CAR_Public/150525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 103


                            Headlines


93 LUDLOW: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Defendant Against Stockholders Class Suit in NJ
AKORN INC: Settlement in Sinus Buster Case Approved
AKORN INC: Faces Class Action by Solomon Yeung
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Surrey" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

AMEC FOSTER: "Abila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
APPLE VILLA: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalizing Settlement of Securities Class Suits
BAKER HUGHES: Parties to Delaware Action Entered Into MOU
BARCLAYS BANK: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Set

BARCLAYS BANK: September 21 Trial Scheduled in Merchants' Lawsuit
BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in Class Action
BECTON DICKINSON: MOU Reached in Del. Action Over CareFusion Deal
BOEING COMPANY: Pollution Suit Belongs to Federal Not State Court
BP PLC: Oil Spill Workers With Late-Onset Illness Can Seek Trial

BROWARD LOCK: Faces "Quiceno' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BURLINGTON STORES: Posts $3.2MM Income From Class Suit Settlement
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Backlogs Caused Shares to Drop, Class Suit Says
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Hid Deaths Tied to Cancer Cure, Suit Says
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Cable Outage During May 2 Fight

COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: 3rd Circuit Affirmed Case Dismissal
COOK COUNTY COURT: Accused of Making Money Off of Child Care Fees
COOPER VISION: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Faces "Marrin" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
DC METRO: Class Might Be Certified in Hiring Discrimination Suit

DEVANLAY RETAIL: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Cal. Sup. Ct.
EL POLLO: Class Action by Former Employee in Preliminary Phase
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Tosses Suit Over Launch of Battlefield 4
FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Non-Risk-Based Pricing Calculation
FITBIT INC: Falsely Marketed Sleep-Tracking Devices, Suit Claims

GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Has Not Yet Appointed Lead Plaintiff
GILSTER-MARY LEE: Popcorn-Ailment Suit Belongs in Federal Court
GOOGLE INC: Accused by Elder Job-Seeker of Age Discrimination
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Merger Defendants Agree to Settlement Terms
HARRISON MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Parties File Joint Motion to Approve Accord
HERSHEY CO: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Chocolate Antitrust MDL
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Settles Silverman Shareholder Class Action
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Arising From Initial Offering
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: Sued for Destroying Livelihoods in India

JC PENNEY: Faces Suit Over Death of Bangladeshi Garment Workers
KAY MARKET: "Tirado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Suits Challenging Merger With Heinz
LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of FriendFinder Class Suit Affirmed
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Action Settlement Amount Paid in Dec.

LADENBURG THALMANN: Defendant in Class Action Over ARCP Offering
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Falsely Markets Blu E-Cigs as Safer, Suit Says
LOS ANGELES: "Burwell' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Chief Deputy Sheriff Blames Migraine for E-mail
MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Alaniz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICHAELS COS: 50 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification
MICHAELS COS: Defending Against Fair Credit Reporting Claims
MICHAELS COS: Deadline to File Notice of Appeal Expired

MICHAELS COS: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
MILLERCOORS LLC: Sued in Cal. for Selling Blue Moon as Craft Beer
MMA CAPITAL: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts in Class Action
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Case in Discovery Stage
NESTLE USA: Misstates Coffee-Mate as Trans Fat-Free, Suit Claims

NINE ENERGY: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NITLE CORP: "Boland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NRDC EQUITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
ORACLE CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Garrison" No-Poaching Suit
PETSMART INC: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PROVISION LIVING: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Securities Class Suit Over RYAM Spinoff
RHIMA INVESTMENTS: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Class Action v. SCUSA Voluntarily Dismissed
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Defending Against Delaware Action on WMS Merger

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bally Merger Case Parties in Settlement Talks
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Seeks Dismissal of Oregon Lottery Case
SEARS HOLDINGS: Defending Against Suits Over Data Systems Breach
SONY COMPUTER: Deal to Dismiss 'Killzone' Suit Approved
SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court to Review Inaccurate Description Suit

SUFFOLK, NY: Cops Accused of Using "Stop and Rob" Latinos Drive
TEXAS, USA: Sued for Ticketing Owners for Running Red Lights
THERACARE OF NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TIBOR SZABO: Court Tosses Again "Figures" Racketeering Suit
TOP RANK: Faces "Dehart" Suit in D. Nevada Over Pacquiao's Injury

TOP RANK: Faces Jammers Inc. Suit in Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Hid Pacquiao Injury Before Fight, "Vanel" Suit Claims
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Plaintiffs' Response in Appeal
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Amended Judgment Entered in Dentists' Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Antitrust Case Discovery Ongoing

UMPQUA BANK: To Pay $2.9-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees
UNITED STATES: Court Won't Unseat Two Class Reps in Farmers Suit
UNITED STATES: Native American Farmers May Modify Accord
UNITED STATES: USDA May Be Sued by Kansas Farmers, Court Rules
UNITED STATES: Veterans Sue Defense Dept Over Discharge Records

UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Wins Prelim. OK of $11.5MM Deal in Royalty Suit
URBAN DECAY: Sued Over Growth-Accelerating Serum in Lush Lash
US BANK: Wins Prelim. OK of Deal in Force-Placed Insurance Suit
USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Manufacturers Named as Defendants
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Faces OsmoPrep & Relistor Claims

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2 Salix Actions Subject to Consolidation
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Santarus Shareholder Litigation Nixed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cosmo Deal Shareholder Suit Claim Nixed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Feinstein Action Over Salix Deal
VICTORIA NURSING: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Accused of Unfairly Charging Electricity Premium
WAL-MART STORES: Mislabels Cranberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says
WESTERN UNION: Must Pay $135-Mil. to Settle Unclaimed Wire Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Lying About Sugar in Nutmeal Raisin Cookies
ZUMIEZ INC: Paid Settlement Amount in "Steele" Case


                            *********


93 LUDLOW: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Pena, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other similarly-
situated individuals v. 93 Ludlow St., Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03624-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

93 Ludlow St., Inc. owns and operates a restaurant and nightclub
located at 95 Delancey St., New York, NY 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Renan F. Varghese, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Defendant Against Stockholders Class Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and certain
of its current and former officers are defendants in a purported
class-action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, brought on behalf of stockholders
of the Company. The lawsuit, which was filed on November 11, 2014,
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the defendants between April 2, 2012 and November 6, 2014, or the
Class Period, regarding the safety and efficacy of Macrilen(TM), a
product that the Company developed for use in the diagnosis of
adult growth hormone deficiency, and the prospects for the
approval of the Company's new drug application for the product by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common
shares during the Class Period and seek damages, costs and
expenses and such other relief as determined by the court.

The Company's directors' and officers' insurance policies ("D&O
Insurance") provide for reimbursement of costs and expenses
incurred in connection with this lawsuit, including legal and
professional fees, as well as potential damages awarded, if any,
subject to certain policy restrictions, limits and deductibles.
The Company believes that the D&O Insurance covers the lawsuit;
however, the insurers have reserved their rights to raise all of
the rights, entitlements and defences available to them under the
D&O Insurance. If the D&O Insurance does cover the lawsuit, the
Company will be required to pay legal and professional fees, as
well as potential damages awarded in an amount equal to a
substantial self-insured retention. Legal and professional fees
are expensed as incurred and no reserve is established for them.
While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, it cannot predict the
outcome. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liability
related to the lawsuit. No assurance can be given with respect to
the ultimate outcome of such proceedings, and the amount of any
damages awarded in such lawsuit could be substantial.


AKORN INC: Settlement in Sinus Buster Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court has approved the
settlement in the Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison filed  a class action
lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and Hi-
Tech. On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David Delre filed a class action
lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and Hi-Tech. Each
complaint alleges, among other things, that their Sinus Buster (R)
products are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as homeopathic
products, and that these allegations support claims of fraud,
unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and
alleged violations of various state and federal statutes. Hi-Tech
answered the complaints and asserted cross-claims against the
other defendants. The Court consolidated these two cases into one
action entitled Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litigation. Dynova
has filed for bankruptcy. The case has now been settled by Hi-Tech
with plaintiffs by Agreement dated December 16, 2013 and the Court
approved the settlement by an Order dated November 10, 2014.


AKORN INC: Faces Class Action by Solomon Yeung
----------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that putative class action plaintiff
Solomon Yeung filed on March 4, 2015, suit in the Federal District
Court Northern District Illinois against Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai,
Timothy Dick and Bruce Kutinsky, alleging defendants violated
Rules 10b-5 and 20(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act.  According to the
complaint, certain financial and other related data related to
certain Akorn subsidiaries could not be timely collected and
compiled and Akorn would be unable to timely complete its
assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2014. The complaint also
alleges that Akorn's internal control over financial reporting was
ineffective and material weaknesses existed relating to the
completeness and accuracy of underlying data used in the
determination of significant estimates and accounting transactions
and accurate and timely reporting of its financial results and
disclosures in its Form 10-K. Plaintiff alleges that as a
consequence, when Akorn announced on March 2, 2015 that it would
need an extension to file an annual report for the year ending
December 31, 2014, its stock dropped.  The Company and individual
defendants dispute these claims and intend to vigorously defend
these allegations.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Surrey" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Surrey, Derivatively On Behalf of Alibaba Group Holding
Limited v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01036 (S.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.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based online and mobile
commerce company dealing in retail and wholesale trade, as well as
cloud computing and other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
      William R. Restis, Esq.
      David J. Harris, Esq.
      Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      550 W. C Street, Suite 1760
      San Diego, California 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1333
      Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
              mlk@classactionlaw.com
              wrr@classactionlaw.com
              djh@classactionlaw.com
              trk@classactionlaw.com


AMEC FOSTER: "Abila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Abila, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Amec Foster Wheeler North America Corp.,
f/k/a Foster Wheeler North America Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-01238
(S.D. Tex., May 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Amec Foster Wheeler North America Corp. offers consultancy,
engineering, project management, operations and construction
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY, LLP
      1010 Lamar Street, Ste 425
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      Facsimile: (713) 554-8451
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


APPLE VILLA: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonila Cruz, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Apple Villa II, Inc. and Andy Spentzos, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04100 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 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 restaurant located at 3101 North
Barrington Road, Hoffman Estates, 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


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalizing Settlement of Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. is finalizing a settlement of the securities
class action lawsuits, the 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.

The Company said, "In March 2013 and May 2013, two purported
securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain
of our former executive officers seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July
2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original plaintiffs
agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated case. In
September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased our common stock
between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013. The consolidated
amended complaint, which named us, certain of our current and
former executive officers and our former independent accounting
firm as defendants, purported to state a claim for violation of
federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"In October 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some of the
claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the two
plaintiffs from the case. The discovery portion of the proceedings
ended in October 2014 and the matter was scheduled for trial in
March 2015. However, subsequently to the discovery portion of the
trial we began settlement discussions with the remaining
plaintiffs together with our former auditors, and in December 2014
we agreed in principal to settle the case for $2.6 million, of
which our insurance company will pay $2.5 million and our former
auditors will pay the remainder.  The finalization of this
settlement is subject to a number of procedural steps, including
approval by the court, which likely will not be complete until
later this year. Should the settlement not become final for any
reason, the matter would proceed to trial."


BAKER HUGHES: Parties to Delaware Action Entered Into MOU
---------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, that the
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action have entered into a
memorandum of understanding.

Following the announcement of the merger, six putative class
action complaints challenging the merger were filed on behalf of
purported Baker Hughes stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The complaints are captioned: Gary R.
Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB; Booth
Family Trust v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10404-CB; New
Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10413-CB; Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v.
Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10448-CB; James Rice v. Baker
Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10414-CB; and Annette Shipp v.
Martin S. Craighead, et al., Case No. 10501-CB. On January 23,
2015, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware actions
under the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Delaware
Action"). Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015 (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). A seventh putative class action
challenging the merger was filed on behalf of purported Baker
Hughes stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The complaint is captioned Marc Rovner v. Baker
Hughes Inc., et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416.

These complaints name as defendants Baker Hughes, the members of
the Baker Hughes Board, Halliburton and Merger Sub. The complaints
assert that the members of the Baker Hughes Board breached their
fiduciary duties to Baker Hughes stockholders during the merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the merger, and that Baker Hughes, Halliburton and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the merger
consideration undervalues Baker Hughes, that the process leading
up to the merger was flawed, that the directors engaged in self-
dealing and that certain provisions of the merger agreement
improperly favor Halliburton and Merger Sub and preclude or impede
third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals and
that the joint proxy statement/prospectus fails to disclose
material information or includes misleading disclosures concerning
the proposed merger. The complaints seek, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger
agreement, a directive to Baker Hughes directors to execute their
fiduciary duties and obtain a transaction in the best interest of
stockholders, a directive to defendants to account for all damages
caused by them and account for all profits and any special
benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary
duties, compensation for certain unspecified damages and
reimbursement of costs.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, to
stay the Texas action on February 13, 2015, and pursuant to a
stipulation entered by the court on March 6, 2015, plaintiff was
expected to file a response on March 20, 2015.

Following the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, the parties to
the Consolidated Delaware Action engaged in expedited discovery,
in advance of a hearing scheduled for March 23, 2015 on the
Delaware plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin Baker Hughes's
stockholder vote on the merger.  On March 13, 2015, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of that motion. On
March 17, 2015, defendants filed their opposition briefs.

On March 18, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, to settle the Consolidated
Delaware Action.  Pursuant to the MOU, and without agreeing that
any of the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Action have merit
or that such supplemental disclosures were required under any
applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, the defendants agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures set forth in this joint
proxy statement/prospectus.  The MOU further provides that, among
other things, (a) the parties will enter into a definitive
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the
Stipulation to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for
review and approval, (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Consolidated Delaware Action, (c) the Stipulation
will include a general release of defendants of claims relating to
the merger and the merger agreement and (d) the proposed
settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of
the merger, class certification, and final approval by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware after notice to Baker
Hughes's stockholders.  The settlement will not affect the form or
amount of the consideration that Baker Hughes's stockholders will
receive in the merger.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in
the lawsuits are without merit.  However, to avoid the risk that
litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger, to minimize the expense of defending
such litigation, to remove the distraction of continued litigation
and to provide additional information to our stockholders at a
time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the closing
of the merger, defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement.


BARCLAYS BANK: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust, Barclays Dryrock Funding LLC,
Barclays Bank Delaware said in their Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument in the
appeal in a class action settlement will likely be heard late in
the first quarter of 2015 or in the second quarter of 2015.

Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") is a defendant in a number of
putative antitrust class actions commenced in 2005 in various
federal district courts by merchants alleging that Visa U.S.A.,
Inc. ("Visa"), MasterCard International ("MasterCard") and their
member banks conspired to fix interchange fees and unlawfully
bundled several separate and distinct services, such as payment
protection and transaction processing costs, in violation of the
U.S. antitrust laws. The merchants also alleged that the
defendants imposed other restraints on merchants in connection
with accepting credit cards and that such alleged restraints also
violate the antitrust laws. Visa, MasterCard and several other
banks are also defendants in the cases, which were consolidated
into a single proceeding in the Eastern District of New York.
Several individual merchants also have commenced similar actions
against Visa and MasterCard that have been consolidated with the
putative class actions for pre-trial purposes.

The merchants seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief. By an order dated January 9, 2008, the court dismissed
class damage claims prior to January 1, 2004; accordingly, the
period over which any damages may be awarded is January 1, 2004 to
the date of the award.

Pre-trial fact and expert discovery have closed. Motions to
dismiss the complaints in whole or in part, a motion to certify a
class of retail plaintiffs and summary judgment motions were
briefed, argued and submitted. Decisions on all motions were
deferred pending the outcome of the settlement negotiations.

On July 13, 2012, the parties filed a proposed settlement
agreement with the court under which the defendants agreed to pay
the class plaintiffs $6.05 billion, to make network rule changes
and to give other relief. The settlement agreement includes a
provision pursuant to which Visa and MasterCard would reduce U.S.
interchange rates 10 bps during an eight month period from July
29, 2013 through March 29, 2014. On the same day, defendants
announced that they reached an agreement in principle to settle
with a group of individual plaintiffs. The class settlement was
approved by District Judge John Gleeson on December 13, 2013.
Judge Gleeson approved and entered an agreed form of final
judgment on January 14, 2014. The National Retail Federation and a
number of merchants appealed that judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal has been fully
briefed, and oral argument will likely be heard late in the first
quarter of 2015 or in the second quarter of 2015.


BARCLAYS BANK: September 21 Trial Scheduled in Merchants' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust, Barclays Dryrock Funding LLC,
Barclays Bank Delaware said in their Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial is currently
scheduled to begin on September 21, 2015, in a lawsuit.

A number of merchants, including several large retailers, have
elected to "opt out" of the class action settlement. Opting out
allows these merchants to commence separate actions on these
matters. Some of these merchants have commenced new actions
against Visa, MasterCard and certain member banks. Although the
class settlement fund has been reduced to account for opt outs,
opt out settlements may be higher than the amount of that
reduction. If so, BBD will be liable for a share of the residual
under the terms of a judgment sharing agreement with the defense
group. As of the date of this prospectus, Visa and MasterCard have
settled several of these opt- out actions. The amount of those
settlements has exceeded what those plaintiffs would have been
paid as a result of the class settlement.

Only one opt out plaintiff has named BBD as a defendant. BBD is a
defendant in an antitrust case filed on October 2, 2013 in the
District Court of Victoria County, Texas. In this case the
plaintiffs allege that Visa, MasterCard and their respective
member banks, among other things, conspired in violation of Texas
law to fix interchange fees, unlawfully bundle separate and
distinct services, and impose various competitive restraints.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
Discovery is ongoing, and trial is currently scheduled to begin on
September 21, 2015.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, it is
too early to reliably estimate the ultimate liability BBD may
incur or whether the results could be material to the operation or
cash flows of BBD.


BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not been undertaken in the consolidated class action
against Barrett Business Services, Inc., the 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.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller,
BBSI's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all of BBSI's stockholders alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the
market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a
charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined
at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including
attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims
for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also
appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35
Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not
been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.


BECTON DICKINSON: MOU Reached in Del. Action Over CareFusion Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2015, as a result of the proposed Merger with BD, CareFusion
Corporation was a subject to putative class action lawsuits in
Delaware and California challenging the proposed merger
transaction. On December 31, 2014, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
Delaware actions. If the proposed settlement is finally approved
by the Delaware Court of Chancery, it will release all claims in
all actions, including the Delaware actions and California
actions, that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (excluding any demand for
appraisal under Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware). The impact of the settlements is not expected
to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

On March 17, 2015, Becton, Dickinson and Company, a New Jersey
corporation ("BD"), completed the acquisition of CareFusion
Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("CareFusion"). Pursuant to
the terms of the previously announced Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of October 5, 2014, among BD,
CareFusion and Griffin Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of BD ("Merger Corp"), Merger Corp merged
with and into CareFusion, with CareFusion as the surviving entity
(the "Merger"). As a result of the Merger, CareFusion became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BD.


BOEING COMPANY: Pollution Suit Belongs to Federal Not State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action alleging that Boeing polluted Washington state's
groundwater for 40 years with assistance from a negligent
environmental remediation firm belongs in Federal Court rather
than state court, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered April 27.

Led by Jocelyn Allen, the lawsuit centers around an aircraft-parts
manufacturing plant that Boeing operated in Auburn from the 1960s
to the 1990s.

The Washington State Department of Ecology first issued
requirements for the "treatment, storage and handling of hazardous
materials" in 1987.

Boeing agreed to perform a clean-up five years later and retained
the firm Landau Associates to probe the problem and remediate it.

Allen's class action against Boeing and Landau originated in
Washington's King County Superior Court in November 2013.

Raising a series of procedural challenges, Boeing requested that
the case be removed to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act and also claimed that Landau had been fraudulently
joined as a defendant.

A federal judge kicked the case back to state court in a Sept. 23
ruling that also found nothing wrong with joining Landau to the
action.

In a mixed ruling on appeal, the 9th Circuit gave the case a
return ticket back to the federal court but upheld the finding
that joining Landau was not fraudulent.

U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote the majority opinion
holding that the case "does not come within the local single event
exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA."

Judge Michael Hawkins joined her majority opinion, and Judge
Johnnie Rawlinson dissented in part.

Plaintiff attorney Bob Finnerty said the ruling didn't have any
"real significance."

"The plaintiffs have suffered a long time and they are looking
forward to their day in court regardless of which court they find
themselves in," he added.

A Boeing representative said the 9th Circuit got it right in
bringing the case back to a federal courtroom "where it belongs."

She added: "Contrary to the plaintiffs' allegations, Boeing has
been conducting thorough investigation and cleanup activities
under the direction of the Washington State Department of Ecology
to identify and address any potential soil and groundwater impacts
from our Auburn plant.  We are cooperating fully with government
authorities in this effort.  The allegations in the lawsuit have
no merit and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims."

Defendant-Appellant The Boeing Company is represented by:

          Michael Sylvain Paisner, Esq.
          Renton, WA

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Hanson, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: JHanson@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          Peter A. Farrell, Esq.
          Michael J. Podberesky, Esq.
          Devein A. DeBacker, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-5793
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: michael.williams@kirkland.com
                  peter.farrell@kirkland.com
                  michael.podberesky@kirkland.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Robert Finnerty, Esq.
          Thomas V. Giraldi, Esq.
          David N. Bigelow, Esq.
          GIRALDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: jfinnerty@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Thomas Vertetis, Esq.
          PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
          911 Pacific Avenue, Suite 200
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 777-0799
          Facsimile: (253) 627-0654
          E-mail: tom@pcvalaw.com

The appellate case is Jocelyn Allen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. The Boeing Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Boeing Commercial
Airplanes; Landau Associates Inc; and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 15-35162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Jocelyn Allen, et al. v. The
Boeing Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00596-RSM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.


BP PLC: Oil Spill Workers With Late-Onset Illness Can Seek Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers who developed late-onset medical conditions after cleaning
up the 2010 BP oil spill have a right to a jury trial, reports
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling entered April 27.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said in a five page ruling
delivered April 27 that claimants who were "back ended" into the
oil spill litigation -- that is, claimants whose symptoms did not
exist at the time the medical class settlement was made -- have
the right to sue BP on their own terms.

Barbier's ruling could affect hundreds of medical claims that
might end up in court in the coming years.

When the medical class action settlement was reached almost three
years ago between BP and plaintiffs the plaintiffs agreed to waive
certain ailments that were the result of exposure to oil during
the course of helping to clean up the oil spill.  Such ailments
included skin rashes and lung and sinus ailments.  But plaintiffs
retained their rights to sue down the road if more complicated
conditions, such as cancer, arose.

"By virtue of [the medical class action settlement], class members
released many claims against BP for exposure-related injuries,"
Barbier said in his ruling, "however, claims for 'Late-Manifested
Physical Injuries' were generally exempted from this release
. . . .  If a class member wished to assert a claim for Later-
Manifested Physical Injury against BP, she could, after following
certain procedures."

Barbier's ruling went on to say that once a claimant has decided
to file a claim for injuries not handled under the terms of the
settlement, "she is in control of her own lawsuit," and may bring
her claims before a jury of her peers if she wants to.  Barbier
noted that the medical settlement plaintiffs and BP arranged does
not specify that backend medical lawsuits filed be "tired before
the bench."

His ruling came in response to BP's motion to strike a plaintiff's
request for a jury trial.

In November Barbier ruled that claimants whose ailments from the
oil spill fall under the terms of the medical class settlement
must have been diagnosed by a doctor before April 16, 2012, a date
outlined in the agreement.  That ruling could bring thousands of
workers out of the settlement and into backend litigation over
their claims of illnesses not diagnosed until a later date.

Many thousands of workers were involved in the cleanup of oil
following the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon 50
miles off shore from Louisiana.

Geoff Morrell, BP's senior vice president for U.S. communications
and external affairs, said "BP disagrees with the Court's ruling
and is considering its options."


BROWARD LOCK: Faces "Quiceno' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Quiceno and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Broward Lock & Safe Co. and Jason B. Maxson, Case No.
1:15-cv-21757-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Broward Lock & Safe Co. owns and operates a locksmiths shop in
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell
      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


BURLINGTON STORES: Posts $3.2MM Income From Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Stores, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17,
2015, that other revenue/income increased $3.3 million reflecting
a $3.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit relating to
credit card interchange fees. This one time, nonrecurring
settlement was anticipated when the Company issued its press
release with updated guidance on January 9, 2015.


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Backlogs Caused Shares to Drop, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that after its initial public
offering last year generated more than $204 million, revelations
about Castlight Health's backlog caused shares in the provider of
cloud-based software to decline by more than 50 percent, a class
claims, echoing an earlier lawsuit.

The case is Robert Kromphold v. Castlight Health Inc.; Venrock
Partners V LP; Goldman, Sachs & Co., in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Hid Deaths Tied to Cancer Cure, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group paid a promoter to pump its stock and
hid deaths connected to a cancer treatment, shareholders claim in
a federal class action, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse
News Service.

Cellular Biomedicine, a Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto,
develops stem cell and immune cell therapies for cancer and
neurodegenerative diseases such as knee osteoarthritis, spinal
muscular atrophy and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, marketing its
patented "homegrown" cell technology to China's burgeoning health
care market.

Lead plaintiff Francis Bonanno claims the company inflated its
stock price through false and misleading financial statements that
failed to disclose that it achieved its $500 million valuation
using a paid stock promoter, and that its "Car-T" technology
studies involved patient deaths.

Bonanno also sued CEO Wei Cao and CFO Tony Liu, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act's "anti-touting"
provision.

Stock-issuing companies are prohibited from "publicizing
information about a security without fully disclosing any
consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly,
from the issuer and the amount thereof."

Cellular's Car-T technology involves engineering cancer patients'
own immune cells to recognize and attack their tumors, according
to the complaint.

But Bonanno claims Car-T is "worthless," and claims some patients
died while participating in Cellular studies.

The company's $500 million valuation was set, in part, through
LifeTech Capital, "a purported research-focused biotechnology and
medical technology investment bank," that ballooned its target
price for Cellular to $32.50 with a 'strong speculative buy
rating,'" according to the complaint.

LifeTech senior managing director of research Stephen Dunn wrote a
26-page report highlighting Cellular's latest acquisitions and
market valuation.

Dunn is not a party to the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Dunn wrote in his report: "With four
human clinical and two preclinical programs in immuno-oncology,
CBMG is now the leader in China for this promising cancer
technology. We expect CBMC to continue their aggressive
acquisition strategy for immuno-oncology drugs in China, as well
as sign development partnerships with western pharma companies for
the Chinese market."

But Bonnano claims the truth about Cellular's finances and
research was revealed in April in a report published by
Seekingalpha.com, which claims the company was "engaged in a
massive fraudulent scheme to mislead investors and that the
company had no meaningful financial value."

The report stated that Cellular's $500 million valuation is
"unsustainable" and that Cellular's Car-T technology, which was
acquired for $1.8 million, is "worthless," according to the
complaint.

Cellular stock sank by $7 per share to close at $25.22 the day
after that report, Bonnano says.

Bonanno claims that investors "suffered significant losses and
damages as a result of the fraudulent scheme.  He seeks class
certification, damages and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 285-5330
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Cable Outage During May 2 Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Would-be viewers of the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight
claim in Federal Court that Charter Communications left them in
the dark, reports Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Anna Ralphs says she bought the Saturday (May 2)
night fight's pay-per-view package from Charter for $99.99.

The package included two undercard fights along with the
Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, which was billed as "The Fight of the
Century," the complaint filed May 5 states.

A service interruption allegedly left Ralphs unable to watch any
of the package, however, until the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight was
well underway.

"Despite the fact that Charter cable customers paid for the Fight
Package, Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass Members were unable
to watch the Pay-Per-View fights until, at best, the end of the
fourth round of the Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fight,
missing entirely the two Under Card Fights, the pageantry of how
Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao entered the ring,
introductions, the National Anthem performed by Jamie Foxx, and
pre-fight commentary," the complaint states.  "At worst, some
viewers were unable to view the entire Program."

Mayweather won the 12-round welterweight title fight on a 3-0
decision, but Ralphs says calls to Charter's customer-service line
were met with a busy signal the entire night.

Charter's service issues during the fight even made their way into
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, according to the complaint.  The
article mentioned a website showing Charter service interruptions
across the country during the fight, and noted that St. Louis;
Charlotte, N.C.; and parts of South Carolina were the most
impacted regions.

Ralphs says Charter sent out two Tweets during the outage.  The
first, at 8:30 p.m. on May 2, said: "We are aware of the issue
impacting the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao feed.  We are working to
resolve as soon as possible."

Ralph claims the second tweet from @CharterCom came about an hour
later, at 9:20 p.m. It allegedly said, "We are continuing to
experience issues impacting TV service and are working to restore
service as quickly as possible."

Despite the interruptions, Charter still charged affected
customers the full price of the pay-per-view package, according to
the complaint.

Charter spokesperson Anita Lamont told Courthouse News that the
company had no comment since the litigation is pending.

Ralphs wants to represent all customers who bought the fight on
pay-per-view, but experienced an outage.  The complaint also
describes a subclass consisting of all Missouri residents who
bought the fight program, but experienced an outage.  The class
seeks damages for breach of contract and violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  Charter has been a Fortune
500 company since 2001 and is the fourth-largest cable operator in
the United States, according to the company's Web site.

In addition to Charter Communications, the federal class action
also names as a defendant Charter Communications Entertainment I.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis "Casey" Flynn, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Toll Free: (800) 721-2519
          Telephone: (314) 678-1207
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: 3rd Circuit Affirmed Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissal
of a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012,
two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. and asserted
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class
of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December
6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated
into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis and three of its
officers were added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleged that Columbia and two of its officers, one of
whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were
under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading
statements that related to the results of Columbia's PREGNANT
study and the likelihood of approval by the FDA of a NDA to market
progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in
women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended
complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of our
common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees."

"On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts
supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The
Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint,
which they did on July 11, 2013. We moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which the court did on October 21, 2013. The
Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first
amended complaint "still do not create a strong inference that the
Defendants acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or
defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to
attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint,
they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why
the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file
any further amendments and the case was dismissed with prejudice
on December 2, 2013."

"On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The
Court heard oral arguments on December 9, 2014. On March 10, 2015,
the Court affirmed the dismissal in a written opinion. By rule,
the plaintiffs may request a rehearing. We believe that the action
is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously. At this
time, it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or to
estimate the potential liability related to this action, and we
have not made any provision for losses in connection with it."


COOK COUNTY COURT: Accused of Making Money Off of Child Care Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., is making money off of child
care fees that most people don't use, a class alleges.

Lead plaintiff Randall Gatz says the $10 fee charged to all civil
litigants "crosses the line into improper taxation."

While children's waiting rooms "serve the laudable goal of having
a place for unattended children who find themselves in contact
with the court system," Gatz says, he suspects that the money the
county collects supports other services.  In 2012 Cook County
collected an estimated $3.13 million in room fees, but only served
about 14,750 children, the May 4 complaint alleges.

Gatz says "the separate nature of the fund is really illusory, and
is in reality part of the general courthouse operating budget."
The 2013 budget for the fund allegedly included the salaries of 11
stenographers, four clerks and four court coordinators who clearly
aren't taking care of children.

Gatz says the fee also violates the Illinois Constitution because
it "imposes the burden of funding a childcare program that goes
beyond the functions of the judicial system on all civil
litigants."  Indeed the Rolling Meadows courthouse where Gatz
filed his circuit court complaint does not even have a children's
waiting room, and he was charged the fee even though he has no
children of the age to use it, according to the complaint.

Of Cook County's six courthouses and 10 other facilities, only
eight have childcare services, Gatz says.

In the majority of cases filed "no one associated with the . . .
case uses the children's waiting room," Gatz says, adding and the
$10 fee amounts to an illegal litigation tax since the rooms are
"not funded by those who use the service."

Gatz's complaint names as defendants circuit court clerk Dorothy
Brown and Cook County treasurer Maria Pappas.

The class wants the court to hold the fee as invalid, block its
future application and return all fees paid by civil litigants in
the last five years.

The class is represented by:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Collins, Amy Greenspan, Mary K. Shields, Jane Hart
Hargett, Stephanie Dreyer, Christopher Bessette, and Madeline
Carey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson
Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical Group,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02094-EDL (N.D. Cal., May 8, 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:

      Robert J. Gralewski Jr., Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 398-4340
      E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

         - and -

      Nathan Cihlar, Esq.
      Carla Voigt, Esq.
      STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
      4041 Fairfax Drive, Fifth Floor
      Fairfax, VA 22201
      Telephone: (703) 764-8700
      Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
      E-mail: ncihlar@straus-boies.com
              cvoigt@straus-boies.com

         - and -

      Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
      Joseph M. Patane, Esq.
      Lauren C. Capurro, Esq.
      TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP
      2280 Union Street
      San Francisco, CA 94123
      Telephone: (415) 563-7200
      Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
      E-mail: laurenrussell@tatp.com


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Faces "Marrin" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Dave & Buster's, Inc. and Dave &
Buster's Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03608-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is a class action is brought on behalf of
a class of persons currently or formerly employed by the
Defendants who were participants in an ERISA health insurance plan
sponsored by the Defendants and whose hours were involuntarily
reduced from June I, 2013 to the present, after the enactment of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which
reductions resulted in either the loss of their insurance coverage
under the Dave and Buster's Plan or being offered only inferior
health insurance.

The Defendants own and operate 72 stores in 30 states in the
United States that combine dining and an assortment of
entertainment attractions, including playing games and watching
live sports and other televised events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
      Natalie S. Marcus, Esq.
      ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
      212 East 39th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 889-3700
      E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com
              nmarcus@abbeyspanier.com

         - and -

      Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
      Molly Smithsimon, Esq.
      CONOVER LAW OFFICES
      345 Seventh A venue, 21 51 Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 588-9080
      E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com

         - and -

      William D. Frumkin, Esq.
      Elizabeth E. Hunter, Esq.
      Frumkin & Hunter LLP
      1025 Westchester Avenue, Suite 309
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Telephone: (914) 468-6096
      E-mail: wrfrumkin@frumkinhunter.com


DC METRO: Class Might Be Certified in Hiring Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Excusing a belated motion, a federal judge left the door open for
class certification in a case accusing against the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority of denying employment on the
basis of race, reports Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service.

Erik Little is the lead plaintiff behind the 2014 action that
claims WMATA, Diamond Transportation and Executive Personnel
Services used criminal background checks to disqualify candidates
for jobs in a city where blacks make up the bulk of arrests and
convictions.

Diamond and Executive Personnel are staffing agencies that feed
employees to WMATA.

All three defendants have moved to dismiss the case, and U.S.
District Judge Rosemary Collyer noted April 23 that the case has
been stalled to give the parties time to agree on a case schedule.

Though the plaintiffs had moved for class certification after the
deadline for the filing had passed, Collyer said the stay in the
case extended that deadline.

