bankruptcy Judge Charles Nail approved the tentative
settlement that would pay less than $400 on average to former
employees of Northern Beef Packers.

The American News in Aberdeen reports former employee Jorge
Alvarado filed a class-action lawsuit in 2013 claiming he and
other laid-off workers weren't told early enough before the plant
filed for bankruptcy.

The plant opened in late 2012 but closed by July 2013.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Northern Beef Packers
does not admit to any wrongdoing.

The court will decide whether to give final approval after a
June 3 hearing.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Remaining Settlement Shares Deposited
------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
remaining two-thirds of the 0.8 million settlement shares have
been deposited into escrow in the 2010 shareholder class action.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
of the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation
Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT). On March
4, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle
this matter by entering into a Stipulation of Settlement with the
plaintiffs, which resolved all claims asserted against the Company
and the individual defendants in this case. Under the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement, which was subject to approval by the
court, the Company agreed to a cash payment of $13.5 million, a
portion of which came come from remaining insurance proceeds, as
well as the issuance of 0.8 million shares of its common stock.
The Company agreed to provide a floor value of $13.5 million on
the equity portion of the settlement; however, at the time of
final court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement the equity
value of the settlement consideration exceeded this amount and, as
a result, the number of shares to be issued as settlement
consideration was fixed at 0.8 million. Cash payments of $6.1
million from the Company, and the remaining $7.4 million from
insurance proceeds, were deposited into escrow in April 2014. The
Stipulation of Settlement was approved by the court on June 26,
2014 and became effective on August 27, 2014. Pursuant to the
court's approval order, one-third of the 0.8 million settlement
shares and one-third of the cash settlement consideration were
awarded to co-lead plaintiffs' counsel as attorneys' fees (in
addition to reimbursement of certain court-approved expenses from
the cash portion of the settlement escrow). The remaining two-
thirds of the 0.8 million settlement shares were deposited into
escrow on August 22, 2014.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: To Defend Against 2013 Shareholder Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company will continue to vigorously defend itself and the
individual defendants in the 2013 shareholder class action
litigation.

In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors alleging that the Company and the individual defendants
made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to
the Company's operations and financial condition which caused the
price of its shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the
two putative class actions were consolidated and a consolidated
complaint was filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these
claims in May 2014, and such motion was granted by the Court on
November 17, 2014, whereby the forgoing class action was dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiffs were permitted by the Court to file
a motion to amend the complaint and did so on December 8, 2014.
Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend
the complaint on December 22, 2014. On March 12, 2015, the Court
issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
as to certain claims, but granting plaintiffs' motion as to other
claims. The Company believes these claims are without merit and
the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself and the
individual defendants in this action.


OIL STATES INDUSTRIES: Transferred "West" Suit to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bruce West v. Oil States
Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01420, was transferred in from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-
cv-0122 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Clifford A. Rieders, Esq.
      RIEDERS TRAVIS HUMPHREY HARRIS WATERS & WAFFENSCHMIDT
      161 W. Third St., P.O. Box 215
      Williamsport, PA 17703-0215
      Telephone: (570) 323-8711
      Facsimile: 567-1025

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Cory E. Ridenour, Esq.
      A. Patricia Diulus-Myers, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      One PPG Place, 28th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 438-5112
      Facsimile: (412) 232-3441

         - and -

      William L. Davis, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS LLP
      500 N Akard, Suite 2500
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 520-2400
      Facsimile: (214) 520-2008
      E-mail: davisw@jacksonlewis.com

         - and -

      William N. Stukenberg, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS LLP
      Ste 3325
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 568-7854


OPTIMUM GRANITE: Faces "Zavala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Zavala and Maria Zavala, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Optimum
Granite & Marble, Inc., and Denis Bahic, Case No. 1:15-cv-04104
(N.D. Ill., May 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Optimum Granite is an Illinois corporation that provides
residential and commercial interior design services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


ORIGINAL PIZZA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Original Pizza, LLC d/b/a Leona's Pizzeria,
Inc. and Tania Mavrakis, Case No. 1:15-cv-04067 (N.D. Ill., May 7,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria located at 1504 Miner
St., Des Plaines Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


OVASCIENCE INC: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yet
ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action complaint.

The Company said, "On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder
class action was re-filed by the plaintiff in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming us and
certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuit includes the
same allegations as were included in the action filed on September
16, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31,
2014. As amended, the complaint seeks certification of a class of
purchasers of our stock during the period February 25, 2013
through September 10, 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On December 16,
2014, we moved to dismiss the complaint. The court has not yet
ruled on that motion. We believe that this action is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously. At this time, no assessment
can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether
the outcome will be material to us."


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Briefing in Class Action Ended in April
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing
on a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings in a
class action lawsuit was expected to be completed by April 17,
2015.

The Company has fully and finally resolved all potential direct
claims by members of the putative class of securities claimants
through a settlement effectuated through the Equity Plan, which
became effective on August 5, 2014.

Under the terms of that settlement, the Equity Plan provides for
full satisfaction of the claims of the putative class through (i)
$7,000,000 in cash, which was paid on August 5, 2014, (ii) 15% of
the net litigation recovery in the action against Proskauer Rose
LLP, (iii) $5,000,000 in cash, payable following the entry of a
final order resolving the Proskauer action, (iv) $3,000,000 in
cash, payable by the reorganized Company on August 5, 2015, (v)
proceeds of any residual interest the Company has in certain
director and officer insurance policies, and (vi) any remaining
cash in the class E1 disputed claims reserve established by the
Equity Plan following resolution of all other class E1 claims. The
settlement proceeds will be held in escrow pending allocations and
distributions to members of the putative class to be determined by
the district court overseeing the Exchange Act claims.

The settled claims stem from the Company's filing of a Form 8-K on
October 22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the
recommendation of management, concluded that the Company's
previously issued financial statements for at least the three
years ended December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and
for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012,
should no longer be relied upon. Shortly thereafter several
putative class action suits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Southern District") against the Company, its then President and
Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, its
then current and certain former members of its Board of the
Directors, its current independent registered public accounting
firm, and underwriters of the Company's public offering of notes
in March 2010 (the "Offering"). The Company's former independent
registered public accounting firm was later added as a defendant.
Subsequent to the Company's filing for relief under Chapter 11,
these suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that does not name the Company as a defendant. The
consolidated suit is purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Company securities between March 1, 2010 and October 19, 2012 and
purchasers of notes in the Offering. The plaintiffs allege that
documents that the Company filed with the SEC were defective,
inaccurate and misleading, that the plaintiffs relied on such
documents in purchasing the Company's securities, and that, as a
result, the plaintiffs suffered losses. The plaintiffs assert
claims under the Securities Act against all defendants and claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
against the then former President and former Chief Financial
Officer of the Company.

Following additional amendments on plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims
and motion to dismiss briefing, on April 28, 2014, the Southern
District denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims
filed by the then former President and former Chief Financial
Officer on the third amended complaint. On July 2, 2014, the
Southern District issued a scheduling order provided that
discovery would be completed by July 22, 2015. On October 20,
2014, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file another amended
complaint alleging claims under the Exchange Act against the
Company's current and former independent registered public
accounting firms, and on November 28, 2014, the Southern District
denied the plaintiffs' motion.

On February 17, 2015, the Company's former independent registered
public accounting firm requested that the Southern District strike
the class allegations in the active complaint as they relate to
that firm. On March 2, 2015, the Southern District stayed all
depositions to allow the Company's former independent registered
public accounting firm to move for summary judgment or judgment on
the pleadings. Briefing on that motion was expected to be
completed by April 17, 2015.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lennartson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and Papa Murphy's
International, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00725 (W.D. Wash., May 7,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to consumers without prior express
written consent.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza company with its principle
place of business at 8000 NE Parkway Dr. #350 Vancouver, WA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Karin B. Swope, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
              kswope@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      J. Gordon Rudd Jr., Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612)341-0844
      E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com


PHOTOMEDEX INC: District Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a district court has not
yet rendered its opinion on the settlement of a class action
lawsuit.

