CAR_Public/150602.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 109


                            Headlines


A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Braynt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ACURA: Recalls MDX and RLX Models Due to Crash Risk
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Aerial Devices
ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Cos. Get Partial Victory in Ad Legal Fight
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Oct. Hearing on Cert. Bid in Silicosis Action

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Refer Individual Claims to Arbitration
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Court Gathers Evidence in "Usocoello" Case
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Injunction in Toche Anaima Belt Case on Appeal
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: AGAC Awaits Decision on Cancellation Request
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: No Decision Yet on Bid to Ban Corridor Project

ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Fails to Pay Servers & Bartenders OT, Suit Says
ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Singleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERICAN CRUISE: Faces "McCormick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ANCHOR DRILLING: Removed "Wolfe" Suit from W.D. Pa. to S.D. Texas
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Portions of "Gershman" Class Suit
BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Action v. Prosensa in Earliest Stages
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection

BLUE WATER: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Moya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Bilks Customers by Putting Tablets, Suit Says
CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Operator and Responder Snow Shovels

CATHAY BANK: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit in Tel-Aviv Economic Dept.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Didn't Appeal Summary Judgment
CHILDREN WORLDWIDE: Recalls Hugo Boss 5-Pocket Children Pants
CINTAS CORPORATION: "Serrano" Class Action Still Pending

COLLIN BUS: Recalls School Bus Models Due to Noncompliance
COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused Wrongful Conduct Over Complex Trauma
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Health Treatment
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Probe Over 2007 Peanut Butter Recall
COOPER VISION: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing

DAEHSAN CANADA: DXN Brand Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk
DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Senior Collector Claims
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Bunn" Suit Over Lien Sale May Proceed
DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer
DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Automotive Touch-Up Paints
DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates
DYNEGY INC: Trial to Begin July 27 in Duke Energy Class Action
EDAP TMS: Dismissal of "Eaton" Class Action Sought
ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement

FACTORS GROUP: Recalls Melatonin Tablets Due to Mislabelling
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Hegab" Case Has Final Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Itterly" Case
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Interlocutory Petition
FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered Scott Case to Insurance Carrier

FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Chancery Court Denied Bid to Certify Appeal
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Case in Discovery Stage
FAMILY FIRST: Faces "Burton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Models Due to Crash Risk
FRANK SANTO: "Gati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Investigates Potential Data Breach
FT MYERS LODGE: "Popoli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GANNETT CO: Removed "Driggers" Class Suit to N.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency

GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim
HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Omega 3 Capsules Due to Mislabelling
HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Garcinia Cambogia Capsules
HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Queue Cerise Capsules
HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit

HOME LOAN SERVICING: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in S.D.N.Y.
HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit
IKEA CANADA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates Due to Tripping Hazard
ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football

J-W WIRELINE: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAYCO: Recalls 446 Travel Trailers Over Defective Part
JEFFREY A. STEINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LANDAU & ASSOCIATES: "McLeod" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
LEAM DRILLING: S.D. Tex. Grants Certification in "McPherson" Suit

LFC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIFE PARTNERS: Life Settlements Are Securities, Texas Court Rules
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Not Keeping Appraisal Confidential
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roth" Suit in La. Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Quits Amid Laminate Flooring Probe

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Dec. 1 Jury Trial Set in Securities Action
MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze Products
MCDIVA INC: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit
MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk

MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Rejects Transfer Bid; Tosses "Ryan" Case
MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
MO'S FISHERMAN: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MONSANTO CO: Parties in "Allen" Case Perform on Settlement
MONSANTO CO: Parties in Personal Injury Claims Perform on Deal

NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions
NEW YORK LANGUAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NFG CHICAGO: Faces "Wong" Suit for Overcharging Delivery Fees
NGK SPARK: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Spark Plugs-Price Fixing
NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag

OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits Against AVIV REIT Consolidated
PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing
PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries

PIZZAWORKS LLC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
POWERHOUSE FORMULATIONS: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Suit Says
PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $7.9MM
QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports

QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit
RADIATOR SPECIALTY: Recalls Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush
RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues
RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing
REMINGTON FIREARMS: October 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set

RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal
ROSS GELFAND: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pfeffer" Suit Says
SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Orion Ball Products Due to Crustacean
SOUP BOY: Recalls Carrot Soup Products Due to C. Botulinum

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Discovery in TCPA Suit Remains Stayed
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action
SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay
STAR BULK: Briefing Expected to Be Completed in Shareholder Case

STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SUBARU: Recalls 3,500 Vehicles Over Errors in EyeSight Manual
SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUPER STOP: "Perazza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra & Sequoia Models Due to Injury Risk
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2004 and 2005 RAV4 Models
UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive
UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Falsely Marketed Smoke Alarms, Suit Claims

VIOLIN MEMORY: To Defend Against Securities Actions
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement of 2 Class Suits Awaits Court Okay
WASHINGTON: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dunakin" Suit
WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Action
WILLOW CREEK: Sued in Colo. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice

WOONSOCKET, R.I.: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cournoyer" Suit
ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bennet" Suit Claims

* Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami


                            *********


A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Braynt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Bryant and Sasha McNeal, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. A & S Entertainment, LLC d/b/a the
Office, Claudette M. Pierre and Greg Pierre, Case No. 1:15-cv-
21880-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin Eric Leach, Esq.
      FEILER & LEACH
      901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
      Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009
      Telephone: (305) 441-8818
      Facsimile: 441-8081
      E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com


ACURA: Recalls MDX and RLX Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 3387
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015201TC
ID number: 2015201

On certain vehicles, the Collision Mitigation Braking System
(CMBS) could unexpectedly activate while operating the vehicle. In
rare cases, the system may interpret certain roadside objects,
such as metal fences or metal guardrails, as obstacles and apply
emergency braking through the CMBS. If the CMBS applies unexpected
emergency braking force during normal operation, it could increase
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will update the vehicle sofware for the
system.

    Make     Model    Model year(s) affected
    ----     -----    ----------------------
    ACURA    MDX      2014, 2015
    ACURA    RLX      2014, 2015


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Aerial Devices
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015194TC
ID number: 2015194
Manufacturer recall number: CSN 614

On certain aerial devices installed on utility service vehicles
(to elevate personnel in order to facilitate working on overhead
service lines, for tree trimming, etc.), unintended boom movement
could occur due to defective counterbalance valves. This could
allow the aerial device to move unexpectedly, which could result
in property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Altec will
supply replacement valves along with installation instructions.
Owners may contact Altec at 1-877-462-5832.

   Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----        ----------------------
   ALTECAT     200A         2014
   ALTECAT     200AV        2014


ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Cos. Get Partial Victory in Ad Legal Fight
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
America's largest tobacco companies must inform consumers that
cigarettes were designed to increase addiction, but not that they
lied to the public about the dangers of smoking, a federal appeals
court ruled on May 22.

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit is a partial win for cigarette makers in the
long-running legal fight that began in the Clinton administration
in 1999.  In this latest round, the companies objected to running
court-ordered advertisements that would have branded themselves as
liars.

The ads would have begun with a preamble statement that the
companies "deliberately deceived the American public."  The ads
stem from a 2006 court ruling ordering the companies to admit they
had lied for decades about the dangers of smoking.

The companies called that statement overbroad and misleading.  But
government lawyers argued that the language was meant to provide
context for the public.

The appeals court ruled that the language must focus on preventing
future violations, not past misconduct.  Writing for the three-
judge panel, Judge David Tatel said the preamble language in the
ads about past deception went beyond the remedies allowed under
federal racketeering laws.

But Judge Tatel said other language in the ads that stated the
companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine
"to create and sustain addiction" was within the bounds of the
law.  The appeals court also approved statements that said the
companies "intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more
addictive."

The companies in the case include Richmond, Virginia-based Altria
Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. tobacco company, Philip
Morris USA; No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
owned by Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American
Inc.; and No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc., based in
Greensboro, North Carolina.

In 1999, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit that alleged the
tobacco companies violated racketeering laws by conspiring to
deceive the public about the health consequences and addictiveness
of smoking cigarettes.  After hearing testimony from 162 witnesses
over nine months, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler found in 2006
that the companies had engaged in a massive fraud campaign.

The judge ordered the companies to take out ads addressing the
negative health effects of smoking, nicotine manipulation, the
health impact of secondhand smoke and the truth about "light" and
"low-tar" brands.  The ads would appear in newspapers, on TV,
websites and cigarette pack inserts.

While the appeals court struck down the preamble to the ads, it
left the remaining content largely intact.

The case now goes back to the district court for further
proceedings.

Matthew Myers, president of the advocacy group Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids, called the ruling "a resounding victory for
public health," though he said he was disappointed the companies
would not be required to admit they deceived the public.

"This decision provides a path for forcing the companies to
finally tell the truth about their product," said Mr. Myers, whose
group was a party in the case.  "It should not take long to
translate this decision into a workable order, assuming the
tobacco industry does not try to further delay."

Altria spokesman Brian May said the company was pleased that the
court struck down the preamble language, which he called "the
critical part of the appeal.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Oct. Hearing on Cert. Bid in Silicosis Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in the Silicosis
litigation have tentatively agreed on a timetable for the court
process wherein the application to certify the class action will
be heard in October 2015.

On March 3, 2011, in Mankayi vs. AngloGold Ashanti, the
Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 35(1) of
the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993
does not cover an "employee" who qualifies for compensation in
respect of "compensable diseases" under the Occupational Diseases
in Mines and Works Act, 1973 (ODMWA). This judgement allows such
qualifying employee to pursue a civil claim for damages against
the employer. Following the Constitutional Court decision,
AngloGold Ashanti has become subject to numerous claims relating
to silicosis and other Occupational Lung Diseases (OLD), including
several potential class actions and individual claims.

AngloGold Ashanti, Anglo American South Africa, Gold Fields,
Harmony Gold and Sibanye Gold announced in November 2014 that they
had formed an industry working group to address issues relating to
compensation and medical care for OLD in the gold mining industry
in South Africa.

The companies have begun to engage all stakeholders on these
matters, including government, organised labour, other mining
companies and legal representatives of claimants who have filed
legal suits against the companies. These legal proceedings are
being defended, and the status of the proceedings are set forth.

Essentially, the companies are seeking a comprehensive solution
which deals both with the legacy compensation issues and future
legal frameworks, and which, whilst being fair to employees, also
ensures the future sustainability of companies in the industry.

The Class Actions

On or about August 21, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti was served with an
application instituted by Bangumzi Bennet Balakazi ("the Balakazi
Action") and others in which the applicants seek an order
declaring that all mine workers (former or current) who previously
worked or continue to work in specified South African gold mines
for the period owned by AngloGold Ashanti and who have silicosis
or other OLD constitute members of a class for the purpose of
proceedings for declaratory relief and claims for damages. On
September 4, 2012, AngloGold Ashanti delivered its notice of
intention to defend this application.

In addition, on or about January 8, 2013, AngloGold Ashanti and
its subsidiary Free State Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations)
Limited, alongside other mining companies operating in South
Africa, were served with another application to certify a class
("the Nkala Action"). The applicants in the case seek to have the
court certify two classes, namely: (i) current and former
mineworkers who have silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any
other disease) and who work or have worked on certain specified
gold mines at any time from January 1, 1965 to date; and (ii) the
dependants of mineworkers who died as a result of silicosis
(whether or not accompanied by any other disease) and who worked
on these gold mines at any time after January 1, 1965. AngloGold
Ashanti filed a notice of intention to oppose the application.

On August 21, 2013, an application was served on AngloGold Ashanti
for the consolidation of the Balakazi Action and the Nkala Action,
as well as a request for an amendment to change the scope of the
classes. The applicants now request certification of two classes
(the "silicosis class" and the "tuberculosis class"). The
silicosis class would consist of certain current and former
underground mineworkers who have contracted silicosis, and the
dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who have died of
silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other disease). The
tuberculosis class would consist of certain current and former
mineworkers who have or had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis and
the dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who died of
pulmonary tuberculosis (but excluding silico-tuberculosis).

In the event the class is certified, such class of workers would
be permitted to institute actions by way of a summons against
AngloGold Ashanti for amounts as yet unspecified. The parties in
the class action met with the court (South Gauteng High Court,
Johannesburg) and have tentatively agreed on a timetable for the
court process wherein the application to certify the class action
will be heard in October 2015.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Refer Individual Claims to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the
plaintiffs' attorneys have agreed to refer all of the individual
claims to arbitration.

In October 2012, AngloGold Ashanti received 31 individual
summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or
other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 31 summonses is
approximately $7 million as at the 31 December 2014 closing rate.
On or about March 3, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti received an
additional 21 individual summonses and particulars of claim
relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The total amount claimed
in the 21 summonses is approximately $4 million as at the December
31, 2014 closing rate. On or about March 24, 2014, AngloGold
Ashanti received a further 686 individual summonses and
particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or other OLD. The
total amount claimed in the 686 summonses is approximately $100
million as at the December 31, 2014 closing rate. And on or about
April 1, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti received a further 518 individual
summonses and particulars of claim relating to silicosis and/or
other OLD. The total amount claimed in the 518 summonses is
approximately $81 million as at the December 31, 2014 closing
rate. All these claims were filed in the South Gauteng High Court,
Johannesburg.

On October 9, 2014, AngloGold Ashanti and the plaintiffs'
attorneys agreed to refer all of the individual claims to
arbitration. The court proceedings have been suspended as a result
of entering into the arbitration agreement.

It is possible that additional class actions and/or individual
claims relating to silicosis and/or other OLD will be filed
against AngloGold Ashanti in the future. AngloGold Ashanti will
defend all current and subsequently filed claims on their merits.
Should AngloGold Ashanti be unsuccessful in defending any such
claims, or in otherwise favourably resolving perceived
deficiencies in the national occupational disease compensation
framework that were identified in the earlier decision by the
Constitutional Court, such matters would have an adverse effect on
its financial position, which could be material. The company is
unable to reasonably estimate its share of the amounts claimed.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Court Gathers Evidence in "Usocoello" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court in the case
Usocoello is gathering evidence from the parties in preparation
for its ruling.

Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state
and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A.
(AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is
currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core
concession contracts:

     1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario,
Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal
Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development
and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello);

     2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas,
AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando
Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche
Anaima Belt);

     3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and
AGAC (February 2012); and

     4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC
(July 2013) (Corridors).

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which certain economic activities are restricted.

The first class action lawsuit was Uscocoello, which was filed
before the Third Administrative Court of the District of Ibague on
9 September 2010 as the court of first instance. It named each of
Ingeominas (the Colombian regulatory agency for mining
activities), the Federal Department of the Environment, Housing
and Territorial Development, as well as the Federal Department of
Mines as defendants. AGAC was subsequently joined to the lawsuit
as an additional defendant. The plaintiffs are the User
Association of the Land Adequation District of Coello and Cucuana
Rivers (Usocoello) (a cooperative representing local farmers), the
Autonomous Regional Corporation of Tolima ("Cortolima"), (the
government of the State of Tolima), the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Tolima (Procurador Judicial Ambiental y
Agrario para el Tolima), the University of Ibague (Estudiantes de
la Universidad del Rosario), (a student association of the
University of El Rosario) and Fedearroz (the Colombian association
of rice growers).

In Uscocoello, the plaintiffs petitioned the court to order the
defendant governmental entities not to declare the La Colosa
mining project feasible on the grounds that the project threatens
a healthy environment, public health and food safety for Usocoello
members and local residents. Such order by the court would result
in the revocation of AGAC's temporary use permit for its
exploration activities on 6.39 hectares of forest reserve that are
otherwise designated as restricted areas.

In addition, as each of AGAC's three core mining concession
contracts governing the La Colosa project provides that Ingeominas
has the discretion to declare the underlying concession void if
AGAC breaches applicable environmental laws or regulations, the
plaintiffs have petitioned the court to direct Ingeominas to
cancel such concession contracts on the ground that AGAC has
violated the Code of Natural Resources. If plaintiffs prevail and
Ingeominas is ordered to cancel AGAC's three core concession
contracts, the company would be required to abandon the La Colosa
project and all of AGAC's other existing mining concession
contracts and pending proposals for new mining concession
contracts would also be cancelled. If the Third Administrative
Court issues an adverse ruling against AGAC, the ruling can be
appealed.

As no settlement was reached at a special conciliation hearing
(Pacto de Cumplimiento) held on April 27, 2011, the trial has
continued and the court is gathering evidence from the parties in
preparation for its ruling.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Injunction in Toche Anaima Belt Case on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the
Toche Anaima Belt lawsuit, AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A. has
appealed the injunction, but the company does not believe that the
mining concession contracts at issue constitute a critical path
item for the project.

Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state
and federal courts in relation to AGAC's Santa Maria-Montecristo
and La Colosa project, which is currently in its pre-feasibility
phase and consists of three core concession contracts:

     1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario,
Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal
Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development
and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello);

     2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas,
AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando
Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche
Anaima Belt);

     3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and
AGAC (February 2012); and

     4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC
(July 2013) (Corridors).

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which certain economic activities are restricted.

In connection with the Toche Anaima Belt lawsuit, the Superior
Court of the District of Ibague granted the plaintiff a
preliminary injunction, suspending the mining concession contracts
relating to certain greenfield exploration activities of the Santa
Maria-Montecristo project in September 2011. AGAC has appealed the
injunction, but the company does not believe that the mining
concession contracts at issue constitute a critical path item for
the project.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: AGAC Awaits Decision on Cancellation Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the
Juan Ceballos lawsuit, AGAC is awaiting a decision on the
plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the La Colosa mining
project tenements.

Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state
and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A.
(AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is
currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core
concession contracts:

     1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario,
Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal
Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development
and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello);

     2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas,
AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando
Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche
Anaima Belt);

     3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and
AGAC (February 2012); and

     4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC
(July 2013) (Corridors).

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which certain economic activities are restricted.

With respect to the Juan Ceballos lawsuit, the plaintiff requested
the cancellation of the La Colosa mining project tenements, based
on allegations that gold mining represents an environmental risk
to the Tolima community. In November 2014, the Court requested
that the defendants answer a questionnaire before the Court rules
on the matter. AGAC and the Colombian government entities appeared
before the Court and answered its questions. AGAC is awaiting a
decision in this matter.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: No Decision Yet on Bid to Ban Corridor Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in connection with the
Corridors lawsuit, AGAC is awaiting a decision on the plaintiffs'
request for the banning of AGAC's Corridor Project.

Four (4) class action lawsuits are pending before Colombian state
and federal courts in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A.
(AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa project, which is
currently in its pre-feasibility phase and consists of three core
concession contracts:

     1. Usocoello, Cortolima, Procuraduria Regional Tolima,
Universidad de Ibague, Estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario,
Federarroz v. AGAC, Federal Department of Mines, Federal
Department of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development
and Ingeominas (September 2010) (Uscocoello);

     2. The Personero de Ibague v. Federal Department of the
Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas,
AGAC, Continental Gold Ltda., Oro Barracuda Ltda., Fernando
Montoya, Alberto Murillo and Eugenio Gomez (December 2011) (Toche
Anaima Belt);

     3. Juan Ceballos v. Federal Department of the Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, Ingeominas, Cortolima and
AGAC (February 2012); and

     4. Ibague's Ombudsman v. Federal Department of Environment,
Housing and Territorial Development, National Mining Agency, AGAC
(July 2013) (Corridors).

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the La Colosa project due to
environmental concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.
Under Colombian law, restricted areas are State-protected land on
which certain economic activities are restricted.

In connection with the Corridors lawsuit, the plaintiffs requested
the banning of AGAC's Corridor Project due to the alleged
detrimental environmental impact of the proposed mining in the
area. However, AGAC has not proceeded with the Corridor Project
due to technical considerations. Accordingly, AGAC has asked the
Court to dismiss the lawsuit (without prejudice). AGAC is awaiting
a decision.





ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Carpenter, writing for The Topeka Capital-Journal, reported
that attacks by computer hackers on nearly 390,000 Kansans served
by the privatized Medicaid program prompted filing of a proposed
class-action lawsuit against insurance giant Anthem and its
Amerigroup subsidiary operating in the state.

The Lawrence firm of Fagan, Emert & Davis alleged in the filing
the nation's second largest health insurance provider didn't
properly safeguard sensitive personal, health and financial
information of its customers in Kansas.

"Any data breach is serious, but this one is particularly
dangerous because of the type of data stolen," Paul Davis, an
attorney for plaintiffs in the class action suit, said in a
statement. "You can't just change your birth date, your medical
history, or your social security number like you can a credit card
number."

Anthem reportedly didn't encrypt personal data of its customers
prior to hackers gaining access to a database storing information
on more than 80 million Americans. Customer and employee records
containing names, addresses and Social Security numbers was
obtained in a massive security attack.

In Kansas, 390,000 people had information fall into hands of
thieves. Amerigroup serves 165,000 KanCare customers subjected to
the computer assault, which the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged
violated the federal HIPAA privacy statute.

"We've already received several reports of fraudulent tax returns
being filed," Davis said. "Unfortunately, we fear this is only the
beginning."

A spokesperson with Amerigroup, headquartered in Virginia Beach,
Va., wasn't available to comment. In February, company executives
acknowledged the sophisticated cyber attack and apologized for
loss of private information.

The Kansas portion of the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages was
filed April 2 in Douglas County on behalf of Wyandotte County
resident Julie Stanturf and others, while the Missouri piece of
the case was filed previously in St. Louis by three law firms
working jointly. About 100 plaintiffs are involved in the Missouri
litigation.

Similar legal action has been taken in five states, including
California, Florida and Indiana.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an alert in April 2014
to the health care industry indicating the transition from paper
to electronic health records, lax cybersecurity standards and the
value of medical records in the black market could subject the
industry to greater risks.

In January 2013, Gov. Sam Brownback led privatization of the
state's $3 billion Medicaid system.

The Brownback administration selected three insurance companies
-- Amerigroup, UnitedHealthcare and Sunflower, which is a
subsidiary of Centene -- to assume responsibility for serving
elderly, children and disabled individuals in the KanCare network.

Davis, who ran unsuccessfully against Brownback in the 2014
election, said the Kansas law firm was seeking to represent
additional KanCare participants who were victims of the data
breach.