"In the instant matter, because discovery has not yet begun and
plaintiffs could not have moved for class certification within the
90-day deadline, defendants are in the exact same position as they
would have been had plaintiffs sought an extension of their filing
deadline," she wrote.  "Thus, any generalized complaints about the
increasing number of plaintiffs or class action discovery because
such problems 'are not inherent to the delay itself.'"

Collyer also noted that striking the class allegations would be
"inefficient and unwieldy," burdening counsel with filing
individual plaintiff actions for dozens of individuals who could
have been identified as potential class members.

Metro declined to comment on the pending litigation.


DEVANLAY RETAIL: 9th Cir. Certifies Question to Cal. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whether retailers can request customer zip codes after processing
and returning the credit cards they used as payment is up to
California's highest court, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at
Courthouse News Service, quoting the 9th Circuit as saying.

Tammie Davis had originally filed her 2011 class action against
Devanlay Retail Group in Placer County Superior Court.  She says
that she was placing her credit card back in her purse at the
Devanlay store where she was shopping when a cashier asked for the
zip code.

Though Davis does not recall whether she had yet received her
receipt, she alleged that the zip-code demand violated the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act, a California law that "prohibits
businesses from requesting that cardholders provide 'personal
identification information' during credit card transactions, and
then recording that information."

Devanlay removed the action to federal court, the Eastern District
of California, in 2011.  A year later, that court granted
Devanlay, a licensee for Lacoste apparel, summary judgment based
on the finding that "Devanlay's policy of waiting until the
customer has her receipt in hand conveys that the transaction has
concluded and that providing a zip code is not necessary to
complete the transaction."

Davis appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, but a three-judge
panel found May 5 that it lacks precedent to determine whether it
is a violation of the statute to request personal identification
information (PII) from customers immediately after they have
completed a credit card transaction.

The federal appeals court certified the matter to the California
Supreme Court, asking whether "section 1747.08 of the California
Civil Code prohibit[s] a retailer from requesting a customer's
personal identification information at the point of sale, after a
customer has paid with a credit card and after the cashier has
returned the credit card to the customer, if it would not be
objectively reasonable for the customer to interpret the request
to mean that providing such information is a condition to payment
by credit card."

Several federal courts in California have interpreted Song-Beverly
to prohibit a retailer from requesting personal information only
if a consumer would perceive the request to mean the information
was necessary to complete the transaction, according to the
ruling.

Davis argues, however, that the statute forbids retailers from
asking for the information at the point of sale when a customer
pays by credit card, regardless of whether a customer would
reasonably perceive it as a condition of payment by credit card.

The California Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the issue.

"We find support for both the district court's and the appellant's
interpretations in the decisions of California's Courts of Appeal,
as well as in the statute's language and legislative history," May
5's unsigned order states.

Gene Stonebarger, an attorney for Davis, noted in an interview
that the law at issue, Section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act was enacted to prevent conduct that "puts consumers at
risk of harassment by cashiers and identity theft."

"The protections of the statute are more important now than ever
in light of the always increasing advances in information
technology allowing retailers to stockpile personal identification
information and credit card information about their customers,
which are often subject to mass data breaches," Stonebarger added.

The appellate panel featuring Judges Consuelo Callahan, Milan
Smith and Paul Watford called the language of the statute
ambiguous and said it offers little guidance as to whether courts
should apply an objective-consumer-perception test.

Song-Beverly states that "businesses that accept credit cards
shall not '[r]equest, or require as a condition to accepting the
credit card as payment in full or in part for goods or services,
the cardholder to provide personal identification information."

The panel took issue with the clause that says "as a condition to
accepting the credit card as payment."  They said that the comma
after "request" makes it unclear whether the clause modifies
"request" in addition to modifying "require."

"If it does modify 'request,' this would support the appellee's
position that Song-Beverly only forbids a request for PII if the
request could lead a consumer to reasonably believe that providing
PII is a condition to payment by credit card," the order states.
"If the clause does not modify 'request,' the plain meaning of the
statute would appear to broadly prohibit a retailer from
requesting PII when a customer pays by credit card."

Because it is unclear whether district courts are correctly
applying California law in construing the statute, "we think it
appropriate that the state court of last resort be given an
opportunity to resolve the question in the first instance," the
panel said.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          Scott R. Hatch, Esq.
          Melinda Evans, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: morr@calljensen.com
                  shatch@calljensen.com
                  mevans@calljensen.com

The case is Tammie Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Devanlay Retail Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-
15063, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Tammie Davis v. Devanlay
Retail Group, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-01719-KJMCKD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.


EL POLLO: Class Action by Former Employee in Preliminary Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action filed
by a former employee is in the preliminary phase.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

"We were served with the complaint on March 3, 2014. While we
intend to vigorously defend against this action, including its
class certification, the ultimate outcome of the case is presently
not determinable as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus, we cannot
at this time determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a
likely range of damages in the event of an adverse judgment. Any
settlement of, or judgment with a negative outcome arising from,
this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect," the Company
said.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Tosses Suit Over Launch of Battlefield 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts executives can't be held liable for expressing
corporate confidence about the launch of Battlefield 4, a judge
ruled April 30, dismissing an investor class action, reports Julie
Baker-Dennis at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro filed a class action
suit against Electronic Arts and its officers and executives in
2013 for making false assurances to investors about the readiness
of its action game "Battlefield 4."  The stockholders represented
anyone who purchased Electronic Arts common stock between May 8,
2013 and Dec. 5, 2013.

While EA has a history of developing successful video games for
existing and next-generation gaming consoles, investors and gamers
alike were aware of the company also has a history of botched game
launches and failed attempts to transition its games to different
consoles.

Despite challenges in development, the atmosphere at EA remained
positive.  In a prelaunch interview, "BF4" executive producer
Patrick Bach had also denied a possible release delay by stating
"Luckily we've overcome those hurdles."  But customer complaints
immediately followed Electronic Arts' three-string rollout,
beginning with the release of the game for existing consoles on
Oct. 29, 2013.  Common complaints included that the game would not
start or gave crash error messages, and that it froze so often
that customers said it was unplayable.

It took more than three months for the company to fix BF4's
defects.

Investors pointed to eight statements made by EA's executives --
all defendants in the action -- about the technology and
development of "BF4," including one by CEO Andrew Wilson stating
that they had achieved "a level of quality at launch that we
didn't get to last time and our teams are already starting to
think about investment in new innovation for the future."

Following up on a ruling last year finding that executive boasting
amounted to "corporate puffery" and not fraud, United States
District Judge Susan Illston dismissed the action completely on
April 30 "on the ground that the complaint fails to adequately
allege a primary violation."

Illston faulted the class for consistently using the term "de-
risk" -- a term frequently used by EA executives -- to describe
EA's alleged fraud, even after telling them it too was a "non-
actionable and vague expression of corporate optimism and
puffery."

"The allegations do not demonstrate that the term 'de-risk' has
any precise meaning," Illston wrote.  "Moreover, the inference
that defendants used the term to promise the elimination of
technological risks is contradicted by the documents which
plaintiffs incorporate into their complaint by reference and is
therefore entitled to no presumption of truth.  Given that
plaintiffs rely on the materialization of technological defects to
establish that the defendants lacked basis for their 'de-risking'
statements, neither the added context nor the previously alleged
facts pull defendants' statements within the actionable exception
to corporate puffery."

The judge also declined to link EA's admissions of past launch
failures -- particularly the botched release of Frostbite 3 -- to
their pre-release enthusiasm for Battlefield 4.

"The amended complaint lacks any specific factual allegations
related to prior transition games or technology, except for vague
references to prior 'transition failures,'" Illston wrote.  "Thus,
an admission that Frostbite 3 had not been finished until the last
minute does not directly contradict statements that Frostbite 3
represented an improvement over EA's last transition software."

"The court continues to find that each of the defendants'
statements represents an inactionable vague statement of corporate
puffery," the judge concluded, dismissing the case without leave
to amend.

The case is Ryan Kelly, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-05837-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Non-Risk-Based Pricing Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though the law requires it to
calculate rates based on risk factors, Farmers Insurance Exchange
instead focuses on what policyholders will pay, a class claims in
court.

Roger Harris, Duane Brown and Brian Lindsey filed the complaint on
April 22 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Farmers and
its affiliate, Mid Century Insurance Co.

"Auto insurance companies are not permitted to determine auto
insurance rates on the basis of what the market will bear," the
complaint states.

Farmers should calculate its rates "based on the risk presented by
the policyholder," the class claims, but its rating methodologies
are instead based on "the policyholder's willingness to tolerate a
price increase."

The class says such "non-risk-based pricing," or NRBP, aims to
"increase rates for policyholders willing to pay more than they
would based on the risk they present."

"NRBP harms policyholders who defendants judge to be less price-
sensitive and more loyal to defendants -- they pay more than they
would pay if defendants used only risk-based factors," the
complaint states.

The class says Farmers has data indicating that "people with
certain (non-risk-based) characteristics are willing to pay more
than they should pay based on the risk they present."

"The data indicates, among other things, that their most loyal
customers are willing to pay more than new customers who present
the same risk," the complaint states.

Farmers allegedly omits its consideration of such "elasticity of
demand" from its marketing materials.

Claiming that they have paid higher prices for their insurance
than other insureds who present the same risk that they present,
the plaintiffs want to represent a class of similarly situated
insureds against Farmers under California's unfair-competition law
and its insurance code.

The complaint describes all three named plaintiffs as Santa
Barbara County residents and loyal customers of the defendants.

Los Angeles-based Farmers is "the largest auto insurer in
California," according to the complaint.

The class seeks damages, restitution and an injunction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Stormer, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Toll Free: (866) 457-2590
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079


FITBIT INC: Falsely Marketed Sleep-Tracking Devices, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Brickman, individually and as a representative of all
others similarly situated v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02077-
DMR (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unlawful practice of advertising that its devices contain sleep-
tracking function without actually providing this function to its
customers.

Fitbit, Inc. is a maker of wearable fitness tracking devices with
headquarters located in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
      Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Telephone: (440) 352-3391
      Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
      E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
              fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

         - and -

      John A. Kithas, Esq.
      Christopher Land, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. KITHAS
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-8100
      Facsimile: (415) 788-8001
      E-mail: john@kithas.com
              chris@kithas.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Has Not Yet Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yet
appointed a lead plaintiff or plaintiffs in a consolidated class
action.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
certain press releases and other public statements in violation of
the federal securities laws and seek class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order
consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and
providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended
complaint after it is filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants'
motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The court has not yet appointed a lead
plaintiff or plaintiffs, and no consolidated amended complaint has
been filed.


GILSTER-MARY LEE: Popcorn-Ailment Suit Belongs in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action involving exposure to harmful chemicals used in
butter-flavoring products on microwave popcorn belongs in federal
court, reports Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service, citing an
8th Circuit ruling.

Former and current employees of Gilster-Mary Lee Corp. and six
other companies filed the complaint in a Missouri state court over
a year ago.  The employees claimed that exposure to butter-
flavoring products, including diacetyl, caused them to develop or
put them at risk of developing lung ailments.

After Gilster and the other defendants removed the case to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiffs
dismissed all of the defendants except Gilster.  Since local
controversy is an exception to the Class Action Fairness Act,
however, and since Gilster's popcorn-packaging plant is in Jasper,
the presiding judge in Joplin remanded the case back to state
court.

The exception requires a federal court to decline jurisdiction
when more than two-thirds of the proposed class members are
citizens of the state in which the class action was originally
filed.

Reversing on May 1, a three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit found
that the plaintiffs led by Patricia Hood did not meet their burden
of proof for the remand.  The employees sought affidavits from 246
former employees who worked at Gilster in the relevant time
period, but received only 95 responses.  Of those only seven no
longer lived in Missouri.  Though the remaining 126 former
employees all had last-known addresses in Missouri, the 8th
Circuit found it erroneous for the trial court to admit the 126
employees as current Missouri residents.

"The District Court extrapolates the citizenship of the Missouri
citizens who responded, to the citizenship for those potential
class members who did not respond," Judge Duane Benton wrote for
the court.  "The fallacy is apparent.  Those still at the last-
known address were more likely to respond, and those not at the
last-known address were less likely to respond (and more likely
not to be Missouri citizens, or even have a valid address)."

Judges James Loken and Steven Colloton concurred.

The appellate case is Patricia Hood; Susan Meyer; Nora de la Rosa,
Plaintiffs -- Appellees v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation, Defendant
-- Appellant, Case No. 15-1458, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The District Court case is Hood
v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri - Joplin.


GOOGLE INC: Accused by Elder Job-Seeker of Age Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Maria Dinzeo reports that
Google discriminates against older tech workers by
disproportionally hiring the under-40 set, a 64-year-old job-
seeker claims in a federal class action.

Robert Heath says he applied for a software engineer job at Google
in 2011.  He was 60 years old, and had worked for IBM, Compaq and
General Dynamics dating back to 1978.  He has master
certifications in both Java and C++, a rarity for an IT
professional, he says in the April 22 complaint.  He claims he had
a cursory phone interview in February 2011, in which the
interviewer never asked about his background or qualifications.

Heath says the interviewer did not seem fluent in English, used a
poorly functioning speaker phone, and refused to cooperate with
him in his attempts to communicate through Google Docs.

After the interview, Heath said, he told a Google human relations
representative what had happened, and was told the interviewer had
"acted inappropriately."

Heath says he received an e-mail two days later from a Google
recruiter, who said, "we're not going to be continuing on to the
next step in the process," based on the interviewer's feedback.

"Google intentionally did not allow Mr. Heath to communicate or
demonstrate his full technical abilities, and did not have a
sincere interest in hiring Mr. Heath," the complaint states.

He claims: "Google has engaged in a systematic pattern and
practice of discriminating against individuals (including Mr.
Heath) who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and other
employment decisions with the resultant effect that persons age 40
or older are systemically excluded from positions for which they
are well-qualified.  The end result of Google's pattern and
practice of age discrimination is a workforce with a median age of
29."

Heath's attorney Daniel Low with Kotchen and Low said in a
statement: "The disproportionately low number of older workers and
the history of discriminatory remarks at Google provide
significant evidence of age discrimination, and we're hopeful that
this lawsuit will help end discriminatory practices at Google and
deter discrimination in the industry."

The complaint cites U.S. Department of Labor data that the median
age of U.S. software developers is around 40, and the median age
for computer programmers in the United States is about 43.

The complaint cites Reid v. Google, in which the California
Supreme Court found that former Google executive Brian Reid had
presented evidence of the company's animus toward older workers,
including comments made by other executives that his ideas were
"obsolete," and "too old to matter," and that "other colleagues at
Google had referred to Reid as an 'old man,' an 'old guy,' and an
'old fuddy-duddy.'"

Reid, then 52, was fired from Google in 2004 after being told he
was not a "cultural fit," a term allegedly used internally to
describe older employees.

In an e-mail response to the Heath case, a Google spokesperson
said: "We believe that the facts will show that this case is
without merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

Heath seeks class certification, an injunction and punitive
damages for age discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Low, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Rd., NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Merger Defendants Agree to Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, that
defendants have agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement of
class actions over a merger.

Following the announcement of the merger, six putative class
action complaints challenging the merger were filed on behalf of
purported Baker Hughes stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The complaints are captioned: Gary R.
Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB; Booth
Family Trust v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10404-CB; New
Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10413-CB; Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v.
Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10448-CB; James Rice v. Baker
Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10414-CB; and Annette Shipp v.
Martin S. Craighead, et al., Case No. 10501-CB. On January 23,
2015, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware actions
under the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Delaware
Action"). Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015 (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). A seventh putative class action
challenging the merger was filed on behalf of purported Baker
Hughes stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The complaint is captioned Marc Rovner v. Baker
Hughes Inc., et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416.

These complaints name as defendants Baker Hughes, the members of
the Baker Hughes Board, Halliburton and Merger Sub. The complaints
assert that the members of the Baker Hughes Board breached their
fiduciary duties to Baker Hughes stockholders during the merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the merger, and that Baker Hughes, Halliburton and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the merger
consideration undervalues Baker Hughes, that the process leading
up to the merger was flawed, that the directors engaged in self-
dealing and that certain provisions of the merger agreement
improperly favor Halliburton and Merger Sub and preclude or impede
third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals and
that the joint proxy statement/prospectus fails to disclose
material information or includes misleading disclosures concerning
the proposed merger. The complaints seek, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger
agreement, a directive to Baker Hughes directors to execute their
fiduciary duties and obtain a transaction in the best interest of
stockholders, a directive to defendants to account for all damages
caused by them and account for all profits and any special
benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary
duties, compensation for certain unspecified damages and
reimbursement of costs.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, to
stay the Texas action on February 13, 2015, and pursuant to a
stipulation entered by the court on March 6, 2015, plaintiff is
expected to file a response on March 20, 2015.

Following the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, the parties to
the Consolidated Delaware Action engaged in expedited discovery,
in advance of a hearing scheduled for March 23, 2015 on the
Delaware plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin Baker Hughes's
stockholder vote on the merger. On March 13, 2015, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of that motion. On
March 17, 2015, defendants filed their opposition briefs.