On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two
top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis
M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit
alleged various violations of the Federal securities laws between
November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013. A mediation on possible
settlement of this action was held on November 10, 2014; the
parties including the Company's insurance carrier have agreed on a
possible settlement. The Company has paid its own legal fees up to
the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be
paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel will be paid by the
carrier of the insurance policy. This settlement is subject to
review and approval by the District Court, which has not yet
rendered its opinion.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Plaintiffs in Tel Aviv Case to Join US Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was served
on July 29, 2014 with an application to certify a class action,
filed in Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company
and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive
Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial
Officer. The plaintiffs who initiated this complaint have agreed
to be part of, and be bound by, the possible settlement reached in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and the same two top executives.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: To Contribute Less Than $100,000 in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there were multiple
class-action lawsuits filed in connection with PhotoMedex's
proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. All cases asserted claims
against LCA-Vision, Inc., and a mix of other defendants, including
LCA's chief executive officer and directors, PhotoMedex, and
Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
PhotoMedex. The complaints generally allege that the proposed
acquisition undervalued LCA and deprived LCA's shareholders of the
opportunity to participate in LCA's long-term financial prospects,
that the "go shop" and "deal-protection" provisions of the Merger
Agreement were designed to prevent LCA from soliciting or
receiving competing offers, that LCA's Board breached its
fiduciary duties and failed to maximize that company's stockholder
value, and that LCA, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade aided and abetted
the LCA defendants' alleged breaches of duty. The parties have
reached a possible settlement in these suits, with the Company
contributing less than $100,000 to the settlement, plus the
payment of its legal fees, and the remainder of the settlement
being covered by the insurance carriers.  This settlement is
subject to review and approval by the state court, which has not
yet rendered its opinion.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. Radiancy Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary,
Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President, remains
pending.

On April 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia against the
Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's
President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other
customers residing in ten different states who purchased
Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of
state business and consumer protection codes including false and
misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of
express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification
of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as
subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The
complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness
fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on
May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. The Company
has filed a motion to dismiss this case; that motion is pending
before the Court. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for
November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. Radiancy and its
officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this
lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss,
cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated
and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of
any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has
not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: "Cantley" Class Action in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action lawsuit
filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair
products, is now in the discovery phase.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint;
the case is now in the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers
intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit.
Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the
amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably
estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has
been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims
made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any
reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal
matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the
Company may be required to record a contingent liability or
reserve for these matters.


PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02099
-CSB-DGB (C.D. Ill., May 7, 2015), seeks to end the Defendants
practice of negligently placing automated calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular phone.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns
and operates a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


PJCM RESTAURANT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Hernandez Velasquez, Armando Aguilar, Carlos Hernandez,
Francisco Cardoso, Luis Antonio Fernandez, Rodolfo Melendez, and
Rodolfo Melendez, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
P.J.C.M. Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Jackson Hole, Jackson Hole Burger,
Inc. d/b/a Jackson Hole, Chris Meskouris, James Meskouris, Steve
Galekovic, and Isaac Paschalides, Case No. 1:15-cv-03602
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of fast food restaurants
located at 521 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RANDY'S TRUCKING: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronny Ferguson and Roger Moellman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Randy's Trucking, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00697-JLT (E.D. Cal., May 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to properly pay overtime wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.

Randy's Trucking, Inc. is drilling production support company
doing business in the Kern County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Lion Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


RANDY'S TRUCKING: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronny Ferguson and Roger Moellman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Randy's Trucking, Inc., Case No.
1:15-at-00374 (E.D. Cal., May 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to properly pay overtime wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.

Randy's Trucking, Inc. is drilling production support company
doing business in the Kern County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Lion Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Due
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit was due on or about
April 28, 2015.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and shareholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On August 25,
2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System and City
of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were appointed as lead
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An amended complaint
was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to the 1933 Act
Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act Claims") seeking
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 2, 2013 and
October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On
February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss was due on or about April 28, 2015. The Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend
against the litigation vigorously.

The Company's primary insurance carrier during the applicable time
period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii)
acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the
1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the
terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The
parties are in the process of negotiating an allocation between
denied and acknowledged claims.


REMINGTON ARMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that a federal judge in
Kansas City, Missouri, has given preliminary approval to a massive
class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective
Remington rifles that were the subject of a CNBC documentary.

The 2010 program "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation"
explored allegations that for decades the company covered up a
design defect that allowed the guns to fire without the trigger
being pulled, resulting in dozens of deaths and hundreds of
injuries.

Under the settlement, which is still subject to final approval
later this year, Remington will offer to replace the trigger
systems, free of charge, on more than 7 million of its bolt-action
rifles.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Lanier, called the settlement
"a tremendous accomplishment" and "a great use of the legal
system."

"It fixes what the plaintiffs are concerned is a misfire danger in
the rifles, thus enhancing the safety of users and nearby third
parties," Lanier said in an e-mail.

An attorney for Remington and DuPont, which owned Remington until
1993 and is also a defendant in the case, did not respond to an
email seeking a comment.

Remington continues to insist the guns are safe, and claims all
the incidents were the result of user error or improper
maintenance.  The company said it is agreeing to the settlement
now in order to put the issue behind it once and for all.
Remington's owner, Cerberus Capital Management, has been trying to
exit the gun business since 2012.

The proposed settlement covers some of the world's most popular
rifles, including Remington models 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673,
710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725.  All contain a
tiny internal part known as a "trigger connector" that critics say
can cause the guns to malfunction. Under the agreement, most
owners would be eligible to have the guns retrofitted with a
"connectorless" trigger system.

After the parties first proposed the settlement in December, U.S.
District Judge Ortrie Smith raised questions about the fact that
under the agreement, owners of some 600,000 guns that the company
says are too old to be retrofitted would instead receive Remington
product vouchers worth as little as $10.  At a hearing in
February, Judge Smith asked why the company had not considered
buying back the guns instead.

"If the guns are defective, why are they still out there?" Judge
Smith asked.  But the company and plaintiffs' attorneys -- who
stand to collect $12.5 million in fees if the deal goes through --
said the voucher arrangement was the best option for the older
models, which were manufactured as early as 1948.

The judge ordered plaintiffs' attorneys to add representative
owners of the older rifles as named plaintiffs in the suit, giving
them a more direct voice in the settlement.  After the attorneys
complied, the judge ruled on April 14 that the case may proceed.

"The terms of the agreement, and the settlement as provided
therein, are approved preliminarily as fair, reasonable and
adequate," Judge Smith wrote.

The preliminary approval begins a roughly six-month period during
which gun owners and other interested parties can formally object
to the settlement.

A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is set for
Dec. 14.


ROCKET FUEL: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consolidated complaint
was filed in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014,
respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the
Northern District of California against us and certain of our
officers and directors. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in our initial
public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and our
secondary offering on February 5, 2013 (the "Secondary Offering")
are also named as defendants. The complaints allege that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about the ability
of our technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic,
and about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The complaints also
allege that our registration statements and prospectuses for the
IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading
statements on these topics. The complaints purport to assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on
behalf of those who purchased our common stock between September
20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who
purchased stock in our initial public offering on September 19,
2013. The Mehrotra complaint also purports to assert a claim for
violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The
complaints seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The
above actions were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was selected
on December 15, 2014. A consolidated complaint was filed on
February 27, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against the purported class action."


SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Bowers, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sandisk Corporation, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02050 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Sandisk Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs,
develops and manufactures solid state drives, embedded products,
removable cards, universal serial bus (USB) drives, wireless media
drives, and digital media players.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


SEIS VECINOS: Faces "Urtecho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilda Sabrtna Urtecho, Dora Luz Galvez and Severiano Rojas
Rosales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Seis Vecinos Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Seis Vecinos, Juan Jose
Velez, and Yenifer Canales, Case No. 1:15-cv-03559-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
May 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 812 East
149th Street, Bronx, New York, 10455.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIMPLY RIGHT: "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurelio Sanchez, Domingo Sanchez, Daniel Hernandez, Miguel Angel
Godoy, Jose Luis Arreola, Benita Arreola, and Clara Arreola, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Simply Right, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., Daniel Kilgore, and
Beatrice Perman, Case No. 1:15-cv-00974 (D. Colo., May 7, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Simply Right, Inc. owns and operates a janitorial company with a
principal street address of 1309 16th St., Ogden, Utah 84404.

Cinemark USA, Inc. owns and operates 335 theaters throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Powers Milstein
      Milstein Law Office
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


SOURCE 1: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicomedes Perez De La Cruz, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Source 1 Building Maintenance
Services, Inc., and Timothy J. Berger, Case No. 1:15-cv-04071
(N.D. Ill., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company in
Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


SOUTHERN STAR: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Willis, individually and on behalf of all other
similiarly situated v. Southern Star, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00633-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Southern Star, Inc. is in the business of installing and
maintaining video services for Dish Network satellite television
subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


SPECIAL SECURITY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isac Perez and other similarly situated individuals v. Special
Security Guard Co. and Atilio J. Escobar, Case No. 1:15-cv-21753-
DPG (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Florida Profit corporation that
offers security guard services in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SQUARE 1: Faces "Lakowitz" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Lakowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Square 1 Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00371 (M.D.N.C., May 6, 2015), asserts that the proposed merger
transaction between Square 1 and Pacwest Bancorp is a product of a
flawed process that was designed to ensure the sale of Square 1 to
PacWest on terms preferential to the Defendants and other Square 1
insiders and which subvert the interests of the Plaintiff and the
other public stockholders of the Company.

Square 1 Financial, Inc. is a banking and financial services
company and maintains a principal executive office at 406
Blackwell Street, Suite 240, Durham, NC 27701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Garrett Schiller, Esq.
      SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
      5540 Mumford Rd., Ste. 101
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Telephone: (919) 789-4677
      Facsimile: (919) 789-4469
      E-mail: dgschiller@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, Connecticut 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


SQUARE 1: Faces "Li" Suit in N.C. Over Illegal Company Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kuei Jung Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Square 1 Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00373 (M.D.N.C., May 7, 2015), asserts that the proposed merger
transaction between Square 1 and Pacwest Bancorp is a product of a
flawed process that was designed to ensure the sale of Square 1 to
PacWest on terms preferential to the Defendants and other Square 1
insiders and which subvert the interests of the Plaintiff and the
other public stockholders of the Company.

Square 1 Financial, Inc. is a banking and financial services
company and maintains a principal executive office at 406
Blackwell Street, Suite 240, Durham, NC 27701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Garrett Schiller, Esq.
      SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
      5540 Mumford Rd., Ste. 101
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Telephone: (919) 789-4677
      Facsimile: (919) 789-4469
      E-mail: dgschiller@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, Connecticut 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


STM: Accesibility Rights Group Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Rukavina, writing for CBC News, reports that a group
representing people who have reduced mobility filed a request in
Quebec Superior Court for a class action lawsuit against
Montreal's two primary transit agencies -- the STM and the AMT --
as well as the City of Montreal and the provincial transport
ministry.

Le Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec (RAPLIQ)
said people with reduced mobility are extremely limited in their
access to Montreal's trains, metros and buses.

Lawyer Aymar Missakila said he'll be seeking $5,000 in damages for
up to 20,000 possible plaintiffs.

"We've waited too long to be considered real citizens," said
Linda Gauthier, president of RAPLIQ.

"Our rights are guaranteed in Quebec and Canada's Charters of
Rights and in the International Convention on the Rights of
Handicapped Persons, which Canada ratified in 2010," Gauthier
said.

The group said only four of the 13 new stations on the AMT's new
Train de l'est commuter train line are accessible, and only one
station out of 51 on the AMT's five other lines are accessible.
It noted only eight of the STM's 68 metro stations are accessible,
and that the STM's fleet of accessible buses is plagued by
mechanical problems.

RAPLIQ said the provincial transport ministry has cut funding to
the transit agencies for accessibility programs.  The group also
blamed politicians at city hall for not taking the issue
seriously.

"We rely on public transit to live our lives every day, to be
economically and socially successful, and we are undermined every
day," said RAPLIQ member Laurent Morissette, who uses a
wheelchair.

"We often have to wait on sidewalks in freezing temperatures while
other people live their lives. We are left waiting on the sidewalk
of life," said Ms. Morissette.

The class action will need to be approved by the court before it
can proceed.


SUPERIOR TANK: "Galvan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Guevara Galvan, as an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Superior Tank Co., Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-00893 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Superior Tank Co., Inc. manufactures and installs bolted and
welted steel storage tanks for potable water, wastewater, and
crude oil throughout the united states and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


SYNGENTA AG: Case Over China's Rejection of GMO May Set Precedent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that
litigation over China's rejection of a biotech trait could set an
important precedent, experts say.

The barrage of farmer lawsuits against a biotech developer could
give foreign buyers more influence over genetically modified crops
grown in the U.S., experts say.

Syngenta faces numerous cases in federal court filed by growers
who claim they lost money due to China's rejection of Viptera
corn, which USDA deregulated in 2010.

The legal dispute is troubling to biotech proponents, who fear
that litigation-averse companies will become reluctant to
introduce new traits even when they're approved by federal
regulators.

"It's ultimately giving China a veto on our regulatory process,"
said Mary Boote, CEO of Truth About Trade and Technology, a
nonprofit that supports genetic engineering.

Critics of federal biotech oversight, on the other hand, say the
lawsuits simply reflect market realities -- overseas buyers are
often sensitive to transgenic crops regardless of their status
with USDA.

The court system provides a means of "backdoor regulation," said
George Kimbrell, attorney for the Center for Food Safety, which is
involved in several lawsuits over biotechnology.

"We think federal oversight of genetically engineered crops is
woefully inadequate," Mr. Kimbrell said.  "Litigation is
unfortunately even more necessary in such circumstances."

Syngenta's insect-resistant trait was sold to U.S. farmers before
China cleared it for importation, resulting in numerous corn
shipments getting turned away in 2013 and 2014.

Farmers who are suing the company claim that reduced exports also
depressed corn prices.  They're demanding compensation from
Syngenta on several legal grounds, arguing the biotech firm
released the trait despite knowing of the potential for market
disruption.

The cases were consolidated before a federal judge in Kansas who
is now sorting out procedural matters in the litigation.

While the plaintiffs face an "uphill battle" in proving their
claims, the "chilling effect" for biotech developers will increase
as the case progresses, said Kristine Tidgren, staff attorney for
the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State
University.

"I don't see that agriculture wins in this lawsuit, no matter how
it turns out," she said.

Even if Syngenta ultimately prevails, the case will encourage
copycat lawsuits if the plaintiffs' legal arguments are able to
survive one or more "motions to dismiss," she said.

"Their liability would be broadened for all types of claims,"
Tidgren said.

Such an outcome would be avoided if the complaints are thrown out
of court early, but Syngenta faces mounting legal costs and may be
tempted to settle.

"It's so costly to litigate and you just want it to go away,"
Ms. Tidgren said.

A financial settlement, however, may increase the appetite among
plaintiffs' attorneys for similar lawsuits regardless of legal
merit, she said.

"Companies that are named in class actions really have a difficult
decision to make," Ms. Tidgren said.

The case against Syngenta parallels litigation against Monsanto, a
rival biotech firm that recently settled allegations of acting
negligently in field tests for restricted biotech wheat, she said.