Anthem paid $1.7 million in 2010 to resolve allegations it left
private information on more than 600,000 members available online
due to inadequate safeguards. The company also suffered
information breaches in 2008 and 2006.


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Fails to Pay Servers & Bartenders OT, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Applebee's stiffs servers and
bartenders for overtime, a class action claims in Washington
Federal Court.


ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge has
dismissed claims that two Assurant Inc insurance units engaged in
racketeering by paying kickbacks to Florida-based Everbank in a
scheme that allegedly inflated the costs of property insurance
homeowners were forced to buy.

In an order, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom agreed with insurers'
lawyers at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt that fraud claims were
implausible because homeowners were warned to maintain their own
insurance and told that policies provided by the Assurant units
would cost much more.


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Singleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11864-
ADB (D. Mass., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

AT&T Mobility LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 1025 Lenox Park Blvd NE, Atlanta,
GA 30319.  AT&T owns and operates thousands of retail wireless
stores around the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Garcia, Esq.
      PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP
      13 Ventura Drive
      North Dartmouth, MA 02747
      Telephone: (508) 998-0800
      Facsimile: (508) 998-0919
      E-mail: agarcia@phillipsgarcia.com

         - and -

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      MORGADO, P.A.
      382 NE 191st St #84164
      Miami, FL 33179
      Telephone: (855) 899-9121
      Facsimile: (855) 499-9191
      E-mail: rer@morgado.us


AMERICAN CRUISE: Faces "McCormick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole McCormick, Jesus Estrada and Justice Kimmons, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. American Cruise
Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00741-VLB (D. Conn., May 18, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation for hours in excess of 40 in the workweek.

American Cruise Lines, Inc. owns, operates and controls a ship
cruise line consisting of 6 ships, which cruise along the Eastern
Seaboard, Western Seaboard and rivers of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
      BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
      747 Stafford Avenue
      Bristol, CT 06010
      Telephone: (860) 583-5200
      Facsimile: (860) 589-5780
      E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com


ANCHOR DRILLING: Removed "Wolfe" Suit from W.D. Pa. to S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jon Nathan Wolfe, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anchor Drilling
Fluids, USA, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01545, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh Division to the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of Texas Houston Division. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01344 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff contends that
Anchor failed to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of
40 hours a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christian Antkowiak, Esq.
      Joseph F. Quinn, Esq.
      BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY
      One Oxford Center
      301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 562-3988
      E-mail: christian.antkowiak@bipc.com
              joseph.quinn@bipc.com

         - and -

      Stefanie R. Moll, Esq.
      Thomas C. Wallace, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
      1000 Louisiana, Ste. 4000
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 890-5780
      Facsimile: (713) 890-5001
      E-mail: smoll@morganlewis.com
              twallace@morganlewis.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Portions of "Gershman" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed
portions of a class action against Bayer Healthcare alleging that
the company grossly misrepresents the health benefits of
Flintstones Healthy Brain Support vitamins.

Liza Gershman, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
05332-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Mondaq.com reported that in BCE Inc. v. Gillis, 2015 NSCA 32,
issued on April 9, 2015, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
considered the doctrine of abuse of process in the context of a
proposed class proceeding where a virtually identical action,
commenced by the same plaintiffs represented by the same counsel
(Merchant Law Group), had already been certified in Saskatchewan.

Expressing its disapproval of the practice of having the same
plaintiffs file lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to obtain
collateral future advantages, the Court of Appeal overturned the
decision of the motions judge and ordered that the Nova Scotia
action be permanently and unconditionally stayed. In the course of
its judgment, the Court made several notable observations
regarding the nature of class proceedings, the role of the Court,
and what is (and is not) appropriate conduct by plaintiffs and
their counsel. The various Bell defendants /appellants were
represented by Robert Deane of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

The case was one of many across Canada. In 2004, the same group of
plaintiffs (all represented by Merchant Law Group) filed a series
of actions in nine provinces alleging that various
telecommunications providers had been improperly charging "system
access fees". Although the Nova Scotia action was first filed on
November 2, 2004, no steps were taken to advance it until 2014.

In the interim, the plaintiffs' efforts were focused exclusively
on the action commenced in Saskatchewan, which was certified by an
order dated on February 13, 2008 (Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2007
SKQB 328, leave to appeal denied Microcell Communications Inc. v.
Frey, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 42). The certified class was limited in
that it excluded customers with arbitration clauses in their
contracts and was limited to claims for unjust enrichment based on
the contracts. Non-residents, including residents of Nova Scotia,
could opt-in to participate in the action (in accordance with
Saskatchewan legislation in effect as of 2008). Saskatchewan
residents were included on an opt-out basis. The plaintiffs
attempted to convert the certification to an opt-out model but
were unsuccessful (Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2009 SKQB 165).

Before analyzing the Nova Scotia claim, the Court of Appeal
surveyed the treatment of the various other claims filed by the
same plaintiffs in other provinces. In British Columbia (Drover v.
BCE Inc., 2013 BCSC 1341), the court found it would be an abuse of
process to allow the plaintiffs to litigate matters in
Saskatchewan and then re-litigate the same matters in British
Columbia. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed one Alberta
action for reasons of delay (Pappas v. BCE Inc., 2014 ABQB). In
another Alberta action (Turnerv.Bell Mobility, 2015 ABQB 169), a
stay was refused on the basis that proper access to justice may be
denied to Albertans with an opt-in regime (although the decision
is under appeal). The Manitoba action (Hafichuk-Walkin v. BCE
Inc.,2014 MBQB 175) was stayed (although the decision is under
appeal).

The Court of Appeal analogized the plaintiffs' approach in filing
identical lawsuits in numerous jurisdictions to "planting legal
cherry trees across the country." The Court rejected the
plaintiffs' submission that it was an appropriate tactic to do so
to accommodate future changes in the law. Rather, the Court held
that plaintiffs were attempting to "go from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction picking only the cherries they like in jurisdictions
they have totally neglected for a decade." The Court of Appeal
highlighted the danger of such "selective harvesting" and that, if
permitted, it would require defendants to re-litigate the same
issues repeatedly, potentially having divergent outcomes.

Although commencing class actions in multiple jurisdictions is not
necessarily always an abuse of process, the court must review the
facts of each case to "assess whether there has been an abuse of
process in the circumstances of the litigation as it has been
prosecuted with in that jurisdiction."

In assessing whether the Nova Scotia action constituted an abuse
of process, the Court of Appeal considered the following factors:

   -- whether the plaintiffs actually intended to prosecute the
Nova Scotia action when it was filed;

   -- the plaintiffs' delay in advancing the Nova Scotia action;
the distinction, if any, between opt-in and opt-out class action
schemes;

   -- the danger of multiplicity/duplicity of proceedings;

   -- the conduct of counsel;

   -- whether the action was brought for the collateral (and, the
Court held, improper) purpose of obtaining carriage of a class
action, or to toll the limitation period; and

   -- the importance of maintaining comity among the courts of the
various provinces.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that absent an intention to
prosecute the Nova Scotia claim, the action in Nova Scotia did not
serve a proper purpose. The plaintiffs' objective had consistently
been to pursue the Saskatchewan action, and that only changed when
events in Saskatchewan made it more advantageous to try to proceed
elsewhere. The Court held that the plaintiffs were bound by the
national litigation strategy adopted by their counsel.

Perhaps most significantly, and contrary to the finding of the
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Turner, the Court of Appeal was
not satisfied that the distinction between opt-in and opt-out
statutes put Nova Scotia residents at a disadvantage or at least a
disadvantage that the Court should seek to remedy. The Court noted
that there may be good reasons why Nova Scotia residents may not
opt-in to the Saskatchewan class, including that "class actions
may result in significant legal fees for plaintiffs' counsel but
not result in any money in the pockets of class members." In
response to the assertion that few individuals will make the
effort to opt-in, the Court queried "why the court and its
resources should be more devoted to the financial self-interest of
private litigants than they are themselves."
The Court of Appeal viewed the actions of class counsel as
attempting to re-litigate issues decided in other jurisdictions.

The Court emphasized that the Nova Scotia action was a second
attempt by the plaintiffs to certify an opt-out class action and,
thus, a collateral attack on the Saskatchewan decision which
refused to allow certification for non-residents on an opt out
basis. To allow a re-litigation of this issue in Nova Scotia would
result in an "extraordinary abuse of process and it would
undermine the administration of justice."

In the Court's view, the Nova Scotia action was an abuse of
process from the outset, compounded by the filing of nine
virtually identical claims. The plaintiffs had made it clear many
years earlier that Saskatchewan was their forum of choice and the
Court held that they must live with that decision. As the Court
put it, "it is time the respondents be forced to pick cherries
from a single tree; one groomed for so many years, while the one
in Nova Scotia was neglected."

The Court of Appeal's decision in Gillis is a clear statement that
forum-shopping is as impermissible in the class action context as
it is in individual claims. Where a claim may be brought in
multiple jurisdictions, plaintiffs must generally select their
jurisdiction of choice, and not start "planting legal cherry trees
across the country" in the hope of being able to harvest a
different tree if matters do not proceed as desired in the
original jurisdiction. Although the Court left open the
possibility that there may be circumstances where multiple similar
claims across different jurisdictions would be allowed to
continue, the record demonstrated that the intention of the
plaintiffs and their counsel was to seek to re-litigate issues
that had already been determined. Such conduct constituted an
abuse of process warranting a permanent and unconditional stay of
proceedings.


BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Action v. Prosensa in Earliest Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 3, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
class action litigation against Prosensa Holding N.V. is in its
earliest stages.

On January 16, 2015, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BioMarin) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) a current
report on Form 8-K (the Initial 8-K) to report, among other
things, the consummation of the acquisition by BioMarin of
Prosensa Holding N.V. (Prosensa).

In July 2014, the Company and certain of its managing directors
and supervisory directors were named as defendants in Singh v.
Schikan et al., a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who purchased
the Company's ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement used in connection with the Company's IPO.
The complaint alleges that the Company omitted and/or misstated
certain facts in the registration statement concerning the Phase
III trial of drisapersen that, as announced on September 20, 2013,
did not meet its primary endpoint. The litigation is in its
earliest stages, and the Company and the individual defendants
intend to defend the action vigorously. The Company is not able at
present to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, in
connection with the litigation, but an adverse resolution could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam P. Beckerink, Jack Trachtenberg and Douglas A. Wick, writing
for Mondaq.com, reported that on March 17, 2015, Laura Bugliaro
(the "Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc. ("BJ's") in the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit of Florida. The complaint alleges that BJ's
collects sales tax on the full price of items on sale, instead of
applying the discount and then collecting sales tax on the
discounted amount. The Plaintiff is claiming that BJ's practices
are contrary to regulations promulgated by the Florida Department
of Revenue (the "Department"). The complaint alleges violations of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment. This case is similar to other cases being filed around
the country against different retailers.

Background. The Plaintiff claims that on November 22, 2014, she
bought a television from a BJ's location in Florida for a
"discounted sales price" of $769.99 (the original price of the
television was $1,399.99). The Plaintiff claims she was wrongly
charged sales tax based on the full $1,399.99 price of the
television because the reduced price was not the result of a
manufacturer's coupon or discount. If the Plaintiff is correct,
this resulted in an additional $37.80 being collected by BJ's
(based on Florida's 6% state sales tax rate).

The Plaintiff also claims that she bought another television at a
different BJ's location in Florida on November 30, 2014, for a
discounted sale price. The Plaintiff again alleges that sales tax
was collected on the full price, not the discounted price of the
television. In this instance, the television was discounted by
$200.00, meaning an extra $12.00 was collected if the Plaintiff's
claims are true. Based on these two incidents, the Plaintiff
asserts that BJ's regular practice is to charge sales tax on the
full price of discounted purchases made in Florida.

Florida sales tax regulations. According to regulations
promulgated by the Department, the tax base for discounted sales
depends on whether the discount originates with the manufacturer
of the product or with the retailer. Coupons, rebates, or
discounts issued by the manufacturer of a taxable good are not
treated as a reduction in the tax base, and therefore, sales tax
is to be charged on the full price of the item. Discounts and
coupons issued by the retailer, on the other hand, are supposed to
be considered a reduction in the sales tax base, and thus, tax
should only be charged on the discounted price paid for the
product (i.e., full price less the discount).

Florida's sales tax rules pose compliance challenges for
retailers. While sales tax decisions are nominally made by the
company's legal, tax, or accounting department, those policies
must be implemented by sales clerks or cash register software
programs. Sales clerks often lack the knowledge of whether a
discount originates from the manufacturer or the retailer, and
regardless, such employees should not be expected to interpret
complicated tax regulations as part of their job. Further, it is
difficult to program software for every possible deal, sale,
coupon, rebate, incentive, or other price reduction that manifests
itself in the real world. Indeed, depending on how a particular
reimbursement is booked and treated for income tax purposes, it
may be that the reimbursement should be treated as a manufacture
discount in one instance, but a retailer discount in another.
Therefore, even retailers who are earnestly attempting to comply
with Florida's and other states' sales tax laws can inadvertently
collect the wrong amount of tax on certain discounted sales.

Implications for retailers. There is no allegation that BJ's
pocketed the "overcharged" sales tax collections or profited in
any way from such collections. In fact, there is no indication
that BJ's did not remit all collected tax amounts to the
Department. Hence, there was no motive or incentive for BJ's to
collect excess sales tax from its customers. This suggests that
even if the allegations in the complaint are true, any incorrect
sales tax practices were inadvertent, contrary to the complaint's
assertions of fraudulent activity.

There has been a rash of similar class-action lawsuits filed
around the country alleging improper collection of sales tax in
connection with discounts or coupons, e.g., Wong v. Whole Foods
Market Group, Inc., Case 1:115-cv-00848, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Jan. 28,
2015); Wong v. Target Corp., Case 1:115-cv-01985, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Mar.
5, 2015). While the stakes are low for any individual customer who
claims to have been overcharged, the stakes are high for retailers
subjected to the machinations of aggressive law firms hoping for a
lucrative payday. Retailers should ensure they are diligently
complying with each state's unique sales tax rules. Reed Smith's
State Tax Group will continue to closely monitor this case and
similar cases across the United States.
For more information on the growing risks that businesses face
from the application of consumer class action and false claims act
statutes to state and local tax matters, contact the authors of
this Alert or another member of the Reed Smith State Tax Group.

                  About Reed Smith State Tax

Reed Smith's state and local tax practice is composed of more than
30 lawyers across seven offices nationwide. The practice focuses
on state and local audit defense and refund appeals (from the
administrative level through the appellate courts), as well as
planning and transactional matters involving income, franchise,
unclaimed property, sales and use, and property tax issues. View
our State Tax team.


BLUE WATER: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Cabrera-Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. Blue Water Hospitality LLC d/b/a Red Roof
Inn and Syed Raza, Case No. 8:15-cv-01189-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla., May
18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate Red Roof Inn in Tampa Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Moya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Moya, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Bread and
Chocolate LLC d/b/a Granier Bakery, and Thibaut Renard, Case No.
1:15-cv-21882-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery and cafeteria business
located at 18230 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BRINKER RESTAURANT: Bilks Customers by Putting Tablets, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Chili's
restaurants bilk customers by putting tablets loaded with games on
dinner tables for kids, then charging parents for the games, a
class action claims.

Brenda Quijada sued Brinker Restaurant Corp. and Ziosk in
California Superior Court on May 8, on behalf of parents and
guardians who were charged for the games.

Brinker owns the Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant
chains.  Ziosk created the first pay-at-the-table tablet for
casual dining restaurants. The 7-inch Android devices are
available at more than 1,500 locations in the United States,
according to its Web site.  Among other things, the tablets let
diners view the menu, order food and drinks and download and play
games, according to the complaint.

Quijada claims the companies trick people into thinking the games
are free by failing to disclose that a 99-cent "entertainment fee"
will be added to their bill if they use the tablet to play games.

"The main screen user interface simply provides the patron with a
menu of service categories (drinks, food, fun and eClub) without
any disclaimer language," the complaint states.

"Once a customer -- either of legal age or a minor -- clicks the
'fun' application on the tablet they are taken to a second screen.
This screen features: (1) content available without payment of the
entertainment fee and (2) content that is accessible in exchange
for payment of the 'entertainment' fee," the complaint continues.

Some tablets do indicate that premium content costs $0.99,
according to the complaint.

The companies specifically target kids by offering content such as
dietary information and a link to the "USA Today" for free while
charging $0.99 for fun games such as Spy Mouse, Plants vs. Zombies
and Poppit!, which appeal to kids, the complaint states.

Diners buy a game by tapping on it and then tapping again on a
green button that says "Let's Play."  Quijada claims the tablets
do not check the user's age or have any parental control measures
to make sure kids have permission to buy a game.

Targeting kids by putting games on the tablets "and inducing them
to purchase, without the knowledge or permission of their parents,
thousands of dollars of premium content is unlawful in the
extreme," the complaint states.

Quijada says she took her younger brother and daughter to Chili's
and let them play with the Ziosk tablet during the meal.  She says
she did not know they were using the tablet to buy and play games,
and claims that none of the Chili's staff warned her that playing
the games would add $0.99 to her bill.

A company spokeswoman told Courthouse News the defendants decline
to comment as they have not yet been served with the lawsuit.

Quijada seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution,
disgorgement and damages for false and misleading advertising.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Toll-Free: (866) 864-4915
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider
whether an advertising agency hired to boost recruitment for the
U.S. Navy is immune from a lawsuit that claims it illegally
authorized thousands of unsolicited text messages.

The justices said on May 18 they will hear an appeal from the
Campbell-Ewald Company, which claims federal contractors can't be
sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The agency sent the messages through a subcontractor to thousands
of cell phones, including one belonging to Jose Gomez.  Mr. Gomez
says he never consented to receiving the texts and filed a class-
action lawsuit.

A federal appeals court rejected the company's claim that
government contractors are immune from such lawsuits.  The company
also argues that Gomez can't pursue a class action because he
refused an offer to settle the case.


CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Operator and Responder Snow Shovels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience:General Public
Identification number: RA-53275

This recall involves MSR Operator and Responder snow shovels. The
compact, adjustable backcountry snow shovels are used for digging
a snow-study pit, constructing basecamp or responding to a
backcountry emergency.

The following snow shovels are included in this recall:

   SKU       Description                       Colour
   ---       -----------                       ------
03157MSR     Operator Snow Shovel, D Handle    Red
03159MSR     Operator Snow Shovel, T Handle    Red
03158MSR     Responder Snow Shovel, only       Yellow
              available in T Handle

The company has determined through internal testing a
manufacturing defect occurred during production of the shovels.
The spring-controlled lock button on the lower shaft has the
potential to stay recessed inside the shaft, making it so that the
shovel blade cannot be secured to the shaft. The spring was not
made to specifications. Because of this, it can interfere with the
upper shaft and move out of alignment.

Neither Health Canada nor Cascade Designs, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these snow shovels in Canada.

Cascade Designs, Inc. has received 4 reports of consumer incidents
in the United States. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 344 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
4,300 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to January 2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: Valencever Company, Ltd.
              Taipei
              TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA

Distributor: Cascade Designs, Inc.
             Seattle
             Washington
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the recalled snow shovels and contact
Cascade Designs, Inc. for a replacement shaft with a correct lock
button.

For additional information, consumers may contact Cascade Designs,
Inc. Customer Service toll-free at 1-800-531-9531, Monday to
Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PST or by email. Consumers can
also visit Cascade Designs' website and click on Have You
Purchased an MSR Snow Shovel? for more information.

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

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

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

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


CATHAY BANK: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cathay Bank and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03725 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice obtains and uses information from credit and
background reports in connection with its hiring process without
complying disclosure requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Cathay Bank is a Chinese American bank based in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pamela Tsao, Esq.
      ASCENSION LAW GROUP, PC
      2030 E. Fourth Street, Suite 205
      Santa Ana, CA 92705
      Telephone: (714) 783-4220
      Facsimile: (888) 505-1033
      E-mail: Tsao.Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com


CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit in Tel-Aviv Economic Dept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to approve a
purported class action, naming the Company, its chief executive
officer and its directors as defendants, was filed on January 5,
2015, with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department),
on behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including those who
purchased shares during the period following the Company's follow
on public offering in July 2014.

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the company and its management, by making
false and misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October
2014.  The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior
to the follow on public offering, the defendants presented
misleading guidance concerning the expected financial results for
the third quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement
in the rate of gross profit based on orders which were already
received by the Company at the time of such presentation. Although
the plaintiff admits that, in accordance with the actual results
for the third quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as
revenues were concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned
out to be much lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff argues
that at the time such guidance was presented by the defendants,
they already knew, or should have known, that it was incorrect.
The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages in a sum of up
to $75,000,000, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The motion was received by the Company on January 6, 2015. Based
on an initial review, the Company believes that the District Court
should deny the motion and intends to aggressively oppose it. The
time frame for the initial procedure, i.e. until the District
Court decides whether to approve the motion or to deny it, is
expected to last several months.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Didn't Appeal Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
6, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit did not
appeal the grant of summary judgment, terminating the litigation.

On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The
plaintiffs were seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.

On July 19, 2013, TWC filed a motion for summary judgment, which
argued that Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not coerce
the plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a necessary
element of the plaintiffs' claim.

On July 29, 2014, the court granted TWC's summary judgment motion
and entered judgment in TWC's favor. On August 26, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on
December 1, 2014. The plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of
summary judgment, terminating the litigation.


CHILDREN WORLDWIDE: Recalls Hugo Boss 5-Pocket Children Pants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Posting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53325

This recall involves HUGO BOSS 5-pocket pants for children. The
blue pants in faded denim have a checkered lining on the lower
part of the legs. The grey/blue pants in velvet have blue
topstitching on the inside of the waistband. The model number is
listed on the inside label sewn into the inside topstitching on
the side of the pants, just below the waistband.

  Product name       Model Number   Size       CUP Number
  and description    ------------   ----       ----------
  ---------------
Blue denim pants     J04161         2 years    3143161100695
                                    3 years    3143161100701
                                    6 months   3143161100909
                                    9 months   3143161100916
                                    12 months  3143161100923
                                    18 months  3143161100930
Grey/blue velvet     J04167         2 years    3143160928313
pants                               3 years    3143160928320
                                    6 months   3143160928337
                                    9 months   3143160928344
                                    12 months  3143160928351
                                    18 months  3143160928368

The button on the pants may fail and, in some cases, detach from
the garment, presenting a choking hazard for young children.

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

In Canada, about 112 pairs of recalled pants have been sold in
various retail stores.

The recalled clothing items were sold from July 2014 to April
2015.

Manufactured in Tunisia.

Manufacturer: Children Worldwide Fashion
              Les Herbiers Cedex
              FRANCE

Distributor: Children Worldwide Fashion Canada Inc.
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7l5UKU


CINTAS CORPORATION: "Serrano" Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that Cintas is a
defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano,
et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and
pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.

The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against
women in hiring into various service sales representative
positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in
the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and other remedies.

On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of
Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano
lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative
positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan.
Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service
sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan
were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on
behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the
state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.

In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private
individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back
to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the
United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court
denied Cintas' Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the
District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November
9, 2012 decision.

The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may
result in liability material to Cintas' consolidated condensed
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and could
increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated
liability relating to these proceedings is not determinable at
this time. Cintas may enter into discussions regarding settlement
of these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement
agreements if it believes such settlement is in the best interest
of Cintas' shareholders.


COLLIN BUS: Recalls School Bus Models Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Seats and Restraints
Units affected: 5
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015195
TC ID number: 2015195

On certain school buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS 302) - Flammability of Interior Materials.
Certain school bus seat bottom assemblies may contain a foam core
that does not meet the requirements of the standard. As a result
the seat components could burn faster than allowable by the
standard, which could increase the risk of injury in the event of
a fire. Correction: Dealers will replace the seat bottom assembly.

   Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----       ----------------------
   CORBEIL    DH          2014
   CORBEIL    DE          2014


COMPTON UNIFIED: Accused Wrongful Conduct Over Complex Trauma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter P., et al., v. Compton Unified School District, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03726-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is an action
for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's failure to
train and sensitize teachers or administrative personnel to
recognize , understand, and address  the effects of complex
trauma.

Compton Unified School District operates schools in the south
region of Los Angeles County and Corson City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathryn Ann Eidmann, Esq.
      Laura L. Faer, Esq.
      Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq.
      PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER
      610 S Ardmore Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90005
      Telephone: (213) 385-2977
      Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
      E-mail: kedmann@publiccounsel.org
              lfaer@publiccounsel.org
              mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

         - and -

      Michael H. Strub Jr., Esq.
      Morgan Chu, Esq.
      IRELL AND MANELLA LLP
      1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
      Telephone: (310) 277-1010
      E-mail: mstrub@irell.com
              mchu@irell.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Health Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Raygoza and Benjamin Raygoza, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03741-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all health insurance plan participants and
beneficiaries who were denied of insurance coverage for mental
health treatment.

Conagra Foods, Inc. is an American packaged foods company
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
      Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Telephone: (818) 886-2525
      Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
      E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
              trozelle@kantorlaw.net


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Probe Over 2007 Peanut Butter Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk, writing for The Associated Press, reports that ConAgra
Foods is likely to face a criminal charge now that the U.S.
government has completed its investigation of the company's 2007
peanut butter recall.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Georgia,
Pam Lightsey, said on May 19 that prosecutors plan to reveal
details of the investigation on May 20.

ConAgra spokeswoman Teresa Paulsen declined to comment on the
investigation on May 19, but the company previously has said it
was negotiating an end to the investigation that would likely
include a misdemeanor charge of shipping tainted products.

If the Omaha, Nebraska, food-maker is charged criminally, the case
would extend a recent string of high-profile food safety
prosecutions.  It wasn't clear on May 19 whether any ConAgra
executives would be charged.

Earlier this year, two former Iowa egg industry executives were
sentenced to three months in jail.  Last year, two Colorado
cantaloupe farmers were convicted and received probation in a
deadly 2011 listeria outbreak, and the former owner of Peanut
Corporation of America was convicted in a 2008 salmonella
outbreak.  The peanut executive, Stewart Parnell, could face jail
time when sentenced.

ConAgra recalled all its peanut butter in 2007 after its Peter Pan
and Great Value peanut butter was linked to a salmonella outbreak
that sickened at least 625 people in 47 states.  The peanut butter
was produced at ConAgra's Sylvester, Georgia, plant.

At the time of ConAgra's recall, it was unusual for peanut butter
to be implicated in a disease outbreak.  But the ConAgra case and
the subsequent Peanut Corporation of America recall that was
linked to nine deaths demonstrated that the pantry staple could
harbor bacteria.

ConAgra's Paulsen said the company is committed to food safety and
hasn't had any problems with its peanut butter since the recall.

"We took full responsibility in 2007, taking immediate steps to
determine the potential causes of and solutions for the problem
and acting quickly and definitively to inform and protect
consumers," Ms. Paulsen said.

ConAgra officials blamed moisture in the production plant for
helping salmonella bacteria on the raw peanuts grow.  The company
said the roof leaked during a storm and the sprinkler system
malfunctioned, which allowed the moisture in.

The production plant was upgraded and ConAgra adopted new testing
procedures before reintroducing Peter Pan peanut butter a few
months later.

ConAgra said in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it had already recorded charges of $31.7 million
related to the investigation over the past nearly four years.  The
maker of Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher, Chef Boyardee and
dozens of other branded foods said it doesn't expect this
investigation to have a material effect on its profits.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Hirsch, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care,
Inc., and Abb/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a abb optical
Group), Case No. 0:15-cv-61055-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 19, 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:

      Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
      Michael C. Gongora, Esq.
      BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
      1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 987-7550
      Facsimile: (954) 985-4176
      E-mail: grosen@becker-poliakoff.com
              mgongora@bplegal.com

         - and -

      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Meegan Hollywood, Esq.
      Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: bpersky@robinskaplan.com
              hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
              klerner@robinskaplan.com
              mhollywood@robinskaplan.com
              mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com

         - and -

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 349-8500
      Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
      E-mail: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com

         - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      193 Plummer Hill Road
      Belmont, NH 03220
      Telephone: (888) 461-8710
      E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us


DAEHSAN CANADA: DXN Brand Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Daehsan Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9835

Daehsan Canada Inc. is recalling DXN brand instant coffee products
from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not
consume and distributors, retailers and food service
establishments such as hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals
and nursing homes should not sell or use the recalled products
described below.

What you should do
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand   Common name  Size      Code(s)          UPC
  name    -----------  ----      product          ---
  -----                          -------
  DXN     Cordyceps    20 X 21g  All codes where  9 555274 505740
          Coffee                 milk is not
                                 declared
  DXN     Vita Cafe    20 X 21g  All codes where  9 555274 505719
                                 milk is not
                                 declared
  DXN     Lingzhi      3 in 120  All codes where  9 555274 505658
          Coffee       X 21g     milk is not
                                 declared
  DXN     EuCafe       20 X 21g  All codes where  9 555274 506174
                                 milk is not
                                 declared

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/roml89


DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Senior Collector Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a senior collector hopes to
represent a class of nonexempt employees whom Dignity Health
allegedly failed to pay overtime or provide meal and rest periods.

The case is Roland Brown v. Dignity Health in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, Central District.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Bunn" Suit Over Lien Sale May Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
BENJAMIN COLEMAN, through his Conservator, ROBERT BUNN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, CIV. ACTION NO.
13-1456 (EGS) (D.D.C.)

Robert Bunn filed a suit on behalf of Benjamin Coleman against the
District of Columbia, challenging the District of Columbia's law
that directed the sale of a lien on Coleman's home after he failed
to pay a $133.88 property-tax bill. The law permitted the private
purchaser of the lien to add $4,999 in interest, costs, and fees
to Coleman's bill and, when Coleman could not pay, to institute a
foreclosure proceeding. After the foreclosure proceeding, the
private purchaser obtained title to Coleman's home. Coleman,
however, received nothing, although the amount of equity he had in
his home far surpassed the amount he admittedly owed in taxes,
interest, costs, and related fees.

Coleman claims that the taking of his excess equity -- the amount
of equity minus the taxes and related costs he admits that he owed
violated his constitutional rights under the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Coleman asked the court to award him monetary damages and to issue
a declaratory judgment. Coleman brought this case not only on his
own behalf, but also as a representative of all district property
owners who suffered a loss of excess equity due to the District's
tax-sale law. The District attempted to dismiss the suit but the
court rejected the same and the court permitted Coleman to amend
his complaint to add a second named plaintiff in the name of the
Estate of Jean Robinson.

Coleman and Robinson's Estate now ask the court to certify the
lawsuit as a class action, to permit them to represent all other
District of Columbia property owners who similarly lost equity in
excess of the amount of taxes and related fees they owed because
of the tax-sale law. The District opposes the motion.

Judge Sullivan granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A copy of Judge Sullivan's memorandum opinion dated April 13,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/JnKzYvfrom Leagle.com

BENJAMIN COLEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- at BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Andrew Carl
Eberle, OFFICE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA & Edward Paul Henneberry, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR DC


DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that a Louisiana man is suing an online
company that prepares legal documents, claiming the business isn't
licensed to practice law in the state.

Anthony Lowery filed the lawsuit on April 8 in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Divorce Source, Inc.
alleging the company violated Louisiana state law by helping him
prepare divorce documents online in August.  The lawsuit claims
Divorce Source advertises that it is a "money-saving alternative
to lawyers."

"It is unlawful for the defendant to charge or collect fees from
its customers for the preparation of legal documents, and the
defendant is legally obligated to refund to the plaintiff and the
plaintiff class all fees charged and collected by the defendant,"
the lawsuit said.

According to the suit, Lowery paid approximately $299 to Divorce
Source to prepare a petition for divorce while he was in
Louisiana. State laws stipulate that part of practicing law is
drawing up papers related to the court proceedings, the suit says.
In addition to himself, Lowery is seeking class action status for
all those that used Divorce Source services to prepare legal
documentation.  The lawsuit seeks to recover legal fees paid by
Lowery to the company for preparing the documents. The lawsuit is
also seeking a refund of legal expenses incurred by the class
members.

Lowery is represented by William H. Beaumont of William H.
Beaumont, T.A. in New Orleans and Roberto L. Costales of Costales
Law Office in New Orleans.


DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy I. Patterson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dominion Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00372-DPJ-FKB (S.D.
Miss., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dominion Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a marketing services
company located at 128 Fox Run Drive, Jackson, Mississippi 39212.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis H. Watson Jr., Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
      Jackson, MS 39216
      Telephone: (601) 968-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com


DR. COLORCHIP: Recalls Automotive Touch-Up Paints
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Posting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53329

This recall involves Dr. ColorChip Automotive Touch-Up Paint sold
both separately and as part of 4 different repair kits. The touch-
up paint was available in various colours and came in 1 oz. and
1.5 oz. clear bottles.

The repair kits have the following SKUs:

  Product Name                                           SKU
  ------------                                           ---
Dr. ColorChip Squirt 'n Squeegee Paint Chip Repair Kit   SNS
Dr. ColorChip Road Rash Paint Chip Repair Kit            RR
Dr. ColorChip Standard Paint Chip Repair Kit             S
Dr. ColorChip Basic Paint Chip Repair Kit                B

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the product
does not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical
products under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling
required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations,
2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper
labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products
and lead to serious illness, injury or death.

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

Approximately 3000 units of the recalled product were sold
directly to consumers through online sales.

The recalled product was sold in Canada between January 2007 and
November 2014.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Dr. ColorChip Corporation
              Lake Park
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.
Consumers may contact the manufacturer by email or by telephone at
1-866-372-2548 for more information about the recall.

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

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

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


DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, LLC and Freking & Betz, LLC:

To:  All class members in either of two subclasses:  (1) All
business ratepayers who received retail electric generation
service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. or  their
subsidiaries/affiliates at any time between January 1, 2005, and
December 31, 2008, in the CG&E/Duke electric service territory and
who did not receive rebates under the side agreements; or (2) all
residential ratepayers who received retail electric generation
service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. or their
subsidiaries/affiliates at any time between January 1, 2005, and
December 31, 2008, in the CG&E/Duke electric service territory and
who did not receive rebates under the side agreements.

DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT

This notice is being published by order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
("the Court") in Anthony Williams, et al. v. Duke Energy
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00046.  You may be a
member of the class described above. The plaintiffs allege that
from 2005 to 2008 the defendants unlawfully paid rebates through
an affiliate to 24 large industrial or commercial customers
pursuant to separate side agreements. The plaintiffs contend that
Duke violated two federal statutes, the Robinson-Patman Act and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and a
state statute, Ohio's Pattern of Corrupt Activity Act.  The
plaintiffs also assert common-law claims for fraud and civil
conspiracy.  The defendants deny these allegations, assert that
the agreements and the payments did not violate any law, and
otherwise maintain that they did not engage in any wrongdoing.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS

If you are a class member and do not opt out, you will
automatically become a class member in this lawsuit and will be
bound by any judgment or other final disposition, whether
favorable to the class or not.  There is risk associated with any
litigation and no guarantee that you will obtain any recovery.  As
a class member, you would be represented by the named plaintiffs
and by the attorneys representing the class.  You would not be
charged for this representation.  If the class succeeds in the
lawsuit, you would, upon meeting any prerequisites set by the
Court, share in the distribution of any money damages recovered in
this lawsuit.  If the class succeeds in the lawsuit, the attorneys
representing the class will ask the Court to award them attorney's
fees based on a reasonable percentage of the total benefits
conferred on the class.  You may enter an appearance through your
own attorney by mailing a Notice of Appearance to the Clerk of the
Court, 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus, Ohio, 43215.  You should retain
all records and documents pertaining to this matter, including all
billing statements.  You should notify the attorneys representing
the class of any change in your address or e-mail address, by
sending an email to info@dukeclassaction.com.

ELECTION BY CLASS MEMBER

If you want to be excluded from this class, you must send a
written notice of your intent to exclude yourself from the class,
with your full name, social security number, current mailing
address, phone number, e-mail address, and a statement that you
wish to be excluded by mail postmarked no later than June 1, 2015
to: Williams v. Duke Energy, P.O. Box 10092, Dublin, OH, 43017-
6692.  If you send that notice, you will not share in any recovery
in this case, will not be bound by any judgment and will retain
any claims you may have against the defendants, subject to
applicable statutes of limitations.

Please contact the attorneys for the class at 1-844-322-8220.


DYNEGY INC: Trial to Begin July 27 in Duke Energy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, that trial has been set
to begin on July 27, 2015, in a class action lawsuit against Duke
Energy Ohio.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired with Duke Energy Retail to
provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large
business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements
in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy
Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March
2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. The
parties have agreed to mediation on March 31, 2015. Trial has been
set to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict
whether the Business will incur any liability or to estimate the
damages, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this
matter. Ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material
effect on the results of operations, cash flows or financial
position of the Business.


EDAP TMS: Dismissal of "Eaton" Class Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------
Edap TMS S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants,
including the Company, have filed a motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed by Mark Eaton.

On August 4, 2014, Mark Eaton filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting that the Company, Marc
Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer violated federal securities laws
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and
misleading statements about the Company's business operations and
prospects particularly concerning the Company's Ablatherm-HIFU PMA
file under review by the FDA that caused the price of Edap's
American Depository Receipts to be artificially inflated during
the period from February 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014.  On August 6,
2014, Ronnie Haddad filed a second purported class action lawsuit,
also in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, asserting similar claims.

On October 24, 2014, the related cases were consolidated by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that no longer included Mr. Soyer. The amended complaint
alleges that Edap and Mr. Oczachowski breached their obligations
under the Exchange Act in various ways, including by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose allegedly material
information about the safety and efficacy of treatment with
Ablatherm-HIFU, and the Company's interactions with the FDA.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, and fees,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

"On December 31, 2014, we accrued $250,000 (EUR206,000) as legal
costs to be incurred by the Company in relation to this
litigation," the Company said.

"On February 20, 2015, the defendants, including the Company,
filed a motion to dismiss the action. We cannot predict the
outcome of this motion to dismiss. We believe we have valid
defenses to this matter and intend to deny liability and defend
our position vigorously. We have notified our insurance carriers
of this litigation and no determination can be made at this stage
as to the likely outcome of the ongoing procedures and whether it
will be material to us. Therefore, no loss contingency beyond
legal costs of $250,000 has been booked with regard to this
matter."


ELECTRO RENT: Recognized Other Income From $1.4MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Electro Rent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that in the second
quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company recognized other income from a
$1.4 million settlement received as one of the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit involving the purchase of certain computer
products.


FACTORS GROUP: Recalls Melatonin Tablets Due to Mislabelling
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Posting date: May 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53437
Reason Depth of distribution Affected products
Recalled Products

Labelling error. Product label incorrectly states "Recommended
dosage (adults only): At or before bedtime, allow to dissolve
under the tongue 1-2 tablets once daily or as directed by the
physician". The tablet is intended to be swallowed, as the correct
recommended dosage is time released and not sublingual.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers, Retailers

Melatonin Extra Strength 5 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80032969
Dosage form: Timed release, Tablets
Strength: Melatonin 5 mg
Lot or serial number: 717975
                      719046
                      719047

Recalling Firm: Factors Group of Nutritional Companies Inc.
                1550 United Blvd.
                Coquitlam
                V3K 6Y7
                British Columbia
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: WN Pharmaceuticals Ltd
                                2000 Brigantine Drive
                                Coquitlam
                                V3K 7B5
                                British Columbia
                                CANADA


FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Hegab" Case Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the case Hegab v.
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and
allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers
under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed
without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been
certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed
to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis. On June 6, 2014,
the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved the
settlement on October 3, 2014. The Court granted final approval of
the settlement on March 9, 2015, for an amount not material to the
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Itterly" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company awaits
the decision by the Third Circuit in an appeal in the case Itterly
v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc.

Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was
formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania
Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly
classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.
Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed
summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was
properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court
granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is
now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellate
briefing has been concluded. The Third Circuit had preliminarily
scheduled oral argument on the appeal for January 22, 2015.
Subsequently, the Third Circuit canceled the oral argument,
indicating it would decide the appeal based on the pleadings. The
Company awaits the decision by the Third Circuit.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Interlocutory Petition
------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company
currently awaits ruling on its interlocutory petition for
appellate relief from the remand decision in the case, Premo v.
Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc.

Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in
Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for
alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26,
2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs
challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the
court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014,
the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief
from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit. In the interim, the Company filed its answer to
the lawsuit on May 13, 2014. The Company currently awaits the
Court's ruling on its motion.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered Scott Case to Insurance Carrier
-------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
Company has tendered the case, Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., to its Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the
Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as
a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial
court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider,
based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed
as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied
further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the
Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme
Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The
case is now back with the district court. On September 8, 2014,
the district court entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling
Plan and the parties will proceed with limited discovery pursuant
to those Orders.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will
participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the status of the case.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Chancery Court Denied Bid to Certify Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery has denied plaintiffs' application to certify an
appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the
Delaware Supreme Court.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub,
Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to
merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of
Chancery:

* Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
9985, filed on July 31, 2014,

* Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and

* Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10080, filed on September 3, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all
three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB.

Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges,
generally, that the members of the Family Dollar Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
pending Dollar Tree merger by, among other things, carrying out a
process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and
fair consideration to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs
further allege that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary
injunction enjoining the merger. On September 3, 2014, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate
its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar Board of
Directors to deem the terms of Dollar General's proposal
sufficient to warrant entering into negotiations with Dollar
General under the terms of the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a
hearing on September 10, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
concluded the temporary restraining order application did not
merit scheduling a hearing to consider such relief, and declined
to do so. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014,
the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On December
24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application in the Delaware
Court of Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of
preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which
application the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2,
2015. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to
the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these
lawsuits.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Case in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the case Reginald
Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is in the discovery
stage of litigation.

On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly
situated, received Short Message Service ("SMS") text message
advertisements from the Company, without providing express written
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has requested the court enter an order
certifying the action as a class action, and appointing him as
representative of the class. Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in
favor of himself, and the proposed class, for all damages
available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 -
$1,500 per willful violation.

The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The Company moved
to bifurcate discovery, thus limiting initial discovery to the
individual named plaintiff, Reginald Moore. After a hearing on the
issue, the judge ruled in favor of the Company and issued an order
limiting initial discovery to Mr. Moore's individual TCPA claim.
The parties are moving forward with initial discovery related to
Mr. Moore's TCPA claim only.

The case against the Company is in the discovery stage of
litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations
contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary
status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may result from this case.


FAMILY FIRST: Faces "Burton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lysa Burton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Family First Caregivers, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00984
(N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Family First Caregivers, LLC is a company that provides personal
and home care services to the greater Cleveland Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Horvath, Esq.
      Ste. 155, 7100 East Pleasant Valley Road
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 986-0860
      Facsimile: (216) 986-0860
      E-mail: djhorvath@hotmail.com


FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Steering
Units affected: 3349
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015196TC
ID number: 2015196
Manufacturer recall number: 15S17

On certain vehicles, the intermediate shaft may have been
improperly riveted during manufacturing. An improperly riveted
intermediate shaft could separate from the intermediate shaft flex
coupling, which could result in a loss of steering control without
warning, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the
intermediate shaft, and replace if required.

   Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----        ----------------------
   FORD        F150         2015


FRANK SANTO: "Gati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole M. Gati and Alicia A. Angle v. Frank Santo, LLC d/b/a Santo
Salon & Spa, Case No. 1:15-cv-00985 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Frank Santo, LLC owns and operates a beauty salon and spa doing
business within the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart G. Torch, Esq.
      ELFVIN, BESSER, ROYER & TORCH
      4070 Mayfield Road
      Cleveland, OH 44121
      Telephone: (216) 382-2500
      Facsimile: (216) 381-0250
      E-mail: stuart.torch@elfvinbesser.com


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 14, 2015
Posting date: May 15, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53435

Potential Bacterial contamination. Fresenius Medical Care Canada
expanded recall to include all lots manufactured in 2014.

Depth of distribution: Hospitals, Homecare programs, Homecare
patients

Naturalyte Sodium Bicarbonate Liquid Concentrate
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02230083
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Sodium bicarbonate 81.25 g / L
Lot or serial number: All lots manufactured in 2014 that begin
                      with:
                           14DMLB
                           14EMLB
                           14HMLB
                           14JMLB
                           14KMLB
                           14LMLB
                           14NMLB
                           14PMLB
                           14SMLB

Recalling Firm: Fresenius Medical Care Canada Inc.
               45 Staples Avenue, Suite 110
               Richmond Hill
               L4B 4W6
               Ontario
               CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Fresenius Medical Care Canada
                                Inc.
                                45 Staples Avenue, Suite 110
                                Richmond Hill
                                L4B 4W6
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Investigates Potential Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bailey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
operator of a popular adult dating website on May 22 said it's
investigating a potential security breach, following reports that
hackers stole names, email addresses and information about the
sexual preferences of up to 4 million members.

Britain's Channel 4 news outlet reported that hackers posted some
of the information on an obscure website after stealing account
data from the operator of AdultFriendFinder.com, which claims 64
million members worldwide use its service to "hook up, find sex or
meet someone hot now."

FriendFinder Networks, the Silicon Valley company that operates
the service, said in a statement that it hired a prominent cyber-
security firm to investigate and is telling members to update
their user names and passwords.  It said it is also temporarily
blocking attempts to search for user profiles by "any users we
believe were affected by the security issue."

Tech blogger Bev Robb reported earlier that it was possible to
identify some users and glean potentially embarrassing information
based on apparently stolen data that was posted on a website
frequented by other hackers.

Without confirming any details about the apparent breach,
FriendFinder Networks said it had no information that any users'
financial information was leaked.  But the statement, posted on
its corporate website, added that, "until the investigation is
completed, it will be difficult to confirm the full scope of the
incident."

FriendFinder Networks operates a number of online sites and dating
services aimed at different audiences, including Amigos.com,
BigChurch.com and SeniorFriendFinder.com, although there has been
no indication that information has leaked from its other sites.
The company also says it licenses the Penthouse brand and
publishes magazines.

"The security of our members' information remains our top
priority," the company said.  It has hired the Mandiant response
division of cyber-security company FireEye, which has previously
investigated a number of high-profile breaches in recent months.
A FireEye spokesman confirmed the company investigating but
declined further comment.


FT MYERS LODGE: "Popoli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaye Popoli, on her own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Ft. Myers Lodge #1899 Loyal Order of Moose, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00311-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ft. Myers Lodge #1899 Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. owns and operates
restaurants, bars, and racetracks in Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


GANNETT CO: Removed "Driggers" Class Suit to N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Barbara J. Driggers,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Gannett Co., Inc., Gannett Satellite Info Network, Ithaca Journal,
and Elmira Star-Gazette, Case No. 0206-3292593, was removed from
the New York State Supreme Court, Tompkins County to the U.S.
District Court Northern District of New York (Syracuse). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00604-GLS-ATB to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward E. Kopko, Esq.
      OFFICE OF EDWARD E. KOPKO
      308 N. Tioga Street, 2nd Floor
      Ithaca, NY 14850
      Telephone: (607) 269-1300
      Facsimile: (607) 269-1301
      E-mail: eek@kopkolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Howard M. Wexler, Esq.
      SEYFARTH, SHAW LAW FIRM
      620 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018-1405
      Telephone: (212) 218-5500
      Facsimile: (917) 344-1314
      E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that a Michigan man and a California man
are suing a major vehicle manufacturer over allegations the design
of its trucks' engines are defective and the company didn't tell
consumers prior to them purchasing the vehicles.

Kenneth Dzieciolowski of Macomb, Mich., and Rene Anthony Acedo of
Fullerton, Calif., filed the lawsuit on Jan. 14 in the Superior
Court of California County of Los Angeles against General Motors
Co. brand DMAX, Ltd. claiming the DMAX diesel engine design is
defective causing a reduction in fuel efficiency. The defendant
removed the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 2. Isuzu is also a defendant in
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit said in 1998 GM and Isuzu created DMAX, Ltd. in order
to increase GM's share of the heavy-duty truck market. The lawsuit
said Duramax motors are solely supplied by DMAX for GM trucks. The
lawsuit claims the motors generate soot and other solids that are
filtered through a "diesel particulate filter (DPF)" exhaust
system.

However, the DPF is "relatively far downstream from the engine's
exhaust manifold," the lawsuit said, which means the exhaust fumes
might not be hot enough to clean out the DPF. If the truck is
driven at slow speed for a longer period of time, a light will
appear on the dashboard telling the driver to drive at a faster
speed in order to heat up the exhaust and clean the DPF, the suit
said.

The lawsuit also claims GM attempted to solve the cooling issue
through regeneration, which causes the engine speed to increase
and heat up the gases. This, however, causes a reduction in fuel
economy by 25 to 30 percent, the plaintiffs claim. Dzieciolowski
said his vehicle has been out of service more than 35 days as a
result of the regeneration problem.

The plaintiffs claim they weren't told about the regeneration or
the possible cooling problem prior to purchasing their vehicles.
They are seeking class action status for those who purchased GM
trucks with the Duramax diesel engines. They are also seeking an
unspecified amount of damages plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Ridout and Caleb
Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach, Calif.;
Shafiel A. Karim of the Law Office of Shafiel A. Karim in
Cerritos, Calif.; and Sandesh K. Viswanath of The Skv Firm, PLC of
Southfield, Mich.


GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Vam Acker, writing for Law360, reported that android users
accusing Google Inc. of handing over their personal information to
app developers without permission have attempted to shoehorn a new
argument about the value of their data into the case to avoid
dismissal, the company said in California federal court.

After the plaintiffs told the court that Google's motion to
dismiss the case ignored "the proverbial elephant in the room,"
namely the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Robertson v. Facebook Inc.,
Google responded that the plaintiffs should have raised that
argument nearly a year ago.


HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Omega 3 Capsules Due to Mislabelling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53441

Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label.

Depth of distribution: Retail

Omega 3 Huile Poisson 1000 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
No market authorization
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 1000 mg
Lot or serial number: Unknown

Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins
                378 Chemin des jardins
                Beaumont
                G0R 1C0
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A


HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Garcinia Cambogia Capsules
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53445

Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label.

Depth of distribution: Retail

Garcinia Cambogia
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
No market authorization
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Garcinia Cambogia 500 mg
          Hydroxycitric acid 60%
Lot or serial number: Unknown

Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins
                378 Chemin des jardins
                Beaumont
                G0R 1C0
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A


HERBES DES JARDINS: Recalls Queue Cerise Capsules
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53443

Unauthorized product presenting a false NPN on the label.

Depth of distribution: Retail

Queue cerise
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
No market authorization
Dosage form: Capsule

Strength: 450 mg
Lot or serial number: Unknown

Recalling Firm: Herbes des jardins
                378 Chemin des jardins
                Beaumont
                G0R 1C0
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: N/A


HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Metcalf, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reported that a
preliminary $5 million settlement has been reached in a class-
action lawsuit pitting individual property owners in the master-
planned Mariposa community in Rio Rancho against the project's
original developer, High Desert Investment, and Albuquerque
Academy.

A key element of the preliminary settlement is that, more than
likely, it will have to be approved by all property owners covered
by the class action. If not unanimously approved, defendants High
Desert and the academy have the option to withdraw from the
settlement.

"The case will go back to court to be litigated," said Richard
Alvidrez of Miller Stratvert, the law firm representing High
Desert.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 after High Desert, the for-profit
arm of the nonprofit Albuquerque Academy, announced it was
withdrawing as developer of High Desert, a mostly residential
community that was still in its early stages when the housing
bubble burst.

The lawsuit was filed in response to the withdrawal, alleging
breach of contract, unfair practices, negligence and violations of
the state Constitution. The essence of the allegations is that
affected owners lost money on their property investments due to
the actions of High Desert and Albuquerque Academy.

From 225 to 235 individuals and households who purchased their
property on or before June 20, 2012, are covered by the class
action, said plaintiffs' lawyer Christopher Bauman of Bauman, Dow
& Le¢n PC.

"We have to give the class members an opportunity to accept the
settlement, reject portions or all of it, or opt out," he said.
"We will send out notices directly to those class members we've
identified. . . ."

The preliminary settlement, which was reached through mediation,
was approved by District Court Judge James L. Sanchez in Valencia
County. Both Valencia and Sandoval County, where Mariposa is
located, are in the state's 13th Judicial District.

As outlined in the judge's order, unanimous approval of the
settlement is important because, by signing off on the agreement,
the property owners are basically giving up the right to sue High
Desert and Albuquerque Academy on their own.

A "final fairness hearing" on the preliminary settlement was set
for May 27 at the county courthouse in Los Lunas.

The active development portion of the original 6,500-acre
Mariposa, about 800 acres sometimes called Mariposa East, was
repossessed by lenders and sold last fall  to current owner
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Harvard Investments.


HOME LOAN SERVICING: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three
putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015;
(ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No.
15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm
Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.,
et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015.
These three lawsuits are collectively referred to as the "New York
Actions."

The Company said, "The New York Actions name as defendants HLSS,
former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President,
and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief
Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The New York Actions assert
causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by
the Company relating to our relationship with Ocwen. These actions
allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among
other things, the extent of HLSS's dependence on Ocwen,
information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's
business practices, and the Company's own purportedly inadequate
internal controls. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
New York Actions."


HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trey Garrison, writing for Housing Wire, reported that HSBC and
Assurant Inc. agreed to pay $1.8 million to put an end to a class
action lawsuit that alleged the bank took kickbacks for steering
some 11,000 consumers into inflated flood insurance contracts.

The arrangement, which needs a Colorado federal court's approval,
would put an end to a lawsuit that alleges that HSBC intentionally
herded consumers to unnecessary and onerous coverage levels when
force placing homeowners whose coverage had lapsed into flood-
insurance policies.

In turn, the lawsuit alleges, HSBC would receive from Assurant's
American Security Insurance a substantial kickback.

The deal, if approved, would bar HSBC from ordering insurance for
customers at a higher level than necessary when their policy
lapsed. It would return about 90% of HSBC's commissions to the
customers.

"The proposed settlement returns approximately 90% of the
commissions that were paid to the HSBC defendants in connection
with [lender-placed flood insurance] placed during the class
period, provides an excellent recovery for settlement class
members, and is plainly adequate under the governing standards for
evaluating class action settlements in this circuit," the
plaintiffs wrote in their motion for approval.

This is not the first time American Security Insurance or Assurant
have gotten in trouble over force placed insurance practices. In
2012 American Security Insurance reached an agreement with the
California Department of Insurance to reduce premiums charged on
lender placed insurance by 30.5%.

In 2013, New York state regulators and Assurant reached a
settlement over force place insurance policies. The insurer agreed
to pay a $14 million civil penalty, while giving refunds to some
borrowers.

Force placed, or lender placed, insurance is a controversial
subject. It pulls big players such as Bank of America into big
fights. Force place policies are typically taken out by banks or
other lenders on homes where the owner does not have sufficient or
any coverage.

While it is a necessary function in many instances, the charge for
the service often draws ire. Other servicers have run afoul of
regulators and analysts for questionable force placed practices.

Last year the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a
five-point checklist for servicers on how to deal with force
placing insurance.

Both defendants and plaintiffs said in January that they were
close to reaching an agreement that would settle the case in
Colorado, as well as another class action in New York, according
to legal coverage of the case.

The homeowners who brought the Colorado lawsuit alleged that HSBC
chose levels of insurance coverage that were costlier and more
comprehensive that required when homeowners' policies lapsed.
In the New York lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that HSBC imposed force
placed insurance policies with loss limits exceeding the
outstanding mortgage balance.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of iDreamSky
Technology Limited ("iDreamSky" or the "Company") between August
8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive, including those investors
who acquired iDreamSky ADSs pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering ("IPO") commenced on or about August 7, 2014
(collectively, the "Class Period") alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

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

If you want more information about the iDreamSky Class Action,
contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com

iDreamSky licenses and operates single player mobile games and
mobile online games in the People's Republic of China.

The Complaint alleges that iDreamSky made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about its business, operations, prospects, and performance.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that iDreamSky failed to
disclose that the company had overstated its ability to monetize
its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels.
On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, iDreamSky lowered its
revenue guidance for fourth quarter 2014 approximately by $9.9
million USD to approximately $53 million USD. According to the
company, the revision of fourth quarter guidance is the result of
the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the company's
distribution platforms, and lower than anticipated revenues from
another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on
the same distribution platform.

Following this news, American Depositary Shares of iDreamSky fell
$3.60, or over 33%, to close at $7.22 per share.

                    About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors
are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer
protection and always fight "for the people."


IKEA CANADA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates Due to Tripping Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53309

This recall involves the PATRULL KLAMMA and the PATRULL SMIDIG
metal safety gates with a date stamp 1510 (YYWW- Year & Week) or
earlier. They are white, pressure mounted adjustable safety gates
made of steel and plastic, and designed to be installed between
the two sides of the door frame to hold the gate in place.  A
permanent label is attached to the metal bar at the bottom of the
safety gate containing the article number and date stamp.

The following safety gates are recalled:

  Model                  Overall       Colour    Article Number
  -----                  Dimensions    -------   --------------
                         ----------
PATRULL SMIDIG N safety  72.5-86.0 cm  white     50191950
gate
PATRULL SMIDIG N safety  72.5-87.5 cm  white     50037567
gate
PATRULL SMIDIG safety    70-85 cm      white     65551710
gate
PATRULL SMIDIG N safety  72.5-87.5 cm  white     70098965
gate
PATRULL SMIDIG safety    72.5-86.0 cm  white     90113601
gate
PATRULL SMIDIG N safety  6.5-13.5 cm   white     10037060
extension gate
PATRULL SMIDIG safety    6.5-13.5 cm   white     30191951
extension gate
PATRULL SMIDIG safety    15 cm         white     45548610
extension gate
PATRULL SMIDIG N safety  6.5-13.5 cm   white     50098966
extension gate
PATRULL SMIDIG safety    30 cm         white     85569610
extension gate
PATRULL KLAMMA safety    73-87 cm      white     30226521
gate
PATRULL KLAMMA safety    6.5-13 cm     white     90226523
extension gate

The friction between the wall and the pressure-mounted safety gate
is insufficient to hold the gate in its intended position, posing
a fall hazard. The safety gate is not intended to be used at the
top of stairs.  In addition, the lower metal bar can be a tripping
hazard.

IKEA has received 18 incidents worldwide, including 4 in Canada,
with serious injuries reported for Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

Approximately 17,035 of the PATRULL KLAMMA and PATRULL SMIDIG
safety gates were sold in Canada and approximately 58,000 were
sold in the United States.
The recalled safety gates were sold in Canada and in the United
States from August 1995 to February 2015.

Manufactured in Denmark.

Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
             Burlington
             Ontario
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1blVy1


ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJStar.com reported that the U.S.'s first prep sports governing
body to face a class-action concussions lawsuit has asked an
Illinois judge to dismiss the suit, arguing that if it prevails,
it could kill football programs statewide.

In its 16-page motion filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the
Illinois High School Association says it and its 800 member
schools have been proactive about improving head-injury management
for the 50,000 football players they oversee each year.

The motion calls the suit "a misguided effort that threatens high
school football."

The filing is the first full response to the lawsuit -- filed in
November and slightly amended in January -- that seeks court
supervision over how high schools manage head injuries. The IHSA
filed the response and provided a copy to The Associated Press.

The filing echoes IHSA Director Marty Hickman's previous comments
that court-imposed mandates could make football prohibitively
expensive for poorer schools, especially Chicago's public high
schools, and lead to "haves and have nots" in the sport.

Plaintiff attorney Joseph Siprut has said improving safety should
help football survive, not lead to its demise. He said football is
already in jeopardy because parents fearful of concussions are
refusing to let their kids play.

That's not the case at Metamora, where Pat Ryan has been coach for
25 seasons. He was on the IHSA's football advisory committee that
helped implement the current concussion protocol.

"We've got 140 kids signed up to play in the fall, which is the
most we've ever had, and I think the people of Woodford County are
as informed as anyone else on the subject," Ryan said. "We've made
a lot of positive changes. I think the lawsuit is mostly a money
grab for the attorneys."

College and professional football have faced a barrage of class-
action lawsuits in recent years. But the one that names the IHSA
as defendant is the first of its kind against a high school
football governing body.

The IHSA's new filing says it can't be compared to the cash-rich
NCAA and NFL. The IHSA has $10 million in yearly revenue to pay
for more than 40 sports and activities, and court-imposed mandates
could be financially crippling, it argues.

The suit doesn't ask for monetary damages. In addition to court
oversight, however, it seeks requirements that medical personnel
be at all games and practices. It also calls for the IHSA to pay
for medical testing of former high school players extending back
to 2002.

Notre Dame's Joe Walters has coached football in Illinois and
Texas.

"One of the things they want to do is put sensors that measure
impact in all the helmets, and I can see how that would be a
financial burden to some schools, and I don't think it's necessary
when you consider the procedures now in place," Walters said.

The lead plaintiff, named in the amended suit, is Alex
Pierscionek, a South Elgin High School lineman from 2010 to 2014.
He says he still suffers memory loss from concussions he received
at the suburban Chicago school, one of which led to him being
airlifted to an area hospital.


J-W WIRELINE: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Webber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. J-W Wireline Company, J-W Admin Company, J-W Energy
Company and FTS International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02084-ALM-
NMK (S.D. Ohio, May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for the hours worked over 40
each workweek.

J-W Wireline Company is a wireline and perforating company
providing oil and gas services throughout the United States.

J-W Admin Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of J-W Energy,
which provides payroll services to J-W Energy employees.

J-W Energy Company is an oil and gas energy development and
services company that operates throughout the United States.

FTS International, Inc. is a well completion and hydraulic
fracturing services company that operates internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAYCO: Recalls 446 Travel Trailers Over Defective Part
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 446
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015200TC
ID number: 2015200

On certain fifth wheel and travel trailers, the HSM Quad Steps
rivets that hold the steps together could loosen and fail. If the
rivets were to fail, the steps could collapse which could cause a
person to fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will
inspect and replace the rivets with stronger bolts.

    Make     Model                         Model year(s) affected
    ----     -----                         ----------------------
    JAYCO    PINNACLE FIFTH WHEEL TRAILER   2013, 2014
    JAYCO    EAGLE PREMIER FIFTH WHEEL      2013, 2014
             TRAILER
    JAYCO    SEISMIC FIFTH WHEEL TRAILER    2013, 2014


JEFFREY A. STEINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Petterson v. Jeffrey A. Steiner, MD, P.A., d/b/a
Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Centers and Dr. Jeffrey A. Steiner,
M.D, Case No. 0:15-cv-61049-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Florida corporation that provides
gastroenterology diagnostic treatment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Anthony Pancier, Esq.
      MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
      9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
      Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
      Telephone: (954) 862-2217
      Facsimile: (954) 862-2287
      E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com


LANDAU & ASSOCIATES: "McLeod" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia McLeod, and other similarly situated individuals v. Landau
& Associates, P.A. and Todd Landau, Case No. 0:15-cv-61043-JIC
(S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a law firm in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


LEAM DRILLING: S.D. Tex. Grants Certification in "McPherson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon of Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, granted defendants' motion in the case BRENT
McPHERSON, et al, Plaintiffs, v. LEAM DRILLING SYSTEMS, LLC, et
al, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-02361 (S.D. Tex.)

Plaintiff Brent McPherson was employed by LEAM Drilling Systems,
LLC and REME, LLC during the past 3 years. McPherson alleges
MWD/LWD Field Operators ("MWDs") employed by defendants regularly
work more than 80 hours in a week but do not receive overtime.
Plaintiff pursued an action against the defendants for unpaid
overtime based on alleged misclassification of nonexempt employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. He seeks to represent
a class consisting of "All MWD/LWD Field Operators employed by
LEAM DRILLING SYSTEMS, LLC and REME, LLC during the past 3 years."

Defendants admitted that they did not pay MWDs overtime because
the MWDs were properly classified as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Nonetheless, defendants have since
reclassified the MWDs as entitled to overtime. Defendants filed a
motion for conditional certification.

Judge Harmon granted defendants' motion for conditional
certification and within 10 days from the entry of order,
defendants shall disclose to plaintiff the names, last known
addresses, email addresses if available, and telephone numbers of
all current and former drillers and operators employed by LEAM
Drilling Systems, LLC and REME, LLC within the last three years
from the date of the order.

A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated March 30, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/OZNpxkfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Michael A Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Lindsay Rae Itkin, Esq.
FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
1150 Bissonnet Street
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: 888-713-5452

     - and -

Richard J Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza #1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788

     - and -

David Tarrant Bright, Esq.
SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH, LLP
802 N Carancahua St #900
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: 361-653-3300

LEAM Drilling Systems, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stefanie R
Moll -- smoll@morganlewis.com -- Ronald E Manthey --
ron.manthey@morganlewis.com -- Thomas Cullen Wallace --
twallace@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockus LLP

REME, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stefanie R Moll --
smoll@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockus LLP


LFC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Mendoza, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. LFC Management Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01729-L
(N.D. Tex., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

LFC Management Services, Inc. owns and operates a management
services company in Dallas County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


LIFE PARTNERS: Life Settlements Are Securities, Texas Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Texas Supreme Court bolstered lawsuits by the state and a group of
investors against Life Partners by ruling life settlements are
securities subject to the Texas Securities Act and not mere life
insurance contracts.  The unanimous ruling May 8 two appeals court
rulings that fractional interests in life insurance policies are
investment contracts.

A panel with the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Austin in 2014
affirmed an earlier ruling by the 5th District Court of Appeals in
Dallas that the life settlements do not qualify for an exception
for insurance policies.

A putative class of investors sued the company in Dallas County
Court in 2011 for securities fraud, while Texas filed a separate
lawsuit in Travis County Court.

Writing for the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd
adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of an investment
contract, which requires a person to expect profits "solely from
the efforts" of a promoter or third party.

"We hold that the agreements at issue are investment contracts
because they constitute transactions through which a person pays
money to participate in a common enterprise with the expectation
of receiving profits, under circumstances in which the failure or
success of the enterprise and the person's realization of the
expected profits is at least predominately due to the
entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others," the 40-page
opinion stated.

Life Partners argued their agreements are not securities because
the failure or success of the investment does not rely on the
company's efforts.  The high court disagreed, stating an
investor's realization of expected profits "is at least
predominately due to the entrepreneurial or managerial, rather
than merely ministerial or clerical, efforts of others."

The opinion noted Life Partners identifies insureds to buy
policies from by predicting their remaining lifespan; the life
settlement purchaser only fails to profit if the insured dies
beyond Life Partners' prediction.

Boyd was not persuaded by Life Partners' argument that the TSA's
protections are unnecessary when the "entrepreneurial or
managerial efforts" happen before the transaction and their value
is included in the purchase price.

"We reject the argument that only post-purchase conduct should
determine whether these pre-purchase protections apply," the
opinion stated.  "We agree that the Act's disclosure requirements
provide protection if the purchaser relies predominately on the
entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others to receive the
anticipated profit, rather than on market forces or on the
purchaser's own efforts, even if those efforts occur before the
sale."

Based in Waco, Life Partners said it engaged in 162,000
transactions in connection with the purchase of 6,500 policies
worth $3.2 billion in face value.  It did not immediately respond
to a request for comment May 12.

Its parent company, Life Partners Holdings, filed for bankruptcy
protection in January after the SEC was awarded $46 million from
the company.  The agency sued in Austin Federal Court in January
2012, claiming certain officers made $11.8 million by selling
their stock at prices inflated by the company's systematic
underestimation of life expectancy "to generate revenues."

A federal jury cleared the company and its officers on fraud and
insider trading allegations in February 2014, but concluded it had
misstated its books, records and revenue recognition policy.

Texas State Securities Board spokesman Robert Elder said May 8 the
board was "pleased" with the court's ruling that "clarifies and
affirms the scope" of the TSA.

The cases are:

   (1) Life Partners, Inc. and Milkie/Ferguson Investment, Inc.,
       Petitioners v. Michael Arnold, Janet Arnold, Steve South
       as Trustee and on Behalf of the South Living Trust, John
       S. Ferris, M.D., Christine Duncan, and all others
       similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 14-0122, in the
       Supreme Court of Texas.  The case was on petition for
       review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
       Texas; and

   (2) Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Life Partners, Inc., Brian.
       D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden, Advance Trust & Life Escrow
       Services, L.T.A., and Purchase Escrow Services, LLC,
       Petitioners v. State of Texas, Respondent,
       Case No. 14-0226, in the Supreme Court of Texas.  The case
       was on petition for review from the Court of Appeals for
       the Third District of Texas.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Not Keeping Appraisal Confidential
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles County's assessor
fails to keep appraisal information confidential, in violation of
state law, a class action claims in Superior Court.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roth" Suit in La. Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Roth, Dionne Vanardo, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01692 (E.D. La., May 19, 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 is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jim S. Hall, Esq.
      Joseph W. Rausch, Esq.
      JIM S. HALL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      800 N. Causeway Blvd., #100
      Metairie, LO 70001
      Telephone: (504) 832-3000
      Facsimile: (504) 832-1799
      E-mail: jim@jimshall.com
              joe@jimshall.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Quits Amid Laminate Flooring Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chapman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Lumber Liquidators CEO Robert Lynch has quit the company that is
embroiled in an investigation over products imported from China.

The company said Lynch resigned "unexpectedly" and declined to
provide more details on the resignation when asked by The
Associated Press.

The company said that it had suspended the sale of all laminate
flooring made in China after disclosing that the Justice
Department is seeking criminal charges against it.  At the time
Lumber Liquidators said that it decided to suspend the sales while
a board committee completes a review of its sourcing compliance
program.

The CBS news show "60 Minutes" first reported in March that the
Chinese-made laminate flooring contained high levels of the
carcinogen formaldehyde.

Lumber Liquidators has sent thousands of free air testing kits to
customers since early March.  It has said that more than 97
percent of the kits from customers with laminate flooring from
China showed formaldehyde air concentrations that fell within
World Health Organization guidelines.  The company has said that
it has stopped buying Chinese laminate flooring for now, opting
instead for products from parts of Europe and North America.

Mr. Lynch, who also served as president and a director, was in the
CEO position since January 2012, according to CapitalIQ.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. said that its founder,
Thomas Sullivan, will take over as acting CEO while the Toano,
Virginia-based company searches for a replacement.  The company
also announced that lead independent director John Presley was
named nonexecutive chairman.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Dec. 1 Jury Trial Set in Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 3, 2015, that the Court set a jury trial for December 1,
2015, in the putative class action securities litigation.

On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
et al., No. SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common
stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21,2012. The complaint
generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and
directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the
price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through
stock sales. The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of
its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Exchange
Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for
indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale
and use of Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome,
reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's
outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief
against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with
four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the
caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG
(FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, Questcor filed an answer
to the consolidated amended complaint. Discovery is currently
ongoing. The Court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015.


MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 14, 2015
Posting date: May 14, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53335

This recall involves a toy called JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze.
JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze is a solvent mixture which comes in a
variety of colours and within the ooze is a plastic dinosaur
fossil. Children can stretch the ooze with their hands.  They can
also insert the blow tube provided into the ooze and blow, causing
the ooze to inflate like a balloon.

The toy has the Item Number: 1735 and UPC code: 075656017351.

Testing by Health Canada has determined that this product contains
organic solvents. Children's balloon blowing kits that contain
organic solvents are prohibited in Canada. The safety concern is
that blowing the balloons exposes a child to inhaling the vapours
present in the solvents. Children can be fascinated with these
products, and if they blow balloons for extended periods they may
experience early symptoms of central nervous system depression or
dysfunction, including euphoria, hallucinations, dizziness, and
difficulties with coordination of voluntary movements. Prolonged
exposure can lead to more serious symptoms including muscular
twitching, unconsciousness, and coma.

Health Canada, retailer Carlton Cards, and distributor Master Toys
have not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries
related to the use of this particular balloon blowing kit.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 471 of the JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze balloon
blowing kits were sold at Carlton Card locations across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from October 28, 2014 to March 30,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: JA-RU Inc.
              Jacksonville
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Master Toys Inc.
             Vernon
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take all solvent products that may be
inflated into a balloon, no matter where purchased, away from
children. Consumers may return JA-RU's Dino World Dino Ooze to
local Carlton Cards stores for a full refund, or if the consumer
prefers, dispose of the product in regular household trash in such
a way that the toy cannot be reused.

For more information, consumers may contact retailer Carlton Cards
by telephone at 1-800-333-6724. Retailers may contact distributor
Master Toys by telephone at 1-323-582-8881.

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

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

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


MCDIVA INC: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Juarez, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. McDiva, Inc., a/k/a
Oviedo Too, Inc., d/b/a McDonalds, Virginia Ojeda, and Michael
Ojeda, Case No. 1:15-cv-04392 (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a franchise of a worldwide fast
food restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Ted Roelofs, writing for Bridge Magazine, reported that one said
he was raped in a shower. Another said he was tied down by a
bunkmate and sodomized. Still others said they were forced into
oral sex, or had their genitals squeezed by prison guards, male
and female.

They were inmates thrown into Michigan prisons at 17 or even
younger, a practice with predictable risks. Once inside, they said
they were sexually taunted by adult prisoners and guards and raped
by men far older and more powerful than themselves. One noted that
when his cellmate was done with him, he was handed over to other
prisoners for a bag of beef sticks and chips. When the teenagers
reported attacks, they said prison guards laughed at their
torment, or did nothing.

Bridge has obtained exclusive access to testimony from all seven
teenage inmates originally named in a lawsuit against the Michigan
Department of Corrections. Their testimony, outlined in raw video
depositions, chronicles dozens of assaults across 10 Michigan
prisons, nearly a decade after state prison officials vowed to
protect young inmates from sexual assault.

The allegations, if true, raise serious questions about the
competence of state corrections officials under multiple Michigan
governors. They also raise the prospect of another large payout by
a state that, just six years ago, agreed to pay $100 million to
settle a case involving the sexual assault of female inmates by
prison guards.

The accounts are notable for their grim consistency. The
similarity of the testimony -- given at different times, in
different places, by teens who did not know one another -- raise a
profound challenge to the state's defense that the rapes were
invented. That defense may be further strained by 200 additional
young inmates cited in the class-action suit, who say they were
harmed, sexually or otherwise, by the state's policy (since
halted) of housing 17 year olds with adult prisoners.

Inaction by guards

In the depositions reviewed by Bridge, along with interviews with
some of the inmates, the teens portray Michigan prisons as a
hothouse of sexual predation and menace literally from the moment
they entered. Far from protecting their young charges, corrections
officers were indifferent to teens' complaints or simply amused by
the danger they faced. As the teenager known as John Doe 1
described it, he was sure guards knew about the stream of
predators entering his cell "because they would make a joke about
me getting visitors and call me fag."

Cells weren't the only danger zone. The teens told of rapes in
showers, bathrooms, laundry rooms and broom closets. One said he
had to request extra underwear because of rectal bleeding.
Another recounted a desperate struggle at Earnest C. Brooks
Correctional Facility near Muskegon to keep from being turned on
his stomach as a 6-foot-4, 230-pound prisoner in his 40s raped him
from behind. He was 5-foot-8 and 148 pounds.

"He was older than me, bigger than me, and he could fight way
better than me. He got the better hand in the fight," the inmate
testified. Afterward, he said, a guard remarked to him, "I heard
you got f----d."

Another teen said he told prison officials he was raped by two
men. He put his safety further at risk by identifying the
perpetrators. He said he never heard back.

The plaintiffs say correction officers did more than tolerate the
sexual taunts directed at the teens by older prisoners -- a
practice known as "slipping." Several inmates recounted how male
and female guards added their own layer of abuse by squeezing the
inmates' genitals, often to the amusement of other guards or
prisoners.

When one plaintiff complained after being groped by guards, he
said a guard "threatened to Tase me and take me to the hole" (an
isolation cell) if he took it further.

The Michigan Attorney General's Office, which is defending the
lawsuit, and the Michigan Department of Corrections say they have
found no evidence that any of the reported sexual assaults took
place.

Andrea Bitely, press secretary for Attorney General Bill Schuette,
told Bridge the office does not comment on ongoing cases.
Corrections spokesman Chris Gautz said the department is
"confident the assertions made in the lawsuit are false," but
declined further comment.

In court, the state has raised questions about the credibility of
the plaintiffs, and in one instance derided the suggestion that
the teenagers sent to Michigan prisons are young innocents.

"I know for emotional grab it's important to say things like
'children' and 'little kids' and stuff like that," an attorney for
Schuette's office said at a hearing last year. "If you look at
their records, these are people who have been convicted of first-
degree murder, multiple armed robberies, sexual assaults,
tortures, carjackings, kidnapping; these are not minor events."

Debate over what was known

The sexual assaults took place between 2010 and 2013, the suit
said. Through most of that period, Michigan routinely integrated
17-year-olds into the general prison population.

The state did not complete its effort to segregate inmates 17 and
younger until August 2013, one year after federal guidelines
called for juveniles to be separated by "sight and sound" from
adults. States that don't follow that standard can lose 5 percent
of their funding for prisons. Deborah LaBelle, a lawyer for the
teens, contends that in the year it took the state to separate
juveniles from adults, adult prisoners committed an additional 40
assaults.

Today, the youngest Michigan prison inmates are now in a wing of
the Thumb Correctional Facility east of Flint.

Michigan prison spokesman Gautz said the department began
providing sexual assault prevention educational material to all
incoming prisoners as early as 2007.

Indeed, signs through the prison system proclaim in black in white
that Michigan has "zero tolerance" for harassment or abuse of
prisoners by either staff or prisoners, as does official prison
policy.

But Brenda Smith, a law professor at the Washington College of Law
at American University in Washington D.C. and former member of
federal Prison Rape Elimination Commission, said it takes more
than words and documents to effect change.

Given the lawsuit's assertion that guards often turned a blind eye
to complaints or signs of abuse, Smith questioned how seriously
Michigan prison officials have taken this issue.

"Actions speak louder than words," said Smith, who directs the
school's Project on Addressing Prison Rape.

But while the lawsuit portrays an out-of-control prison
environment, Patricia Caruso, who was director of the Michigan
prison system from 2003 to 2011, said that image does not mesh
with her recollection of how the prison system operated.

"I am never going to say those things don't happen, but they are
not the norm," Caruso said. "I do know that people don't always
tell the truth, people on both sides of the law."

Caruso declined to comment of the specifics of the class-action
lawsuit. But she said it does not make sense for prison staff to
tolerate a chaotic environment rife with abuse. "Staff benefits
from a safely run system. It doesn't make sense to behave that
way, it just doesn't."

At the same time, she added, "When I was a director, I said that
juveniles don't belong in the (adult) system, and they don't."
She won't get much argument on that point from one University of
Michigan law professor.

Margo Schlanger, who helped craft federal policy protecting
juveniles from adult prisoners, said the state's tactics in
aggressively defending the claims could backfire if the case goes
to a jury.

The teenage inmates in the current suit have a lot in common with
the female prisoners in the earlier case, she said; namely,
multiple inmates telling remarkably similar stories.

"Especially when they don't know each other," Schlanger said. "As
a juror, it's corroborating evidence when multiple people have the
same testimony."

The research was clear

Lawyers for the young inmates, many of whom also represented the
female inmates in the earlier lawsuit, argue that state prison
officials have known for more than a decade that teen offenders
need added protection.

"Youth become prey in prisons if you put them in with adults,"
said LaBelle, whose Ann Arbor firm is one of four representing the
teenage prisoners.

Back in 2004, two Michigan Department of Corrections officials
shared a PowerPoint slide show with department staff. One slide
warned that preventing prison rape is a "matter of national
priority" and that teens in adult prisons were "five times more
likely to be raped."

"They knew that," LaBelle said. "And for 10 years, they flung
youth in adult prisons and housed youth with adult prisoners in
the same cells and did not take steps to protect them."

The lawsuit contends the victimized prisoners were further
hampered by a grievance procedure that discouraged complaints.

According to the suit, the young inmates were advised that before
they could file a grievance there had to be a consultation with
the prisoner being accused of assault. Complying with the
procedure placed the teens "in grave danger," the suit maintains.

The plaintiffs also point to a number of national studies had show
mixing prisoners 17 and younger with adult prisoners is a
combustible blend:

   "A 1989 study in the Juvenile & Family Court Journal found that
juveniles in adult prison were five times more likely to be
sexually assaulted than if they were in a juvenile facility and
nearly twice as likely to be beaten by staff. Nearly one-third of
juveniles in prison reported they had been attacked by a weapon,
compared with less than a fourth in a juvenile facility."

In 2001, Human Rights Watch issued a 378-page report, "No Escape:
Male Rape in U.S. Prisons," that included widespread accounts of
rape in prisons across the United States, including men coerced
into sex while guards stood by, and some inmates forced into
virtual sex slavery.

In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA),
aimed in part at protecting juvenile prisoners from sexual
assault. It established a commission to issue recommendations and
in 2009, it released a report estimating that 60,000 U.S. inmates
were assaulted each year.

The 2009 report warned that juveniles were especially vulnerable.

"More than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth
incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for
sexual abuse," the report stated.

Punk prison

How did Michigan become so bullish on sending young offenders to
adult prisons?

The push began in the 1980s, with a rise nationally in juvenile
crime. In 1988, Michigan's Legislature approved a measure giving
prosecutors more authority to charge teens as young as 15 as
adults for a short list of crimes, including first-degree murder.


In the 1990s, Gov. John Engler called for even tougher measures
for "punks," as public anxiety grew over juvenile crime. Those
fears were stoked by warnings from analysts like Princeton
University political science professor John DiIulio, who issued an
alarming forecast in 1995 about the impending rise of the youth
"superpredator."

In 1996, Engler signed a measure removing any minimum age that a
juvenile could be tried as an adult and giving prosecutors the
power to automatically charge juveniles as young as 14 as an adult
for 18 offenses. According to a University of Michigan study, the
number of juveniles in Michigan prisons nearly quadrupled in a
decade, from 54 in 1988 to 202 in 1998.

But the "superpredator" juvenile crime wave never materialized, as
U.S. violent juvenile crime peaked in 1994 and fell by 48 percent
between 1994 and 2003. That year, according to the U.S. Department
of Justice, the violent juvenile arrest rate stood at its lowest
level since 1980. In Michigan, juvenile violent arrests fell by
more than half from 1994 to 2002. DiIulio later recanted his
theory.

In the years since, child advocates point to research showing that
putting juveniles in adult prison only increases the chances they
will commit another crime when they get out.

"Adult prisons are not equipped to deal with the needs of
juveniles," said Kristen Staley, associate director of the
Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency a Lansing-based advocacy
group. "They have different developmental needs."

A 2007 survey of research on juvenile incarceration by the Centers
for Disease Control found that juveniles transferred to the adult
system "resulted in increased arrest for subsequent crimes,
including violent crime" by those juveniles.

Juveniles are also more likely to commit suicide in adult
settings. A 2000 federal report found that juveniles in adult
jails were five times more likely to commit suicide than the
general population and eight times more likely than juveniles sent
to juvenile detention facilities.

Out of step

Today, Michigan is one of nine states that mandate prosecution of
17-year-olds as adults. The state sets no minimum age for when
juveniles can be charged as adults. And Michigan is one of just
four states that provide no judicial review for when juveniles are
automatically waived into adult court, according to Carmen
Daugherty, policy director at the Campaign for Youth Justice, an
advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

"Michigan is out of step with the direction other states are
going," Daugherty said.

At the end of 2013, according to U.S. Department of Justice data,
Michigan ranked fifth in the number of youth in state prison with
73 inmates 17 or younger, though they were now segregated from
adults.

With more than 350 inmates sentenced to life without parole as
youth, the state is second only to Pennsylvania in the number of
juvenile lifers.

LaBelle, the inmates' lawyer, acknowledges that not everyone sees
these get-tough policies as a problem. Likewise, not everyone is
going to take pity on her young clients, who have been found
guilty of such crimes as armed robbery, carrying a concealed
weapon, larceny from a vehicle and criminal sexual conduct.  But
she contends that the punishment for crimes, even serious crimes,
should not be rape.

"Your sentence is loss of freedom," LaBelle said. "I can't believe
anyone would allow a judge to stand up and say, 'We are going to
sentence you to be in a cell for three years and, by the way, we
are going to allow you to be raped for three years.'"

Teens in prison, a Michigan timeline

As laws aimed at getting tough with "punk" offenders took effect,
evidence piled up that juveniles in adult prison were at higher
risk of rape and abuse.

   1974: With mounting evidence that youth were being abused by
adults in jail, the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act ties federal funding to states with separation of
youth sentenced as juveniles to jail from adults in the jail
population.

   1988: Legislation approved giving Michigan prosecutors
authority to charge juveniles under 17 in adult court for a short
list of offenses.

   1989: Study in Juvenile & Family Court Journal finds juveniles
in adult prison five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in
prison were they in a juvenile facility and twice as likely to be
beaten by staff.

   1995: Princeton University political science professor John
DiIulio warns of the impending rise of the juvenile
"superpredator." U.S. violent juvenile crime actually peaks in
1994, falling in 2003 by 48 percent from 1994 to its lowest level
since 1980. In Michigan, juvenile violent crime falls by more than
half from 1994 to 2002.

   1995: Speech by Gov. John Engler to prosecutors: "What many of
these punks need is not a social worker but a prison cell."

   1996: Engler signs legislation greatly expanding power of
prosecutors to try juveniles 14 through 16 as adults, listing 18
offenses for which the younger teens can be waived into adult
court with no provision for judicial review. Juveniles of any age
can be charged as adult through special proceeding.

   2000: U.S. Department of Justice issues report noting that
juveniles are more likely to commit suicide and be victims of
violence and sexual assault in prison.

   2001: Human Rights Watch issues 378-page report detailing
widespread rape in prisons across the United States.

   2003: Congress approves the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA),
establishing a commission to issue recommendations for protecting
prisoners from sexual assault.

   2004: Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) signals
awareness of the gravity of the issue in a department
communication that calls it a "matter of national priority." The
report states that juveniles in adult prison are five times more
likely to be raped.

   2007: MDOC says it begins to provide PREA education material to
incoming prisoners.

   2009: Prison Rape Elimination Commission issues report
estimating 60,000 prisoners assaulted each year in U.S. prisons
and that juveniles are at "highest risk" in prison for sexual
assault.

   August 2012: Federal PREA standards take effect, mandating that
juvenile prisoners are to be separated by "sight and sound" from
adult prisoners. States could face 5 percent cut in federal prison
funding if they fail to comply.

   August 2013: MDOC says it completes separation of juvenile
prisoners from adults.

   December 2013: Michigan law firm files class-action suit
against MDOC, alleging rape and abuse of juveniles by adult
prisoners in prisons across the state as well as assault and
harassment of juveniles by guards. Many of the same lawyers were
involved in a similar suit involving female inmates sexually
assaulted by male prison guards; that suit settled in 2009 for
$100 million.


MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 43
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015199TC
ID number: 2015199

On certain school buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS 302) - Flammability of Interior Materials.
Certain school bus seat bottom assemblies may contain a foam core
that does not meet the requirements of the standard. As a result
the seat components could burn faster than allowable by the
standard, which could increase the risk of injury in the event of
a fire. Correction: Dealers will replace the seat bottom assembly.

    Make         Model            Model year(s) affected
    ----         -----            ----------------------
    GIRARDING5   COMMERCIAL BUS   2015
    GIRARDING5   SCHOOL BUS       2015


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Rejects Transfer Bid; Tosses "Ryan" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy. H. Koh of the Northern District of California
denied defendant's motion to transfer but granted dismissal in the
case DESERAE RYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-04634-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business in Redmond Washington.

Plaintiff Deserae Ryan worked for Microsoft as a Senior Product
Manager while plaintiff Trent Rau worked for Microsoft as a Lead
Systems Engineer Senior.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant conspired with several other
technology companies in both a "Do Not Cold Call" agreement and a
Restricted Hiring agreement. In their complaint, plaintiffs'
alleged that defendant had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1; California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 16720; California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and
California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 et seq.
Plaintiffs seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees and expenses, and injunctive relief.

Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue and a motion to dismiss
the complaint. Microsoft also filed a request for judicial notice
in connection with its motion to dismiss.

Defendant's motion to transfer venue under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
12(b)(6), contends that the court should transfer this action to
the Western District of Washington because (1) plaintiffs'
employment agreements select the Western District of Washington
forum and (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and
the interest of justice favor transfer.