On March 18, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, to settle the Consolidated
Delaware Action. Pursuant to the MOU, and without agreeing that
any of the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Action have merit
or that such supplemental disclosures were required under any
applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, the defendants agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures set forth in this joint
proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU further provides that, among
other things, (a) the parties will enter into a definitive
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the
Stipulation to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for
review and approval, (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Consolidated Delaware Action, (c) the Stipulation
will include a general release of defendants of claims relating to
the merger and the merger agreement and (d) the proposed
settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of
the merger, class certification, and final approval by the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware after notice to Baker
Hughes's stockholders. The settlement will not affect the form or
amount of the consideration that Baker Hughes's stockholders will
receive in the merger.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in
the lawsuits are without merit. However, to avoid the risk that
litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger, to minimize the expense of defending
such litigation, to remove the distraction of continued litigation
and to provide additional information to stockholders at a time
and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the closing of
the merger, defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement.


HARRISON MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott F. Lawson v. Harrison Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00130-LJM-DKL (S.D. Ind., May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Harrison Manufacturing, Inc. is engaged in manufacturing business
headquartered in Terre Haute, Vigo County, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Parties File Joint Motion to Approve Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit filed a joint motion with the Court seeking an
order, inter alia, granting preliminary approval of their
settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying a class for
settlement purposes, and setting a date for a final settlement
hearing.

On December 21, 2012, a putative Federal Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17,
2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of
the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 14, 2013, the Court
appointed Hemispherx Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Pursuant to the Court's March 29, 2013
scheduling order, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and
in its Amended Complaint, dropped Thomas K. Equels and Charles T.
Bernhardt as Defendants and added David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne
Pambianchi, an outside consultant, as Defendants. The Amended
Complaint alleges an expanded Class Period of March 14, 2012 to
December 20, 2012, which period encompasses statements made in the
Company's 2011 Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and at the FDA
Advisory Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012. On July 19, 2013,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead
Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to Defendants' motion to
dismiss is September 17, 2013, and Defendants filed their reply
brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February, 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for the completion of all fact
discovery. On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February
25, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which
will govern all confidential documents produced in discovery.
After conducting significant fact discovery, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle all claims on December 31,
2014. However, the settlement is subject to the Court's issuance
of an order finally approving the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement in all material respects.

On March 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion with the Court
seeking an order, inter alia, granting preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying a class for
settlement purposes, and setting a date for a final settlement
hearing.


HERSHEY CO: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Chocolate Antitrust MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mcauley, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
confectionary giants Hershey, Mars and Nestle repeatedly told the
3rd Circuit that there is "no evidence" to support claims that
they fixed prices.

The chocolate companies melted down the multidistrict class action
last year and hope a three-judge panel that heard the retailers'
appeal April 30 will affirm.

In dismissing the suit over the alleged $726 million chocolate
cartel, U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner found last year
that "nothing scandalous or improper has been discovered within
our borders, and no evidence permits a reasonable inference of a
price-fixing agreement."

Although the companies' Canadian affiliates were charged in a
price-fixing scheme to which Hershey Canada pleaded guilty, Conner
said the purchasers failed to show "any tie" between the Canadian
and American goings-on.

In 2013, Cadbury Adams Canada Inc., Hershey Canada Inc., Nestle
Canada Inc. and Mars Canada Inc. reached a $23.2 million
settlement for the sale of their products from Feb. 1, 2001, to
Dec. 31, 2008. German regulators also fined Kraft and Nestle that
year $81.4 million for price-fixing.

The multidistrict proceedings now on appeal to the 3rd Circuit
involved 91 separate civil actions that began piling up in 2007.
Cadbury was dismissed from the action in 2011.

Judges D. Michael Fisher and Judge Jane Roth sat on the panel with
Senior U.S. District Judge Gustav Diamond, from the lower court
where the case sputtered last year.

Aside from a joke by Diamond about the lack of chocolate
"exhibits" to enjoy, the hour-long hearing ticked away with each
party exhausting their arguments.

Steve Shadowen, an attorney for the plaintiffs, began by
emphasizing the possibility of a link between U.S. pricing and the
previously settled Canadian conspiracy.  Though Judge Haridman
warned against the assumption that if "it happened there, it
happened here," Shadowen pointed to "structural evidence" that the
same people ran the neighboring U.S. and Canadian markets, and
that those people all had pricing authority.  Even if they did not
actually have authority, Shadowen said they must have had
consenting knowledge about pricing increases.

After confirming to Judge Diamond that the price increases were
nationwide, Shadowen claimed that U.S. chocolate companies were
led by example to realize that "life is better when we follow each
other, and cooperate instead of compete."

Indeed U.S. Hershey failed to support a price increase in 2001,
when U.S. Mars failed to follow with its own increase, thus
persuading the companies to work together, the attorney for the
plaintiffs said.

It is the plaintiffs' theory that, when U.S. companies saw price
fixing work in Canada, they followed suit.

"At a minimum," the U.S. companies knew about Canadian price
fixing, Shadowen said, pointing to evidence of a cocoa-trader
rumor about the planned 2002 pricing increases at Canada Nestle.

U.S. executives allegedly "encouraged Hershey" to increase prices,
in hopes that Mars would follow.

Counsel highlighted testimony about how Hershey President Richard
Lenny in particular became "deeply involved" in Canadian trade-
spending controls in 2002, knew of the Canadian conspiracy and
must have imagined similar success using the same scheme in
America.

For the attorneys representing the chocolate companies, however,
"not a shred of evidence" supports those claims.

Hershey's lawyer, William Cavanaugh, criticized the rumor claims
and the expert "thought-experiment theory," and repeatedly cited a
summary judgment ruling from a baby-food price-fixing litigation
settlement to support the "no evidence" argument.

Mars counsel told the court that a pricing increase that occurred
in spring 2008, instead of at the end of the year as normal,
occurred only because of a changeover in company computer systems.

Mars had an existing "fast-follow" policy in place because of
anticipated line pricing that led their price increase decisions,
the attorney said.

Insisting that the rumor theory relates only to Hershey
executives, the defendants said that all the alleged participants
were "different people, from different organizations."

Judge Diamond questioned the degrees of separation, asking if
approval was needed from U.S. executives in order for Canadian
executives to increase prices.

The defendants said approval was not needed, and in fact some U.S.
defendants were totally unaware of the price increases in Canada,
and vice versa, until the day an increase was put into effect.

Nestle, the only company of the defendants who had individual
executives charged in the Canadian conspiracy, said that there was
not a "scintilla" of evidence that there was any operational
authority relating the U.S. and Canadian companies.  In fact,
defendants argued, in over 150 depositions and 12 million
documents no evidence existed of any links.

Judge Diamond commended both sides on presenting themselves well,
saying the case itself was complex and "interesting."


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Settles Silverman Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the
Silverman Shareholder Class Action Suit have submitted a
settlement to the court for approval.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleged that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well on the Company's CPO 4 prospect. Two additional
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in May 2012.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

On September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and on November 15, 2012
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint, among other things, expanded the putative class period
to November 9, 2009 to April 18, 2012 and added allegations
challenging a November 2009 estimate concerning the CPO 4
prospect.

"On January 14, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss and, on August
22, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal of
the dismissal of the complaint. On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
case. The appellate court ruling focused on the sufficiency of the
pleadings in the case, made no determination regarding the merits
of the factual allegations, and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings," the Company said.

In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated lawsuit. The settlement, which provides
for a $7,000,000 payment, is expected to be fully funded by the
Company's insurance and is subject to preliminary and final
approval of the court. The parties submitted the settlement to the
court for approval on December 31, 2014.

"Though we believe the likelihood of approval of the settlement is
probable, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation. If the settlement is not finally approved by the
court, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims
in the amended complaint," the Company said.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Arising From Initial Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that iDreamSky, China's largest
mobile game publishing platform, raised $116 million in its IPO
through false and misleading statements, shareholders claim in a
class action in New York County Supreme Court.


INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: Sued for Destroying Livelihoods in India
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
World Bank-funded power plant in India destroyed the lands and
livelihoods of hundreds of farmers and fishermen and endangered
their families' health, residents claim in Washington Federal
Court.

Lead plaintiff Budha Ismail Jam and three other affected residents
sued the International Finance Corp. on behalf of the
"impoverished fishing communities and local farmers who have had
their way of life fundamentally threatened or destroyed by the
Tata Mundra Plant," in Kutch District, Gujarat, India.

A local trade union representing fisher-workers' rights and
Navinal Panchayat, a village near the plant, are also named as
plaintiffs.  Navinal village has about 800 homes and 3,000
residents whose livelihoods depend on farming, fishing and animal
rearing, according to the complaint.

Before the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Plant, a 4,150-megawatt,
coal-fired plant, began operating at full capacity in 2013,
International Finance Corp. provided a $450 million loan to the
project.

A subsidiary of Indian company Tata Power owns the plant in
question, while IFC is the private-lending arm of the World Bank
Group.

"The IFC states that its mission is to 'carry out investment and
advisory activities with the intent to "do no harm" to people and
the environment,'" the lawsuit states.  "The Tata Mundra Plant is
thus a mission failure.  The project has already done substantial
harm to local people and the environment, and if compensatory,
remedial and preventive measures are not promptly taken,
plaintiffs will be further injured, their livelihoods destroyed,
and the local environment irreparably harmed, all in further
violation of the IFC's mission."

IFC's financing came despite its alleged knowledge that the coal-
fired power plant would cause significant harm to the environment
and surrounding communities.

"The IFC acted negligently and irresponsibly at all phases of this
project -- in its appraisal, in the disbursement of funds, and in
its supervision and monitoring of the project and the impacts on
local communities and the environment," Michelle Harrison, one of
the attorneys behind the April 23 complaint, said in an interview.
"The IFC approved the critical funding that enabled the project to
go forward without taking reasonable steps to prevent the harms it
specifically foresaw and it subsequently failed to enforce
provisions of the loan agreement intended to protect the affected
communities and the environment.  And, despite the fact that its
own accountability mechanism has sharply criticized the IFC's acts
and omissions with respect to this project, the IFC has still
failed to remedy the situation."

Tata Mundra got its initial environmental clearance from the
Indian government in 2007, along with another power plant that was
built just a mile away, around the same time.  Both plants have
allegedly raised eyebrows because of their environmental impact.

Tata Mundra, which burns about 12 to 13 million tons of coal a
year, takes in enormous amounts of seawater and discharges heated
water into the sea through a large outfall channel.

"The Tata Mundra Plant is located in an ecologically rich, but
fragile, portion of the Kutch coast in Gujarat, India," home to
communities of farmers and fishermen, the complaint states.

IFC's funding was critical to getting the project off the ground,
and it "failed to take sufficient steps or exercise due care to
prevent and mitigate harms to the property, health, livelihoods,
and way of life of many of the people who live near the Tata
Mundra Plant," the complaint continues.

Residents say the project saw changes to its initial design for
intake and outfall channels, which made the environmental impact
even greater, and that the IFC knew the project was "expected to
have significant adverse social and/or environmental impacts that
are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented."

"The thermal pollution discharged into the sea by the Tata Mundra
Plant's cooling system has fundamentally degraded the local marine
ecosystem where traditional fishing communities have fished for
generations, resulting in the decline of critical fish stocks and
other marine resources, and threatening plaintiffs' means of
supporting themselves and their families," the complaint states.
"Construction of the Tata Mundra Plant and the intake and outfall
channels has closed off access routes to traditional fishing
grounds, substantially increased the travel time and costs for
fishing families, and caused sea water intrusion into the
groundwater along the Mundra-Mandvi area where plaintiffs and
other members of the proposed class live."


JC PENNEY: Faces Suit Over Death of Bangladeshi Garment Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The families of more than 1,000 Bangladeshi workers killed in the
collapse of garment factory want damages from the U.S. retailers
that they say failed to ensure safe working conditions, reports
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Many of the 1,129 people killed, and the approximately 2,515
injured, in the April 24, 2013, collapse of the Rana Plaza
building in Savar, Bangladesh, were women and children, according
to the federal complaint.

The eight-story commercial building housed multiple garment
factories, and the April 23 action names as defendants J.C. Penney
Co., The Children's Place, Wal-Mart Stores and the People's
Republic of Bangladesh.

Lead plaintiff Abdur Rahaman says the death of his partner,
Sharifa Belgum, in the collapse has left unable to find
construction jobs because he has taken over the full-time care of
the family's four young children.

Belgum, 30, earned about $155 a month working for New Wave Bottoms
Ltd., according to the complaint.

Mahamudul Hasan Hridoy is the complaint's other named plaintiff. A
former quality inspector for New Wave Style Ltd., Hridoy says he
was 25 years old at the time of the collapse.

He allegedly suffered head trauma, was in a coma for 17 days, and
also sustained fractures to his ribs and backbone. He now needs
the assistance of a cane to walk.

The collapse occurred "despite significant warning signs that the
building was uninhabitable-including illegal construction and at
least one warning from an engineer the day before the collapse,"
their complaint states.

Rahaman and Hridoy say the retailers and the Bangladeshi
government "breached their duty to workers . . . by failing to
implement standards and oversight mechanisms designed to ensure
the health and safety of workers."  The complaint notes that the
defendant retailers operate more than 13,000 stores across the
country, selling clothing produced in factories like the one in
Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has more than 5,000 garment factories and is the third-
largest exporter of apparel to the U.S., handling orders for
nearly all of the world's top brands and retailers, the class
says.  China alone surpasses Bangladesh as the world's leading
exporter of clothing, according to the complaint.

The class notes that 80 percent of the Rana Plaza workers were
women between the ages of 18 and 20.  Standard shifts allegedly
last between 13 to 14.5 hours a day, with only two days off per
month.  Most workers made as little as 12 cents to 24 cents per
hour.

Wal-Mart and the other defendant retailers "understood and
reasonably foresaw that their business practice of subcontracting
with Bangladeshi garment companies would, without adequate
supervision, inspection, and audits, put those workers at risk of
suffering personal injury or death," the complaint alleges.

In addition to damages for negligence and wrongful death, the
class seeks an order requiring the defendants to implement labor
practices consistent with international standards for worker
health and safety protection.

A spokesman for Wal-Mart alone returned a request for comment, but
declined to discuss the details of matter since the litigation is
pending.

"As a founding member of the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker
Safety, we have worked through the alliance with other companies
and organizations to improve conditions in factories in
Bangladesh," spokesman Randy Hargrove said.  "Over the past year,
the alliance provided fire safety training to more than 1 million
factory employees and management, piloted a worker helpline, and
provided compensation for approximately 1,000 displaced workers."

The class is represented by:

          Jonathan Greenbaum, Esq.
          COBURN & GREENBAUM PLLC
          1710 Rhode Island Avenue NW, 2nd floor
          Washington DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 657-4490
          Facsimile: (866) 561-9712
          E-mail jg@coburngreenbaum.com


KAY MARKET: "Tirado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Galvez Tirado et al v. Kay Market, Inc. d/b/a Han's Deli
and Kyung Ae Han, Case No. 1:15-cv-03603-AJN (S.D.N.Y., May 8,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a deli and grocery store located at
645 Broadway, New York, NY 10012.

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


KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Suits Challenging Merger With Heinz
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Charly Himmel reports that a
proposed $49 billion merger between Kraft Foods and the H.J. Heinz
Co. will fatten execs' paychecks but do little for the companies'
shareholders, a pair of class action lawsuits claim.

Kraft announced its intention to merge with Heinz on March 25,
2015, and in doing said Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway and 3g
Capital to invest a total $10 billion in the combined company.
The transaction is expected to close later this year, according to
court documents.

But in a complaint filed in the Richmond Federal Court, lead
plaintiff Steven Leitz claims the deal is "designed to ensure a
transaction with Heinz on terms preferential to Heinz, and to
subvert the interests of Plaintiff and other public shareholders
of Kraft."  He says the deal forbids Kraft to seek out alternative
business partners, gives Heinz the right to revise the terms of
the merger agreement in response to any superior merger proposal,
and requires Kraft to pay Heinz a $1.2 billion "termination fee"
if the deal were to come apart for any reason.

"These provisions substantially and improperly limit the Board's
ability to act with respect to investigating and pursing superior
proposals," the complaint says.  "These unreasonable deal
protection devices preclude other bidders from making a successful
competing offer for the Company."

Leitz goes on to accuse Heinz of filing a registration statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that failed to
disclose information shareholders would need to make an informed
decision about the transaction.

Leitz seeks injunctive relief to prevent the merger from being
realized until "all material information" is disclosed to Kraft's
shareholders.

In a separate action filed in the Henrico County Circuit Court on
May 1, lead plaintiff Tova Samouha claims Kraft Foods' board
breached its fiduciary duty by agreeing to the proposed
acquisition at a time when the company was experiencing a
"temporary lull" in its stock price due to flat sales growth and
falling margins.

"The Proposed Acquisition, valued at approximately $49 billion, is
designed to allow Heinz to wrongfully wrestle control of the
Company away from Kraft's shareholders and into its own hands at a
time when the Company is vulnerable," Samouha's complaint says.

The plaintiff goes on to say Heinz got a sweetheart deal by
promising Kraft board members prestigious post-merger positions in
the Kraft Heinz Company.

Like Leitz, Samouha also blasts provisions of the proposed
agreement that the shareholder says are designed to prevent Kraft
from considering a merger with any other party.  Samouha is also
seeking injunctive relief to prevent the merger from happening.

Plaintiff Steven Leitz is represented by:

          Robert Wilson, Esq.
          L. Kendall Satterfield, Esq.
          Rosalee Thomas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          James Place, Suite #150
          1077 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  ksatterfield@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN APC
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

Plaintiff Tova Samouha is represented by:

          Christie A. Leary, Esq.
          Amy L. Bradley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIE A. LEARY P.C.
          10476 Armstrong Street
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (800) 823-8011
          Facsimile: (703) 543-5478


LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of FriendFinder Class Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of the second amended complaint in the class action
lawsuit against FriendFinder Networks.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
("District Court") against FriendFinder Networks, Inc.
("FriendFinder"), various individuals, and Ladenburg and another
broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder
initial public offering. On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed its
second amended complaint, alleging that the defendants, including
Ladenburg, were liable for violations of federal securities laws.
On March 18, 2014, the District Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice. On October 24, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
second amended complaint.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Action Settlement Amount Paid in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
settlement amount in a class action against Worldwide Energy &
Manufacturing, Inc. was paid in December 2014.

In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities. The complaint alleged that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, were liable for violations of state
securities laws. On August 11, 2014, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement resolving all claims in the complaint, which
is pending final court approval, in exchange for Ladenburg's
payment of $1,325,000. Such amount was accrued at December 31,
2013 and paid in December 2014.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Defendant in Class Action Over ARCP Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in
December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
as well as the underwriters of ARCP's May 21, 2014 offering of
$1,656,000 common stock ("May 21, 2014 Offering") and three prior
notes offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg
was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 21,
2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 13,
2013 offering of $330,000 in convertible notes. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials contained
misrepresentations of ARCP's adjusted funds from operations and
the effectiveness of ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Falsely Markets Blu E-Cigs as Safer, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reni Anguelova at Courthouse News Service reports that Lorillard
Tobacco Company falsely advertises its Blu brand of electronic
cigarettes as "safer" and "healthier" than standard smokes when
they're not, a class claims in the Orange County Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Larry Diek says in a 50-page complaint filed in
Orange County Superior Court that he would not have purchased Blu
e-cigarettes if he had known about their dangers.

E-cigs, as described in the complaint, are designed to deliver "a
smoking-like hit of vapor, usually containing nicotine, which is
inhaled by the user," Diek's complaint states.

A battery-operated heating mechanism converts a cartridge of
solvent carriers containing glycerin, glycol, propylene glycol,
polyethylene glycol -- also found in antifreeze -- artificial
flavors, and nicotine into vapor that the user then inhales as he
would a traditional cigarette, according to the complaint.

Blu deceptively advertises their e-cigarettes as a "safer,"
"healthier," and "smarter alternative to traditional cigarettes"
since they produce only vapor and not tobacco smoke.  But the
vapor is actually "a concoction of chemicals toxic to human
cells," Diek says in his complaint.

"It's not harmless," Diek's attorney Brian Chase, of the Newport
Beach, Calif., firm Bisnar Chase said in an interview.  "And
objective studies show that e-cigs contain disease-causing
substances, carcinogens, and other impurities, some of which are
found in traditional tobacco cigarettes."

He continued: "That goes for the vapor as well.  "People think
that it's just vapor, or that it's just harmless vapor, but its
not."

Scientifically, the vapor -- more accurately defined as an aerosol
-- emits carcinogenic materials that can cause harm to the user
and the people are who exposed secondhand, according to the
complaint.

"Mainstream and secondhand e-cigarette aerosol has been found to
contain at least ten chemicals known to cause disease, cancer,
birth defects, or other reproductive harm," the complaint states,
citing a report by the California Department of Public Health.

Some of these chemicals include formaldehyde, cadmium, benzene,
lead, and volatile organic compounds.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information has also
published in-depth studies that prove the existence of these
harmful additives in products like Blu, the complaint says.

And the aim of the ads made by Blu and other e-cigarette companies
is to deliberately undermine the smoke-free social norms that took
years to establish, according to Chase.

"This is tobacco all over again," the attorney said, reminiscing
tobacco advertisements that were circulating when he was a child
before they were banned.

"Magazines would advertise that four out of five doctors
recommended Camel cigarettes," Chase said, calling Blu and other
vaping products "bubble gum and cotton candy flavored e-cigs aimed
at young kids."

"Nearly 1.8 million middle and high school students tried e-
cigarettes in 2011 and 2012, including approximately 160,000
students who had never used conventional cigarettes," the
complaint states, citing a recent report published by the Centers
for Disease Control.

"The youth of today feel safe smoking Blu e-cigarettes," Chase
said.  "They are unaware of the risks associated with them due to
the lack of labeling and lack of public awareness on what these
products really contain."

Of government regulation and stricter warning labels, he added:
"It was a fight back then and it's a fight right now, but it will
happen sooner or later.  California has developed a new poster to
counter e-cigs.  Cities and counties have also imposed policies
regulating and prohibiting the use of e-cigs both indoors and
outdoors."

According to the complaint, there is widespread agreement in the
scientific community that further research is necessary before the
full negative effects of electronic cigarette use on users' heath
can be known and that until then, manufacturers and distributors
of electronic cigarettes should not make any representation
relating to the safety, health, of benefits, if any of electronics
cigarettes.

Diek and class members seek an injunction to stop Lorillard from
promoting Blu products as safe under the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, a refund for class members, and damages for unfair
competition, deceptive advertising, and express warranty.


LOS ANGELES: "Burwell' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
David Burwell, Charles Elzie, Stephen Leaf, Russell Nakamura, Roy
Rodriguez, Anthony Vidovich, and Marcus Williams v. City of Los
Angeles, Case No. 2:15-cv-03466 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Los Angeles is a city in the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester G. Ostrov, Esq.
      LESTER G OSTROV APC
      5757 Wilshire Blvd, Penthouse 5
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Telephone: (323) 424-3440
      Facsimile: (323) 424-3468
      E-mail: lostrov@lgolaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Flores and Mindi Flores, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00921-VAP-DTB (C.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:

      William A. Kershaw, Esq.
      Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
      Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
      KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
      401 Watt Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95864
      Telephone: (916) 448-9800
      Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
      E-mail: wkershaw@kcrlegal.com
              stalley@kcrlegal.com
              ibarlow@kcrlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Flores and Mindi Flores, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03491 (C.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:

      William A. Kershaw, Esq.
      Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
      Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
      KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
      401 Watt Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95864
      Telephone: (916) 448-9800
      Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
      E-mail: wkershaw@kcrlegal.com
              stalley@kcrlegal.com
              ibarlow@kcrlegal.com


MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Chief Deputy Sheriff Blames Migraine for E-mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that raked over the
coals in court April 24 for possibly acting without court approval
in a closely watched civil contempt case against his office,
Maricopa County's chief deputy sheriff could point only to his
history of migraines.

"I take medication every night to help prevent those headaches
from occurring," Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan told the court, while
speaking of the migraine headaches he has suffered for 40 years.
"That medication has some side effects that I don't wish to talk
about.  And, I had a slight migraine that day."

The day Sheridan allegedly had a headache was the day he ordered
Chief David Trombi to send an e-mail to the agency's commanders to
collect all recordings from department traffic stops.

That evidence was needed for a class action against Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and the Sheriff's Office for racially profiling Latinos
during traffic stops or crime suppression sweeps.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow had directed the office to
collect such evidence "quietly," however, saying it should work
with court-appointed monitor Chief Robert Warshaw to determine the
most efficient way to collect videos from deputies of traffic
stops.

Now Sheridan, along with Sheriff Joe and three other former and
current Maricopa County Sheriff's Office officials, face civil
contempt charges accusing them of detaining and transporting
undocumented individuals to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, failing to deliver
data to the court, and failing to train deputies not to make
unconstitutional stops despite a court order.

Cecillia Wong, an attorney behind the 2007 racial-profiling class
action against the department, questioned Sheridan why he never
fessed up to Chief Warshaw about ordering Trombi to send the e-
mail.

Sheridan defended the departmentwide directive as what seemed to
him then as the "best" way to collect the evidence.

"To this day, after having many, many hours to think about the
issue on how best to gather videos that are in the hands of 700
individuals spread over 9,226 square miles, once we asked one
deputy sheriff for the videos, how could we prevent anyone if they
had the thought, the desire to destroy a video?" Sheridan asked
the court.  "The only way I could come up with that was if we
served 700 search warrants all at once, [and] I don't think that
would ever work.  There was going to be no perfect way if I had a
corrupt deputy sheriff that was going to destroy that video."

Sheridan told Wong he was tired and confused when he spoke to the
monitor moments after making the e-mail order -- two symptoms of
his migraine problem.

Michele Iafrate, counsel for defendants, broached the subject with
Sheridan of the department's alleged investigation into Judge
Snow's wife.

"Do you know anyone that investigated Judge Snow or his wife?"
Iafrate asked Sheridan.

Arpaio admitted April 23 to knowing his former counsel hired a
private eye to investigate Snow's wife.

"We did not investigate Judge Snow's wife," Sheridan said,
claiming they only reached out to an individual after she claimed
Snow's wife made denigrating comments about Arpaio.

Snow then joined in on the questioning.

"Was it about me and did it make allegations that I was doing
something illegal?" the judge asked Sheridan.

"I can't quote it verbatim but it was 'I know Judge Snow's wife
she told me he hates you and he wants to see you out of office,'"
Sheridan told the judge.

The court also continued hearing matters regarding an ongoing
ethical dispute involving Tom Liddy, who represented Arpaio and
Maricopa County during the 2012 trial.  Liddy excused himself
April 21, but Snow has not yet granted or denied his motion to
withdraw as counsel.

Wong asked the court to remove Liddy from the courtroom under the
rule of exclusion because Liddy may be called at some point as a
witness.

"I haven't yet granted Mr. Liddy's motion to withdraw, so is there
going to be an objection to his motion to withdraw?" Snow asked,
prompting Wong to quickly ask him to withdraw her request.

Snow did ask Casey to leave the courtroom under the rule of
exclusion.  Casey may be called as a witness at a later date.

The civil contempt hearing is expected to continue in June.


MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Alaniz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Alaniz and Juan Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Maxum Petroleum Operating
Company, Inc. d/b/a Pilot Logistics Services and also d/b/a M
Petroleum Operation Company, Western Petroleum, LLC, and Pilot
Thomas Logistics, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00373-XR (W.D. Tex., 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 are providers of petroleum drilling and exploration
support services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net


MICHAELS COS: 50 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that as a result of the
decertification of a class action, the Company has approximately
50 individual claims pending.

On September 15, 2011, Michaels Stores, Inc. was served with a
lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the
County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store managers
as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain
former and current store managers employed by MSI in California.
The lawsuit alleges that MSI improperly classified its store
managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages,
overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate
wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing
conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's
unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court
entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members.
MSI successfully removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014,
the class was de-certified.

"As a result of the decertification, we have approximately 50
individual claims pending. We believe we have meritorious defenses
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe
the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial statements," the Company said.


MICHAELS COS: Defending Against Fair Credit Reporting Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to defend against Fair Credit Reporting Claims.

On December 11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc. was served with a
lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former
associate.  The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing
plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a
putative class of applicants who applied for employment with
Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background
check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper
disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct
background checks.  Since the initial filing, another named
plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015,
Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with
substantially similar allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory
and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, four
additional purported class action lawsuits with five plaintiffs
were filed, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri,
Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Sue
Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in
the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Central District
of California. All five plaintiffs allege violations of the FCRA.
In addition, Castro, Horton and Bercut also allege violations of
California's unfair competition law.

Since the filing of these lawsuits, an application has been made
to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
consolidate and transfer the pending cases to the Northern
District of Texas.

"The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We cannot
reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related
to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MICHAELS COS: Deadline to File Notice of Appeal Expired
-------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the deadline to file
a notice of appeal in a class action related to the data security
incident has expired.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the
January 2014 data breach.  The plaintiffs generally allege that
MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information
including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached
an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available.  The
cases, are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize
and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February
21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States
District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the remaining actions. On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied on October
14, 2014. The deadline to file a notice of appeal expired on
November 13, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available. The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuit, if any," the Company said.  "In
connection with the breach, payment card companies and
associations may seek to require us to reimburse them for
unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also
impose fines or penalties in connection with the data breach, and
enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies
against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with the
data breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of
communications with customers and credit monitoring services
provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal
agencies, including states' attorneys general and the Federal
Trade Commission may investigate events related to the data
breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our
responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these
investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations,
which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business
and our results of operations. We cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss or range of loss related to any reimbursement
costs, fines or penalties that may be assessed, if any."


MICHAELS COS: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the court has granted
final approval of the settlement in the California Zip Code
Claims.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against MSI in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego ("San Diego Superior Court"), on
behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.
The Carson lawsuit alleges that MSI unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code)
as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. On
February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a
similar matter, Williams-Sonoma v. Pineda, that zip codes are
personally identifiable information and, therefore, the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended, prohibits businesses
from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit
card transaction.

Subsequent to the California Supreme Court decision, three
additional purported class action lawsuits seeking similar relief
have been filed against MSI: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores,
Inc. and Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San
Diego Superior Court, and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division. An order coordinating the cases has been entered
and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 24, 2012.
The parties settled the lawsuit for an amount that will not have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements. On August 6, 2014, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.


MILLERCOORS LLC: Sued in Cal. for Selling Blue Moon as Craft Beer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MillerCoors advertises Blue
Moon beer as a craft beer -- and charges a premium for it --
despite being as mass-produced as its other products, a class
action claims in California state court.


MMA CAPITAL: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company expects
to settle the remaining counts in a class action lawsuit.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and
two derivative suits originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors
in the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by
misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between May 3,
2004, and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages for themselves and the shareholders of the class they
purported to represent.  In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs
claimed, among other things, that the Company was injured because
its directors and certain named officers did not fulfill duties
regarding the accuracy of its financial disclosures.  Both the
class action and the derivative cases were brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the class action and in June 2012, the
Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts alleging any
knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or its
affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower
Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings, the only counts
remaining in the class action relate to the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan and the plaintiffs in the derivative cases have
voluntarily dismissed their case outright.

The Company expects to settle the remaining counts at an amount
between $0.4 million and $0.9 million and had a contingent
obligation of $0.5 million recorded at December 31, 2014.  The
parties have reached an agreement in principle in the foregoing
range, but there are numerous steps to be taken before the
settlement can be considered final and binding. Assuming the
agreement becomes final and binding, the resulting settlement
amount is expected to be covered fully by insurance.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Case in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, 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 is currently
in the discovery phase of the case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and
on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. The
Company believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter
and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect
on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the
actual outcome of this case, further provisions could be recorded
in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results.


NESTLE USA: Misstates Coffee-Mate as Trans Fat-Free, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though Coffee-Mate contains
partially hydrogenated oil, Nestle misrepresents the creamer as
free of trans fat, a federal class action alleges.

The case is Troy Backus v. Nestle USA Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


NINE ENERGY: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Webber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nine Energy Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01807 -EAS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, May 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Nine Energy Service, Inc. is an international oil and gas
conglomerate that consists of NSC-Tripoint, CDK Perforating,
Integrated Production Services Canada, Peak Pressure Control, Dak-
Tana Wireline and Crest Pumping Technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com

         - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


NITLE CORP: "Boland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Boland, Brandi Davis, and Billie Jo Williams, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees v. Nitle Corp. d/b/a
Rita's Italian Ice, and Edward Shvarts, Case No. 2:15-cv-00607
(W.D. Pa., May 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 8 Rita's Italian Ice franchise
stores in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq.
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      Facsimile: (412) 281-8481
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
              jwc@employmentrightsgroup.com


NRDC EQUITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Galpern, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NRDC Equity Partners, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03255-RBK-JS (D.N.J., May 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited commercial text
messages advertising goods and service.

NRDC Equity Partners, LLC owns and operates Lord and Taylor
department stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

         - and -

      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


ORACLE CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Garrison" No-Poaching Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing Oracle
of suppressing employee wages by creating no-poaching agreements
with other tech giants, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Greg Garrison sued Oracle in October 2014, claiming
it had a "restricted hiring agreement" with Google, Microsoft and
others, who agreed not to poach each others' managerial employees.

The companies also agreed not to cold-call each others' managers
and to inform each other before hiring one another's employees,
Garrison claimed.

Oracle filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in January.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh partially denied Oracle's motion
April 22, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an
injury in the case.

But Koh granted Oracle's argument that the 4-year statute of
limitations on the plaintiffs' claims have run out.

She gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

Several similar lawsuits have been filed against major tech
companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryce A. Dodds, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG LAW
          430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          E-mail: bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 395-8240
          E-mail: Edan.wall@lw.com


PETSMART INC: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Cole, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02097 (N.D.
Cal., May 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Petsmart, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates at
least 1200 stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com


PROVISION LIVING: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Jenkins, Brittany Smiley and Carla Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees v. Provision Living, LLC, d/b/a Provision Living Senior
Living Communities, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00535 (M.D. Tenn.,
May 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Provision Living, LLC owns and operates senior housing properties
that offers independent living, assisted living and memory care
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon Ernest Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt Jr., Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              jholt@jsyc.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Securities Class Suit Over RYAM Spinoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials failed to disclose information about
its timber stock and the cost of a corporate separation, causing
stock prices to plummet once the truth emerged, according to a
federal class action, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse
News Service.

Rayonier produces specialty cellulose fibers used to manufacture
products such as cigarette filters, liquid crystal displays,
impact-resistant plastics and pharmaceuticals.  The company touts
its special manufacturing techniques, which it says distinguishes
it from "traditional" pulp or paper mills, and its environmentally
conscious practices that help protect habitats and promote
"sustainable harvesting and procurement."

RYAM is a spinoff of Rayonier's performance fibers division.

On Jan. 27, 2014, Rayonier Inc. announced plans to make RYAM a
"tax-free" spinoff company where 100 percent of the new company's
shares would be distributed to Rayonier stockholders.

"RYAM was incorporated on Jan. 16, 2014, in Delaware, as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Rayonier, to hold the assets and liabilities
associated with the performance fibers business in advance of the
planned spinoff," according to a 40-page complaint filed in
Florida's Middle District.

The spinoff was completed the following June.

"The spinoff resulted in two independent, publicly-traded
companies, with the performance fibers business being spun-off to
Rayonier shareholders," the complaint states.

RYAM stock, however, dropped by $2.51 per share after Rayonier
disclosed in a Nov. 10 announcement that it was forced to issue a
restatement of financial results effecting quarterly reports for
March 31 and June 30.

Rayonier said, in part, that it mistakenly included "specially
designated, environmentally protected, or otherwise restricted"
areas in its "merchantable timber inventory."

Stock prices fell by 9.1 percent on the news, dipping from $27.57
per share the day of the announcement to $25.06 on Nov. 11.
Stocks prices fell again on Jan. 28, 2015, when RYAM announced it
would be making "massive adjustments to its environmental
reserves."  This caused a two-day, 5 percent drop from $18.96 per
share to $17.98 -- a precipitous decline from the class period
high of $44.18, according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System
says the defendants misled RYAM investors, providing "materially
false and misleading" information about the company's financial
status.

"In particular . . . RYAM improperly recorded and/or failed to
record on its publicly issued financial statements material
liabilities for environmental remediation and related obligations
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles,"
according to the complaint.  "RYAM also failed to provide
sufficient disclosure to investors to permit a meaningful
evaluation of the true scope and extent of these environmental
remediation and related liabilities, which were associated with
decades of environmental pollution."

In addition, RYAM falsely stated that demand for one of its
products, acetate, was growing when all the while it was
decreasing because its Chinese customers had excess inventories,
according to the complaint.

Finally, RYAM failed to disclose that the separation from Rayonier
cost the company $950 million in new debt.

The pension is suing RYAM and executives Paul Boynton, Frank
Ruperto and Benson Woo for fraud under the Securities Exchange
Act.  Boynton is the former chairman, president and CEO of
Rayonier, Inc.  Ruperto is Rayonier's former senior vice president
of corporate development and strategic planning.

The class seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fee and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph White, Esq.
          Lester Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA & WHITE P.A.
          Boca Center, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Jay Eisenhofer, Esq.
          James Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8520
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  jsabella@gelaw.com


RHIMA INVESTMENTS: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Canizalez, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Rhima Investments Inc. d/b/a E-Carone and
d/b/a Voffer, Texcorp Incorporated d/b/a Texas Motorcars, Motaz
Rhima a/k/a Marc Rhima, Michael J. Rhima, and Mohamed Rhima, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01443-B (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Class Action v. SCUSA Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the purported class
action lawsuit against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against SCUSA, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the IPO. Each lawsuit was brought by a purported
stockholder of SCUSA seeking to represent a class consisting of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SCUSA's securities
pursuant and/or traceable to SCUSA's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. Each complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained
misleading statements concerning SCUSA's auto lending business and
underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages
and other relief. On February 17, 2015, the purported class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Texas, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Defending Against Delaware Action on WMS Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation is still defending against the
consolidated Delaware action related to the WMS Industries, Inc.
merger, Scientific Games said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed in early 2013 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The
actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS
stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the merger and in connection with
their public disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints
allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games
Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games
Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the
acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County.
All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with
Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).
In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the merger. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the
Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions
in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those
supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on April 29, 2013.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

In September 2014, the plaintiffs' claims in the Illinois action
were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois
action have filed a claim for attorney fees of $0.9 million, which
we have opposed. A ruling on this matter was anticipated in March
2015.

The Company believes the claims in the consolidated Delaware
action are without merit.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bally Merger Case Parties in Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
Bally Technologies, Inc. merger litigation are in the process of
negotiating final versions of the definitive settlement documents
to be submitted to the Nevada court for approval.

Complaints challenging the Bally merger were filed in August 2014
in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions are
putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders
of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific
Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The complaints
generally allege that the Bally directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the
merger and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the merger,
to rescind the merger if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14-
705012-B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed
a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an
anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following
that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games
Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count
of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific
Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the
plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the
parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to
settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-
wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary
and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally,
Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the
MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims
alleged in the Nevada Action.

On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally
acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November
21, 2014.  Since entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs have
completed confirmatory discovery and have concluded that the
settlement contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and is in the best interests of the Bally public
stockholders.  The parties are in the process of negotiating final
versions of the definitive settlement documents to be submitted to
the Nevada court for approval.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a definitive settlement agreement or that the Nevada court
will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.
Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject
to court approval, are not expected to be material.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Seeks Dismissal of Oregon Lottery Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the Oregon
State Lottery matter, Scientific Games said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc.  The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning.  The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss in March 2015 and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this
lawsuit.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Defending Against Suits Over Data Systems Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that as publicly announced on
October 10, 2014, Kmart's information technology team detected on
October 9, 2014 that the Kmart store payment data system had been
criminally breached beginning in early September, that the payment
data systems at Kmart stores were purposely infected with a new
form of malware, and that debit and credit card numbers were
potentially compromised.  First NBC Bank filed in December 2014 a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Northern
District of Illinois for alleged violations relating to, and harm
resulting from, the incident.

"Two other similar lawsuits were filed by financial institutions
against us in February 2015 in the Western District of
Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition,
we have received requests for information and are subject to
investigations regarding this incident from various regulatory and
other government agencies," the Company said.


SONY COMPUTER: Deal to Dismiss 'Killzone' Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action lawsuit accusing Sony Computer Entertainment of
embellishing the quality of its "Killzone: Shadow Fall"
videogame's graphics has been dismissed.

On May 4 U.S. District Judge Edward Chen signed a joint
stipulation that dismisses lead plaintiff Douglas Ladore's lawsuit
with prejudice.

The joint stipulation was filed by Ladore on April 22. Settlement
terms were filed under seal.

Ladore claimed this past August that Sony's videogame was
advertised to have multiplayer mode graphics in full high-
definition resolution but didn't meet that bar.

The stipulation said each party will bear its own costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Lasser, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          1934 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 994-9930
          Facsimile: (415) 776-8047
          E-mail: slasser@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Alicia E. Hwang, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  ahwang@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          Michele D. Floyd, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549-0580
          Facsimile: (415) 549-0640
          E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com
                  mfloyd@srclaw.com

The case is Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-
EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.


SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court to Review Inaccurate Description Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims that the Web site Spokeo.com inaccurately described an
unemployed man as wealthy and well educated will go to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the justices said April 27, reports Barbara Leonard
at Courthouse News Service.

Virginia resident Thomas Robins claims that his job search has
been hampered by a description of him as a high earner with a
graduate degree on Spokeo, a search engine that aggregates
information about individuals.

Alleging that the misinformed profile violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), Robins proposed a 2010 class action against
Spokeo in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright dismissed Robins' first complaint
for lack of standing, and eventually did the same with an amended
complaint.  The judge found that Robins had failed to show that he
had suffered any actual harm.

A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court reversed last
year.

At this early stage of the case, Robins can gain standing by
alleging a violation of the FCRA "without showing actual harm,"
that ruling says.

"The statutory cause of action does not require a showing of
actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations," Judge
Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the panel.

"When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require
proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the
statutory right without suffering actual damages," he added.

The panel remanded the case to Los Angeles without deciding
whether "harm to . . . employment prospects or related anxiety
could be sufficient injuries in fact," or whether "Spokeo
qualifies as a consumer reporting agency or whether Spokeo
actually violated the FCR."  Per its custom, the Supreme Court did
not issue any comment in granting Spokeo a writ of certiorari
April 27.


SUFFOLK, NY: Cops Accused of Using "Stop and Rob" Latinos Drive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Police officers in Long Island's Suffolk County employed a "stop
and rob" campaign targeting Latinos, a federal class action
claims, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service.

Twenty-one unnanmed Latinos living in the New York City suburb
filed their 62-page civil rights lawsuit on April 29.

"For many years, SPCD officers have targeted Latinos for
unfounded, race-based traffic or pedestrian stops, searched or
detained them and wrongfully taken their personal property
(money), issued unjustified traffic citations, or otherwise
harassed them," they say.

With the complaint unavailable in the federal court system's
database, Courthouse News obtained a copy of it, with a case
number and a time stamp, on LatinoJustice's Web site.

The plaintiffs say they were targeted "based on the belief that
these drivers were likely to be undocumented and therefore prone
both to carry cash and to not report any theft."

Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel for LatinoJustice
PRLDEF, the firm that filed the case, noted that "people of color
should be able to walk and drive the streets of Suffolk County
without fear of being harassed and robbed by SCPD officers."

"The Constitution and civil rights laws of this country demand
nothing less from any law enforcement agency, and it is based upon
those laws that we have commenced this action," Cartagena said in
a statement.

The plaintiffs specify officer Scott Greene among others as a
named defendant, saying he targeted and stopped Latinos, demanded
their wallets, took the cash and issued them a bogus ticket.
Greene also searched their cars and took the money he found there,
too, according to the complaint.

The class says Greene was arrested in January 2014 after a sting
operation conducted by an undercover officer working with the
Suffolk County District Attorney's Office caught Greene on tape
taking $100 from an envelope in the undercover officer's car.
Greene was indicted on 21 counts that March, then hit with another
60 counts in June 2014 for taking money from 20 Latinos in Suffolk
County.

The parties also say Suffolk County Police Commissioner Edward
Webber turned a blind eye to the alleged practice.

"That these criminal practices, conducted every week in public,
went on for a decade yet were never halted by the department
reflects a fundamental failure of the department's ability to
monitor itself," said Foster Maer, senior litigation counsel for
LatinoJustice PRLDEF.  "The system of justice is broken for
Latinos in Suffolk County and must be reformed."

When Suffolk County Police set up traffic checkpoints in
predominantly Latino neighborhoods, they did so "not to inspect
for sobriety or other specific illegal conduct," but to "target"
Latinos in the county to ask for documentation, according to the
complaint.

Latinos say the Department of Justice jumped in to investigate
their claims of discrimination between 2010 and 2011.

"The United States investigation found rampant and systemic
discrimination by the SCPD against Latinos," according to the
complaint.

The department had no comment on the pending litigation, but said
"specific efforts" have been made recently to "enhance" its
relationship with the Latino community.

"We believe [Greene's] actions to be violative of his oath of
public office, the public trust and the law and are not
representative of the members of the Suffolk County Police
Department," a police spokeswoman said.  "The Suffolk County
Police Department expects and demands the highest professional and
ethical values of our officers."

She added that the department has "been working diligently to
build trust in all our communities."

"The public should know that when we receive a complaint about one
of our officer's conduct, we treat it seriously and will act upon
and investigate it fully," the statement concludes.

The plaintiffs want the department to remedy the allegedly
discriminatory conduct. They also seek unspecified damages for
civil rights violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Juan Cartagena, Esq.
          Nancy M. Trasande, Esq.
          Foster Maer, Esq.
          LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
          99 Hudson St., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 219-3360
          Facsimile: (212) 431-4276
          E-mail: jcartagena@latinojustice.org
                  finaer@latinojustice.org
                  ntrasande@latinojustice.org

               - and -

          Elan DiMaio, Esq.
          Zach Bench, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 848-7179
          E-mail: elan.dimaio@shearman.com
                  zach.bench@shearman.com

               - and -

          Heather L. Kafele, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 508-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 508-8100
          E-mail: heather.kafele@shearman.com

The case is Plaintiffs #1-21, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The County of Suffolk, et al., Case
No. CV 15 2431, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.


TEXAS, USA: Sued for Ticketing Owners for Running Red Lights
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the state of Texas, 53 of its
cities and red-light camera contractors unfairly ticket registered
vehicle owners for running red lights without proof the owners
were actually driving, a class claims in Tarrant County court.


THERACARE OF NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Bromberger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Theracare Of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02652
(E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Theracare Of New York, Inc. is a multi-service healthcare and
educational organization that provides early intervention services
to children in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Joseph Scimone, Esq.
      Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2055
      E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
              mbrooks@outtengolden.com


TIBOR SZABO: Court Tosses Again "Figures" Racketeering Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge again dismissed a class action accusing a San
Francisco piano salesman of defrauding clients of hundreds of
thousands of dollars, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

The October 2014 lawsuit by lead plaintiffs Matthew Figures and
Colleen Devlin accused Tibor Szabo, owner of Hayes Valley's Salle
Pianos & Events, of accepting deposits on classical pianos but
never delivering the goods.

Figures claimed the businessman tricked him into paying a $6,000
deposit to buy a piano the defendants didn't actually have,
according to court documents.  Szabo has been sued several times,
according to Courthouse News and San Francisco Superior Court
records.  Devlin also accused Szabo of sexual and physical assault
after a musical event at Salle in September 2014.

The case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge James Donato in
January for failing to adequately allege fraud.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint soon after.

On May 4, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam dismissed the case
again, ruling that the complaint's racketeering cause of action is
"untimely" because the case was filed more than four years after
Figures should have become aware that he'd been allegedly
defrauded by Szabo.

"Because Figures did not file suit until Oct. 21, 2014, his claim
is barred by the four-year RICO statute of limitations," the judge
wrote.

By Figures' own admission in his first amended complaint, Figures
"began to come to the conclusion that the piano for which he had
paid the deposit was not going to be delivered" in May or June
2010, Gilliam wrote.

But while Figures spent months after that filing formal complaints
with the Federal Trade Commission and the San Francisco District
Attorney's consumer protection department -- and discovering other
alleged victims -- he waited more than four years to file a civil
complaint despite knowing by at least August 2010 it was the only
way to get his money back, the judge said.

The judge said that further amendment of the federal racketeering
claims would be futile and dismissed them with prejudice.

Gilliam also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the plaintiffs' assault and unfair competition claims, which fall
under state law, and dismissed them without prejudice.

The case is Matthew Figures, et al. v. Tibor Szabo, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-04684-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TOP RANK: Faces "Dehart" Suit in D. Nevada Over Pacquiao's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Dehart and Steven Burnstine, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00877 (D. Nev., 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:

      Will Kemp, Esq.
      J. Randall Jones, Esq.
      KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
      3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Fl.
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Telephone: (702) 385-6000
      Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
      E-mail: m.jacobs@kempjones.com
              r.jones@kempjones.com

          - and -

      James J. Jimmerson, Esq.
      JIMMERSON HANSEN, PC
      415 S. 6th Street, #100
      Las Vegas, NV 89101
      Telephone: (702) 388-7171
      Facsimile: (702) 380-6422
      E-mail: jjj@jimmersonhansen.com


TOP RANK: Faces Jammers Inc. Suit in Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jammers, Inc., d/b/a Flight Restaurant/Flights Beer Bar,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03493 (C.D. Cal., 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:

      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: Hid Pacquiao Injury Before Fight, "Vanel" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that boxer Manny
Pacquiao and promoter Bob Arum fraudulently concealed the
fighter's shoulder injury before May 2's title fight against Floyd
Mayweather Jr., several federal suits filed May 5 claim.

Staphane Vanel and Kami Rahbaran filed a class action on May 5 in
Nevada Federal Court, accusing Pacquiao, Top Rank Boxing and
promoter Bob Arum of not disclosing injuries suffered by Pacquiao
prior to the title fight at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las
Vegas.

Top Rank "was one of the promoters of the 'Fight of the Century'
and failed to disclose the injury to the Nevada Athletic
Commission prior to the fight as required by Nevada law," Vanel
says.

Vanel says Pacquiao and his promoters did not "truthfully answer
or disclose the information" and "checked 'No' on the Nevada
Athletic Commission questionnaire which asked if he had a shoulder
injury."

Vanel, Rahbaran and other class members either bought tickets to
the fight or paid to watch it on pay-per-view.

The class "consists of potentially hundreds of thousands of ticket
purchasers, pay-per-view purchasers and persons who wagered" on
the fight and "were victimized by [Pacquiao's and Top Rank's]
failure to disclose and cover up the injuries," Vanel says.

Mayweather won the 12-round welterweight title fight on a 3-0
decision, and Pacquiao and Top Rank say they did not hide the
injury.

"During training, Manny Pacquiao suffered a right shoulder injury.
Manny went to see world-class doctors, partners in the prestigious
Kerlan Jobe Orthopedic Clinic, who performed tests and, in
consultation with Manny, his promoter, and his advisors, concluded
that with short rest, treatments, and close monitoring, Manny
could train and, on May 2, step into the ring against Floyd
Mayweather," Top Rank said in a statement May 4.

"Manny's advisors notified the United States Anti-Doping Agency
(USADA) of the shoulder injury and the treatments being proposed
by the doctors during training and on fight night.  USADA spoke to
Manny's doctors twice, investigated, and confirmed in writing that
the proposed treatments, if used, were completely allowed.  The
medication approved for fight night was a non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory (Toradol)," Top Rank said.

"This is boxing, injuries happen, and Manny is a warrior," Top
Rank said.  "On his pre-fight medical form filled out earlier,
Manny's advisors listed the medications that Manny used in
training and the medications that might be used on fight night.

"A few hours before he was expected to step in the ring, when
Manny's doctors began the process, the Nevada Commission stopped
the treatment because it said it was unaware of Manny's shoulder
injury.  This was disappointing to Team Pacquiao since they had
disclosed the injury and treatment to USADA, USADA approved the
treatments, and Manny had listed the medication on his pre-fight
medical form."

Although USADA had been informed of Pacquiao's injury, which media
reports indicate is a torn rotator cuff, the Nevada Athletic
Commission did not learn of the injury until about two hours
before the fight, commission executive director Bob Bennett said.

"We didn't find out until about 6 o'clock the night of the fight,"
Bennett said.  "He allegedly had the injury four weeks before."

Although Top Rank reported the medications being used to the
USADA, Bennett said there was no requirement to report them to the
Nevada Athletic Commission because they are not performance-
enhancing drugs.

Bennett said the anti-doping agency is under no obligation to
share the injury information with the commission and that it was
up to Top Rank Boxing and Pacquiao to report the injury.

"If it was two hours before the fight and the injury was
significant enough, we would stop the fight," Bennett said.

But the commission interviewed Pacquiao and his doctors, who said
the fighter was in good enough health to proceed with the fight.
The commission did, however, stop Pacquiao from receiving a
numbing agent shortly before the fight.

Bennett said the commission didn't want to risk Pacquiao suffering
an injury from the numbing agent masking any pain, and that it
would be better for him to feel what was going on in his shoulder
so that he could stop if the condition got worse.

The class action names as defendants Pacquiao, Arum, Top Rank, Top
Rank president Todd DuBoef and Michael Koncz, who is listed as an
advisor to Pacquiao.

Vanel and Rahbaran accuse them of fraudulent concealment, consumer
fraud and conspiracy to commit consumer fraud.  They seek $5
million in compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs.

Similar suits were filed in Los Angeles and Illinois.

Defendants Staphane Vanel and Kami Rahbaran are represented by:

          Brandon B. McDonald, Esq.
          McDONALD LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          2505 Anthem Village Drive, Suite E-474
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Telephone: (702) 385-7411
          Facsimile: (702) 992-0569
          E-mail: Brandon@mcdonaldlawyers.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Plaintiffs' Response in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is awaiting plaintiffs' response
and further court proceedings in a class action appeal, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering. JUA is a private association created by law to
administer a compulsory public liability insurance program for
motor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by its enabling
act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwrite private
motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum
underwriting percentage established in such act. TSP is a member
of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noem¡ Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406.6 million treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch
as a suit cannot be brought, even under RICO, to amend the
compulsory liability insurance rates that were approved by the
Puerto Rico Legislature and the Commissioner of Insurance of
Puerto Rico.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April
4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of our motion to dismiss,
which was denied by the court. On October 2, 2012, the court
issued an order certifying the class. On October 12, 2012, several
defendants, including TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First District, requesting the court to vacate
the District Court's certification order. The First Circuit denied
the authorization to file the writ of appeals. Discovery has been
completed. On November 3, 2014, all defendants, including TSP,
filed a joint motion to decertify the class and, on November 17,
2014, a joint motion for summary judgment requesting the dismissal
of the claim.  "We are awaiting plaintiffs' response and further
court proceedings," the Company said.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Amended Judgment Entered in Dentists' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court entered an
amended judgment to indicate that dismissal of the Dentists
Association Litigation was with prejudice.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
("Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico," in Spanish)
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance against 24 health
plans operating in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.
The Company and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc.
("TCI"), were included as defendants. This litigation purports to
be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150.0 million. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed. On February 8, 2011, the federal district court in Puerto
Rico decided to retain jurisdiction. The defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the case on the merits. On August 31, 2011, the
District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for its
breach of contract claim, and ordered the parties to brief the
issue of whether the court still has federal jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs moved
the court to reconsider its August 31, 2011 decision and the
defendants did the same, arguing that the breach of contract claim
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On May
2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On May 31, 2012,
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25,
2012 the District Court denied without prejudice the defendants'
motion for reconsideration. On October 10, 2012 the parties filed
their briefs with respect to class certification.

On March 13, 2013, the district court denied plaintiffs' request
for class certification and ordered the parties to brief the court
on whether jurisdiction still exists under CAFA following such
denial. On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the court on this
issue. On September 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the
Dentist Association for lack of associational standing, leaving
only the individual dentists as plaintiffs. The court also granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend, on or before September 23, 2013, their
complaint to address mediation or settlement negotiations and, to
cure deficiencies pertaining to the breach-of-contract claims. On
December 23, 2013, five plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") seeking damages in the amount of $30 thousand in
which the dentists alleged that defendants altered the coding of
the claims billed by the dentist, resulting in a lower payment.
Only one of the five plaintiffs presented a claim against the
Company.

On January 31, 2014, the Company answered the complaint. On April
11, 2014, TSS filed a motion to compel arbitration, as provided by
the claimant's provider contract. Court's decision on this motion
is still pending. On April 24, 2014, the Company and the claimant
filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, TSS and TCI continuing
as defendants. On June 4, 2014, TSS, TCI, and the remaining
plaintiff filed a joint notice of settlement and a request for
dismissal. On June 6, 2014 the court dismissed the claim as
requested by the parties. On June 26, 2014, the court entered an
amended judgment to indicate that dismissal of the case was with
prejudice.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Antitrust Case Discovery Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing
in the case Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. ("TSS") is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the BCBSA in a multi-district class action litigation
filed on July 24, 2012 that alleges that the exclusive service
area ("ESA") requirements of the Primary License Agreements with
Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in these suits
seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive relief
barring ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Prior
to centralization, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans,
including TSS. Plaintiffs opposed TSS' motion to dismiss. On April
9, 2014, the Court held an argumentative hearing to discuss the
motions to dismiss. During the hearing, the Court did not issue a
ruling on the motions to dismiss thus, decision on said motions
are still pending. On June 18, 2014, the court denied TSS' motion
to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. The Company has joined BCBSA in
vigorously contesting these claims.


UMPQUA BANK: To Pay $2.9-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge on April 28 granted final approval to a $2.9
million settlement between Umpqua Bank and debit card users who
claim the financial institution squeezed them for overdraft fees.

Lead plaintiffs Amber Hawthorne, Christopher and Victoria Kneer
filed a putative class action against Umpqua in December 2011,
filing a third-amended complaint in California's Northern District
in January 2014.

Their complaint alleged that Umpqua used a special software to re-
order debit card transactions, so that higher dollar amount
transactions are assessed against Plaintiffs' accounts first, even
if they occurred later in time than lower dollar amount
transactions.

The plaintiffs claimed this had the effect of maximizing the
number of overdraft fees, imposing more fees than Plaintiffs would
otherwise pay, and depleting Plaintiffs' accounts more quickly
than would otherwise be the case.

They also called Umpqua's customer account agreement misleading
and said the bank "provides inaccurate balance information to its
customers through its electronic network," informing them "that
they have a positive balance when, in reality, they have a
negative balance, despite the bank's actual knowledge of
outstanding debits and transactions."

The parties agreed to a settlement on June 19, 2014, and U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar granted preliminary approval three months
later.

Judge Tigar based April 28's final approval, in part, on a
contract that discloses Umpqua's practice of "re-sequencing" debit
transactions.  He added that losing the case after further
litigation would leave the plaintiffs with nothing, except
attorneys' fees.

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that they faced the risk of losing at
summary judgment, at trial, or on appeal in light of Umpqua's
contractual and other defenses," Tigar said.  "Without a
settlement, plaintiffs would face additional years of costly
litigation and risk recovering nothing.  Given the relatively
small value of individual class members' claims, litigation would
be impractical, requiring the expenditure of both public and
private resources disproportionate to individual claims."

Judge Tigar awarded $725,000 in attorneys' fees, representing 25
percent of the settlement fund, and an additional $105,990.25 for
reimbursement of costs and expenses.

Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reach for
comment.

The case is Amber Hawthorne, et al. v. Umpqua Bank, Case No.
3:11cv06700JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


UNITED STATES: Court Won't Unseat Two Class Reps in Farmers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
With Native American farmers having claimed less than half of a
$680 million federal discrimination settlement, a federal judge
refused to unseat two class representatives who stand to gain more
from settlement revisions, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse
News Service.

Native Americans were just one group that complained about racial
discrimination in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Loan
Program.

Like black, Latino and female farmers in other class actions,
Native Americans led by Marilyn Keepseagle claimed that
discriminatory practices denied them the same benefits as white
farmers between 1981 and 1999.

All the cases ended in settlement agreements, but more than $380
million remained unclaimed from the $680 million fund in the
Keepseagle case.  The terms of the settlement had indicated that
any leftover money would be distributed under the cy pres
doctrine, which directs unclaimed settlement funds to
organizations most likely to benefit class members.

After a year or two of wrangling, counsel for the class and the
Department of Agriculture agreed to modify the settlement so that
the bulk of the Cy Pres Fund would "create a trust with a twenty-
year life span, which would distribute the funds to organizations
that are deemed to serve Native American farmers and ranchers."

"The idea being that a longer time horizon for distribution,
combined with the creation of an independent and specialized
entity for directing the distribution, would more efficiently
distribute the funds than the existing cy pres provisions," U.S.
District Judge Emmet Sullivan explained April 23.

With Porter Holder and Claryca Mandan nominated to serve as
trustees of that cy pres fund, Keepseagle and her husband moved to
remove them and to compel the production of certain materials by
class counsel.

Sullivan's latest ruling denies both motions, finding "that class
representatives do not become inadequate merely because other
class members disagree with their strategic decisions."

If confirmed as cy pres trustees, Holder and Mandan "would be
eligible to receive up to $10,000 annually for as long as they
served, . . . limited to a maximum possible term of ten years,"
according to the ruling.

Though the Keepseagles claimed that this development gives Holder
and Mandan an unfair interest in supporting the modification,
class counsel noted that the pair would also be financially
motivated to join the Keepseagles in seeking supplemental payments
for class members.

Sullivan determined that the conflict is not apparent.  In
addition to facing court confirmation and expiring term limits,
the trustee positions do not promise "money for nothing,"
according to the ruling.  Sullivan emphasized that they would be
tasked with supervising "what would surely be a complex
distribution process."  There is also no evidence to show that
Holder and Mandan are "self-dealing," or that they are taking
something from other members of the class.

"As the court has previously held, the class members in this case
have no legal right to the Cy Pres Fund," he wrote.  "They agreed
to -- and did not appeal -- a final settlement that entirely
extinguished their legal claims, provided a framework for the
distribution of damages, and mandated that all excess funds be
distributed pursuant to a cy pres remedy.  The process for
distributing the Cy Pres Fund is the sole target of class
counsel's pending motion for modification, so the proposed
modification would not implicate a class member's legal right
. . . . Accordingly, the court does not have the authority to
remove class representatives at this stage of proceedings, where a
final judgment has been entered and the pending proposal for
modification of the agreement does not implicate the legal rights
of class members.


UNITED STATES: Native American Farmers May Modify Accord
--------------------------------------------------------
With less than half of a $680 million discrimination settlement
for Native American farmers claimed, class members will get a
chance to voice their thoughts on modifying the deal at a June 29
hearing, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

The case is Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Case No. 99-3119 (EGS), in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


UNITED STATES: USDA May Be Sued by Kansas Farmers, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Black Kansas farmers who
participated in the Pigford class action and were denied loans may
have a case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a federal
judge ruled in separate opinions.

The case is George Hildebrandt, Jr. and Patricia Hildebrandt v.
Tom Vilsack, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Case No. 04-1423 (PLF), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Sue Defense Dept Over Discharge Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans groups claim in Federal Court that the military is trying
to keep a lid on "bad-paper discharges" it handed tens of
thousands of service members who likely suffered from post-
traumatic stress disorder before the medical community recognized
that condition, reports Christine Stuart at Courthouse News
Service.

Vietnam Veterans of America and the National Veterans Council for
Legal Redress brought the complaint on May 4 against the U.S.
Department of Defense and three military branches.  They say that
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs denies disability
compensation and other benefits to veterans who received other-
than-honorable (OTH) discharges, but that many who received such
"bad-paper discharges" are the tens of thousands of servicemembers
suffering from undiagnosed PTSD.

PTSD was not recognized as a medical condition until 1980,
according to the complaint.

While Congress has created internal boards to consider
applications by veterans seeking to revise their discharge papers,
the veterans say these boards "have collectively failed to
prioritize or take seriously discharge upgrade requests from
veterans diagnosed with PTSD stemming from military service."

From 1993 to 2014, the Boards for Correction of Military/Naval
Records approved fewer than 5 percent of these type of
applications from Vietnam veterans, according to the complaint.

Crediting a class action they filed last year, the groups note
that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a memorandum in
September 2014 that instructed the boards to give veterans with
PTSD "liberal consideration."

The groups say they in turn filed requests under the Freedom of
Information Act for records showing how the boards adjudicated
PTSD-related applications before and after Hagel's so-called "PTSD
Updgrade Memo."

"Disclosure of these records is essential for the public to assess
DOD's compliance with the directive and assist veterans seeking to
apply for discharge upgrades," the complaint states, but the
government has thus far allegedly failed to provide responsive,
non-exempt records within the statutory time period.

"Without information about how DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force, and
their respective boards have handled PTSD-related discharge
upgrade applications, the public cannot hold these entities
accountable for the fair and just treatment of veterans," the
complaint states.

The groups note that the records implicate an estimated 80,000
Vietnam veterans, many of whom are elderly, indigent and suffer
from medical problems.

Without records showing whether these veterans' discharges are
being reconsidered, the groups say that Hagel's memo is "merely a
symbolic gesture."  The last communication that the groups had
with the Defense Department was on Dec. 29, 2014, when the agency
said it was working on the request.

The Air Force allegedly urged the groups to narrow the scope of
their request.  The Navy told the plaintiffs it was closing the
request as duplicative of the one filed with the Defense
Department, and the Army declined to process most of the request
as "unduly burdensome," according to the complaint.  The groups
say they narrowed their Dec. 8, 2014, requests to the military
branches in March and April, but have not received a response.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Wishnie, Esq.
          JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
          YALE LAW SCHOOL
          127 Wall Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 436-4780
          E-mail: michael.wishnie@yale.edu


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Wins Prelim. OK of $11.5MM Deal in Royalty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge preliminarily approved an $11.5 million
settlement of a class action brought by the Estate of Rick James,
Public Enemy's Chuck D and other musicians over royalties from
digital music downloads.

The agreement endorsed by U.S. District judge Susan Illston on
April 28 also includes a 10 percent bump in royalties for class
members who submit claims.  As many as 7,500 artists could be
considered class members under the deal.

In addition, the defendant in the case, Universal Music Group, has
agreement to pay $2.9 million in attorneys fees, $450,000 in legal
costs, and additional compensation to expert witnesses who
testified in the case.

In a complaint filed in the San Francisco Federal Court on
April 1, 2011, the plaintiff musicians claimed UMG stiffed them by
calling digital downloads "sales" instead of "licensing
agreements" when people bought permanent downloads and ringtones
for cell phones.  Sales royalties are less than those for
licensing.

In giving her preliminary approval to the settlement, Judge
Illston scheduled a fairness hearing on the deal for April 13,
2016.

At that time, she said, the court will determine whether the
proposed settlement "is Fair, reasonable and adequate," and
whether all claims made against the defendant should be dismissed.

She also ordered that a claims administrator publish notice for
potential claimants in such publications as "Billboard," "Rolling
Stone" and "The New York Times."

Attorneys for the parties were not immediately available for
comment following Judge Illston's ruling.

However, on April 15, 2015, shortly after the settlement was
originally announced, Len Simon, one the plaintiffs' attorneys,
told the Hollywood Reporter he was pleased with the deal.

"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 and 1980s," Simon said.  "And it compensates
these artists now, rather than after additional years of
litigation and uncertainty."

The class is represented by these law firms:

          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300

               - and -

          THE LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON, P.C.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

               - and -

          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908

               - and -

          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          The Presidio
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398-0900

               - and -

          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444

               - and -

          INDIK & MCNAMARA, P.C.
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 2230
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 567-7125

The case is Rick James, by and through The James Ambrose Johnson,
Jr., 1999 Trust, his successor in interest, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UMG Recordings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-01613-SI, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


URBAN DECAY: Sued Over Growth-Accelerating Serum in Lush Lash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Urban Decay Cosmetics and
L'Oreal mislead consumers about the "growth-accelerating serum" in
their Lush Lash system, a New York federal class action alleges.


US BANK: Wins Prelim. OK of Deal in Force-Placed Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge April 23 preliminarily approved a $500,000
settlement for a class of homeowners who challenged U.S. Bank's
practice of force-placing insurance through American Security
Insurance.

Multistate classes of borrowers from 40 states were certified in
June 2014 to pursue breach of mortgage agreement claims, and
classes in California and New Mexico were certified to pursue
claims of unjust enrichment, unfair business practices and bad
faith.

They claimed that U.S. Bank took kickbacks for having clients
purchase force-placed flood insurance from American Security
Insurance (ASIC).

U.S. Bank bought backdated flood insurance and charged borrowers
for expired coverage, even when there was no damage to the
borrowers' property during the backdated period, the class
claimed.  They said the coverage predated any notice that their
coverage had lapsed or become deficient.

The collusive scheme brought U.S. Bank and ASIC extra income,
while borrowers paid grossly inflated amounts for flood insurance
that provided them little to no benefit, the class claimed.

On April 23, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler preliminarily
approved a settlement for more than 2,800 homeowners, who would
get refunds of 12.5 percent of the amount they were charged for
lender-placed flood insurance.

Given the more than $4 million in unrefunded charges during the
class periods, this amounts to $506,728.

Class members who were charged for coverage backdated 120 days or
more will receive additional compensation that depends on how far
back the coverage was backdated.  They will receive $50 if it was
backdated 90 to 180 days, $75 if backdated 180 to 365 days, and
$100 if backdated more than one year.

U.S. Bank also agrees not to accept commissions, qualified expense
reimbursements, administrative payments, reinsurance payments, or
compensation in connection with forced-placed flood insurance on
property owned by class members for the next three years.

The settlement also prohibits ASIC and its affiliates from giving
U.S. Bank below-cost or free outsourced services in connection
with forced-placed insurance for the next three years.

U.S. Bank and ASIC will pay class counsel's attorney fees and
expenses up to $625,000, which will not come out of the settlement
fund.

Beeler found that the settlement treats all class members fairly.

"It provides for a flat refund, and all class members will receive
the same prospective relief.  The relief compares favorably to
other lender-placed insurance settlements that have been approved
by courts," the judge wrote.


USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Manufacturers Named as Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2015, that USG and
seven other wallboard manufacturers have been named as defendants
in a complaint filed by several homebuilders in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On February 11, 2015, USG Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries entered into settlement agreements (the
"Settlements") to settle all claims made against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the direct and indirect purchaser
antitrust class actions consolidated in the lawsuit, In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437, pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, for a total of $48 million. USG strongly denies the
allegations made in the lawsuit and has always acted with the
highest integrity. Our decisions on price and selling policy are
made independently and in compliance with the law.

The Settlements have been preliminarily approved by the court,
and, accordingly, notice of the Settlements will be provided to
potential class members who will be given the opportunity to
participate in the Settlements, or, alternatively, opt out of the
Settlements by dates set forth in the Court's preliminary approval
orders. Persons who opt out of the Settlements are not bound by
the Settlements, and may separately pursue their claims.

On March 17, 2015, USG and seven other wallboard manufacturers
were named as defendants in a complaint filed by several
homebuilders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint, which is not a class
action, contains allegations substantially similar to those
lawsuits covered by the Settlements, specifically, that the
defendants unlawfully conspired to fix the price for gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States through price increases
beginning in 2012 and by the elimination of job quotes. The filing
of the complaint indicates that the plaintiffs intend to opt-out
of the Settlements preliminarily approved by the court.
The claims for the majority of the homebuilders are indirect
purchaser antitrust claims (i.e., not based on purchases made
directly from the manufacturers), which federal law and some
states do not allow.  Indirect purchaser antitrust claims are
typically resolved for less than direct purchaser claims. For
example, the Company's settlement with the indirect purchaser
class, which has been preliminarily approved by the court, is less
than 20% of the total amount of the Settlements. Based on the
allegations in the homebuilders' complaint, it appears that the
plaintiffs' claims are based on approximately 5% or less of total
U.S. wallboard purchases during the time period involved. USG
believes that the cost, if any, of resolving these additional
claims will not materially increase the Company's exposure from
the $48 million originally agreed to in the Settlements.
USG continues to deny that it participated in any alleged
conspiracy or has engaged in unlawful conduct, and believes that
its pricing decisions were, and continue to be, made and
implemented in full compliance with the law. USG intends to
vigorously defend its actions against any plaintiffs who opt out
of the Settlements.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Faces OsmoPrep & Relistor Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2015, that Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., is
currently and might continue to be subject to product liability
claims that arise through the testing, manufacturing, marketing
and sale of its products, including claims related to OsmoPrep and
Relistor. The Company is vigorously defending these claims and
intends to continue to vigorously defend any future claims. The
Company currently has product liability coverage for all of its
products other than with regard to claims filed prior to August
31, 2010 relating to OsmoPrep and Visicol, but it is possible that
this coverage, and any future coverage, will be insufficient for
any liabilities that may arise in the future. The Company would
have to assume defense of the lawsuits and be responsible for
damages, fees, and expenses, if any, that are awarded against it
or for amounts in excess of the Company's product liability
coverage.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 2 Salix Actions Subject to Consolidation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2015, that the two securities actions in
New York federal court against Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., are
currently subject to several pending motions for consolidation and
appointment of lead plaintiff.

Beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which
generally alleges that Salix and certain former officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's disclosures regarding certain products, including
with respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler
inventory levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and
internal controls. Two of these actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and are
captioned: Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd., et al., Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW), and Bruyn v. Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW).
Another action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v.
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D, and
has subsequently been voluntarily dismissed. The two actions in
New York federal court are currently subject to several pending
motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Santarus Shareholder Litigation Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2015, that the California federal court
has granted a joint request for voluntary dismissal of the
Santarus Shareholder Litigation and closed the case.

Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to
challenge Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.'s proposed acquisition of
Santarus, which was announced on November 7, 2013. Nine of these
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was
filed in California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. These actions generally allege that the members of the
Santarus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Santarus's shareholders by failing to maximize the value of
Santarus and by making inadequate or misleading disclosures
regarding the proposed merger, and that Santarus, Salix and
certain of Salix's subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches
of fiduciary duty. The complaint in the action pending in
California federal court also asserts causes of action on behalf
of the individual plaintiff for alleged violations of certain
sections of the Exchange Act. These actions generally sought,
among other things, to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and
fees. On December 9, 2013, Santarus and its directors filed a
motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court.

On December 11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the nine actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by
plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative
complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20,
2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement
in principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the
plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended
Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date. Salix completed its merger
with Santarus on January 2, 2014. The parties in the Delaware
litigation executed a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the
terms of their agreement in principle on January 17, 2014 and, on
January 23, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed
motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court,
and Santarus filed a separate motion to stay that action in favor
of the Delaware litigation, which the court granted. On February
12, 2014, the parties in the action pending in California federal
court filed a joint motion to stay that action pending a decision
by the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding final approval of the
proposed settlement of the Delaware litigation, and the California
federal court granted that motion on February 13, 2014.

The parties in the Delaware litigation completed confirmatory
discovery in February 2014, and executed final settlement
documents on October 23, 2014, which were subject to approval by
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement documents in the
Delaware litigation provided that, upon final approval by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, the plaintiffs' claims in the Delaware
litigation and the litigation pending in the California Superior
Court and California federal court would be released. No
objections to the settlement were made in the Delaware litigation,
and, on January 22, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a
final settlement approval hearing at which it approved the
parties' settlement and granted plaintiffs' counsel's unopposed
request for $345,000 in attorneys' fees. The Delaware Court of
Chancery awarded $335,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs'
counsel in the Delaware litigation and $10,000 in attorneys' fees
to plaintiffs' counsel in the action pending in the California
Superior Court.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of settlement in the Delaware
litigation, the plaintiff in the California Superior Court
litigation filed a request for dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice on February 5, 2015, which the court granted on February
18, 2015. On February 19, 2015, the parties in the California
federal court litigation filed a joint request for voluntary
dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, which the court
granted on February 20, 2015 by an order dismissing the complaint
and closing the case.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cosmo Deal Shareholder Suit Claim Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2015, that the Delaware court has approved
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the Cosmo Transaction
Shareholder Litigation.

On July 18, 2014, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
M.B.H., a purported shareholder of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.,
filed a putative class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company, its directors, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals S.p.A.,
or Cosmo Parent, Cosmo and Sangiovese, LLC.  The Erste-Sparinvest
complaint alleged that the Company's directors had breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger
2contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger and
reorganization announced on July 8, 2014, among Salix, Cosmo
Parent, Cosmo and Sangiovese, LLC. The complaint also alleges that
the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The
complaint sought, among other relief, an order permanently
enjoining the merger and damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 26, 2014, Michael M. Cebrik, another purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a second putative class action
in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger among us, Cosmo Parent, Cosmo and Sangiovese, LLC. The
Cebrik complaint named the same defendants as the Erste-Sparinvest
complaint, asserted substantially similar claims and sought the
same remedies. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel submitted a
letter to the Delaware Court of Chancery requesting consolidation
of the Erste-Sparinvest and Cebrik actions and appointment of co-
lead counsel, and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
plaintiffs' request later the same day.

On October 3, 2014, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement with Cosmo Parent to terminate its previously-announced
merger agreement. Under the terms of the termination, the Company
made a $25 million payment to Cosmo Parent. On October 16, 2014,
following the termination of the merger agreement challenged in
the consolidated Delaware action, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims without prejudice. On October 22, 2014, the
Delaware court approved the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Feinstein Action Over Salix Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2015, that a putative class action was
filed on February 25, 2015, by Roberta Feinstein in the Delaware
Court of Chancery seeking to challenge Valeant's proposed
acquisition of Salix, captioned Feinstein v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10721 (the
"Feinstein Action"). The complaint in the Feinstein Action
generally alleges that the members of the Salix board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Salix's shareholders by
allegedly entering into a proposed merger with Valeant, which was
announced on February 22, 2015, pursuant to which Valeant will
acquire all outstanding shares of Salix in an all cash tender
offer for $158 per share. The plaintiff in the Feinstein Action
alleges that the members of the Salix board of directors agreed to
the proposed merger with Valeant at an unfair price as a result of
an unreasonable process. As of February 26, 2015, Salix has not
been served with process in this matter.


VICTORIA NURSING: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose L. Marino and other similarly situated individuals v.
Victoria Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Stacey Health Care
Centers, Inc., and Richard E. Stacey, Case No. 1:15-cv-21762 (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 nursing homes having its main place
of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Accused of Unfairly Charging Electricity Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that subjecting consumers to a "heads I win, tails you lose"
pricing scheme, an energy company charges a premium for
electricity regardless of market fluctuations, a federal class
action alleges.

Lead plaintiff David Steketee, a resident of Morristown, N.J.,
filed the complaint April 22 against Viridian Energy in
Connecticut, where the Nevada company maintains its principal
place of business.

Viridian markets a "variable rate" electricity plan for
residential consumers, meaning that the rate should fluctuate with
the wholesale market price for electricity, the class alleges.

When the market price goes down, however, Viridian allegedly fails
to lower prices.

"Through this scheme, Viridian subjects consumers to consistent
and unlawful 'heads I win, tails you lose' pricing," the complaint
states.

Indeed Viridian raised the price for its customers when the market
price went down on at least one occasion, Steketee says.  The
complaint describes records of the price Steketee paid for
electricity and the wholesale market price during an eight-month
period in 2014.  Steketee's first calculation allegedly found that
Viridian was charging 124 percent over the market price, and that
this number rose to more than a 400 percent over the market price.

"Contrary to Viridian's representations and obligations, Viridian
consistently and improperly charges an extraordinarily high
premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the
underlying market price," the complaint states.

Steketee complains that Viridian charges "exorbitant premiums
without adding any value to the consumer whatsoever."

"Viridian does not either produce or transport electricity," the
complaint states.  "It has no role in running or maintaining power
plants or power lines; it does no hookups or emergency response.
Indeed, Viridian does not even handle customer billing: that, too,
is handled by the Distribution Company.  Essentially, all that
Viridian does is act as a trader in the transaction.  Yet it
charges several multiples of the amount the generation companies
receive for making electricity and the distribution companies
receive for transmitting power, maintaining power lines, and
handling emergency services and customer billing and calls."

Steketee says "Viridian's costs, other than its wholesale cost of
power, were relatively fixed and could not have justified the
massive increases alleged."

Viridian did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Steketee wants to represent a class of similarly situated New
Jersey consumers.  He seeks punitive damages, restitution and an
injunction for consumer fraud, bad faith and unjust enrichment.

The class is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


WAL-MART STORES: Mislabels Cranberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Sparks at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action in Flagler County, Florida, claims Wal-Mart is deceptively
labeling its Great Value brand Cranberry Pomegranate 100 percent
juice, when in fact, it's not.

In a lawsuit, lead plaintiff Cheryl Hulse says the world's largest
retailer misleads consumers through labeling, advertising and
other marketing to believe its cranberry pomegranate juice
consists primarily of two fruits.

"The Product's label prominently displays the words 'Cranberry
Pomegranate,' while at the same time down plays the other words in
smaller and thinner font that reveal the juice is actually a
flavored juice blend from concentrate, primarily consisting of
water and cheap white grape juice concentrate, apple juice
concentrate, and plum juice concentrate," the complaint says.
"The names of the cheap juices are not identified on the front of
the label.  Cranberries and pomegranates are prominently depicted
on the Product's label, while none of the other cheaper juices are
even pictured on the Product's label."

Hulse calls this "a misleading and unfair marketing tactic."

Cranberries and pomegranates are known for their health and
nutritional benefits.  Both contain high levels of antioxidants
which aid in neutralizing free radicals and repairing tissue
damage. Both also have high benefits for the cardiovascular system
and aid in lowering blood pressure.  The complaint alleges that
the class was damaged when they were deceived into believing they
were buying these two antioxidants, but instead ended up with
mostly water and cheap juices.

Hulse seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten funds,
and declaratory relief on claims of negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com
                  mpascucci@EggnatzLaw.com


WESTERN UNION: Must Pay $135-Mil. to Settle Unclaimed Wire Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Union must disgorge $135 million in unclaimed wire
transfer funds after class claims were "adequately apprised" and
fairly settled, reports Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service,
citing a 10th Circuit ruling.

Lead plaintiffs James Tennille, Adelaida Deleon, Yamilet Rodriguez
and Robert Smet sued Western Union and Western Union Financial
Services for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary
duty, in 2009.  They claimed Western Union held on to money
transfers that customers attempted to send, but that were not
delivered.

Western Union would allegedly return the funds, after deducting
administrative fees and only when a customer requested a refund.

While Western Union was generally aware "within minutes" if a
transfer failed, the class claimed, the sending customer was often
unaware that the transfer failed and did not know to ask for a
return.

Western Union earned interest on the unredeemed moneygrams, also
called "unsettled money transfers" or "settlement assets," which
ballooned to $135 million, the class claims.

Aided by a 10th Circuit mediator, Western Union and the class
negotiated a settlement with an interlocutory appeal pending in
2013.

The company allegedly agreed to immediately notify customers when
wire transfers failed and to help customers reclaim money from the
relevant state.

The settlement was to be funded using customers' $135 million in
unclaimed funds, the ruling states.

Class members Sikora Nelson and Paul Dorsey, however, objected to
the settlement.

Specifically, the pair argued that class representatives could not
adequately represent all members, that the settlement was unfair
because it used the class' money, and that the district court did
not adequately notify absent class members.

An appellate court upheld the decision.

On May 1, the 10th Circuit agreed and concluded that the pair's
"objections lack merit."

Citing a settlement notice mailed by the district court, U.S.
Circuit Judge David Ebel wrote that class members were "adequately
apprised" of the agreement.

"The notice informed putative class members how to obtain more
information about the settlement, directing them to the class
settlement website, where they could get a copy of the settlement
agreement, which explained that, if class members did not opt out
of the settlement, they would release Western Union from liability
for any claim that class members could have asserted based on the
subject matter of the class litigation and settlement," Ebel
wrote.

The notice, the three-judge panel added, stated that if members
had questions about release claims and what they meant, they could
call and speak to class counsel for free or speak to their own
attorney at the class member's expense.

Dorsey, who claimed he did not receive the notice via email, did
not "establish that the entire notice plan was inadequate," Ebel
added.

"Even if there were deficiencies in sending notice via emails,
those emails only supplemented the mailed notice," the 31-page
ruling states.

Requests for comment were not returned by counsel.

The appeals court said it was "satisfied" with the lower court's
decision.

"We are satisfied that the district court, in certifying the class
and approving the class settlement, considered the relevant
factors and actually exercised its discretion independently," Ebel
wrote.

Objector-Appellant Sikora Nelson is represented by:

          John E. Anding, Esq.
          Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq.
          DREW, COOPER & ANDING
          80 Ottawa Avenue NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 454-8300
          Facsimile: (616) 454-0036
          E-mail: sdrew@dca-lawyers.com
                  twestbrook@dca-lawyers.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com
                  jamie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Seth A. Katz, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112
          Telephone: (303) 792-5595
          Facsimile: (303) 708-0527

               - and -

          Jim S. Calton, Jr., Esq.
          CALTON LEGAL SERVICES, SP
          322 South Eufaula Avenue
          Eufaula, AL 36072-0895

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Mitchell Baker, Esq.
          1543 Champa St., Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80202-2981
          Telephone: (303) 592-7353

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Charles G. Cole, Esq.
          Thomas M. Barba, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-6270
          Facsimile: (202) 429 3902
          E-mail: ccole@steptoe.com
                  tbarba@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Yurasek, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4131
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050

               - and -

          Jess A. Dance, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
          Denver, CO 80202-5255
          Telephone: (303) 291-2300
          Facsimile: (303) 291-2400
          E-mail: JDance@perkinscoie.com

James P. Tennille; Adelaida Deleon; Yamilet Rodriguez; Robert P.
Smet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. The Western Union Company; Western Union
Financial Services, Inc., Case Nos. 13-1310 and 13-1317, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The
District Court case is James P. Tennille, et al. v. The Western
Union Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
1:09-CV-00938-JLK-KMT, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.


WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Lying About Sugar in Nutmeal Raisin Cookies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods Market Group
misleads consumers about the sugar content of its gluten-free,
all-natural "nutmeal raisin cookies," a class claims in circuit
court.


ZUMIEZ INC: Paid Settlement Amount in "Steele" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2015, that the settlement amount in the Steele
case was paid in the quarter ended January 31, 2015.

On February 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. The lawsuit purported to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons who are employed, or who have worked as,
assistant store managers for the Company in the State of
California from February 15, 2009 through the date of
certification of the class in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged
causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
wages for work done off-the-clock, failure to provide meal periods
and rest breaks (and to pay meal and rest period premiums),
failure to pay terminated employees all wages due at the time of
termination, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for business
expenses and unfair business practices and declaratory relief.

On November 12, 2013, the parties in the Steele case agreed to a
conditional settlement in the amount of $1.3 million. A hearing
was held on November 24, 2014 and the settlement was approved by
the Court. The settlement was paid in the quarter ended January
31, 2015.


                            *********

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  * * *