In that dispute, however, genetically modified wheat was not
cleared by USDA, whereas Syngenta's trait faced no planting
restrictions.

Ms. Boote, of Truth about Trade and Technology, said she's worried
that plaintiffs' attorneys have seized on genetically modified
organisms as an issue, potentially creating a pattern of repeat
litigation.

"If it's proven to be effective, why wouldn't it be?" she said.
"That's human nature."

Biotech critics counter that stronger protections for non-GMO
farmers would remove the need for court battles.

Despite recurrent problems, the USDA still insists its "hands are
tied" in deregulating biotech crops that aren't plant pest risks,
even if they can cause economic harm, said Mr. Kimbrell.

"This would not be necessary if we had responsible regulations and
limits on GMOs, but we don't," he said.


TOP RANK: Faces "Alessi" Suit in D.Conn. Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald F. Alessi, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00689 (D.
Conn., May 7, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com
              sbartone@zlk.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Bobadilla" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Bobadilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-03187-NLH-KMW
(D.N.J., May 6, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Capo" Suit in E.D. Pa. Over Pacquiao's Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Capo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-02516-TJS (E.D.
Pa., May 7, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PC
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1721
      E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Scheffer" Suit in Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Scheffer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60952-WPD
(S.D. Fla., May 7, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. McMullen, Esq.
      COHEN & MCMULLEN, P.A.
      1132 SE 3rd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
      Telephone: (954) 523-7774
      Facsimile: (954) 523-2656
      E-mail: Michael@floridajusticefirm.com

         - and -

      Bradford M. Cohen, Esq.
      COHEN & MCMULLEN, P.A.
      1132 SE 3rd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
      Telephone: (954) 523-7774
      Facsimile: (954) 523-2656
      E-mail: service.bclaw@gmail.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Tjaden" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Tjaden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03419 (C.D.
Cal., May 6, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
      E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
              c.marker@rlollp.com

         - and -

      Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Bouchier" Suit in Texas Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryla Bouchier, individually and as class representative v. Top
Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00104 (S.D. Tex., May 7,
2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the
injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny
Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus R. Spagnoletti, Esq.
      SPAGNOLETTI & CO.
      401 Louisiana Street, 8th Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 653-5600
      Facsimile: (713) 653-5656
      E-mail: mspagnoletti@spaglaw.com

         - and -

      Francis I. Spagnoletti, Esq.
      Jerry C. von Sternberg, Esq.
      SPAGNOLETTI & CO.
      401 Louisiana Street, 8th Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 653-5600
      Facsimile: (713) 653-5656
      E-mail: fspagnoletti@spaglaw.com
              jvonsternberg@spaglaw.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Constantino" Suit in Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Nick Constantino, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. Top Rank, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01025-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2015), is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries
suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and
Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
              manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com

         - and -


      Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: nespole@whafh.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Miller" Suit in Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Miller, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60964-WPD
(S.D. Fla., May 8, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way Ft.
      Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
      Matthew M. Guiney
      Robert Y. Altchiler
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
              guiney@whafh.com
              altchiler@whafh.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in D.P.R. Over Pacquiao's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Mora Rodriguez, Gabriel Ivan Santos, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01550 (D.P.R., May 8, 2015), is an action
for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to
disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by
Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd
Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone:  (212) 683-3400
      Facsimile: (212) 683-3402
      E-mail: tjmckenn@gme-law.com
              gegleston@gme-law.com

         - and -

      Nelson Robles-Diaz, Esq.
      NELSON ROBLES-DIAZ LAW OFFICES P.S.C.
      PO Box 192302
      San Juan, PR 00919-2302
      Telephone: (787) 294-9518
      Facsimile: (787) 294-9519
      E-mail: nroblesdiaz@gmail.com


TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Toll Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld disclosed that users of High-Occupancy Toll Lanes ("HOT
Lanes") filed a class action lawsuit on April 15 in Virginia
federal court alleging that toll road operator Transurban,
Faneuil, and their partners assessed unfair, illegal, and
unconscionable administrative fees and civil penalties on area
drivers for allegedly failing to pay HOT Lanes tolls. The
Plaintiffs are represented by Hausfeld and Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
Washington, DC-based law firms with substantial experience in
class action litigation, along with other co-counsel.

Drivers who use the HOT Lanes on I-495 and I-95/I-395 are charged
tolls ranging from $0.20 to $1.25 per mile each way via an E-Z
Pass transponder mounted on the driver's windshield.  The lawsuit
alleges that when the E-Z Pass is not read and a minimal toll
violation occurs, often due to no fault of the driver, Transurban
fails to give adequate notice, and then assesses and attempts to
collect thousands of dollars in illegal penalties and fees against
the driver.  The Plaintiffs allege that these penalties and fees
violate the E-Z Pass contract, state law, the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, and
the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Among a number of allegedly illegal activities, the Plaintiffs
contend that Transurban assesses a $100 "administrative fee" for
each toll violation that bears no relation to any true cost of
administration and initiates collection lawsuits by illegally
"robo-signing" summonses after the statute of limitations has
expired.  In addition, Transurban assesses civil penalties of up
to $1,000 per violation for supposed repeat violations -- but does
so without a court finding of even a single violation.  The
lawsuit further alleges that Transurban seeks these illegal costs
due to the fact that the HOT lanes are not as lucrative as the
company initially projected.

Transurban and the related Defendants have charged exorbitant sums
to the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, according to the Complaint. For
example, Plaintiff Mary Elise Pizarro of Alexandria used the I-495
HOT Lanes without incident for her round trip to work.  Then, in
May, 2013, Transurban registered "toll violations" during a few of
Ms. Pizarro's trips for no apparent reason.  Indeed, during the
same period, Ms. Pizarro's E-Z Pass transponder correctly
registered her toll payments for half of her round trip commute.
Unbeknownst to Ms. Pizarro, over a two-week period, Ms. Pizzaro
purportedly missed about $20 in tolls.  Over a year later,
Transurban sued Ms. Pizarro for a staggering $9,440.90 in fees and
penalties -- nearly 500 times the purported missed tolls.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent all individuals who had an E-Z
Pass, used the HOT Lanes in Virginia, and who were assessed
administrative fees or civil penalties by Transurban.  In
addition, the plaintiffs also seek to represent all individuals
who received correspondence from Transurban's debt collector, Law
Enforcement Systems, arising from the individual's use of HOT
Lanes.

James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld, remarked, "Transurban has
filed thousands of lawsuits against DC area drivers in the past
year alone seeking to collect exorbitant and illegal
administrative fees and civil penalties. Area drivers are finally
standing up to Transurban's bullying tactics."

Jeffrey Kaliel, a partner with Tycko & Zavareei, stated,
"Inadvertent missed tolls can happen to anyone, whether because
the toll gate malfunctions, or because an E-Z Pass battery dies.
When that happens, everyone agrees the driver should pay the
missed toll.  But this private toll-road operator must not be
allowed to ruin a driver's finances with thousands of dollars in
devastating fees and penalties for a $1 or $2 toll."

Hausfeld and Tycko & Zavareei are representing the Plaintiffs,
along with co-counsel DiMuroGinsberg, PC; Wade, Friedman & Sutter
P.C.; and Zimmerman Reed, PLLP.

Washington, DC-area drivers are urged to contact the firms to
learn more about their legal rights.  For additional inquiries,
please contact Nathaniel Giddings (Hausfeld) at 202-540-7200 or
Jeffrey Kaliel (Tycko & Zavareei) at 202-973-0900.

                          About Hausfeld

Hausfeld -- http://www.hausfeld.com-- is a global law firm with
offices in Washington, DC; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Brussels;
and London.  The firm has a broad range of complex litigation
expertise, particularly in consumer, antitrust/competition,
financial services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass
torts, and human rights matters.