Judge Koh denied defendants' motion to transfer venue and granted
defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint and the same must be filed within 30 days.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated April 10, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/iXFiggfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Lee Hogue --
jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- Tyler Jay Belong -- at Hogue and
Belong; David Roger Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- Maggie
K Realin --mrealin@markham-law.com -- Peggy J Reali --
preali@markham-law.com -- Janine Renee Menhennet --
jmenhennet@markham-law.com -- at The Markham Law Firm

Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert J Maguire -- robmaguire@dwt.com -- Stephen
Michael Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- Allison Ann Davis --
allisondavis@dwt.com -- Candice M. Tewell -- candicetewell@dwt.com
-- Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- at Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP


MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of MiMedx Group, Inc. ("MiMedx" or the
"Company") during the period between February 26, 2014 and
December 31, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was in violation of federal regulations by engaging in
improper marketing and sales practices; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 31, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing the receipt of a civil subpoena
from the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") of the Department of
Health and Human Services ("HHS"). Moreover, the Company announced
the same day that it had filed a lawsuit against one of its
competitors, Organogenesis, Inc. ("Organogenesis"), for tortious
interference of contract, alleging that it had interfered with
MiMedx's dealings with the Veterans Administration. Within a
matter of weeks, MiMedx voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Following this news, MiMedx securities declined $1.79 per share,
or more than 15%, to close at $9.74 per share on January 2, 2015,
the next trading day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all shareholders
who purchased shares of MiMedx during the Class Period described
above.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number. If you
suffered a loss in MiMedx you have until April 20, 2015 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


MO'S FISHERMAN: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera a/k/a Erick Adari Rivera Nolasco and
Armando Portillo a/k/a Neftaly Armando Portillo Guevara, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Mo's Fisherman
Exchange, Inc. d/b/a Mo's Seafood Restaurant, Mo's Fisherman's
Wharf, Mo's, Mo's Seafood Factory, Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory,
and Mo's Neighborhood Bar and Grill, Case No. 1:15-cv-01427-ELH
(D. Md., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants at six locations in
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew David Freeman, Esq.
      Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
      Jessica Paulie Weber, Esq.
      BROWN GOLDSTEIN AND LEVY LLP
      120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21202-6701
      Telephone: (410) 962-1030
      Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
      E-mail: adf@browngold.com
              blierman@browngold.com
              jweber@browngold.com


MONSANTO CO: Parties in "Allen" Case Perform on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2015, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. ("Allen") v.
Monsanto, et al., have commenced performance of the terms of the
settlement.

The Company said, "on Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a
purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al.
("Allen") v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West
Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other
defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the
liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all
current and former residents, workers, and students who, between
1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans
contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The
complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia
and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo
Nobel Chemicals, Inc. ("Akzo Nobel"). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were
named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then
pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property
cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property
for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and
future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an
injunction against further contamination and punitive damages.
Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the
Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed
both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action
certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008,
the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G.
Bibb et al. ("Bibb") v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced
Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property
damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in
response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the
property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring
class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a
settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the
property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30
year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up
to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over
the life of the program, and a three year property remediation
plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A
fairness hearing was held on June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial
court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs
objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld
the fairness of the class action settlements. The objector filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which
was denied. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced
performance of the terms of the settlement."


MONSANTO CO: Parties in Personal Injury Claims Perform on Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2015, that the parties in all
pending personal injury claims have commenced performance of the
terms of the settlement.

These cases allege personal injury occasioned by exposure to
dioxin generated by the Nitro Plant during production of 2,4,5T
(1949-1969) and thereafter. Monsanto has agreed to accept the
tenders of defense in the matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo
Nobel, Flexsys America, and Apogee Coal under a reservation of
rights. During the discovery phase of these several claims, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all pending
personal injury claims which is reflected in the above liability.
The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance
of the terms of the settlement.

In October 2007 and November 2009, a total of approximately 200
separate, single plaintiff civil actions were filed in Putnam
County, West Virginia, against Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel
(and several of its affiliates), Flexsys America Co. ("Flexsys
America") (and several of its affiliates), Solutia, and Apogee
Coal Company, LLC ("Apogee Coal"). These cases allege personal
injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by the Nitro
Plant during production of 2,4,5T (1949-1969) and thereafter.
Monsanto has agreed to accept the tenders of defense in the
matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo Nobel, Flexsys America, and
Apogee Coal under a reservation of rights. During the discovery
phase of these several claims, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve all pending personal injury claims which is
reflected in the above liability. The settlement is final and the
parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement.


NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Howard, writing for The Guardian, reported that the first
public hearings were slated to take place in April in the Hague in
the first case in the world to use existing human rights and tort
law to hold a government responsible for failing to reduce carbon
emissions fast enough.

The 886 citizens involved in the class action against the Dutch
government aim to force it to take more robust action to reduce
emissions. They also hope to offer a legal solution to the
political impasse on international climate change action.

They will ask the judiciary to declare that the Dutch government
must implement policies to reduce its emissions by between 25% and
40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This was the target for developed
nations -- established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) -- as necessary to create a 50% chance of avoiding a
dangerous 2C rise in global temperatures.

The European Union recently set a target of reducing emissions by
40% by 2030, ahead of a crunch conference in Paris at the end of
the year.

The lawsuit has been brought by the sustainability foundation
Urgenda with 886 Dutch citizens acting as co-plaintiffs including
teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and children legally represented
by their elders.

Dennis van Berkel, who works for Urgenda, said: "We wanted to show
that this is not just one organization that had an idea but it's a
broad movement of people who are very concerned about climate
change and believe it's necessary to sue the state over it."

Joos Ockels is among the plaintiffs. Her late husband, Wubbo
Ockels, who was the first Dutch citizen in space, had dedicated
much of his later years to environmental work, founding the
renewable energy foundation Happy Energy and declaring that
citizens must care for the planet as "astronauts of spaceship
Earth".

In a speech from his bedside days before his death last year
Ockels pleaded to camera: "What is wrong with our mindset? Our
earth has cancer. I have cancer too. If I could take you to space
you would see that this is your only planet, you have no spare."
The national weatherman, Reinier van de Berg, and the prolific
Dutch DJ, Gregor Salto, are acting as plaintiffs, with the Nasa
climate scientist Prof James Hansen also supporting the campaign.

Salto, who is an ambassador for WWF, said: "Everybody is waiting
for the government to take action but the government has done so
little. If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action.
If you look at Denmark, they've managed [to reduce emissions], so
why can't we? I want the Dutch to lead the way in this."

In the 1990s the Netherlands was hailed as one of the first
countries to take climate change seriously, but the country now
lags a long way behind its targets on renewables. A low-lying
country, it is at higher risk from rising sea levels and storm
surges in comparison to other developed nations.

The campaigners hailed a breakthrough with the launch of the Oslo
Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations in London. Created
by a group of prolific judges, advocates and professors, they
argue that in failing to introduce adequate policy to tackle
climate change, governments have already broken existing human
rights, environmental and tort laws, regardless of agreements
brokered at the international level.

The case is now nearing its end with a verdict expected within six
months. Urgenda first took action in 2012 when they sent a letter
to the Dutch government asking them to introduce new measures to
cut emissions, without which they would proceed to court.


Urgenda hopes it will set a precedent and inspire others around
the world to take up similar cases. Lawyers in Belgium --
supported by 8,000 citizens -- are currently preparing for court
proceedings against their own government.

Urgenda and Ockels were inspired to take action by ideas set out
in a book written by Roger Cox, the lawyer now leading the case.
Five years in the making, Revolution Justified argues -- alongside
other legal experts -- that the judiciary can play a fundamental
role in tackling climate change.

Cox said: "We're now 23 years down the road of the climate change
treaty and it's obvious that international politics has not
brought much good to the world. The power of politics, fossil fuel
companies and the banks are so large but there is one other
powerful system with a lot of wisdom and that is the law."

He continued: "There is a parallel here with the situation in the
1950s in the United States. It was the courts that decided that
segregation in schools was not constitutional. It wasn't a big
issue in society and it wasn't political but it was a few people
fighting and the courts following up that created a huge change in
American society."


NEW YORK LANGUAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Munoz and Cecilia Santiago, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. New York City Language, Inc.
d/b/a Pookie & Sebastian and Kevin Matuszak, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03808 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate boutique clothing stores with five
locations in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NFG CHICAGO: Faces "Wong" Suit for Overcharging Delivery Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Wong, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. NFG Chicago,
LLC, and Domino's Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04352 (N.D. Ill.,
May 18, 2015), action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and a
class of persons who were improperly charged sales tax on the
delivery fee.

The Defendants own and operate 173 franchised Domino's Pizza in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
      20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 739-4200
      Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
      E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


NGK SPARK: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Spark Plugs-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse and KMB/CT, Inc.
d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors, Inc., individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-11774-GER-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2015), arises
out of the alleged conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices of Spark Plugs sold in the United
States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. is currently the largest manufacturer of
spark plugs in the world, producing over 500 million NGK brand
spark plugs per year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      100 West Long Lake Road; Ste. 111
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -


      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Carl E. Person, Esq.
      225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A
      New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
      Telephone: (212) 307- 4444
      E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com


NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 62538
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015210TC
ID number: 2015210

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if necessary,
replace the passenger airbag inflator. Note: This is an expansion
of recalls 2013117 and 2014566.

    Make     Model         Model year(s) affected
    ----     -----        ----------------------
    NISSAN   SENTRA       2004, 2005, 2006
    NISSAN   PATHFINDER   2004
    NISSAN   X-TRAIL      2004, 2005, 2006


OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Trey Garrison, writing for Housing Wire, reported that a homeowner
in California asked the Ninth Circuit to revive his putative class
action lawsuit against Ocwen Loan Servicing for submitting false
information to credit agencies.

The owner alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, part of Ocwen
Financial (OCN), told credit agencies that foreclosed-on
homeowners were still liable for the unpaid balance of their
mortgage loans after the homes were sold.

Jeffrey Kuns in his suit argues that the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act prohibits "deficiency liability" in
these circumstances.  Kuns' initial suit in California court,
filed in July 2012, says he bought a home in Nevada City,
California, in June 2005 with a mortgage serviced by Ocwen.  When
he was unable to make payments, his home was sold through a
nonjudicial foreclosure in December 2009.

Although the law says that Kuns is not liable for the $400,000
difference between the balance of the mortgage Kuns owed and the
sale price Ocwen received in the foreclosure sale, Ocwen, Kuns
charges, furnished information to credit reporting agencies
indicating he was.

Kuns filed the putative class action lawsuit after discovering
this on his credit record in June 2011, arguing that he and
thousands of other homeowners were victimized by Ocwen's actions.
A putative class action means the alleged injured parties, for
now, belong to a hypothetical class. If Kuns is allowed to move
forward, he will then be allow to populate that class with real
people.

Ocwen asked to have the case removed to federal court, based on
the fact the case involved more than $5 million, the federal
minimum for total dollar amount being contested.

In April 2013, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed Kuns' case,
saying that Ocwen's reporting the deficiency balance to credit
reporting agencies was neither "inaccurate or incomplete" as the
law requires.

Ocwen noted at the time that California law still allowed for
deficiency balances to be collected from homeowners. As of
publishing Ocwen did not respond to HosuingWire requests for
comment.

Kuns' attorney, Ethan Preston, asked a three-judge panel to revive
Kuns' suit, arguing the case hinges on the basic text of the CCRA.
Preston said that CCRA requires that information submitted to
credit agencies to not be "inaccurate or incomplete" -- and
Ocwen's reporting of homeowners as "personally liable" for the
deficiency on their mortgage after a nonjudicial foreclosure is
inaccurate.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Four Lawsuits Against AVIV REIT Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 3, 2015, that four lawsuits against AVIV REIT, Inc., have
been consolidated.

Four putative class actions have been filed by purported
stockholders of AVIV against AVIV, its directors, Omega and
Omega's merger sub challenging the merger of AVIV and Omega in the
Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County. The class actions
were filed on November 10, 2014, November 17, 2014, November 24,
2014, and December 2, 2014. Each plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on January 22, 2015. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief
preventing the parties from consummating the merger, rescission of
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, imposition
of a constructive trust in favor of the class upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, compensatory damages, and
litigation costs including attorneys' fees. The four lawsuits were
consolidated on January 28, 2015 under the title In Re Aviv REIT
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-006352.


PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
------------------------------------------------------
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Superior Court
entered a preliminary approval order setting May 21, 2015 for the
final settlement hearing in a Stockholder Suit.

The Company said, "On October 2, 2014, Continuum Capital, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated
stockholders of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the California
Superior Court for Contra Costa County, or the Superior Court,
against us and our then current board members (only one of whom
remains as a director) as well as against the entity then known as
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Old Paratek. The complaint
alleges that the then Transcept board members breached fiduciary
duties to Transcept stockholders in connection with the Merger
announced on June 30, 2014, and that Transcept and its then board
of directors failed to make adequate disclosures in soliciting
stockholder approval of the Merger, and that Old Paratek aided and
abetted the alleged breaches. After expedited discovery, the
parties agreed in principal to a settlement and release of all
claims by a defined class of pre-merger stockholders of Transcept.
In furtherance of the settlement, we supplemented our disclosures
regarding the Merger and agreed to pay a negotiated plaintiffs'
attorneys' fee of $0.6 million. The settlement is subject to the
approval of the settlement and fee award, and a dismissal of the
action with prejudice each by the Superior Court. The defendants
denied any wrongdoing and agreed to settle the action to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation."

"On March 4, 2015, the Superior Court entered a preliminary
approval order setting May 21, 2015 for the final settlement
hearing and directed that notice be provided to the class. In the
event the settlement is not consummated, we intend to vigorously
defend all claims asserted."


PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Bakare and Matthew Siegel, writing for JDSupra Business
Advisor, reported that yet another federal judge has concluded
that an individual whose personal information was allegedly
accessed during a data breach lacks standing to sue unless and
until there has been a misuse of that personal information or such
misuse can be proven "imminent."  See Storm v. Paytime Inc., No.
14-CV-1138, 2015 WL 1119724 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2015).

In April 2014, hackers gained unauthorized access to the computer
systems of Paytime, Inc., a national payroll service company.
Several employees of companies that use Paytime's services later
filed suit against Paytime and sought class certification,
alleging claims of negligence and breach of contract.  In
response, Paytime moved to dismiss their claims, contending that
plaintiffs lacked standing or, in the alternative, that they had
failed to state claims as a matter of law.

The court found that the plaintiffs did indeed lack standing to
sue Paytime, relying heavily on the Third Circuit's holding in
Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011). "In the
event of a data breach, a plaintiff does not suffer a harm, and
thus does not have standing to sue, unless [the] plaintiff alleges
actual 'misuse' of the information, or that such misuse is
imminent," the Reilly court concluded. In Reilly, the employees of
a law firm brought a putative class action against a payroll
processing firm after it suffered a security breach by an unknown
hacker, which they alleged caused increased risk of identity
theft, costs of credit monitoring, and emotional distress.
According to the court, the alleged future harm was "not
sufficiently imminent," however. Rather, it was "significantly
attenuated, considering that it was 'dependent on entirely
speculative, future actions of an unknown third party."

Likewise, in Paytime, the plaintiffs alleged they were at an
increased risk of identity theft, spent time and money to protect
themselves from identify theft, and have suffered "actual
damages."  What they failed to allege, the court explained, were
"allegations of misuse or that such misuse is certainly
impending." None alleged that they had actually suffered any form
of identity theft or even that any of their data had been misused.

Allegations of being at an increased risk of identity theft are
not sufficient to amount to an imminent injury, the court decided,
reasoning that the data breach had occurred more than a year ago.
Given that none of the plaintiffs had yet become "actual victims
of identity theft," any layperson "with a common sense notion of
'imminence' would find this lapse of time, without any identity
theft, to undermine the motion that identity theft would happen in
the near future."

The court acknowledged that Reilly's standing requirements leave
plaintiffs on the hook for the costs of preventive measures, but
found that the logic of the doctrine is sound and its wisdom
clear: given the constant efforts of hackers to access
confidential data, "for a court to require companies to pay
damages to thousands of customers, when there is yet to be a
single case of identity theft proven, strikes us as overzealous
and unduly burdensome to business." Once a hacker succeeds in
actually misusing a person's personal information, the court
explained, there is a "clear injury" that can be fully compensated
with money damages and the plaintiff is "free to return to court
and would have standing to recover his or her losses."


PEDEGO INC: Recalls Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Posting date: May 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53305

This recall involves 36-volt and 48-volt lithium ion rechargeable
batteries.  The recalled batteries were sold separately and as
original equipment with Pedego electric bikes. The batteries came
in two styles. One style has a silver or black metal case that
measures 13 1/2 inches (34 centimeters) long and 6 1/2 inches
(16.5 centimeters) wide and 2 1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high
with black plastic end caps and a handle. The other style has a
black or white plastic case that measures about 14 inches (35.5
centimeters) long, 6 1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2 1/2
inches (6.25 centimeters) high with a red indicator lamp on one
end.

Serial numbers that start with 'DLG' are included in this recall.
The serial number can be found on a label on the side of the
batteries with metal casing and on the underside of the batteries
with plastic casing.

The batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

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

Pedego Inc. has received one report of a battery overheating,
resulting in minor property damage in Canada.

Approximately 400 units were sold in Canada.

The affected batteries were sold between January 2010 and
September 2013 at various retailers.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: DLG
              Shanghai
              CHINA

Distributor: Pedego Inc.
             Irvine
             California
             UNITED STATES

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


PIZZAWORKS LLC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lee, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Pizzaworks, LLC, Pizzaworks II, LLC, Pizzaworks III,
LLC, Pizzaworks IV, LLC, and Emmanuel Hatz, Case No. 3:15-cv-00570
(M.D. Tenn., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant in Nashville,
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              stift@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      Lee W. Barron, Esq.
      William D. Buchanan, Esq.
      THE LAKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      P O Box 27, 301 Evans Avenue
      Wood River, IL 62095-0027
      Telephone: (618) 254-1127
      E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com
              will@leebarronlaw.com


POWERHOUSE FORMULATIONS: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackeob Brown, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Powerhouse Formulations LLC and Does 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03746 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to disclose any recording and
monitoring of telephone communications.

Powerhouse Formulations LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company that does business in California. Powerhouse is a
distributor and wholesaler of Acai Berry, Colon Cleanse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
David Lewis, writing for JDSupra Business Advisor, reported that
five class action lawsuits have been filed against Premera Blue
Cross in federal court in Seattle, Washington following the recent
report of a data breach that affected approximately 11 million
individuals. The lawsuits make similar allegations that Premera
failed to protect sensitive information from attack. One lawsuit
alleged a violation of the Health Insurance Portability
Accountability Act ("HIPAA").

The Premera attack was discovered on January 29, 2015. Premera
reported the attack to the FBI and engaged a cyber-security firm,
Mandiant, to conduct an investigation and remove the infection
caused by the attack on Premera's IT systems. According to Premera
President and CEO Jeff Rowe, Premera is taking additional steps to
strengthen and enhance the security of its IT systems going
forward and assisting individuals who could potentially be
impacted by the data breach. Premera posted a notice on its
website and sent letters to individuals who may have been impacted
by the attack. Premera's investigation determined the attackers
may have gained access to members and applicants' email addresses,
names and addresses, social security numbers, health insurance
identification numbers and bank account numbers.

As a health plan, Premera is a "covered entity" under HIPAA and is
subject to the breach notification requirements under the HIPAA
Omnibus Rule if "protected health information" is accessed by
individuals not authorized to receive it. Under the Omnibus Rule,
Premera was required to notify effected individuals and the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS")
not later than sixty days following discovery of the breach.
According to the website for the office of civil rights of HHS,
Premera provided the required notice on March 17, 2015, which is
within sixty days of the discovery of the breach as required by
the Omnibus Rule.

Recent decisions in data breach cases underscore the considerable
burdens that plaintiffs in the Premera class actions are likely to
face. Courts are becoming suspect of the speculative nature of
damages claims where the plaintiff cannot prove specific injury.
In Lovell v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., the plaintiff sought
to recover under theories of negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, strict liability and negligent
misrepresentation. The United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington (the same court where the Premera
class actions have been filed) found that the plaintiff's claims
of injury under each theory were not well founded and dismissed
the case with prejudice. Costs that might be incurred in the
future along with lack of evidence of any representations by the
defendant regarding security protocols were relied upon by the
Court in reaching its decision. While recent disclosures of cyber-
security problems "make headlines," they do not have much impact
on consumer behavior, the court noted. A similar suit in Illinois
against P.F. Chang's was also dismissed on similar grounds.

A class action suit against Horizon Health Care Services, Inc.
based on the alleged theft of personal information of nearly
840,000 customers of Horizon following the theft of two laptop
computers was dismissed on April 6, 2014 because the plaintiffs
did not demonstrate they suffered particular individual harm as a
result of the breach. The court based its decision on the fact
that the plaintiffs did not allege identity theft or any other
injury as a result of the breach. The Court did grant the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

Depending on the facts involved, Premera will likely face
investigation, fines, and a corrective action plan from HHS. HIPAA
does not permit a private right of action. Based on current trends
in recent cases, the probability of success in the class actions
seems limited given the recent precedents unless the plaintiffs
can show actual harm. Nevertheless, all companies should be alert
to the increasing cyber-security threats and taking appropriate
action to secure their IT systems against such sophisticated
threats and be prepared to respond to such threats when they
occur.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $7.9MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the reserve for the class action settlement liability is $7.9
million on PMI's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2014.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit
against PMI and certain of its executive officers and directors in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,
California (the "Superior Court"). The suit was brought on behalf
of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1,
2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that PMI
offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in
violation of the California and federal securities laws. The
lawsuit sought rescission damages against PMI and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On July 19, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation pending before the Superior Court, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release
(the "Settlement") setting forth an agreement to settle all claims
related thereto. In connection with the Settlement, PMI agreed to
pay the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of $10 million, payable in
four lump sum payments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015,
$3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017.

On April 16, 2014, the Superior Court granted final approval of
the Settlement.  Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set
forth in the Settlement, the defendants will be released by the
plaintiffs from all claims concerning or arising out of the
offering of promissory notes on the platform from January 1, 2006
through October 14, 2008. The reserve for the class action
settlement liability is $7.9 million on PMI's consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2014.


QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Behner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QEP Midstream Partners, LP, Tesoro Logistics LP, Susan
O. Rheney, Don A. Turkleson, and Gregory C. King, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00415 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2015), asserts that the Defendants
made false and materially misleading Registration Statement in
connection with the proposed merger agreement between Tesoro
Logistics LP and QEP Midstream.

QEP Midstream Partners, LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
its principal place of business located in San Antonio, Texas. QEP
is engaged in the business of providing natural gas and crude oil
gathering and transportation services.

Tesoro Logistics LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership, with its
principal place of business located in San Antonio, Texas. Tesoro
owns, operates, develops, and acquires logistics assets related to
crude oil and refined products

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
      Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
      POWERS TAYLOR LLP
      Campbell Centre II
      8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-8900
      Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
      E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com
              meredith@powerstaylor.com

         - and -

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

         - and -

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


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reported that certain putative class action
lawsuits were filed against Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Questcor"))(Nasdaq: QCOR) and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, which actions were consolidated under the caption In
re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx) (the
"Securities Class Action"). The consolidated complaint generally
alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors
violated Sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

On April 13, 2015, the defendants executed a stipulation of
settlement to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, Questcor has agreed to pay $38 million
to resolve the plaintiffs' claims, inclusive of all fees and
costs. Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and are entering into the
settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further protracted litigation.

The proposed settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval. If the proposed settlement is approved
by the court, the Securities Class Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and all clams will be released.

During the three months ended March 27, 2015, a $38 million
reserve was established for this settlement.


RADIATOR SPECIALTY: Recalls Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging, Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53311

This recall involves Gunk Radiator 10 Minute Flush (part number
C1412C) sold in a white bottle with a blue / yellow label and UPC
060959314016.

This consumer product does not meet labelling requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian law. It does not have
proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and
Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.

Improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these
products and lead to serious illnesses, injuries and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Radiator Specialty Company has received
consumer incident reports related to the use of this product.

Approximately 104,580 containers of the recalled product were sold
at various retail locations across Canada.

The recalled product was sold in Canada between January 2004 and
April 2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Distributor: Radiator Specialty Company of Canada
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact the Radiator Specialty Company for a replacement or refund
(1-800-268-2330, extension 117).

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

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

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


RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate.com, reported that two Northern
California women have filed a proposed statewide lawsuit accusing
the Raley's market chain of illegally denying them light-duty
assignments and forcing them to take unpaid leave when they became
pregnant.

The suit comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
strengthening pregnant women's protections from discrimination at
work, but relies on even stronger California laws that require
employers with at least five employees to accommodate pregnant
workers. A 1999 state law entitles pregnant women to "reasonable
accommodations" on the job, and to be transferred to any available
"less strenuous or hazardous positions."

The women said Raley's managers told them the company's policy
allowed workers who were injured on the job to transfer to "light
duty" assignments, but did not cover pregnant employees.

Plaintiff Lucianna Borrego said the food service manager at the
store in Ukiah told her, after she asked to use a motorized
sweeper to mop the floors, that she was not entitled to play the
"pity card" just because she was pregnant. Denied reassignment
despite a doctor's note limiting her to light duty, she said she
was placed on unpaid leave two weeks later.

"I wanted to keep working, but Raley's refused to accommodate my
pregnancy," Borrego said in a statement through her lawyers at the
nonprofit Equal Rights Advocates in San Francisco. "Losing that
income when I was struggling to support my family was absolutely
devastating."

Raley's, based in West Sacramento, operates more than 120 stores
in Northern California under its own name and as Bel Air Markets,
Nob Hill Foods and Food Source.

In a statement, company spokeswoman Chelsea Minor said Raley's
"follows all laws regarding pregnancy leaves of absence and
accommodations and will respond to these claims through the legal
process."

The suit was filed after the Supreme Court ruled that federal law
requires employers to give pregnant women the same light-duty
assignments and other accommodations they offer to workers with
similar disabilities. California's law entitles pregnant employees
to on-the-job accommodations regardless of how the employer treats
other workers.

Borrego and the second Raley's plaintiff, Kirsten Kelly, both
started working as store clerks in 2011. Kelly, employed at the
Bel Air market in Antelope (Sacramento County), said she told
store managers of her pregnancy last fall and gave them a doctor's
note saying she should not lift heavy items.  Soon afterward, she
said, when a customer needed help lifting 20-can packs of soda,
Kelly asked for help and said a manager told her she had to carry
the packs herself. Told she would be fired if she did not accept
unpaid leave, Kelly went on leave in December, the suit said.

The suit seeks statewide class-action status, damages and an order
requiring Raley's to accommodate pregnant employees.


RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reported that the
legal assault on for-profit probation operations in Georgia has
moved to federal court, where one lawsuit contends a probation
firm and the small cities it serves regularly commit
constitutional violations and crimes such as fraud and extortion.

The Southern Center for Human Rights filed its first legal action
in the battle in the U.S. District Court in Albany. The lawsuit
contends in Pelham and Bainbridge courts, poor people who cannot
make payments on the day of sentencing are held hostage until
payments are made, and that private probation firm Red Hills
Community Probation uses the threat of incarceration to force
people to continue making payments after their sentences have
expired.

A state audit noted at least one practice -- continuing to charge
probationers after their sentences had expired -- in a scathing
report released in April 2014 by the state's Department of Audits
and Accounts Performance Audits Division. There could be no
question the judge knew people were forced to make payments after
their sentences had expired because he was provided regular
reports listing total payments by people with expired sentences,
according to the report.

The lawsuit names Adel Edwards as one plaintiff. Edwards, who is
physically and mentally disabled, was sentenced to pay a $500 fine
for burning leaves in his yard without a permit. Because he could
not pay the fine that day, the judge placed him on 12 months
probation. According to the lawsuit, a Red Hills probation officer
told him he owed the $500 fine and $528 in probation supervision
fees and that he had to make an immediate $250 payment or go to
jail. Edwards did not have the money and after the court session
ended, he was taken to jail.

The lawsuit accuses Red Hills probation officers of continuously
threatening Edwards with jail for nearly a year after his sentence
expired, only stopping when attorney Sarah Geraghty of the
Southern Center filed a "motion to stop enforcement of expired
probation sentence" in Pelham Municipal Court on March 11.  The
lawsuit alleges similar legal horror stories on behalf of four
other plaintiffs, one of whom was unemployed and caring for her
terminally ill father.

She could not make an immediate $50 payment the day she was
sentenced for rolling through a stop sign. Her fiance took the
engagement ring off her finger and pawned it and lawn equipment to
raise the money to free her, according to the lawsuit.

Two other federal lawsuits were filed in U.S. Court in Dublin on
March 20 and April 8 against the private probation firms Judicial
Alternatives of Georgia and Middle Georgia Probation, which serve
multiple courts in south Georgia.

The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of Georgia's law,
which allows local courts to contract with private, for-profit
probation firms.  The suits contend the law doesn't ensure the
rights of probationers are protected, and that it violates the
doctrine of separation of governmental powers.  The lawsuits also
contend the companies have operated for years without valid
contracts and seek class-action status for everyone who paid
probation fees during those years.

The latest surge of controversy over the use of private probation
firms in Georgia was spurred in a large part by 13 lawsuits filed
in the Superior Courts in Richmond and Columbia counties against
Sentinel Offender services. Those cases are still pending.


REMINGTON FIREARMS: October 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU OWN CERTAIN REMINGTON FIREARMS, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR
BENEFITS FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

A proposed nationwide Settlement has been preliminarily approved
in a class action lawsuit involving certain Remington firearms.
The class action lawsuit claims that trigger mechanisms with a
component part known as a trigger connector are defectively
designed and can result in accidental discharges without the
trigger being pulled.  The lawsuit further claims that from May 1,
2006 to April 9, 2014, the X-Mark Pro(R) trigger mechanism
assembly process created the potential for the application of an
excess amount of bonding agent, which could cause Model 700 or
Seven bolt-action rifles containing such trigger mechanisms to
discharge without a trigger pull under certain limited conditions.
The lawsuit contends that the value and utility of these firearms
have been diminished as a result of these alleged defects.
Defendants deny any wrongdoing.

WHO'S INCLUDED?
The Settlement provides benefits to:

Current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673,
710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms
containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger
connector;

Current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles
containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May
1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not participate in the voluntary
X-Mark Pro product recall prior to April 14, 2015; and

Current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
rifles who replaced their rifle's original Walker trigger
mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Settlement Class Members may be entitled to: (1) have their
trigger mechanism retrofitted with a new X-Mark Pro or other
connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost to the class members;
(2) receive a voucher code for Remington products redeemable at
Remington's online store; and/or (3) be refunded the money they
spent to replace their Model 700 or Seven's original Walker
trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.

HOW CAN I OBTAIN BENEFITS?
Submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms can be found at
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or by calling
1-800-876-5940.

WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS?

Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by October 5,
2015.  If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlement by October 5, 2015.

The Court will hold a hearing on December 4, 2015, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorney's
fees of up to $12.5 million, plus a payment of $2,500 for each
named Plaintiff.  You or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing
at your own expense.

For more information or a Claim Form:
1-800-876-5940 or
www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com


RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mooney, writing for The Providence Journal, reported that some
60,000 public-sector workers and retirees could be asked their
opinion on plans to end the legal challenge to cuts in their
pensions by way of a class-action settlement.

The contentious case took a step closer toward resolution when
lawyers for both sides asked a Superior Court judge to grant
preliminary approval of a class-action settlement so that required
notification procedures can begin for those affected.

If Judge Sarah Taft-Carter grants the request in the next day or
two, as expected, notices would be mailed out to retirees,
teachers, and state and municipal workers informing them of their
right to weigh in on the settlement's terms at a "fairness
hearing."

Taft-Carter would make a final determination whether to approve a
class-action settlement after that hearing, which could extend for
three days, lawyers say, depending on how many people wish to
speak.

A draft notification letter, along with the legislation lawmakers
are considering to finalize the settlement, were included in
hundreds of pages of documents filed in court.

After weeks of private discussions and voting, thousands of state
workers and retirees recently approved a settlement rather than
take the issue to trial. State officials have said the proposed
deal preserves about 90 percent of the savings in future pension
benefits anticipated under the 2011 pension overhaul law.

Among its cost-saving measures, the law raised ages of retirement
and ended guaranteed annual cost-of-living raises. The proposed
settlement relaxes some of those age requirements for retirement
and provides for the potential of periodic cost of living hikes
-- if pension funds meet certain funding levels.

The class-action settlement would bind all members of the various
unions and retirement groups that filed suit against the state and
prevent the possibility of "a never-ending pension suit," said
lawyer Carly Iafrate, representing about 7,000 retirees.  But the
settlement deal would not prohibit three other unions who voted it
down from pursuing their legal challenges to the constitutionality
of the 2011 pension law.

Those opposing unions, representing about 800 police and
firefighters, include members of the International Brotherhood of
Police Officers, which has locals in about 20 Rhode Island
communities, Cranston police and Cranston firefighters.

Taft-Carter also heard a motion from one lawyer to withdraw from
the pension case.

Sean O'Leary represents a group of about 90 retired state workers
and public school teachers who initially opposed being lumped into
any class-action settlement.  But there is such turmoil within the
group, O'Leary told the judge -- with 14 members who want to
accept the proposed settlement and 76 others who want to keep
fighting -- that "it is virtually impossible" to represent both
divergent sides, particularly when some clients have "terminated
our services" and object to him taking any further action on
behalf of the others.

Taft-Carter appeared cool to O'Leary's request to withdraw. "Why
can't you represent these people?" she asked. "It's very late in
the game, sir."

One retiree from the group, Roy Hilternann, a former deputy warden
for the Department of Corrections, told the judge he was
displeased with O'Leary's representation, but allowing him to
withdraw now would leave the group no representation at all.
Hilternann said the group needed time to find another lawyer.
Taft-Carter said she would rule on O'Leary's request soon.


ROSS GELFAND: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pfeffer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Ari Pfeffer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Law Offices of Ross Gelfand, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02859 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection
practices.

Law Offices of Ross Gelfand, LLC is engaged in the business of
collecting or attempting to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 12, 2015
Posting date: May 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53307

This recall involves the Police Press & Go Emergency Vehicle. The
toy vehicle is a blue and white police vehicle with a policeman's
head that may be pressed down for movement of the vehicle. The
recalled product may be identified by UPC 019649227822 and the
following date codes: 14223STL, 13322STL, 13161STL, 12219STL,
11312STL, 10337STL, 10103STL, 1028STL.

The policeman's hat may detach from the head, releasing a small
component, and posing a choking hazard to young children.

Neither Schylling Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada relating to the use of
this product.

In the United States, Schylling Inc. has received one report of
the policeman's hat detaching from the head. No injuries were
reported.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety Tips.

Approximately 2,100 units of the affected toys were sold in Canada
and approximately 13,200 affected toys were distributed in the
United States.

The recalled toys were sold from April 2010 to April 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Supreme Toys (H.K.) Ltd.
              Kowloon/Hong Kong
              CHINA

Distributor: Schylling Inc.
             Rowley
             Massachusetts
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
young children and contact Schylling Inc. to receive a refund.

Consumers may contact Schylling Inc., at 1-800-767-8697 from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
web site and click on Safety Alerts & Recalls at the top of the
page for more information. You may also email Schylling Inc.

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

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

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


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Orion Ball Products Due to Crustacean
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corp.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9832

Seoul Trading Corporation is recalling Orion Ball from the
marketplace because it contains squid, crab, and shrimp which are
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to squid, crab,
or shrimp should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to squid, crab, or shrimp, do not consume
the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

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

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

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand     Common name  Size    Code(s)          UPC
  name      -----------  ----    product          ---
  -----                          -------
  N/A       Orion Ball   202 g   All codes where  8 801117 761004
(Korean                         squid, crab,
Characters                      and shrimp are
Only)                           not declared on
                                 the label

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


SOUP BOY: Recalls Carrot Soup Products Due to C. Botulinum
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: The Soup Boy
Distribution: New Brunswick
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9830

The Soup Boy is recalling Carrot Soup from the marketplace because
it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers
should not consume the recalled product described below.

What you should do
Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the location where it
was purchased.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name    Common name    Size   Code(s) on product   UPC
  ----------    -----------    -----  ------------------   ---
The Soup Boy    Carrot Soup    1 L    N/A, this product     None
                                      is not labelled

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kVhm7y


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that Southwest Airlines is being sued for
allegedly misleading a passenger into purchasing early check-in
for its flights.

Teri Lowry filed the class action lawsuit on April 1 against
Southwest, claiming the airline deceived her into purchasing an
"Early-Bird" priority boarding cost for a flight she took in March
2014 from Los Angeles to Indianapolis.

According to the lawsuit, Lowry bought a "Wanna Get Away" ticket
offered by Southwest, and then added on the "Early-Bird Check-in"
feature for $25 roundtrip. Lowry said she purchased the feature
based on previously traveling Southwest and receiving a "B"
boarding group assignment.

Lowry said she contacted others who received a higher boarding
position than she did for her trip to Indianapolis, and none of
them purchased the "Early Bird Check-In."

The lawsuit said boarding is chosen by the order in which a person
checks in online. Boarding is broken into three groups with each
group containing about 60 board positions. According to the
lawsuit, Southwest Airlines' website states customers can obtain
an A boarding position by purchasing an "Early Bird Check-in."

Lowry claims Southwest's website says customers who purchased
"Anytime" fairs receive priority over other fare types including
"Early Bird Check-ins." The lawsuit alleges that contradicts other
areas of the website that say "Anytime" or "Wanna Get Away" fares
don't have priority over other fares.

Lowry is seeking class status, and more than $5 million plus court
costs. She is represented by Kristopher P. Badame of Badame &
Associates, APC.


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Discovery in TCPA Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class discovery remains
stayed in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").

On January 1, 2014, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court Eastern District of New York
relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff's lawsuit has
sought the certification of a class, though as of the date of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K such class certification has not been
approved by the court. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees.  SMS Masterminds filed its motion for summary
judgment in June.  The briefing on the motion concluded on August
5th.

"Plaintiff made numerous requests for discovery prior to filing
his opposition to our motion and repeated these requests in his
opposition.   The hearing on the motion took place September 17th.
The Court granted Plaintiff a brief window to conduct discovery
limited to the issues raised in our motion for summary judgment
and that discovery has been completed. Class discovery remains
stayed," the Company said.

"We expect to renew our motion for summary judgment in early 2015.
We believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will continue
to vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims.  Litigation is
subject to numerous uncertainties and we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of this or any other matter. Moreover, the amount
of any potential liability in connection with this lawsuit will
depend, to a large extent, on whether a class in a class action
lawsuit is certified and, if one is certified, on the scope of the
class, neither of which we can predict at this time. These and any
future lawsuits that we may face regarding these issues could
materially and adversely affect our results of operations, cash
flows and financial condition, cause us to incur significant
expenses and divert the attention of our management and key
personnel from our business operations."


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for Findlaw.com, reports that a federal
judge on May 14 threw out a class-action lawsuit brought by
investors against aircraft parts maker Spirit AeroSystems alleging
that the company and four of its officers made misleading
statements that artificially inflated its stock price.

The shareholder lawsuit was filed after an October 2012
announcement that the Wichita-based company had recorded $590
million forward losses on six manufacturing contracts.  Spirit
AeroSystems' stock price dropped $6.55 per share, or 30 percent,
following the announcement.

Investors sued in June 2013 in U.S. District Court in Kansas,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  They alleged they
bought Spirit stock at artificially inflated prices because of
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts related to the
progress of the company's cost-cutting efforts.

In dismissing their lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren
ruled that shareholders failed to show any allegedly misleading
statements were material to an investor deciding whether to buy or
sell stock.  The judge also said they did not show the company or
officers made any statements with the intent to deceive or with
recklessness.

Spirit issued a statement saying it believes its company and the
officers named in the lawsuit have been vindicated by the judge's
action.  Then-CEO Jeffrey Turner; chief financial officer Philip
Anderson; the vice president of Spirit's Oklahoma operations,
Alexander Kummant; and the vice president of Spirit's 787 program,
Terry George, were all named in the suit.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to an
email seeking comment on the judge's decision.

The lawsuit pointed to a total of 86 misleading statements or
omissions allegedly made by the officers before the loss
announcement.

But Judge Melgren said it's unclear the company and officers had
anything to gain by delaying announcement of the loss to October
2012.  Spirit AeroSystems' stock price immediately plummeted and
Mr. Turner announced his resignation shortly afterward.

"Presumably, those same things would have happened even if Spirit
had recorded those same forward-loss charges earlier as Plaintiffs
contend it should have done," Judge Melgren wrote.

The forward losses included $184 million for the Boeing 787
program, $162.5 million for its Gulfstream G650 program, $151
million for its Rolls-Royce BR725 program, $88.1 million for its
Gulfstream G280 program, $2.4 million for its Airbus 350 program
and $2.4 million for its Boeing 747 program.

The company attributed the losses to performance issues in its
Tulsa facility; higher cost estimates related to certification;
the decision to delay moving work to lower-cost facilities in
Kinston, North Carolina, and Chanute, Kansas; and the finalization
of supplier contracts.  They contended the losses did not become
evident until the third quarter of 2012, when they were reported.


SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi granted Jeffrey R. Brooks'
"Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay as Necessary to Enforce
Delaware State Law Rights to Compel An Annual Meeting" in the case
captioned IN RE: SS BODY ARMOR I, INC., ET AL., Chapter 11,
Debtors, CASE NO. 10-11255(CSS).

Judge Sontchi found that an action to compel an annual meeting is
not barred by the automatic stay. The Court also held that
oppositions to the Motion had the effect of seeking an injunction
of any Chancery Court action to compel a shareholder meeting
and/or the shareholder meeting, which was procedurally deficient
under the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure.

A copy of the Judge Sontchi's April 1, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/JtHnF4from Leagle.com.

PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP, Laura Davis Jones --
ljones@pszjlaw.com -- David M. Bertenthal --
dbertenthal@pszjlaw.com -- James E. O'Neill -- joneill@pszjlaw.com
-- Wilmington, DE, Counsel to Debtors and Debtors in Possession.

THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC, Scott J. Leonhardt --
leonhardt@teamrosner.com -- Wilmington, DE, and ARENT FOX LLP,
Robert M. Hirsh -- robert.hirsh@arentfox.com -- George P. Angelich
-- george.angelich@arentfox.com -- New York NY, Counsel for the
Official Committee Unsecured Creditors.

CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP, Jeffrey C. Wisler --
jwisler@connollygallagher.com -- Wilmington, DE, Counsel for
Jeffrey R. Brooks.

BIFFERATO LLC, Ian Connor Bifferato -- cbifferato@bifferato.com
-- Thomas F. Driscoll III, Wilmington, DE, and BAKER & McKENZIE
LLP, John E. Mitchell -- john.Mitchell@bakermckenzie.com -- Rosa
A. Shirley -- rosa.Shirley@bakermckenzie.com -- Jonathan Rosamond
-- jonathan.Rosamond@bakermckenzie.com-- Dallas, TX, Counsel for
the Official of Committee of Equity Security Holders.

CROSS & SIMON LLC, Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com --
Kevin S. Mann -- kmann@crosslaw.com -- Wilmington, DE, and
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, Michael S. Etkin -- metkin@lowenstein.com
-- Roseland, NJ., Counsel to Lead Plaintiffs.

REED SMITH LLP, Kurt F. Gwynne -- kgwynne@reedsmith.com --
Wilmington, De, and David Mason, New York, NY, Counsel for
Khashayar Eynalhori. D. David Cohen, Steven Wildstein, Prescott
Group Capital Management and Eric Lay Appearing Pro Se.

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, Point Blank Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- designed and
produced body armor systems for the U.S. Military, Government and
law enforcement agencies, as well as select international markets.
The Company's former chief executive officer and chief operating
officer were convicted in September 2010 of orchestrating a $185
million fraud.

Point Blank Solutions, formerly DHB Industries, filed for Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 10-11255) on April 14,
2010.  In October 2011, the Debtors sold substantially all assets
to Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.  The lead debtor changed its name
to SS Body Armor I, Inc. following the sale.


STAR BULK: Briefing Expected to Be Completed in Shareholder Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Bulk Carriers Corp. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing was expected to
be completed by May 8, 2015, in a shareholder class action case.

The Company said, "On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder
(the "Plaintiff") of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. filed a derivative
and putative class action lawsuit in New York state court against
our Chief Executive Officer, members of our board of directors and
several of our shareholders and related entities. We have been
named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges
that our acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel
Vessels were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and
that we entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms.
The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these
transactions, several defendants' interests in Star Bulk Carriers
Corp. have increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in Star
Bulk Carriers Corp. has been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges
that our management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted
in corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares
issued to the defendants in connection with our acquisition of
Oceanbulk, unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some
or all members of our board of directors and of our Chief
Executive Officer, and other relief. We believe the claims are
completely without merit, deny them, and intend to vigorously
defend against them in court."

"On November 24, 2014, we and the other defendants removed the
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The court has issued a case management plan
pursuant to which all fact discovery must be completed by October
2, 2015, and all expert discovery must be completed by November
16, 2015. No date for trial has been set. On March 4, 2015, we and
the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing is
underway and [was] expected to be completed by May 8, 2015."


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Czubachouski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, Bureaus
Investment Group Portfolio No. 3 LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-03417 (D.N.J., May 18, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection
practices.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUBARU: Recalls 3,500 Vehicles Over Errors in EyeSight Manual
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 3500
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015206TC
ID number: 2015206
Manufacturer recall number: WQO-51

On certain vehicles equipped with EyeSight driver assist
technology, the French version of the EyeSight Owner's Manual may
contain incorrect translations of certain text. If the vehicle
were to be operated as described in the mistranslated French text,
it could increase the risk of a crash. Correction: Subaru will
send corrected French EyeSight manuals directly to affected
vehicle owners and additional corrected manuals will be available
to all Dealers.

   Make       Model         Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----         ----------------------
   SUBARU     LEGACY        2013, 2014, 2015
   SUBARU     IMPREZA       2015
   SUBARU     OUTBACK       2013, 2014, 2015
   SUBARU     FORESTER      2014, 2015
   SUBARU     XV CROSSTREK  2015


SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marquita Davis v. Summit Nursing Services, Inc., and Melva
Barrett, Case No. 0:15-cv-61037-BB (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing home and rehabilitation
center in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


SUPER STOP: "Perazza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Perazza and other similarly-situated individuals v. Super
Stop 441, Inc. and George Joseph, Case No. 1:15-cv-21894-MGC (S.D.
Fla., May 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a convenience store in Davie,
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP reminds investors of TCP
International Holdings Ltd. ("TCP" or the "Company") (NYSE: TCPI)
who purchased the Company's shares between June 26, 2014 and
February 26, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), that they have
until May 1, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Please
contact Lesley Portnoy to discuss this matter.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: the Company was
placing non-compliant products into the marketplace; the Company's
CEO, E. Yan, consistently overrode Company policies on matter such
as capital expenditures, customer credit, new product development
process, product design and safety certifications, the Company's
code of ethics and business conduct manual. On February 26, 2015,
TCPI announced that claims were filed in Ohio state court against
the Company, and E. Yan, by TCPI General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer, Laura Hauser, alleging misconduct by the CEO.
The complaint specifically alleged that, E. Yan's conduct violated
state and federal law, and created significant risk to shareholder
value. On this news shares of TCPI declined $3.67 per share, over
56%, to close at $2.74 per share on February 27, 2015.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 1, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email,
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra & Sequoia Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 4409
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015197TC
ID number: 2015197
Manufacturer recall number: SSC 241

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Note: This recall is an expansion of 2014224.
Correction: Dealers will replace the front passenger air bag
inflator with a newly manufactured one.

   Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----      ----------------------
   TOYOTA      TUNDRA     2003, 2004
   TOYOTA      SEQUOIA    2003, 2004


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2004 and 2005 RAV4 Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 14570
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015198TC
ID number: 2015198
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R06

On certain vehicles, the driver's (frontal) airbag inflator has a
potential for intrusion of moisture over time due to insufficient
air sealing. This could result in the inflator rupturing during a
deployment, and/or an abnormal deployment of the driver's
(frontal) airbag during a crash (where deployment is warranted),
which could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant.
Correction: Dealers will replace the driver's (frontal) air bag
inflator with an updated part.

   Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----     ----------------------
   TOYOTA     RAV4      2004, 2005


UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive
------------------------------------------
David Rogers, writing for Politico, reported that immigrant rights
attorneys won an important round in federal court in Seattle,
keeping alive their lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's
decision to rush thousands of children from Central America into
deportation proceedings last summer without first assuring them
legal counsel.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly denied the Justice Department's
motion to dismiss the case outright on jurisdictional grounds and
said instead that the child migrants' due process right-to-counsel
claim was vital and deserves "an answer."

"The Court is of the opinion the due process question plaintiffs
have raised in this case is far too important to consign it, as
defendants propose, to the perhaps perpetual loop of the
administrative and judicial review process," Zilly said. "A
fundamental precept of due process is that individuals have a
right to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner' and before 'being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any
kind even though it may not involve the stigma and hardship of a
criminal conviction."

"The removal proceedings at issue in this case pit juveniles
against the full force of the federal government," Zilly wrote.
"The government initiates the proceedings, it is represented in
them, and its discretion in executing removal orders is insulated
from judicial review. Moreover, courts have repeatedly recognized
'with only a small degree of hyperbole' that the immigration laws
are 'second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.'"


UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Carter, writing for Seattle Times, reported that Seattle
federal judge orders the DOJ to obey a law that allows some
immigrant detainees to be released on their own recognizance while
their cases work through the system.

In a move that could affect tens of thousands of detainees, a
federal judge in Seattle has ordered the Department of Justice to
obey a law that allows for the release of some undocumented
immigrants without posting a bond.

Immigration-rights leaders say the law is routinely ignored in
Washington and elsewhere in the United States because of a
conflicting Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that requires
immigrant detainees to post at least a $1,500 bond regardless of
whether they pose a danger or flight risk.

"People should not be locked up while they are in immigration
proceedings simply because they do not have money to pay a bond,"
said Matt Adams, the legal director of the Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project (NIRP).

In ordering that the DOJ follow the law, U.S. District Judge
Robert Lasnik also certified a lawsuit filed on behalf of one such
detainee by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and
NIRP as a class-action, sweeping in hundreds of plaintiffs who are
being detained on immigration holds solely because they cannot
post bonds.

Adams said that while Lasnik's ruling now only affects
undocumented immigrants held in Western Washington -- he estimates
there are about 500 people in the Seattle and Tacoma areas who fit
that scenario -- the DOJ's policy impacts tens of thousands of
detainees nationally.

"We are hopeful this ruling will have an impact," on a practice
that has been in place for 15 years, he said. "This is a national
problem."

Nicole Navas, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice in
Washington, D.C., said the DOJ was "reviewing the judge's order."

The lawsuit was filed in October on behalf of Maria Sandra Rivera,
a Honduran woman who said she was fleeing torture and domestic
slavery when she illegally entered the United States on May 29,
2014. She was picked up by agents from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) that same day and sent to the Northwest
Detention Center in Tacoma, according to the lawsuit.

Rivera sought asylum and passed a "credible fear interview" with
an asylum officer, who referred her case to Tacoma Immigration
Court, the lawsuit said. In the meantime, ICE determined she posed
no flight risk or threat to the community and recommended bond,
which was eventually set by an immigration judge at $3,500,
according to court documents.

Rivera could not afford that amount and asked that she be released
on her own recognizance -- a process called "conditional parole" -
- which is allowed for in the Immigration and Nationalization Act.

However, conditional parole is routinely denied in Seattle, Tacoma
and elsewhere in the country, Adams said, because of a conflicting
DOJ policy that requires an immigrant detainee post at least
$1,500 bond regardless of whether he or she poses a danger or
flight risk, according to court documents.

Rivera had been detained more than four months when the suit was
filed in October. She has since been granted asylum and released,
according to the court docket.

Adams said hundreds of other immigrant detainees are in the same
situation when it comes to posting bond.

"The result of this policy is that Immigration Judges require
individuals such as Ms. Rivera to post bond even after determining
that neither danger nor flight risk require their detention,"
according to the lawsuit. "Thus, indigent or low-income
individuals like Ms. Rivera . . . routinely suffer continued and
unnecessary detention, of, if it is even possible, are forced to
strain personal, family and community resources in order to gain
their release."

Adams wrote that the policy "unquestionably violates" the
immigration act.

The government has fought the lawsuit, attacking the court's
jurisdiction and arguing the case is moot because Rivera has since
been released.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Erez Reuveni of the DOJ's Civil Division
in Washington, D.C., argued in pleadings in the Rivera case that
the Board of Immigration Appeals is poised to address a similar
case on its own and argued that Lasnik should hold off on any
decision and let that process play out.

But Lasnik, in the order, said that the immigration court's
blanket refusal to consider conditional parole for immigrant
detainees potentially impinges on a detainee's due-process and
liberty interests, and that Rivera had standing to challenge the
policy.

The government also argued that Lasnik was barred from second-
guessing the immigration judge, but Lasnik said the application of
the policy wasn't the point.

"While an [Immigration Judge's] discretionary judgment in how it
applies the statute is not subject to review, this Court has found
no authority supporting the notion that [an immigration judge] has
the discretion to misinterpret the statute under which he
operates," Lasnik wrote.

He ruled that the Immigration and Nationalization Act
"unambiguously states that an immigration judge may consider
conditions for release beyond a monetary bond," and found that the
agency's policy violates the law.

"The court thus finds that aliens who are detained following
defective bond hearings . . . may immediately challenge their
hearings for legal error on the grounds that their continued
detention is an unnecessary harm," Lasnik wrote.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Falsely Marketed Smoke Alarms, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Zito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00744 (D. Conn., May 19, 2015), seeks redress for the
Defendants' ongoing failure to disclose that their Ionization
Smoke Alarms are not fit to detect and warn of most home fires and
therefore pose an unreasonable safety hazard.

United Technologies Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
makes and sells Ionization Smoke Alarms under the brand name
Kidde.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Bloss, Esq.
      Richard A. Bieder, Esq.
      KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
      350 Fairfield Avenue
      Bridgeport, CO 06604
      Telephone: (203) 336-4421
      Facsimile: (203) 368-3244
      E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com
              rbieder@koskoff.com

         - and -
      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 770
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
              mwoodward@stanleyiola.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD
      1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (508) 224-6246
      Facsimile: (508) 224-4356
      E-mail: ajkier@aol.com

         - and -

      Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER N.WASYLYK
      1307 Chalkstone Avenue
      Providence, RI 02908
      Telephone: (401) 831-7730
      Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
      E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


VIOLIN MEMORY: To Defend Against Securities Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend against the securities actions.

The Company said, "Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, naming us and a
number of our present or former directors and officers, and
several underwriters of our September 27, 2013 IPO. The four
complaints have been consolidated into a single, putative class
action, and co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed by the court.
On March 28, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed. The
complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities
laws on behalf of purchasers of our common stock issued in the
IPO, based on seven categories of alleged omissions. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On April
18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
On October 31, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. The court's order dismissed all
except one category of alleged omissions, and gave plaintiffs the
opportunity to amend the complaint. On November 21, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In so doing, the plaintiffs
chose not to amend their claims against us or the present or
former directors and officers. Pending further developments
regarding plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters, the case
will proceed to the discovery phase on the remaining allegations
against us and the present or former directors and officers."


WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement of 2 Class Suits Awaits Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the proposed
settlement of two class action lawsuits is subject to, among other
things, court approval.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions assert claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects. On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum
of understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court
approval.


WASHINGTON: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dunakin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
ADAM DUNAKIN, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. C14-0567 JLR (W.D. Wash.)

Plaintiff Adam Dunakin is a 34-year-old man with developmental
disability, who has lived in nursing facilities for more than
eight years. He alleges that defendants Kevin W. Quigley, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State Department
of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and Dorothy F. Teeter, in
her official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health
Care Authority (HCA), have failed to provide him with screenings
and evaluations, specialized services, and notice of or planning
for eventual community placement as required pursuant to the
Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396r, and other
laws. He further alleges that these failures have resulted in his
continued institutionalization and unnecessary isolation. He
brings his complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of
other residents of privately operated, Medicaid-certified nursing
facilities in Washington State who are similarly situated.

The complaint enumerates six claims for relief. Mr. Dunakin's
first claim is based on defendants' alleged violations of certain
provisions of the NHRA. His second and third claims are based on
alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a). His fourth claim
alleges violations of certain provisions of Title XIX of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(8),
1396a(a)(10)(B)(i), 1396n(c)(2)(B). His fifth and sixth claims
seek declaratory and injunctive relief and are derivative of his
first four claims.

Dunakin filed a motion for class certification and a motion for
partial summary judgment. Defendants on the other hand brought a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment
under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(2).

Judge Robart granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
for judgment on the pleadings and for partial summary judgment.
The court granted dismissal with respect to Mr. Dunakin's claim
based on the comparability requirement of the Medicaid Act as set
forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(10)(B)(i), but the court also
granted Mr. Dunakin's leave to amend his complaint with respect to
the claim within 30 days of the date of the order. In all other
respects, the court denies defendants' motion. The court granted
Mr. Dunakin's motions for class certification and for partial
summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Robart's order dated April 10, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/SOIhpqfrom Leagle.com

Adam Dunakin, Plaintiff, represented by:

Susan Linn Kas, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
315 - 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206-324-1521
Facsimile: 206-957-0729

     - and -

Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206-223-0303
Facsimile: 206-223-0246

Defendants, represented by:

Angela D. Coats McCarthy, Esq.
Matthew S. King, Esq.
Michelle Teed, Esq.
WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206-464-7744


WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Action
--------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend the case, David Wolf v. WD-40 Company.

On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David
Wolf v. WD-40 Company).  Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action
status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code
Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and
intentional recording of "a communication transmitted between two
cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a
landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone
and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular
radio telephone" without the consent of both parties to the
communication.  Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number
for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his
call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation
of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private
right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the
statute.  If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may
recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual
damages sustained by the plaintiff.  The Company asserts that the
Company has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company
intends to vigorously defend this action.  At the present time,
the Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a
range of possible loss that could result from this legal
proceeding.


WILLOW CREEK: Sued in Colo. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Madden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Willow Creek Companies, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01047-
CMA (D. Colo., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent a mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's
Pecos, Texas site of employment.

Willow Creek Companies, LLC provides midstream oil & natural gas,
water, and pipeline and facilities construction for oil companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219-4283
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


WOONSOCKET, R.I.: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cournoyer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Netti C. Vogel of Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, ruled on various motions in the case JAMES C.
COURNOYER, SHAUN R. COURNOYER, MARC A. COTE, ROLAND M. MICHAUD,
AND ROGER G. JALETTE, SR., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET BUDGET COMMISSION, THE
CITY OF WOONSOCKET, THE TAX ASSESSOR OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET,
AND THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF WOONSOCKET, C.A. NO. PC 2013-4082
(R.I.)

A group of taxpayers, residents, and owners of motor vehicles and
real estate in the City of Woonsocket have brought an action
against the City of Woonsocket Budget Commission, the Tax Assessor
of the City of Woonsocket, and the Treasurer of the City of
Woonsocket. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of Ordinance NO. 7,
a supplemental tax issued by the City of Woonsocket on certain
motor vehicles and real estate. They brought the lawsuit as a
putative class action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated taxpayers in the City of Woonsocket.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that (1) the Ordinance contravenes
Section 44-5-74.4 (Count 1); (2) the Ordinance is in violation of
the presentment requirement in the Rhode Island Constitution
because it was enacted prematurely (Count 2); (3) the supplemental
tax is illegal (Count 3); (4) inclusion of the supplemental tax in
the tax levy for fiscal year 2013-2014 was unlawful (Count 4); (5)
inclusion of the supplemental tax in the tax levy for fiscal year
2014-2015 was unlawful (Count 5); (6) the enactment and assessment
of the supplemental tax violated plaintiffs' procedural due
process rights (Count 6); (7) the supplemental tax amounted to an
impermissible taking (Count 7); and (8) failure to file the
minutes of the July 8, 2013 Budget Commission meeting within the
statutory time period violated the Open Meetings Act (Count 8).

The plaintiffs seek summary judgment as to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
and 8. The defendants move for summary judgment on all counts.
Plaintiffs also move to dismiss defendants' counterclaim for
attorney's fees pursuant to Section 45-9-23.

Justice Vogel granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
with respect to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and
7. With respect to Count 8, the court grants the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, in part, on the issue of the Open
Meetings Act violation. Should plaintiffs seek an award of
attorney fees incurred with respect to the violation of the Open
Meetings Act, they must file a motion before the court with notice
to defendants. The court grants plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
defendants' counterclaim.

A copy of Justice Vogel's decision dated April 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/6LKfDifrom Leagle.com

For Plaintiff:

Robert G. Senville, Esq.
ROBERT G. SENVILLE, ESQ. P.C.
170 Westminster St., Suite 1010
Providence, RI 02903
Tel: 401-454-7100

For Defendant:

Edmund L. Alves, Jr., Esq.
Joseph V. Cavanagh, III, Esq.
Lynne Barry Dolan, Esq.
BLISH & CAVANAGH LLP
Commerce Center, 30
Exchange Terrace
Providence, RI 02903-1765
Telephone: 401-831-8900
Facsimile: 401-751-7542

     - and -

Marc DeSisto, Esq.
DeSisto Law Offices
211 Angel St.
Providence, RI 02906


ZUCKER GOLDBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bennet" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micaela P. Bennett and Sahib Bennett, individually and on behalf
of others who are similarly situated v. Zucker, Goldberg &
Ackerman, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03415-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May 18,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading, and unfair debt collection practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      PHILIP D. STERN ATTORNEY AT LAW
      2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
      Union, NJ 07083
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (973) 532-0866
      E-mail: pstern@philipstern.com


* Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami
------------------------------------------------------------
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, a national law firm with offices in
New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Washington, DC, announced the
addition of two new partners and a special counsel. Joining the
firm are Michael C. Keats, a litigation partner in New York, and
Laura Besvinick, an insurance litigation partner in Miami. Julie
Nevins, who focuses on complex commercial litigation, has joined
the firm as special counsel in Miami.

The continued expansion of the firm includes two recent additions
in the Los Angeles office, Steven D. Atlee, a financial
services/class action partner in the Litigation Practice Group,
and Yousuf I. Dhamee, an investment management partner.

"The addition of these talented and experienced lawyers will
bolster the firm's strong national litigation practice in key
practice areas -- insurance, securities, commercial litigation and
commodities," said Alan M. Klinger, Stroock's co-managing partner
and co-chair of Stroock's Litigation Practice Group.

Mr. Keats represents financial institutions and their senior
executives in civil litigation and regulatory enforcement
proceedings. A former Managing Director in Goldman Sachs'
Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings Group, Mr. Keats is a
seasoned litigator with extensive experience both in the courtroom
and in-house. He also advises clients on securities fraud and
commodities manipulation, intellectual property litigation,
complex contract disputes and class action cases. In addition, Mr.
Keats has represented clients in investigations conducted by the
U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.

"Michael has an extraordinary breadth of experience as a corporate
counsel, trial lawyer and adviser to Fortune 100 companies, as
well as their executives, on complex, high-risk securities
matters," said Mr. Klinger.

Mr. Keats received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law,
and his B.A. and M.A. from Brandeis University.

Mr. Keats may be reached at:

         Michael C. Keats, Esq.
         STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
         180 Maiden Lane
         New York, NY 10038-4982
         Tel: 212-806-5533
         Fax: 212-806-6006
         Email: mkeats@stroock.com

Ms. Besvinick's practice focuses on the representation of insurers
in bad faith actions, complex coverage disputes and consumer class
actions. She also advises insurers on claims-handling and bad
faith issues. In addition, Ms. Besvinick regularly defends
accountants and attorneys in malpractice actions, securities class
actions and before the SEC, and represents companies in complex
commercial disputes in the courts and in arbitration.

"Laura is one of the most respected insurance litigators in the
country, and has an extraordinary record of success for her
clients in state, federal and appellate courts," said Michele
Jacobson, a member of the Firm's Executive Committee and a partner
in the Insurance Practice Group. "She and Julie will be great
assets to our Florida office and national insurance practice."

Ms. Besvinick received her J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law
School, where she was an Editor of the Harvard Law Review, and her
A.B. from Harvard-Radcliffe College.

Ms. Besvinick may be reached at:

         Laura Besvinick, Esq.
         STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
         200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100
         Miami, FL 33131-5323
         Tel: 305-789-9395
         Fax: 305-789-9302
         Email: lbesvinick@stroock.com

Julie Nevins concentrates her practice on complex business
disputes and has over 15 years of experience handling matters in
trial and appellate courts and in arbitral and administrative
forums. She has broad experience handling insurance coverage,
business torts, trademark, trade secret, contract, lender
liability, and real property disputes.

Ms. Nevins received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Florida State
University College of Law, Order of the Coif, where she was
Editor-in-Chief of the Florida State University Law Review, and
her B.A. from Vassar College.

Ms. Nevins may be reached at:

         Julie Nevins, Esq.
         STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
         200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100
         Miami, FL 33131-5323
         Tel: 305-789-9380
         Fax: 305-789-9302
         Email: jnevins@stroock.com

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP is a law firm providing
transactional, regulatory and litigation guidance to leading
financial institutions, multinational corporations, investment
funds and entrepreneurs in the U.S. and abroad. Our emphasis on
excellence and innovation has enabled us to maintain long-term
relationships with our clients and made us one of the nation's
leading law firms for almost 140 years. Stroock's practice areas
include capital markets/securities, commercial finance, mergers,
acquisitions and joint ventures, private equity, private funds,
commodities and derivatives, employment law and benefits, energy
and project finance, entertainment, environmental law, financial
restructuring, financial services litigation, government
relations, insurance, intellectual property, investment
management, litigation, national security/CFIUS, personal client
services, real estate, structured finance and tax.


                            *********

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  * * *