TREMOR VIDEO: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In November 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, our directors, and
certain of our executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by us in connection with our IPO concerning our
business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  On April 22, 2014, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 28, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On
September 18, 2014, we filed a reply in support of the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 5, 2015, the Court
granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in our favor."


UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Overcharging Air Delivery Service Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn W. Tucker, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and The
UPS Store, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03576 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful conduct of charging
consumers inflated UPS Air rates for packages that UPS transported
by ground.

United Parcel Service, Inc. owns and operates a package delivery
company with its principal place of business located at 55
Glenlake Parkway NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30328.

The UPS Store, Inc. owns and operates The UPS Store franchise
retail outlets in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW, LLC
      100 Wall Street, 23rd Aoor
      New York, New York 10005
      Telephone: (212) 920-3072
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

         - and -

      David A. Stampley, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW, LLC
      100 Wall Street, 23rd Aoor
      New York, New York 10005
      Telephone: (212) 920-3072
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Clements" Suit Over Railroad Subsurface
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Clements, Robert D. Zimmerman, as Trustee for the Robert
D. Zimmerman Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case
No. 4:15-cv-00191-JAS (D. Ariz., May 7, 2015), asserts that the
Defendant installed, maintained, leased, and operated a pipeline
underneath its Railroad's right-of-way without seeking and
obtaining an easement or other right to use the subsurface of
Plaintiffs' or Class members' land.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation that
operates North America's premier railroad franchise, covering 23
states in the western two-thirds of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angela M. Higgins, Esq.
      John W. Cowden, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC
      2400 Pershing Rd., Ste. 500
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 471-2121
      Facsimile: (816) 472-0288

         - and -

      Caroline A. Tinsley, Esq.
      J. Robert Sears, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC
      1010 Market St., Ste. 950
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 231-2925
      Facsimile: (314) 231-4857

         - and -

      Denise J. Wachholz, Esq.
      John Anthony Klecan, Esq.
      William W. Drury Jr., Esq.
      RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS PA
      1 N Central Ave., Ste. 900
      Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417
      Telephone: (602) 307-9900
      Facsimile: (602) 307-5853
      E-mail: dwachholz@rcdmlaw.com
              jklecan@rcdmlaw.com
              wdrury@rcdmlaw.com


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Royalties Class Action for $11.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Universal Music has agreed to pay up to $11.5 million and bump up
royalties going forward to resolve a contention lawsuit that
alleged it had cheated recording artists by improperly classifying
digital downloads off of services like Apple's iTunes as "sales"
rather than "licenses."

The settlement, filed on April 14 and needing a judge's approval,
would compensate an estimated 7,500 artists including named
plaintiffs Chuck D. of Public Enemy, Rick James (by way of trust),
Dave Mason of Traffic, Whitesnake, Andres Titus of Black Sheep,
Ron Tyson of The Temptations, Martha Davis of the Motels,
Feliciano Tavares and a few others.

The lawsuit came on the heels of a 2010 appellate ruling in F.B.T.
Productions v. Aftermath regarding Eminem songs, which suggested
that "licenses" rather than "sales" were the more appropriate
accounting treatment in an era where record labels no longer spend
huge amounts on packaging physical CDs.  The difference is
substantial.  Under "licenses" or "leases," artists have an even
split with labels.  Under "sales," artists only get about 15
percent of net receipts. Universal defended itself by questioning
whether the FBT holding applied to many of the contracts of class
plaintiffs.

Other big labels including Warner Music and Sony were hit with
class action lawsuits.  Both previously settled, while Universal
Music and subsidiary Capitol Records (as part of EMI) were hold-
outs until fairly recently.  In March, after litigating a case
that reviewed some 11,000 recording contracts, the parties
signaled that a settlement was coming.  According to a motion to
approve the settlement filed on April 14, the Warner settlement
(also $11.5 million) became a "starting point," but the parties
struggled to reach their own conclusion, particularly on the issue
of future relief.

As part of the deal, Universal makes no admission of wrong-doing,
but it will be paying nevertheless.  In a statement, UMG
commented, "Although we are confident we appropriately paid
royalties on digital downloads and adhered to the terms of
contracts, we are pleased to amicably resolve this matter and
avoid continued legal costs."

Of the $11.5 million settlement, just over $3 million is going to
attorney's fees and costs while about $200,000 is going to the
named plaintiffs.  The rest will be going to artists with
contracts from UMG or Capitol Records between 1965 and 2004 with
certain caveats.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the deal is the royalty
bump that artists will now be getting over future downloads.  It's
a 10 percent bump on the royalty rate, so if an artist previously
got 15 percent of net receipts, that artist would now get an
additional 1.5 percent, or 16.5 percent total.  What's more,
according to the motion to approve the settlement, "Class Members
will also lock in certain additional benefits in the calculation
of their royalties on Download/Mastertone income preventing
reductions for, e.g., 'packaging' and free goods from being
implemented in the future on Downloads/Mastertones."

Of course, digital downloads are on the decline as streaming
income is surging.  At least one lawsuit is currently in play that
challenges whether Sony is improperly characterizing those
receipts in an accounting-favorable way.

In the meantime, Len Simon, one of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys,
said, "This settlement is a fair resolution of this controversy
over how to compensate artists for their valuable work in a new
medium which we believe was not contemplated by their contracts,
many drafted in the 1970s or 1980s.  And it compensates these
artists now, rather than after additional years of litigation and
uncertainty."


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Youngers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03496-FMO-JEM (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is a financial services company
which provides investment products and solutions, primarily
through its subsidiary investment managers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Product Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Patricia Hillestad and Jeff Kluin
filed a lawsuit April 9 against Windsor Window Company on
defective product charges in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.  The plaintiffs said in a class
action complaint that they received defective windows that have
degraded prematurely and have failed in other ways.  They also
allege the installed windows did not follow building codes and
standards.

According to the suit, what they call fraudulent behavior in
manufacturing and installing has led to the plaintiffs and class
members to financial harm.  Allegations include that the defendant
had knowingly or at least should have known that it was marketing
and manufacturing poor quality windows.  They state in the suit
because of its experience, the defendant should have known of
defects in their product.

Consumers including the plaintiffs had expectations of windows
lasting for up to 10 years based on quality assurance indicated
through the company's promotional materials.  It is also stated in
the suit that warranties from the company are unreasonable and
include fees for company inspection and other items that
discourage warranty claims being sought.

The defendant is charged with gross negligence and breach of an
implied warranty, breach of an expressed warranty and violation of
the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among other charges.

The plaintiffs are represented by James Shah of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP; and Benjamin Johns --
BenJohns@chimicles.com -- Joseph Kenney --
JosephKenney@chimicles.com -- and Andrew Ferich of Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Lawrentz" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
James Lawrentz, a millwright, was exposed to asbestos in the
course of his thirty years of employment with Constellium Rolled
Products Ravenswood.  He testified in a deposition that part of
his job required him to remove asbestos when he had to work on
heaters and fans.  He stated that he had to use a hammer or a bar
to pry it off and then swept it up and threw it away.  This was a
regular part of his job duties.  He also testified that he worked
as a maintenance laborer, which consisted of him cleaning up
things, including asbestos.  Additionally, he worked in the mason
shop which required him to mix bags of pure, loose asbestos to put
in furnaces.

Mr. Lawrentz, by Edwin H. Pancake, his attorney, appeals a
decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of
Review, in which the Board affirmed a December 3, 2013, Order of
the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges.  In its Order, the
Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's March 1,
2013, decision rejecting the claim.

After review, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia agreed
with the reasoning of the Office of Judges and the conclusions of
the Board of Review.  The evidentiary record indicates that while
Mr. Lawrentz was exposed to asbestos in the course of his
employment, he does not have asbestosis, the Supreme Court pointed
out.  In the absence of occupational pneumoconiosis and
asbestosis, Mr. Lawrentz's lung cancer cannot be causally
attributed to his occupational exposure, the Supreme Court held.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the decision of the
Board of Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or
statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous
conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement
or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.  Therefore, the
decision of the Board of Review is affirmed.

The case is JAMES LAWRENTZ, Claimant Below, Petitioner v.
CONSTELLIUM ROLLED PRODUCTS RAVENSWOOD, Employer Below,
Respondent, NO. 14-0711 (W. Va. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated May 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/631B7K
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calaveras Dropped as Defendant in "Johnson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, ordered that defendant Calaveras
Asbestos, Ltd., is dismissed without prejudice from the action
styled HAROLD E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV-14-9222-RGK(AGRX)(C.D.
Calif.).

A full-text copy of Judge Klausner's May 7, 2015, Order is
available at http://is.gd/FXtdnHfrom Leagle.com.

Gary D. Sharp, Esq. -- gsharp@foleymansfield.com -- Melanie L.
Ameele, Esq. -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- and Maryam
Danishwar, Esq. -- mdanishwar@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY &
MANSFIELD, PLLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant
CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Pa. Appeals Vacated, Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in an opinion
dated May 11, 2015, vacated a district court's grant of partial
summary judgment in favor of Georgia-Pacific LLC, a defendant in
an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit.  Specifically, the
Third Circuit vacated the orders of the District Court barring
Plaintiffs Arthur Collins, Dennis Larweth, and James Doyle's lung-
cancer claims and remanded for the District Court to rule in the
first instance on whether the correct standard for filing
supplemental complaints is met.

The appeals cases are IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (No. VI) LOUISE M. DOYLE, Special Administrator for the
Estate of James Doyle, Appellant (13-2087) PAMELA F. LARWETH,
Special Administrator for the Estate of Dennis N. Larweth,
Appellant (13-2088) CLARISSA COLLINS, Special Administrator for
the Estate of Arthur E. Collins, Appellant (13-2090); IN RE:
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) CLARISSA COLLINS,
Special Administrator for the Estate of Arthur E. Collins,
Appellant (14-1235) PAMELA F. LARWETH, Individually and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of Dennis N. Larweth, Deceased,
Appellant (14-1755) MARK DOYLE, Special Administrator for the
Estate of James Doyle, Deceased, Appellant (14-1756), NOS. 13-
2087/2088/2090, 14-1235/1755/1756 (3d Circ.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/vNHNuyfrom Leagle.com.

Robert G. McCoy, Esquire (Argued), Allen D. Vaughn, Esquire,
Michael P. Cascino, Esquire, Cascino Vaughn Law Offices, Ltd., 220
South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607, Counsel for Appellants.

Michael W. Drumke, Esq. -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com -- Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP, 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300, Chicago,
IL 60611-3604, Counsel for Appellee, Georgia Pacific LLC, fka
Georgia Pacific Corp.

Brian O. Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600, Chicago, IL 60606,
Counsel for Appellee, Owens Illinois Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Abutahoun" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas, in an opinion dated May 8, 2015,
affirmed a court of appeals' judgment in the case captioned
MAGDALENA ADRIENNA ABUTAHOUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF ROBERT WAYNE HENDERSON,
DECEASED, AND TANYA ELAINE HENDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY IN HER OWN
RIGHT AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF Z.Z.H., A MINOR, Petitioners, v. THE
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent, NO. 13-0175 (Tex.).

In this case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court was
asked to interpret Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, which relates to limitations on a property owner's
liability for injury, death, or property damage to an independent
contractor.  The legal dispute began when a pipeline insulation
worker contracted mesothelioma and sued a chemical company
alleging that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products while
working as an independent contractor at the chemical company's
facility.  The sole issue in the appeal is whether Chapter 95
applies to an independent contractor's negligence claims against a
property owner when the claims are based on injuries arising out
of the property owner's negligent activities and not the
independent contractor's own work.  The court of appeals held that
"[t]he plain meaning of the text of Chapter 95 does not preclude
its applicability where a claim is based upon negligent actions of
the premises owner."

Applying the plain meaning of the statute, the Texas Supreme Court
held that Chapter 95 applies to all independent contractor claims
for damages caused by a property owner's negligence when the
requirements of section 95.002(2) are satisfied.

A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Justice Paul W. Green is
available at http://is.gd/VCr24Afrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Won in Coverage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Westfield Insurance Company and Mahoning Valley Supply
Company and Defendant Continental Insurance Company, as successor
by merger to The Buckeye Union Insurance Company, filed cross
motions for partial summary judgment on Count Two of the Amended
Complaint only.

In this case, MVS, a building supplier, has been sued by numerous
claimants who allege that they have been injured by asbestos-
containing products manufactured by third parties but sold or
supplied by MVS.  These claimants allege exposure to asbestos
fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a
variety of conditions.  Because the lawsuits allege bodily
injuries stemming from exposure occurring during years when both
Westfield and Continental insured MVS, Westfield and Continental
have been sharing defense and indemnity costs.

The opposing sides of the insurance dispute seek a determination
whether, under the language of the applicable insurance policies,
asbestos claims against Plaintiff MVS arise out of a single
occurrence or multiple occurrences.  If the former is true, the
per occurrence limitations of the applicable insurance policies
are near exhaustion.  If the Court finds multiple occurrences,
policy limits have not been reached and coverage is still
available to MVS.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 7, 2015, Judge
Donald C. Nugent of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied
Continental's cross motion for partial summary judgment.  Judge
Nugent held that as a matter of law, the asbestos claims against
Plaintiff MVS arise out of multiple occurrences, such that the per
occurrence limitations of the applicable insurance policies have
not been exhausted.

The case is WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY AND MAHONING VALLEY SUPPLY
COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13CV02367 (N.D. Ohio).  A full-text copy of
Judge Nugent's Decision is available at http://is.gd/umSlhNfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Wins in Legal Malpractice Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Nieves Rocha, individually and as the personal representative of
the estate of her deceased husband, Oscar Rocha, commenced an
action against attorney Daniel Brown, his law firm, Brown & Gould,
LLP, and David Lipman, P.A., alleging legal malpractice, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.  Mrs. Rocha alleges that
the Defendants committed malpractice by failing to file her
asbestos-related claims, which arose out of her husband's death
from complications caused by mesothelioma, in Maryland state
court.  The Defendants instead filed a lawsuit on Mrs. Rocha's
behalf in D.C. Superior Court, and the D.C. court ultimately ruled
that the claims were time-barred under D.C. Code Section 12-311.
Relatedly, Mrs. Rocha alleges that Brown, through his work with
the Trial Lawyers Association of Metro Washington, D.C., erred by
failing to get D.C. Code Section 12-311 amended in a way that
would have made Mrs. Rocha's asbestos-related lawsuit
retroactively timely.

B&G filed a motion for summary judgment, as well as a motion for
summary judgment filed by Lipman that incorporates the B&G
Defendants' motion and adds arguments specific to Lipman's role in
the representation.  Together, the Defendants seek judgment on
Mrs. Rocha's legal malpractice claim in Count I by arguing that
the claim is barred by both the statute of limitations and the
"judgmental immunity" doctrine.  The Defendants also request
judgment in their favor as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim
in Count II on the basis that the claim is not separate and
distinct from the legal malpractice claim in Count I.  Finally,
the Defendants seek judgment on Count III, which is premised on
Brown's legislative activity, on the basis that Mrs. Rocha fails
to state any cognizable legal theory entitling her to relief.  In
response, Mrs. Rocha has filed a cross-motion asking the Court to
enter judgment for her on the issue of whether the legal
malpractice claim in Count I was timely filed.

In a memorandum opinion dated April 30, 2015, Judge Rudolph
Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granted the B&G Defendants' and Lipman's motions for summary
judgment, and denied Mrs. Rocha's motion.

The case is NIEVES ROCHA, Individually and: as the Personal
Representative of the: Estate of OSCAR ROCHA, Deceased,:
Plaintiff, v. BROWN & GOULD, LLP, DANIEL A. BROWN, and DAVID M.
LIPMAN, P.A., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.14-1136 (RC), RE
DOCUMENT NOS. 36, 37, 38, 43, 49 (D.D.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Contreras' Decision is available at http://is.gd/nkMcH1from
Leagle.com.

NIEVES ROCHA, As the Personal Representative of the Estate of
OSCAR ROCHA, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Tyler
Enslein, LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. ENSLEIN, P.C..

BROWN & GOULD LLP, Defendant, represented by Michael T. Marr, Esq.
-- MMarr@sandsanderson.com -- SANDS ANDERSON, PC & J. Jonathan
Schraub, SANDS ANDERSON PC.

DANIEL A. BROWN, Defendant, represented by J. Jonathan Schraub,
SANDS ANDERSON PC.

DAVID M. LIPMAN, P.A., Defendant, represented by Aaron L.
Handleman, Esq. -- Handleman@ewdc.com -- ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C. &
Laura M.K. Hassler, Esq. -- Hassler@ewdc.com -- ECCLESTON & WOLF,
P.C..

CHRISTINA FIGUERAS, Movant, represented by Patrick Michael Regan,
Esq. -- pregan@reganfirm.com -- REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 254 Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 254 asbestos-
related cases asserting claims alleging personal injury, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are subject to various pending and
threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are
asserted in the ordinary course of business. While any litigation
involves an element of uncertainty, in the opinion of management,
liabilities, if any, arising from currently pending or threatened
litigation are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

"We were a co-defendant in approximately 254 cases asserting
claims on behalf of approximately 612 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases
generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only six asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining
case, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0
million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Park-Ohio
Holdings Corp., which was incorporated as an Ohio corporation in
1984. Holdings, primarily through its subsidiaries owned by its
direct subsidiary, Industries, is an industrial supply chain
logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in
three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and
Engineered Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former operating unit of Global Power Equipment Group Inc.
continues to defend itself against asbestos personal injury
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event, in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during
2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse
the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our
former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. (Global Power) is a provider of
customer-engineered equipment, and modification and maintenance
services for customers in the power generation, oil and gas,
natural gas, infrastructure and process and industrial markets.
The Company designs, engineers and manufactures a range of gas and
steam turbine auxiliary products, control houses and generator
enclosures primarily used to enhance the efficiency and facilitate
the operation of gas turbine power plants, sub-base and stand-
alone tanks for other industrial, energy and power-related
applications. It also provides on-site specialty modification and
maintenance services, outage management, facility upgrade
services, specialty repair, brazed aluminum heat exchanger repair
and maintenance, and other industrial and safety services. The
Company operates in three segments: Product Solutions, Nuclear
Services and Energy Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,137 Fibro Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., had 3,070 individual cases and 67
multiple-plaintiff cases alleging actual or potential asbestos-
related injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states :"We are subject to legal proceedings and other
claims arising out of the conduct of our business. These
proceedings and claims relate to public and private sector
transactions, product liability, contract performance, and
employment matters. On the basis of information currently
available to us, we do not believe that existing proceedings and
claims will have a material impact on our financial position or
results of operations. However, litigation is unpredictable, and
we could incur judgments or enter into settlements for current or
future claims that could adversely affect our financial position
or our results of operations in a particular period.

"More specifically, with respect to asbestos litigation, as of
December 31, 2014, approximately 3,070 individual cases and 67
multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by us. Additional claims will
likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers
have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with
respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so.
Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and
unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our
insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability
are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and
settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the
litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law
governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury
verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and
bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these
factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable and it is
possible that we may incur costs that would have a material
adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of
operations in future periods."

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., distributes more than 1 million
electrical, communications, and data networking products through a
network of around 250 distribution facilities. Its diversified
lineup includes a myriad of wire, cable, and lighting products
from thousands of manufacturers and suppliers. It also offers
supply chain management and logistics services. Affiliate Graybar
Financial Services provides equipment leasing and financing.
Graybar Electric sells to construction contractors, industrial
plants, power utilities, and telecommunications providers,
primarily in the US.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Had 186 Fibro Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 186 asbestos-related cases pending against NL
Industries, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us. There are 186 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 736 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,692 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including:

* facts concerning historical operations,
* the rate of new claims,
* the number of claims from which we have been dismissed and
* our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

NL Industries, Inc., is a holding company. The Company operates in
the component products industry through its majority-owned
subsidiary, CompX International Inc (CompX). The Company operates
in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc (Kronos). CompX is a manufacturer of
engineered components utilized in a variety of applications and
industries. Through its Security Products operations, CompX
manufactures mechanical and electronic cabinet locks and other
locking mechanisms used in recreational transportation, postal,
office. CompX also manufactures stainless steel exhaust systems,
gauges and throttle controls for the recreational marine and other
industries through its Marine Components operations. Kronos is a
producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments
(TiO2). TiO2 is used for a variety of manufacturing applications
including coatings, plastics, paper and other industrial products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Responds to "Skrzypek" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bel Fuse Inc., has filed its answer to the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Richard Skrzypek, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company, through its subsidiary Cinch Connectors Inc., is a
defendant in an asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard Skrzypek vs.
Adience Inc., et al. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court
for the County of Wayne in the State of Michigan. The complaint
was amended to include Cinch Connectors Inc. and other defendants
on November 13, 2014. The Company filed its answer to the
complaint on January 23, 2015.

Bel Fuse Inc., designs, manufactures and markets an array of
magnetics, modules, circuit protection devices and interconnect
products. These products are designed to protect, regulate,
connect, isolate or manage the flow of power and data among
products primarily used in the networking, telecommunications,
computing, military, and aerospace, transportation and
broadcasting industries. The Company's portfolio of products also
finds application in the automotive, medical and consumer
electronics markets. It operates with three reportable operating
segments, which are geographic in nature: North America, Asia and
Europe. The Company's product groups consists of: Magnetics,
Modules, Circuit Protection, Interconnect.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $454.5MM Gross Fibro Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $454.5
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "For the year-ended December 31, 2014, the
Company's net reserves for Asbestos and Environmental Exposures
was $458.2 million.

"With respect to asbestos only, at December 31, 2014, we had gross
asbestos loss reserves of $454.5 million, or 95.5%, of total A&E
reserves, of which $350.3 million was for assumed business and
$104.2 million was for direct business.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate
liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss
payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant
amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 8.7 years at December 31,
2014. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. (Group), through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies, giving it the flexibility to pursue business
based on the ceding company's preferred reinsurance purchasing
method. The Company underwrites insurance principally through
general agent relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers.
The subsidiaries of the Company are: Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Mt. Logan Re, Ireland Re, Everest
Re, Everest Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National
Insurance Company, Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest
Security Insurance Company, Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc. The
Company's segments include U.S. Reinsurance segment, International
segment, Bermuda segment, Insurance segment and Mt. Logan Re
segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s subsidiary, Western Auto, continues to
defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015.

The Company's Western Auto subsidiary, together with other
defendants including, but not limited to, automobile
manufacturers, automotive parts manufacturers and other retailers,
has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company
and some of its other subsidiaries also have been named as a
defendant in many asbestos-related lawsuits. The automotive
products at issue in these lawsuits are primarily brake parts. The
plaintiffs have alleged that these products contained asbestos and
were manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the various
defendants. Many of the cases pending against the Company or its
subsidiaries are in the early stages of litigation. The damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial. Additionally, many of the suppliers and manufacturers
of asbestos and asbestos-containing products have dissolved or
declared bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs' ability to
recover monetary damages from those entities. Although the Company
and its subsidiaries diligently defend against these claims, the
Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these
and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements, if
it believes settlement is in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders. The Company believes that many of these claims are
at least partially covered by insurance. Based on discovery to
date, the Company does not believe the cases currently pending
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating
results, financial position or liquidity. However, if the Company
and/or a subsidiary were to incur an adverse verdict in one or
more of these claims and was ordered to pay substantial damages
that were not covered by insurance, these claims could have a
material adverse effect on its operating results, financial
position and liquidity. Historically, our asbestos claims have
been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and number and have
been immaterial. Furthermore, the outcome of such legal matters is
uncertain and the Company's liability, if any, could vary widely.
As a result, we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss
with respect to unasserted asbestos claims that may be filed
against the Company or any subsidiary in the future. If the number
of claims filed against the Company or any of its subsidiaries
alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products increases substantially, the costs associated with
concluding these claims, including damages resulting from any
adverse verdicts, could have a material adverse effect on its
operating results, financial position or liquidity in future
periods.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (Advance) is a specialty retailer of
automotive aftermarket parts, accessories, batteries and
maintenance items primarily operating within the United States.
The Company serves both do-it-yourself (DIY) and do-it-for-me
(commercial) customers. Its commercial customers consist of
delivery customers for whom the Company delivers product from
store locations to commercial customers' places of business,
including independent garages, service stations and auto dealers.
As of July 12, 2014, the Company's operations consisted of 5,289
stores and 106 distribution branches, which operate in the United
States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands primarily under
the trade names Advance Auto Parts, Carquest, Autopart
International and Worldpac. The locations offer a selection of
brand name, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and proprietary
automotive replacement parts, accessories and maintenance items
primarily for domestic and imported cars and light trucks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, IC Bus (IC) brand school
and commercial buses, as well as a provider of service parts for
trucks and diesel engines. It also provides retail, wholesale, and
lease financing of trucks and parts. The Company operates in four
reporting segments, which comprises: North America Truck, North
America Parts, Global Operations (collectively referred to as
Manufacturing operations), and Financial Services. Its principal
products and services include Trucks, Parts, Engines and Financial
Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $9.4-Mil. A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. had $9,420,000 total reserves for
asbestos and environmental related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related
claims associated with the insurance business written by the
parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business
assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary. These
exposures are not considered to be significant. Asbestos and
environmental losses paid by the Company have averaged $1,720,000
per year over the past five years. Reserves for asbestos and
environmental related claims for direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business totaled $9,420,000 and $9,643,000 ($9,296,000
and $8,950,000 net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2014 and 2013,
respectively.

Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims. These
uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility
varies widely by state and claims often emerge long after a policy
has expired, which makes assignment of damages to the appropriate
party and to the time period covered by a particular policy
difficult. In establishing reserves for these types of claims,
management monitors the relevant facts concerning each claim, the
current status of the legal environment, social and political
conditions, and claim history and trends within the Company and
the industry.

At present, the pool participants are defending approximately
1,849 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve
multiple plaintiffs. Most of the lawsuits are subject to express
reservation of rights based upon the lack of an injury within the
applicable policy periods, because many asbestos lawsuits do not
specifically allege dates of asbestos exposure or dates of injury.
The pool participants' policyholders named as defendants in these
asbestos lawsuits are typically peripheral defendants who have
little or no exposure and are routinely dismissed from asbestos
litigation with nominal or no payment (i.e., small contractors,
supply companies, and a furnace manufacturer).

Prior to 2008, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims has
been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an
exposure to any asbestos-containing products associated with the
pool participants' current and former policyholders. However, paid
losses and settlement expenses have increased significantly since
2008 as a result of claims attributed to one former policyholder.
During the period 2009 through 2014, the Company's share of paid
losses and settlement expenses attributed to this former
policyholder, a furnace manufacturer, was $7,294 (primarily
settlement expenses). The asbestos exposure associated with this
former policyholder has increased in recent years, and this trend
may possibly continue into the future with increased per plaintiff
settlements. Approximately 690 asbestos exposure claims associated
with this former policyholder remain open.

The Company continues to run-off ultimate asbestos and
environmental reserves established from an outside consultant's
ground-up study completed a number of years ago. The direct IBNR
and bulk settlement expense reserves associated with asbestos has
been increased each year for the last several years in response to
new information. In particular, bulk settlement expense reserves
have been increased to cover the costs associated with the
retention of a national coordinating counsel to address the multi-
state litigation issues of the Company's largest asbestos
defendant.

Additionally, in 2012 the Company jointly settled a long-term
asbestos case representing the Company's share of 20 years' worth
of defense costs. Increased settlement expense payments have been
the main driver of the reserve increases over the past several
years.

EMC Insurance Group Inc. is an insurance holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, conducts operations in property
and casualty insurance and reinsurance. The Company primarily
focuses on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty
insurance to small and medium-sized businesses. The Company
conducts its business in two segments: Property and casualty
insurance and Reinsurance segment. The Company markets its
insurance products in 40 states in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust To Be Removed From Dougherty School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Wiggins, writing for WABL.com, reported that crews are set
to go in and remove asbestos from two old Dougherty County School
Buildings, in Georgia.

They'll remove asbestos from the Title I Complex on Flint Avenue
and the old ESP Site on Monroe Street before they tear down the
buildings.

School Officials approved a $138,000 bid award Monday night to
start the work.

No word on when the demolition will begin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Richmond River Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Stevens, writing for Northern Star, reported that asbestos
found in window sills at Richmond River High School, in New South
Wales, Australia, has now forced the closure of another six
classrooms.

This now means a total of 12 classrooms have been declared out of
bounds to students.

The school updated information about the situation on it's website
at 3.04pm this afternoon.

Work has started to remove asbestos from the affected classrooms
by qualified contractors according to WorkCover guidelines.
Classrooms known to be affected include music, maths and computer
rooms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Sued Over Injuries From Fibro Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Cashio and Kimberly W. Cashio v. 3M Company, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00489 (M.D. Tenn., April 27, 2015) is an action for
injuries under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978.

According to the complaint, Mr. Cashio worked with and around
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied and
distributed by the Product Defendants in the 1960s and 1970s.  In
August 2014, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma,
allegedly resulting from his exposure to asbestos-containing
products designed, manufactured, distributed, installed or sold by
the Product Defendants.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.  The Product Defendants are or were engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, installing and
selling of asbestos-containing products throughout the United
States and the state of Tennessee.

The other Defendants are Avco Corporation and its Division,
Lycoming Engines Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.; CBS Corporation;
Cytec Industries, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
to Advanced Composites Group and American Cyanamid Company); Dana
Companies, LLC; Eaton Corporation (Individually and as Successor-
In-Interest to Cutler Hammer, Inc. and Eaton Aeroquip, Inc.);
General Dynamics Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Convair Corp.); General Electric Company; Genuine
Parts Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goodrich Corporation; Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
to Goodyear Aerospace Corp.); Harco LLC (f/k/a Harco Laboratories,
Inc.); Henkel Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Dexter Corporation and Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC);
Honeywell International, Inc.; Honeywell, Inc.; Imo Industries,
Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel
Fasteners); Lockheed Martin Corporation; Metlife, Inc.; Northrop
Grumman Corp., (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Ling-
Temco-Vought); Novartis Corporation (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Ciba-Geigy Corporation); Parker Hannifan
Corporation (Individually and as Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Cleveland Wheels & Brakes, f/k/a Cleveland Aircraft
Products); Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Allen Bradley Company, Inc. and Rostone
Corporation); Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Square D Company; The Boeing Company;
Transdigm Group, Inc. and its Division Adel Wiggins Group
(Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel Precision
Products Corp.); Union Carbide Corporation; United Technologies
Corp., and its Division Pratt & Whitney.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN-NASHVILLE, PLLC
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 490-0944
          E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Weitzel, Esq.
          Samuel D. Elswick, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 841-9520
          E-mail: dweitzel@forthepeople.com
                  selswick@forthepeople.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *