CAR_Public/150603.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 110


                            Headlines


21VIANET GROUP: Court Has Not Ruled on Motions to Consolidate
3430685 CANADA: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard
AIG INC: Judge Junks Consolidated Insurance Suit Over RICO Claims
AIR CANADA: Statement of Claim Filed in Crash Landing Class Suit
ALE HOUSE: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

AMERICAN APPAREL: Hit With Calif. Labor Law Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Racial & Sexual Discrimination
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Stissi" Bid for Matrix Benefits Upheld
ANTHEM INC: Kansas Firm Seeks Class Status in Kancare Breach
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Verap SR 180mg Tablets

APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg Tablets
ASSURANT INC: RICO Claims Tossed in Insurance Class Action
AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action
AUTOMATED INCOME: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over TCPA Violation
AVG TECHNOLOGIES: Reported $100,000 Admin. Costs on Settlement

BCE INC: Nova Scotia Class Suit Permanently Stayed
BEDESSEE IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Allergen
BEST BUY: Counsel to "Herron" Plaintiffs May Not be Deposed
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection
CALFRAC WELL: Sued in Texas Over Layoff Notice

CAPITAL BUILDING: Faces "Hussein" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CARDONE TRAINING: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CARDWORKS INC: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
CHINA CERAMICS: Reached Deal in Principle to Settle Class Actions
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims

CVS HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, "Palmer" Suit Says
DELRAY AUTOMALL: Removed "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
DENSO CORP: Fixed Power Window Motor Prices, All European Claims
DENSO CORP: Faces 2nd All European Suit Over Window Motor Prices
DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer

DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Deals in Pain Pump Case
DOLLAR TREE: Removed "Patton" Class Suit to C.D. California
DOUBLE KITCHEN: Faces "Zhuang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Unlawfully Paid Rebates
DUPRE ENERGY: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ELECTROLUX CANADA: Recalls Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Ovens
ENDURANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EURO IMPORT: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Lawsuit
EXCLUSIVE CANDY: Recalls Strux Build & Bite Candy Dextrose

EXPLORATION DRILLING: "Casarotto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
F. KORBEL & BROS: Calif. Wineries Sued Over Arsenic Content
FALCON TRADING: Recalls Medium Shred Coconut Due to Steel Wire
FALCON TRADING: Recalls Coconut Vanilla Candies Due to Steel Wire
FAMILY HOME: "Downie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walsh" Suit Claims
FOOD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Give Advance Layoff Notice
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
GARCES & GARCES: "Zikorus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Duramax Diesel Engine Fuel Efficiency
GOLD FIELDS: Certification Bid to Be Heard in October 2015
GOLD RESOURCE: Reports Successful Defense Against Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Rips Privacy Class Action Over Data Value Claim
HIGH DESERT: $5 Million Settlement Reached in Mariposa Lawsuit

HOFFMAN LAW: Faces Class Action in S.D. Fla. Over Upfront Fees
HONDA FINANCIAL: Hit With Class Action Over Repo Notices
HOTEL CONNECTION: Faces "Yono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HSBC: To Pay $1.8-Mil. to End Force Placed Kickback Lawsuit
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Suit

IESI BETHLEHEM: Kamensky Cohen Investigates Potential Lawsuit
ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Says Concussions Suit 'Threatens' Football
J CREW: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
JANSSEN INC: Recalls Eprex Sterile Solution Products
JEFFERIES GROUP: Settlement Reached in Delaware Class Action

JPMORGAN CHASE: Pleads Guilty to Rigging World's Currency Market
KAM WAH: Recalls Glico Biscuit Sticks Due to Milk
KAO USA: Faces Class Action Over "Ban Invisible Solid"
KBK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Employees Travel Pay
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Action Claims

KNCMINER: Faces Class Action by Advokatfirman Over Bitcoin
LA GRANJA: Faces "Tovar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early State
LOS ANGELES: Judge OKs Settlement in Lawsuit Against Deputies
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Stipulation Reached to Settle Securities Action

MARIO'S CLEANING: Faces "Cadoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Lewandowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MICHIGAN: Inmates Give Testimony in Prison Rape Suit
MIDWEST SLEEP: Faces "Wehrle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MIMEDX GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit

MINE SAFETY: Removed "James" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Suits Filed v. New GM as of Jan. 30
NAPA AUTO: Recalls MetalPro-Urethane Catalyst Products
NESTLE PURINA: Paliare Roland Files Class-Action Over Beneful
NETHERLANDS: Facing Suit Over Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions

NEW AUTO IMAGE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Class Actions Filed Against Home Loan Servicing
OCWEN FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Asked to Revive Consumer Lawsuit
OKLAHOMA CITY: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
OLD DOMINION: Removed "Arteaga" Class Suit to C.D. California

PALETERIA LA: Recalls Ice Cream Bars & Popsicles Due to Milk
PAYTIME INC: Pa. Ct. Junks Data Breach Suits for Lack of Standing
PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Action Reached Tentative Deal
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims
POPCORN FACTORY: Recalls Dill Pickle Popcorn Products Due to Milk

PORSCHE: Recalls 2015 Model Cars Due to Wiring Harness Defect
PREMERA BLUE: Sued in Seattle, Wash. Over Data Breach
QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Dumpling Products
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: To Pay $38MM to Settle Securities Suit
RALEY'S: Two Women Sue Over Pregnancy and Workplace Issues

RED HILLS: Sued Over Fraud and Extortion in Probation, Sentencing
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q1 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 481 Engle Progeny Pending in Federal Court
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR, PM & Lorillard Settle Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 29 Engle Progeny Cases Tried Have Become Final

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Judgments Total $293MM
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 58 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru Q1 2016
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 12 Engle Progeny Cases v. RJR Tried in Q1 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 100 Individual Smoking Cases Pending v. RJR
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in West Virginia IPIC on June 8

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid Share of Engle Progeny Settlement
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in Sateriale Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 Lights Class Suits Pending in Ill. and Mo.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in "Price" Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Howard v. Brown & Williamson
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. A C & S Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Smith" Plaintiffs' Bid
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Settled "Vassallo" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Could Rule in June in ERISA Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in Delaware Merger Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in North Carolina Merger Case
RHODE ISLAND: Judge Asked to Give Prelim. OK of Pension Suit Deal
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Parties to MOU Agreed to Enter Into Stipulation
SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims

SIROB IMPORTS: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SONUS NETWORKS: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Customer Sues Over Early-Bird Check-In
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Easement Deed Entered in Kingsborough Suit
SS BODY ARMOR: Action to Compel Annual Meeting Not Barred by Stay

STERLING BANCORP: MOU Reached to Settle "Graner" Class Action
TAVORA HOLDING: Recalls Vasco Da Gama Canned Seafood Products
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit
TRUMPS INC: Faces "Emelike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED STATES: Deportation Suit Kept Alive

UNITED STATES: Federal Ruling May Free Immigrants w/o Bonds
VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Undeclared Mustard
VIAND COFFEE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VIATOR INC: Gets Final Court Nod on "Relente" Class Settlement
VIKING RANGE: Recalls Viking and Brigade Freestanding Gas Ranges

VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Natural Grocers Macadamia Nuts
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Valrhona Milk Chocolates Due to Hazelnuts
YOUKO TUDOU: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

* Stroock Bolsters Litigation Practice in New York and Miami


                            *********


21VIANET GROUP: Court Has Not Ruled on Motions to Consolidate
-------------------------------------------------------------
21Vianet Group, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not ruled
on the motions to consolidate class action lawsuits and has not
yet appointed a lead plaintiff.

The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit against our company and our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer, Singh v. 21Vianet Group,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00894 (E.D. Tex.) (the
"Singh Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas. On September 17, 2014, another
putative shareholder class action against our company and our
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Sun v.
21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-2677 (S.D.
Tex.) (the "Sun Case"), was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaints in the
Singh Case and Sun Case allege that public filings, press
releases, financial statements and other related disclosures made
by our company during the alleged class period contained material
misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal
securities laws, and that such public filings, press releases,
financial statements and other related disclosures artificially
inflated the value of our company's ADSs. The complaints in the
Singh Case and Sun Case state that plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading activities related to our ADSs from April 21, 2011
to September 10, 2014, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2013)."

On October 1, 2014, the Sun Case was transferred upon plaintiff's
request to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.  The Company said, "On November 12 and 13,
2014, two alleged shareholders of our company, Emily Wu ("Wu") and
Hyoung Wan Noh ("Noh"), respectively filed motions requesting the
court to consolidate the two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs. On December 3,
2014, Noh filed a response to Wu's motion and acknowledged that
Noh did not oppose Wu's appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court
has not ruled on the above-mentioned motions to consolidate and
has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff."

"The actions remain at their preliminary stages. We believe the
cases are without merit and intend to defend the actions
vigorously."


3430685 CANADA: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 20, 2015
Posting date: May 20, 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-53371

This recall involves the OXO Tot Nest Booster Seat.  The booster
seat is made with a white plastic base and coloured foam cushion.
On the underside of the product is a sticker with a Manufacture
Date. Affected products have a manufacture date of 0714, 0814,
0914, 1014, 1114, or 1214.  The formed plastic seats are about 33
centimetres (13 inches) wide by 35.5 centimetres (14 inches) tall
by 30.5 centimetres (12 inches) deep and have a grey three-point
child restraint strap system. The OXO logo is embossed on the
restraint system's buckle.

The following item numbers are included in this recall:

  Item number     Coloured foam cushion
  ----------      ---------------------
  6367200         Green
  6367500         Taupe
  6367400         Orange

The stitching on the harness straps can become unsewn and may
detach, posing a fall hazard to the child.

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

OXO International, Ltd. has received five reports of consumer
incidents in the United States where the stitching came undone
releasing the straps following a child pulling on the strap or an
adult tightening the straps. There have been no reports of injury.

In total, 136 of the affected booster seat were sold in Canada and
approximately 25,000 were distributed in the United States.

The affected products were sold from November 2014 to April 2015
in Canada and from September 2014 to April 2015 in the United
States.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: OXO International, Ltd.
              El Paso
              Texas
              UNITED STATES

Importer: 3430685 Canada Inc. d/b.a QHouse Kids
          Ste Anne de Belleville
          Quebec
          CANADA


AIG INC: Judge Junks Consolidated Insurance Suit Over RICO Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman dismissed the six-count
consolidated amended class action complaint captioned IN RE AIG
WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE POLICYHOLDER LITIGATION,
CASE NO. 13 C 8250, CASE NO. 14 C 2529, CASE NO. 14 C 2828,
CASE NO. 14 C 2528, CASE NO. 14 C 2531, MDL NO. 2519, (N.D. Ill.).

The judge entered the dismissal order by virtue of the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss.

The complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Beach Medical Marketing,
Inc., D&J Plastics, Inc., Franjo, Inc., Hopson Seal-a-Lot, Inc.,
Jayarvee, Inc., JPS Collision, Inc., Mesa Cycles, Inc., Patrick
Purdy, Inc., Philip J. Feitelson PSC and tmg-emedia, Inc. against
defendants American International Group, Inc., AIU Insurance
Company, American Home Assurance Company, American Fuji Fire and
Marine Insurance Company, American International Overseas Limited,
Chartis Property Casualty Company, Commerce and Industry Insurance
Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Illinois National
Insurance Co., Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, New
Hampshire Insurance Company, Yosemite Insurance Company, AIG Risk
Management, Inc., and Maurice R. Greenberg, former Chairman and
CEO of AIG (jointly "AIG"), alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(c), (d), common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer
protection acts.

Plaintiffs are all employers from 16 different states (the
"Affected States") that are required to carry workers compensation
Insurance ("WC insurance").

According to plaintiffs, beginning as early as 1970, AIG devised,
implemented, participated in and carried out a number of
nationwide schemes to "miss-categorize, falsely report, and
falsely book" its WC premiums as other premiums (for example
general liability premiums), to reduce its expenses, inflate its
profits, and unjustly enrich itself at the expense of plaintiffs.
By issuing false certified annual financial reports that
underreported the WC insurance premium figures, AIG evaded paying
its equitable share of financial responsibility for state-levied
taxes and assessments.

In its April 27 Order, the District Court holds that plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the statute of limitations.  "There is simply
no valid reason for waiting until 2013 to file the first of these
consolidated suits other than to wait until AIG had settled all of
its previously filed fraud-related actions," the Court opines.

A copy of the Court's April 27, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/45EMBufrom Leagle.com.


AIR CANADA: Statement of Claim Filed in Crash Landing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mancini, writing for CBC News, reports that a statement of
claim has been filed in a proposed class action lawsuit over the
crash landing of Air Canada Flight 624 at the Halifax Stanfield
International Airport in March.

AC624 crash landed on the early hours of March 29.  The plane was
travelling from Toronto to Halifax carrying 133 passengers and
five crew members.

The statement of claim for the class action was filed by Halifax-
based MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law.

"We're looking to find out as much as we can about the precise
details of what factors contributed to the accident," said Jamie
MacGillivray, the lawyer who filed the statement of claim.

"We hope to obtain that information through document disclosure
and having a chance to discover question under oath the people
involved in the accident."

The document names the Halifax International Airport Authority,
NAV Canada, Air Canada, the captain and first officer of the
flight as defendants in the class action.  The allegations made in
the statement of claim have not been proven in court and the class
action has not been certified.

'Inadequate instrument landing system'

The Transportation Safety Board's federal investigation into the
crash landing is ongoing.

The class action lawsuit is seeking damages to cover every class
member, which the firm is estimating will total about $12 million.
The statement of claim says the first officer and captain, who
have not been named publicly, failed to "take reasonable care to
avoid the crash."  It also says the Halifax International Airport
Authority chose to keep the runway open "when it knew or ought to
have known that was not reasonably safe to do so" and it chose to
operate the runway "with an inadequate instrument landing system."

Nav Canada, the statement claims, was negligent in instructing the
crew of AC624 to land on the runway when Halifax air traffic
control "knew or should have known the conditions were unsafe for
landing."

The lead plaintiff proposed for the class action is a 54-year-old
man from Pictou County.  He has musculoskeletal system damage
"including, bruising, tearing, straining and damaging of the
nerves, muscles, tendons and ligaments" and psychological trauma,
according to the statement of claim.

Mr. MacGillivray said his firm plans to file a mass tort claim in
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on Tuesday, in addition to the
class action.

"The class action has one representative and if it's ever
certified, that representative would represent all passengers on
the plane.  But if it's not certified, our fallback is to have a
single action with all 20 plaintiffs named individually," he said.

"The advantage of the mass tort is that we don't have to wait for
it to be certified in order to get document disclosure and begin
discoveries."

Right now, Mr. MacGillivray said he has been retained by 20
clients for the mass tort claim.


ALE HOUSE: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willy Guevara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Ale House, Inc. d/b/a The Washington Street Ale
House, Cherry Tree Hospitality, LLC and Darius Mansoory, Case No.
1:15-cv-00409-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and gastro pub that
specializes in food and handcrafted beers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald S. Gellert, Esq.
      GELLERT SCALI BUSENKELL & BROWN, LLC
      913 N. Market Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 425-5806
      Facsimile: (302) 425-5814
      E-mail: rgellert@gsbblaw.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Hit With Calif. Labor Law Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for the LawyersandSettlements.com, reports
that when American Apparel announced to the press an impending
mass layoff, the imminent job loss was allegedly news to many of
the employees about to be affected, according to a class-action
lawsuit filed days ago in California.  When the layoffs were
triggered on or about April 1, affected employees were blindsided,
with little notice and minimal severance.  California labor law
and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (both
federal and state) hold strict tenets as to what is required when
a worker is let go through no fault of his own.

American Apparel Hit with Proposed California Labor Law Class
Action the proposed class action also alleges that many employees
who had little proficiency with the English language were
pressured into signing separation agreements described in court
documents as "paltry," and were also allegedly pressured into
signing separation agreements they were unable to understand that
left them little recourse for legal claims after the fact.

According to various media reports, American Apparel claimed the
layoffs were necessary to ensure the future health and viability
of the company.  The proposed California labor lawsuit, however,
notes that various requirements related to adequate severance and
notice of layoff were not properly followed.

The lawsuit noted that various state and federal statutes that
require 60 days' notice prior to a layoff or job termination were
not followed, and severance terms were described as
"unconscionable," with some employees offered as little as $300 in
severance.

"As American Apparel's management was well aware, many of these
employees receiving these agreements did not speak, read, or write
English.  Several of these employees did not read or write at
all," the lawsuit said.  "Notwithstanding the same, American
Apparel's management insisted that these employees sign these
agreements immediately, even if they could not read or understand
them."

The lawsuit also notes the layoffs and terms fly in the face of a
retooled ethics policy released by American Apparel in the wake of
the recent termination of American Apparel founder Dov Charney in
December of last year amidst various allegations of sexual
harassment.

The proposed California and labor law class action also alleged
that the CEO and other top management within the corporation
awarded themselves additional stock options and salary increases,
while stiffing laid-off employees with minimal severance, or so it
is alleged.

The lawsuit seeks 60 days' worth of pay for each laid-off worker,
as well as backpay and other benefits for the affected workers of
American Apparel.

The case is Hirschberg et al v. American Apparel Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02827, filed April 16 in the US District Court for the
Central District of California.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Racial & Sexual Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Seiber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc. d/b/a American Express, d/b/a Amex, Jing Wang,
individually, and John Does 1-X, Case No. 1:15-cv-03883-WHP
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
race and sexual orientation discrimination.

The Defendants own and operate a New York corporation that
provides financial and travel related services for consumers and
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darius Adam Marzec, Esq.
      MARZEL LAW FIRM PC
      225 Broadway, Suite 3000
      NY, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 267-0200
      Facsimile: (718) 841-7508
      E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Stissi" Bid for Matrix Benefits Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA
BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL NO. 1203,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, 2:16 MD 1203 (E.D. Penn.), Elsie T.
Stissi, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action
Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP
Settlement Trust.

Under the Settlement Agreement, only eligible claimants are
entitled to Matrix Benefits. Generally, a claimant is considered
eligible for Matrix Benefits if he or she is diagnosed with mild
or greater aortic and/or mitral regurgitation by an echocardiogram
performed between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of
the Screening Period.

In an April 30, 2015 Memorandum, District Judge Harvey Bartle,
III, concludes that claimant has not met her burden of proving
that there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that she had
at least mild aortic regurgitation between the commencement of
Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period. Therefore, the
Pennsylvania District Court affirmed the Trust's denial of Ms.
Stissi's claim for Matrix B-1, Level IV benefits.

Copies of the judge's Memoranda in Support of Separate Pre-trial
Order No. 9411 is available at http://is.gd/VQReyiand
http://is.gd/ehGgFUfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN
FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S.
HENSHELL, SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK,
HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER, Goodell, DeVries,
Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN
SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED
& RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


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.


APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Verap SR 180mg Tablets
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 19, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53499

Out of Specification result for dissolution testing.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers

Affected products: A. APO-Verap SR 180 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02246894
Dosage form: Tablet (Extended-Release)
Strength: Verapamil hydrochloride 180 mg
Lot or serial number: MC 9090

Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
                150 Signet Drive
                Toronto
                M9L 1T9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg Tablets
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 19, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53497

Product lots KN9456, KP0842, KV0887, KP0050 did not meet the shelf
life specification for CAD II impurity.

Product lots KN9458, KN9461, KV7989, KV0896 obtained results that
were close to the specification limit for CAD II impurity (out of
trend).

Product lot KV0886 did not meet the shelf life specification for
CAD II impurity (result: 0.6%, limit: NMT 0.5%) during stability
testing at 9 month time point.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers

Affected products: A. APO-Candesartan/HCTZ 12.5 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02395126
Dosage form: Tablet
Strength: Candesartan Cilexetil 32 mg
          Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg
Lot or serial number: KN9456
                      KN9458
                      KN9461
                      KP0842
                      KV0886
                      KV0887
                      KV7989

Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
                150 Signet Drive
                Toronto
                M9L 1T9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


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.


AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP has filed a federal securities class action against
AudioEye, Inc. alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The action, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, is on behalf of purchasers of
AudioEye securities between May 5, 2014 and April 1, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Defendants are alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws, specifically Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) AudioEye's financial statements contained errors
concerning the classification of revenues and expenses; (2) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial
reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On April 1, 2015, the truth was revealed when AudioEye announced
that its previously issued financial statements for the quarters
ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2014 will be restated
due to errors.  Furthermore, AudioEye stated that its preliminary
earnings release issued by the Company on January 12, 2015
relating to the quarter and year ended December 31, 2014 should no
longer be relied upon.  The Company also announced that, Edward
O'Donnell, resigned as the Company's Chief Financial Officer.

As a result of this announcement, the Company's stock fell 22%
during intraday trading on April 1, 2015.

If you purchased AudioEye common stock during the Class Period you
may, no later than June 15, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that represents other class members in directing the
litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be affected by
serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make
important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for
class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to recover
as an absent class member.  You may retain Milberg LLP, or other
attorneys, for this action, but do not need to retain counsel to
recover.  If this action is certified as a class action, class
members will be automatically represented by Court-appointed
counsel.

Milberg LLP has represented individual and institutional investors
for over four decades and serves as lead counsel in Courts
throughout the United States.  Visit the Milberg website
(www.milberg.com) for more information about the firm.  If you
wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the following
attorney:

         Andrei Rado, Esq.
         Milberg LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Tel No: 800-320-5081
         E-mail: arado@milberg.com


AUTOMATED INCOME: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Automated Income Stream, LLC and Prosperity
Team, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03115-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal., April 27,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


AVG TECHNOLOGIES: Reported $100,000 Admin. Costs on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVG Technologies N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company recognized a
remaining liability of $100,000 related to administrative costs of
the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On May 22, 2012, the Company received notification of a class
action litigation relating to the design, sale and marketing of
its AVG PC TuneUp software. This notification was amended on
September 5, 2012 adding the Australian based provider as
defendant. On August 14, 2013 the parties agreed to a settlement
in principle and as a consequence the Company estimated and
recorded a liability of $2,600,000. In relation to this, the
Company also estimated and recorded a receivable of $1,000,000
from the Australian based provider.

On January 14, 2014, the Company transferred $1,500,000 to an
escrow account and the Australian based provider contemporaneously
transferred $1,000,000 on behalf of the claimant. The Court issued
an order providing final approval of the settlement on behalf of
the class on May 5, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company
recognized a remaining liability of $100,000 related to
administrative costs of the settlement.


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.


BEDESSEE IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Allergen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our firm is voluntarily recalling Brown Betty Coconut Milk Powder
Mix because the product contains Sodium Caseinate, but the label
lacks the allergen statement "Contains milk." People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Please return all unused portion to the store you had purchase the
product from for a full refund.

The recalled "Coconut Milk Powder" was sold in NY, NJ, CT, MD, NC
and FL.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Thank you for your cooperation in this recall. If you have any
question regarding this recall, please feel free to contact our
office at 888-233-3773 or 718-272-1300 during Monday to Saturday
from 9am to 5pm. lf you require any further information our staff
can assist you.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448376.htm


BEST BUY: Counsel to "Herron" Plaintiffs May Not be Deposed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action CHAD HERRON, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY
CO. INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-CV-2103 GEB CKD, (E.D.
Calif.), plaintiff alleges claims under the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Plaintiff alleges that on product
tags placed on merchandise, defendants misrepresented the battery
life on laptop computers and notebooks.

Defendant sought to depose attorneys Stonebarger and Lambert,
counsel for plaintiff in the action. Defendant contended these
attorneys had knowledge of who the properly named defendant was in
this action (Best Buy Stores, LP) prior to the filing of the
second amended complaint on March 1, 2013.

Plaintiff reasoned that the depositions cannot proceed because the
information sought is protected work product.

Accordingly, in a May 4, 2015 Order available at
http://is.gd/A3ZSelfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.
Delaney granted plaintiff's motion for protective order.

"Inquiry into the facts underlying plaintiff's counsel's decision
to name Best Buy Co. Inc. as the defendant will breach protected
work product. The attorneys that are the subject of the pending
motion have submitted in this case affidavits on the statute of
limitations issue. Further inquiry by deposition of plaintiff's
attorneys is not warranted," the judge opined.

Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Gene Joseph Stonebarger,
Stonebarger Law, Anne Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP, Elaine Wing Ling Yan, Stonebarger Law, APC, Jonathan C Hsieh,
Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP, Niall P. McCarthy, Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster Llp, John Michael Stusiak,
Morrison and Foerster LLP, Penelope A. Preovolos, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Samuel James Boone Lunier, Morrison and Foerster
LLP.

Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP & Michael Aaron Geibelson,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Dell Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by Alyssa E. Ramirez,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Kevin P. McCormick, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Kimball R. Anderson, Winston & Strawn LLP & Krista M. Enns,
Winston & Strawn LLP.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Sued Over Improper Sales Tax Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Reed Smith State Tax Group's Adam P. Beckerink, Jack Trachtenberg
and Douglas A. Wick, in an article 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.


CALFRAC WELL: Sued in Texas Over Layoff Notice
----------------------------------------------
Anthony Gardinier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Calfrac Well Services Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00417-RP (W.D. Tex., May 19, 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 Converse, Texas site of employment.

Calfrac Well Services Corporation provides acidizing, hydraulic
fracturing, coiled tubing, nitrogen and carbon dioxide drilling
and completion services to the oil and gas exploration companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON AND BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


CAPITAL BUILDING: Faces "Hussein" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duniyo Hussein, Naima Omar Issa, Leyla Yusuf, Raymond Deshler,
Assiongbonvi "Luc" Kangnigan, Melvin Holmes, Abraham Quevedo
Orantes, Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, on behalf of themselves, the
Proposed Rule 23 Class, and others similarly situated v. Capital
Building Services Group, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT (D.
Minn., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Minnesota state law.

Capital Building Services Group, Inc. provides commercial cleaning
services to retail, corporate, commercial, industrial, banking,
and educational venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3207
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: ahansen@nka.com
              cengstrom@nka.com
              lukas@nka.com


CARDONE TRAINING: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Scott and other similarly situated individuals v. Cardone
Training Technologies, Inc. and Grant T. Cardone, Case No. 1:15-
cv-21919-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of developing visual
and audio products geared towards enhancing individuals and
corporations' production through sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDWORKS INC: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Turner v. Cardworks, Inc., Cardworks Servicing, LLC and
Carson Smithfield, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02911 (E.D.N.Y., May 20,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a consumer finance company with an
office at 101 Crossways Park West, Woodbury, New York 11797.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


CHINA CERAMICS: Reached Deal in Principle to Settle Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Ceramics Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the
individual defendants in class action lawsuits reached an
agreement in principle to settle the cases as against all
defendants and the Company in consideration of the payment by the
Company of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and
common stock.

The Company said, "On June 6, 2014, a putative class action
complaint (the "Pollock Complaint") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against us
and various current and former directors and officers asserting
claims of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against all defendants, and asserting claims for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange
Act. The complaint is captioned Robert Pollock, Individually and
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su
Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan
Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang,
Jianwei Liu, And China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4100)."

"On June 16, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the
"Artinoff Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various
current and former directors and officers asserting claims of
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
all defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is
captioned Roger Artinoff, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd., Huang Jia Dong, Su
Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan
Davis, William L. Stulginsky And Su Wei Feng. (Case No. 14-cv-
4312).

"On July 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the
"Finlayson Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various
current and former directors and officers asserting claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and claims for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange
Act. The complaint is captioned Richard Finlayson, Individually
and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong,
Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng
Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang,
Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4997).

"On February 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the above-described cases as
against all defendants and us in consideration of the payment by
us of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and our common
stock. The settlement is subject to the execution of a mutually
acceptable settlement agreement and the approval of the settlement
by the Court."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Desmond R. Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation and Nice-Pak
Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02909 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015),
is a class action brought in connection with the purchase of
Kirkland Signature Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised
by the Defendants as safe to be flushed.

The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not
disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or
septic systems.

Headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, Costco Wholesale
Corporation operates membership warehouses that offer branded and
private-label products in a range of merchandise categories.

Nice-Pak Products, Inc. a New York corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes branded and private label
pre-moistened wipes products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Sean T. Masson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Karalis, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              smasson@rgrdlaw.com
              lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, "Palmer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven and Ellen Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-02928 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), is a class action
brought in connection with the purchase of CVS Brand Flushable
Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendants
as safe to be flushed.

The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not
disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or
septic systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Sean T. Masson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Karalis, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              smasson@rgrdlaw.com
              lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


DELRAY AUTOMALL: Removed "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Salgado, and other similarly situated car washers v. Delray
Automall and Franz Menardy, Case No. 113C-7677354, was removed to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-80527-
DMM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-rated claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Daniel A. Sands, Esq.
      Robert A. Stok, Esq.
      STOK FOLK + KON
      18851 Northeast 29th Avenue,Suite 1005
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 935-4440
      E-mail: dsands@stoklaw.com
              rstok@stoklaw.com


DENSO CORP: Fixed Power Window Motor Prices, All European Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
All European Auto Supply, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11829-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2015),
asserts that the Defendants entered into an agreement,
combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers in the
United States for Power Window Motors.

DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries
manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were
purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      2140 Walnut Lake Road
      West Bloomfield, MI 48323
      Telephone: (248) 932-3070
      E-mail: Aubrey@tobinpc.com

         - and -

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1431
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      David A. Young, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2443 S. University Boulevard, #232
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 583-0650
      E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com


DENSO CORP: Faces 2nd All European Suit Over Window Motor Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
All European Auto Supply, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11830-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2015),
asserts that the Defendants entered into an agreement,
combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers in the
United States for Power Window Motors.

DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries
manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were
purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      2140 Walnut Lake Road
      West Bloomfield, MI 48323
      Telephone: (248) 932-3070
      E-mail: Aubrey@tobinpc.com

         - and -

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1431
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      David A. Young, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2443 S. University Boulevard, #232
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 583-0650
      E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com


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.


DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Deals in Pain Pump Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company as of
March 28, 2015, has accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in
the Pain Pump Litigation.

The Company said, "Over the past 7 years, we have been named in
numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior
distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently
are a defendant in two U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which
has been granted class action status for a class of approximately
45 claimants. We discontinued our sale of these products in the
second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of
these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain
anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries
or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs. In the past four years, we have entered
into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 140 pain pump
lawsuits. Except for the payment by the Company of policy
deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability
carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and
settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of
rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive
damages and off-label promotion. The range of potential loss for
these claims is not estimable, although we believe we have
adequate insurance coverage for such claims. As of March 28, 2015,
we have accrued $0.2 million for unpaid settlements in this case,
and a corresponding receivable as all of the settlements will be
paid by our product liability carriers."


DOLLAR TREE: Removed "Patton" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Curtis Patton an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., Case No. BC577498, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03813 to the proceeding.

The case asserts account receivable claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis Patton
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher L Dengler, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
      Telephone: (310) 553-0308
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
      E-mail: cdengler@littler.com


DOUBLE KITCHEN: Faces "Zhuang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
He Zhuang, Lan Chen, Xue Mel Han, Amalyn Chariss M. WILLIAMS,
Christmaster Tara Yao, Migmar Dolma, and Qin Jiang, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Double Kitchen
LLC d/b/a Ichiumi, JNRP, Inc. d/b/a Todai, Yun Park, and Jaeseong
Ko a/k/a Jea Seong Ko, Case No. 1:15-cv-03858-VEC (S.D.N.Y., 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 Ichi Umi restaurant with its
principal place of business located at 6 East 32nd Street, New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Marc Scott Hepworth, Esq.
      Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 385-2121
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: Charles@hgrlawyers.com
              marc@hgrlawyers.com
              rifbecca@gmail.com


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.


DUPRE ENERGY: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donte Hart and Johnathan Torok, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dupre Energy Services, LLC and KSW
Environmental, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00659-AJS (W.D. Pa., May 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Dupre Energy Services owns and operates numerous oil field service
companies across the United States.

KSW Environmental, LLC deploys, operates, and maintains filter
units that are intended to reduce the crystalline silica dust
emitted due to fracking operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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


ELECTROLUX CANADA: Recalls Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Ovens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 20, 2015
Posting date: May 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Appliances
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard, Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53465

This voluntary recall involves certain Frigidaire(R) and
Kenmore(R) Elite dual fuel stainless steel slide-in ranges with
gas cooktops and electric ovens bearing both the model and serial
numbers set out below.  The model and serial number can be found
on the left side trim when the oven door is opened.

Frigidaire(R) and Kenmore(R) Slide-in Units:

  Model Numbers beginning            Serial  Numbers and
  with these Letters and Numbers     Serial Number Ranges
  ------------------------------     --------------------
  Frigidaire CPDS3085PF              AF42903111 to AF42903122,
                                     AF43103696 to AF43103719,
                                     AF43000014.

  Frigidaire CGDS3065PF              AF43001481 to AF43001492,
                                     AF43103672 to AF43103695,
                                     AF43000013.

  Kenmore 970C42613                  AF42302293 to AF42302304,
                                     AF42401060, AF42401061,
                                     AF42401063 to AF42401064,
                                     AF42401066 to AF42401078,
                                     AF42401080, AF42401095,
                                     AF42401101 to AF42401105,
                                     AF42401146 to AF42401147,
                                     AF42401151, AF42401153,
                                     AF42402715,
                                     AF42402717 to AF42402723,
                                     AF42402725,
                                     AF42402751 to AF42402752,
                                     AF42402754 to AF42402755,
                                     AF42402757 to AF42402761,
                                     AF42402775 to AF42402777,
                                     AF42402779, AF42402789,
                                     AF42402791,
                                     AF42402795 to AF42402799,
                                     AF42402801 to AF42402802,
                                     AF42402804 to AF42402806,
                                     AF42402810,AF42502138,
                                     AF42502140 to AF42502141,
                                     AF42502149, AF42600469,
                                     AF42600472 to AF42600480,
                                     AF42600841 to AF42600842,
                                     AF42601181 to AF42601183,
                                     AF42601185 to AF42601186,
                                     AF42601188 to AF42601202,
                                     AF42601229 to AF42601230,
                                     AF42601242 to AF42601243,
                                     AF42601245 to AF42601246,
                                     AF42601248 to AF42601250,
                                     AF42602719 to AF42602730,
                                     AF43000113 to AF43000124.

The burner flame can go out while the gas is turned on.  This can
allow gas to escape and poses fire and burn hazards.

Neither Health Canada nor Electrolux Canada Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.  Additionally, no consumer injuries
related to the use of these products have been reported in the
United States.

Approximately 142 Kenmore(R) affected products were sold at Sears
Canada stores across Canada, and approximately 71 Frigidaire(R)
affected products were sold at various retailers across Canada.
Only ranges falling within both the model numbers and serial
numbers or serial number ranges set out above are affected
products.

In the United States, approximately 250 Sears Kenmore units were
sold.  The US models were not sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from approximately June 2014
through October 2014.

Manufactured in United States.

Distributor: The Frigidaire Division of Electrolux Canada Corp.
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected products.

Consumers with affected products should contact Electrolux toll-
free at 1-800-265-8352 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET on
Saturdays to arrange a free in-home service call that will address
the issue.  Consumers with affected products can also obtain
information on the web at Voluntary Recall Alert (for English) or
Avis de rappel volontaire (in French).

US consumers may obtain information regarding the recall of the US
Models on the US CPSC'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/LDZpsN


ENDURANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damasi Roberts, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Endurance Communications & Electrical, LLC. 4Evolution, Inc.,
Chirstopher Riley, Case No. 6:15-cv-00810 (M.D. Fla., May 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing electrical
services in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N. Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


EURO IMPORT: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
EURO IMPORT DISTRIBUTIONS INC at 4821 1st Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
11232 is recalling dried apricots in 3.5 oz plastic bags, because
it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Dried Apricots is sold in 3.5 oz plastic bags coded
20 02 15 and was distributed in New York State. It is a product of
Russia.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Dried Apricots
which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reaction in some asthmatics.

Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of the Dried Apricots revealed it contains 23.26 mg per
serving.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased Dried Apricots should return
it to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-768-5145.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448342.htm


EVERYWARE GLOBAL: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
EveryWare Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that, "On October 7, 2014, we
were named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers violated
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing
allegedly false or misleading statements concerning the Company.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. We intend to
vigorously defend these claims."


EXCLUSIVE CANDY: Recalls Strux Build & Bite Candy Dextrose
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Exclusive Candy & Novelty Distribution Ltd.
Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9774

  Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s) on     UPC
  ---------    -----------   ----   product        ---
                                    ----------
  Strux        Build & Bite  65 g   Best Before:   60631 71181 2
               (Candy               27-12-2015
               Dextrose)            Lot: L2706201410


EXPLORATION DRILLING: "Casarotto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Casarotto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Exploration Drilling, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00041-
SPW-CSO (D. Mont., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Exploration Drilling, Inc. is a Montana energy company engaged in
the exploration and production of oil.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. McGrady, Esq.
      McGRADY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      PO Box 40
      Park City, MT 59063
      Telephone: (406) 322-8647
      E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com


F. KORBEL & BROS: Calif. Wineries Sued Over Arsenic Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law 360, reports that dozens of
California wineries and distributors -- including F. Korbel &
Bros. Inc., Sutter Home Winery Inc. and Trader Joe's Co. --
produce and sell wine containing dangerous levels of arsenic,
without informing consumers, according to a potential class action
suit filed in federal court.

Zahira Crespo-Bithorn alleged that the winemakers and distributors
have produced or sold wine containing inorganic arsenic and have
concealed that fact from consumers, who are at risk for maladies
ranging from nausea and bronchitis to cancer, encephalopathy and
death.


FALCON TRADING: Recalls Medium Shred Coconut Due to Steel Wire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks, CA
announced that it has taken the precautionary measure of
voluntarily recalling the one bulk item mentioned below.

The product may contain very small stainless steel wire, the kind
and type used in the screening process during manufacturing.
Please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
website at http://www.cdc.gov.

Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms is committed to producing
only the highest quality products, and our top priority is the
safety of our customers. For this reason we are issuing this
voluntary recall as a precautionary measure.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge
Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are
being recalled at this time.

Consumers who have purchased the items mentioned below should
return it to the retail store where they purchased it for a full
refund. If they have any questions, they should call Falcon
Trading Company's customer service at 1-831-786-7000.

RE: COCONUT-MEDIUM SHRED IMPORTED BY FALCON TRADING COMPANY, INC.

  Item Code  UPC Code   Item          Pack   Case       Lot
  --------   --------   Description   Size   Quantity   Codes
                        -----------   ----   --------   -----
001120       0867000-   COCONUT-      25 LB  726 SACKS  DCM-101
              11201     MEDIUM        BAG               AND
                        SHRED                           DCM-102


FALCON TRADING: Recalls Coconut Vanilla Candies Due to Steel Wire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon Trading Company, Inc./SunRidge Farms of Royal Oaks, CA
announced that it has taken the precautionary measure of
voluntarily recalling the one bulk item mentioned below. This item
was distributed to the East Coast on May 7, 2015.

The product may contain very small stainless steel wire, the kind
and type used in the screening process during manufacturing.

Please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
website at http://www.cdc.gov.

Falcon Trading Company/SunRidge Farms is committed to producing
only the highest quality products, and our top priority is the
safety of our customers. For this reason we are issuing this
voluntary recall as a precautionary measure.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the SunRidge
Farms recalled product and no other SunRidge Farms products are
being recalled at this time.

Consumers who have purchased the items mentioned below should
return it to the retail store where they purchased it for a full
refund. If they have any questions, they should call Falcon
Trading Company's customer service at 1-831-786-7000.

RE: SUNRIDGE CANDY-COCONUT CHEWS, VANILLA

  Item Code  UPC Code   Item          Pack   Case       Lot
  --------   --------   Description   Size   Quantity   Codes
                        -----------   ----   --------   -----
  023617     0867009-   SUNRIDGE      10 LB  156 BOXES  1081545
             36177      CANDY-        BAG               AND
                        COCONUT                         1101545
                        CHEWS,
                        VANILLA


FAMILY HOME: "Downie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Downie v. Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens,
Inc., and Thomas O'Brien, Case No. 1:15-cv-03862-RA (S.D.N.Y., May
19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility with
its principal place of business located at 168 Seventh Street,
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walsh" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon M. Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00761 (D. Ariz., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end
on the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt
collection practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC
      Land Title Bldg.
      100 S Broad St., 19th Fl.
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 736-8600

         - and -

      Paul B. Mengedoth, Esq.
      MENGEDOTH LAW PLLC
      20909 N 90th St., Ste. 211
      Scottsdale, AZ 85255
      Telephone: (480) 778-9100
      Facsimile: (480) 778-9101
      E-mail: paul@mengedothlaw.com

         - and -

      Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith, Esq.
      GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES LLC
      20545 Center Ridge Rd., Ste. 120
      Rocky River, OH 44116
      Telephone: (440) 934-3025
      Facsimile: (440) 934-3026
      E-mail: sgoldsmith@sgoldsmithlawoffice.com


FOOD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Give Advance Layoff Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hodge, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Food Management Partners, Inc., and
Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00996 (C.D.
Cal., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with
recent closing of over 70 Coco's Bakery Restaurants and Carrows
Restaurants following the acquisition of their parent company,
Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. by Food Management Partners, Inc.

The Defendants own and operate Coco's restaurant located in
Victorville, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Sing Lee
      Capstone Law APC
      1840 Century Park East Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forcefield Energy Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, that on
April 17, 2015 a lawsuit (the "Complaint") against the Registrant
and its officers, Messrs. St-Julien (who resigned as Chairman and
from all other positions he held with the Registrant), Natan and
Williams (Mr. Natan and Mr. Williams are collectively referred to
as the "Individual Defendants"), and certain other third parties,
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York.

Although the Registrant has yet to be served with a copy of the
Complaint, the Complaint filed by one individual that had
purchased 650 shares, appears to seek class status on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Registrant's securities between
September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015 (the "Period") and alleges
violations by the Registrant and the other persons named therein
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined
with certainty, the Registrant believes that the allegations
stated in the Complaint are without merit against the Registrant
and the Individual Defendants, and the Individual Defendants and
the Registrant intend to defend themselves vigorously against all
allegations set forth in the Complaint.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey Mckenna & Egleston disclosed 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 securities of ForceField Energy Inc. during the
period from September 16, 2013 through April 15, 2015, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers.

ForceField purports to design, distribute, and license alternative
energy products and technologies in China and the United States.
ForceField is a distributor of light emitting diode ("LED") and
other lighting products for a number of premier LED lighting
manufacturers.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that
members of its management team have substantial connections to
public companies that have been scrutinized for fraudulent or
illegal activity.  When this information was revealed on April 15,
2015, the price of the Company's shares declined by $2.97, to
close at $4.74 per share on April 16, 2015.  Ultimately, the
Company's stock price fell below $3.15 by April 20, 2015.

According to the Complaint, Defendants falsely stated and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) articles issued by independent
authors touting the Company were in fact paid promoters hired by
the Company; (2) ForceField's management reviewed these so-called
independent articles before publication; and (3) members of
ForceField's management have disturbing histories with fraudulent
companies.

On April 20, 2015, a Bloomberg article reported that Richard St-
Julien ("St-Julien"), former chairman of ForceField, "was arrested
and had resigned as chairman.  "St-Julien "was charged with
scheming to boost the company's share price using secret payments"
to conspirators through a Belize-based firm.  ForceField's stock
was halted on April 20, 2015 and is currently down nearly 60% from
its close on April 14, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 16 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.


GARCES & GARCES: "Zikorus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Zikorus, Jose Martinez and all others similarly situated
v. Garces & Garces Cargo Service, Inc., Patricia Garces, and
Daniel Arredondo, Case No. 1:15-cv-21918 (S.D. Fla., May 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarder company that
regularly transacts business in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Oscar Edmund Marrero, Esq.
      Lourdes Espino Wydler, Esq.
      MARRERO & WYDLER
      Couglas Centre
      2600 Douglas Road, Suite PH-4
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 446-5528
      Facsimile: 446-0995
      E-mail: oem@marrerolegal.com
              lew@marrerolegal.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.


GOLD FIELDS: Certification Bid to Be Heard in October 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a consolidated
application has been brought against several South African mining
companies, including Gold Fields, for certification of a class
action on behalf of current or former mineworkers (and their
dependants) who have allegedly contracted silicosis and/or
tuberculosis, while working for one or more of the mining
companies listed in the application. The certification application
will be heard in October 2015, and will be preceded by various
legal technical applications and court processes. In addition to
the class action, an individual silicosis-related action has been
instituted against Gold Fields and one other mining company.


GOLD RESOURCE: Reports Successful Defense Against Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Street Insider reports that Gold Resource Corporation issued
updates to its shareholders on its successful defense against the
securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed
against the Company in late 2012.  Gold Resource is a gold and
silver producer with operations in Oaxaca, Mexico and exploration
in Nevada, USA.  The Company has returned over $103 million to
shareholders in monthly dividends since commercial production
commenced July 1, 2010, and offers shareholders the option to
convert their cash dividends into physical gold and silver and
take delivery.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the
securities class action lawsuit against the Company with prejudice
on July 15, 2014. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, the
court has made a final determination on the merits of the case and
the plaintiffs are therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit
based on the same grounds.  The plaintiffs, Nitesh Banker, Scott
Cantor, Robert D. Rhodes and their attorneys, appealed the
District Court's ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and
on January 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling
upholding the District Court's dismissal with prejudice.  The
deadlines for plaintiffs to file for rehearing or further appeal
the Tenth Circuit's decision expired in mid-April.  With respect
to the shareholders' derivative lawsuit, the parties agreed to
stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
and appeal in the securities class action lawsuit.  In light of
the Tenth Circuit's ruling to uphold dismissal with prejudice, the
parties in the shareholder derivative case agreed to voluntarily
dismiss the proceedings, which was granted by the District Court
on February 25, 2015.  Both lawsuits are now closed in favor of
Gold Resource Corporation.

"We are pleased that these proceedings are finally resolved and
behind us," stated Gold Resource Corporation's CEO and President,
Mr. Jason Reid.  "In addition to the waste of time and valuable
corporate resources, the damage to the Company's reputation, share
price and corresponding decrease in shareholder value was evident
following the filing of these frivolous law suits.  We believe
many of these type of lawsuits are in large part driven by a
particular business model where the goal is to try to collect
quick hostage payments from companies who do not want to endure
the time and expense of litigation.  Our counsel at Latham &
Watkins and at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher performed an excellent job
in our defense and we thank them tremendously for their efforts.
If there is a silver lining here, it is that Gold Resource
Corporation did not fall victim to making a hostage payment and
thus the plaintiffs and their attorneys bore their own costs in
this process.  We have no desire to countersue for damages or
waste another cent of shareholder money or another second of
management's time on these frivolous lawsuits.  I am pleased to be
able to now focus all our efforts, time and capital more
efficiently on building the company."


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.


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 will be
held 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.


HOFFMAN LAW: Faces Class Action in S.D. Fla. Over Upfront Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a now-closed law group is the subject
of a class action lawsuit alleging it unfairly charged its clients
upfront for mortgage assistance relief services.

Melvin Baity filed the lawsuit against the Hoffman Law Group,
claiming the business would require a $6,000 fee prior to having
clients execute any type of agreement with the loan provider.  Mr.
Baity claims this is a violation of Florida state law and believes
Hoffman was deceptive and unfair in its business practices.
Hoffman advertised itself as being able to obtain "favorable
results" for clients faced with mortgage foreclosure actions, the
lawsuit said.

The lawsuit further claims none of the attorneys working at
Hoffman were licensed to practice law in the areas where some of
its clients' homes were located.  Mr. Baity claims there are
hundreds of clients who were forced to pay the $6,000 upfront fee
by Hoffman even though it violated state law.

The Hoffman Law Group closed in Florida on July 16, 2014, the
lawsuit said.

The plaintiff is seeking class status and asking for more than $5
million in damages plus court costs. He is represented by Paul B.
Thanasides of McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold Elliott Grimaldi &
Guito P.A. in Tampa, Fla.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
case number is 9:15-cv-80489.


HONDA FINANCIAL: Hit With Class Action Over Repo Notices
--------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Honda Financial
Services was hit with a proposed class action in Pennsylvania
state court accusing it of violating the state's consumer
protection statute by not properly notifying debtors whose
vehicles were repossessed.

Plaintiff Robert Jeffers accuses Honda of not sufficiently
informing him and other class members he seeks to represent that
their repossessed vehicles would be auctioned off, or when the
sales of their vehicles would take place.  Honda also allegedly
failed to send explanations to the putative class members of how
much they were still obligated to pay on their loans, or how much
they were owed, after the sales of the vehicles.

Along with not sending a letter providing Jeffers with an
accounting of the purported debt arising from the sale of the
vehicle, Honda reported an allegedly outstanding debt of $21,897
to credit bureaus even though such debt is exempt from collection
by law, the suit claims.

"Plaintiff and class members have suffered ascertainable damages
including loss of money, property and harm to credit as a result
of Honda's violations," the suit claims.  "The harm continues due
to the fact that Honda has yet to correct the improper adverse
filings on plaintiffs' and class members' credit reports and
because Honda has yet to cease all collection activities against
the members of the class."

On July 26, 2013, Honda repossessed the vehicle of Jeffers, a
government employee, when he was out of town on business,
according to court papers.  When he returned home a few weeks
later, he allegedly realized he hadn't received a letter telling
him of repossession.

When Mr. Jeffers contacted Honda's repossession department, he was
allegedly told that a letter had already been returned to the
financial services company unclaimed.  Jeffers requested a copy of
the letter and all other paperwork relating to the loan.

Honda sent Mr. Jeffers a computer-generated form letter, dated
July 29, 2013, that didn't provide the requisite minimum
disclosures as required by the Pennsylvania Commercial Code and
Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, according to Friday's suit.

Pennsylvania law provides for statutory damages for failure to
follow proper procedures when repossessing property.  Mr. contends
that the Uniform Commercial Code allows consumer debtors who have
not received proper notice, as well as the proposed class, to
recover at minimum, the credit service charge, in addition to 10
percent of the principal owed.

Mr. Jeffers seeks to represent four classes that number at least
in the hundreds, according to Friday's complaint.

First, he proposes a class of Pennsylvania residents who financed
a vehicle primarily for personal, family or household use through
Honda, whose vehicle was repossessed, and who were sent no notice
of repossession or a notice that didn't have all the information
required by state law.

In addition to the so-called repossession notice class, Jeffers
also wants to represent a class of Pennsylvania residents whose
vehicles were sold at auction by Honda and who weren't sent a
post-sale notice or were sent a post-sale notice that didn't have
all the necessary information.  He also proposes a Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act class covering consumers who paid money
to Honda after the sale of the repossessed vehicle or from whom
Honda sent any adverse action to the class member's credit report
relating to any deficiency balance alleged from the sale of the
repossessed vehicle.

Lastly, Mr. Jeffers seeks to represent an unjust enrichment class
whose members received notices of repossession that didn't contain
all the required information, whose vehicles were sold by Honda
and resulted in a reduction of the amount of their alleged
principal obligation, and who paid any money to Honda for an
alleged deficiency balance.  The suit seeks statutory damages, a
constructive trust over all allegedly ill-gotten proceeds, pre-
judgment interest, preliminary and permanent enjoinders blocking
Honda from collecting deficiency balances, and other relief.

Jeffers is represented by Richard Shenkan of Shenkan Injury
Lawyers LLC.

The case is Robert Jeffers v. American Honda Finance Corp., case
number 150401707, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania.


HOTEL CONNECTION: Faces "Yono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mahir Yono v. Hotel Connection Inc., Valet Connections, Inc.,
Kouthar Aji, and Hani Hamati, Case No. 2:15-cv-11806-BAF-MKM (E.D.
Mich., May 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Hotel Connection Inc. owns and operates a hotel with its principal
place of business located at 27075 Wick Rd., Taylor, Michigan
48180.

Valet Connections, Inc. provides shuttle and parking services to
individuals traveling to and from Detroit International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan Bonanni, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
      117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

         - and -

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square
      Ste 1700 Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 936-2143
      E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com


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."


IESI BETHLEHEM: Kamensky Cohen Investigates Potential Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tatu, writing for The Morning Call, reports that a
Trenton, N.J.-based law firm is investigating whether to file a
class-action lawsuit against IESI Bethlehem Landfill for a noxious
odor Lower Saucon residents believe is emanating from the site.

Residents in the Steel City area received a letter from Kamensky,
Cohen & Riechelson along with a survey asking whether they notice
odors from the landfill.

The letters come amid continued complaints from residents who say
a foul smell has been impacting their quality of life.

"Due to your proximity to the IESI Bethlehem Landfill, you may
have experienced odors associated with this neighboring facility.
Odors which interfere with the use and enjoyment of your home may
constitute a nuisance that may entitle you to compensation," says
the letter dated April 13.

Attorney Kevin Riechelson wasn't certain the exact number of
letters and surveys the law firm sent, but estimated a few
thousand were sent to residents within a three-mile-radius of the
landfill.

Whether the law firm actually pursues a class action lawsuit will
be determined by a percentage based on the number of responses
received and the total population of the township, he said.

"The forms are for us to gather information.  If a resident fills
out the survey, they are not signing up as a client.  We are not
creating a contract with them.  It's really for us to find out
what kind of interest there is," Mr. Riechelson said.

IESI Landfill has not been officially targeted as the source of
the odor.  Township manager Jack Calahan previously said other
possible sources could be the Bethlehem Wastewater Treatment Plant
and a renewable energy center that burns methane.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has said it would
inspect the landfill's gas-collection system and ground covering
to see if they could be contributing to an odor.  The survey asks
residents if they've noticed any odors from IESI Landfill in their
homes, and if so to describe the offensive odor.  The surveys also
ask residents to summarize how the odor has affected their ability
to use and enjoy their homes.

Mr. Riechelson's firm provides local counsel for Liddle & Dubin, a
Detroit-based law firm known for class action lawsuits involving
environmental contamination.

Earlier this year, a Lower Saucon resident contacted Liddle &
Dubin about whether any action could be taken, Mr. Riechelson
said.  A second resident later contacted the Trenton-based firm
after reading about a class-action lawsuit the firm filed in
December against Waste Management, which owns the Tullytown
Landfill in Bucks County.

Similar to the situation in Lower Saucon, residents there claim
noxious odors have forced them to stay inside, affecting property
values and quality of life.

Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson is also currently investigating
whether to file a class-action suit against the Keystone Landfill
in Dunmore, Lackawanna County, Mr. Riechelson said.

The Keystone Landfill is seeking a permit from DEP to expand.
Similarly, IESI is seeking a DEP permit to expand onto 29 acres,
which are already part of their 201-acre site zoned for landfill
use.

IESI officials said they are aware of the letter and survey
circulated to residents, though they did not receive any direct
correspondence about the documents.

"IESI Bethlehem Landfill remains dedicated and open to working
closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Lower Saucon Township and Steel City residents to
address any concerns regarding the operation of the facility,"
said a prepared statement issued by Vito Galante, a northeast
region engineer with Progressive Waste, which oversees the Lower
Saucon facility.

Steel City resident Kareen Bleam lives about a mile from the
landfill.  She welcomes the possibility of a class-action lawsuit.
Bleam purchased her property in 1970.

"We were told at the time the landfill would not be able to expand
the way it has," she said.  "It's really bad.  I had relatives up
last May for a birthday party, and my niece was expecting.  She
had to stay in the house because every time she came outside she
would smell that odor."

The smell ranges from a methane-like odor to a sickly sweet
rotting smell, like the odor or rotting onions or potatoes, she
said.

"I'm glad.  I hope somebody does something because it's getting
terrible here," said resident David Shosh, who lives about a half-
mile from the landfill.

Mr. Shosh started noticing the smell two years ago.

"Lately it's been every couple days. I've been telling the
township and the DEP.  The DEP says they will call me back, but
they've only called me back one time out of the 50 phone calls
I've made," he said.  "To me, it's like a rotten egg smell.  It
turns your stomach.  You can't stay outside with it, that's for
dang sure."


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 CREW: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03808
(C.D. Cal., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to design and construct Point Of Sale Devices (POS
Devices) that are fully accessible to, and independently usable
by, blind people.

J. Crew Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 770
Broadway, New York, NY 10003. J. Crew owns and operates retail
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Louis Ribakoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JASON L RIBAKOFF
      6819 Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 307
      Van Nuys, CA 90140
      Telephone: (818) 778-6255
      Facsimile: (818) 778-6256
      E-mail: ribakoffjason@gmail.com


JANSSEN INC: Recalls Eprex Sterile Solution Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 19, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs, Biologic/vaccine
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53483

Oxidized methionine level may not remain within registered
specification throughout shelf-life.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and retailers

A. Eprex Sterile Solution 1000 IU / 0.5 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02231583
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 1000 Unit / 0.5 mL
Lot or serial number: ECS1Q00
                      ECS1Q01

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

B. Eprex Sterile Solution 2000 IU / 0.5 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02231584
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 2000 Unit / 0.5 mL
Lot or serial number: EBS3P00
                      EES4I00
                      EHS4W00

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

C. Eprex Sterile Solution 3000 IU / 0.3 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02231585
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 3000 Unit / 0.3 mL
Lot or serial number: ECS2700

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

D. Eprex Sterile Solution 4000 IU / 0.4 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02231586
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 4000 Unit / 0.4 mL
Lot or serial number: EDS5X00
                      EAS2X00
                      EAS4300
                      EBS2T00
                      EBS5C00

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

E. Eprex Sterile Solution 6000 IU / 0.6 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02243401
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 6000 Unit / 0.6 mL
Lot or serial number: EAS4200
                      EJS4R00

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

F. Eprex Sterile Solution 8000 IU / 0.8 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02243403
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 8000 Unit / 0.8 mL
Lot or serial number: ECS3600
                      EGS6N00
                      EGS6N01
                      EHS4U00

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA

G. Eprex Sterile Solution 10000 IU / 1.0 mL

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02231587
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Epoetin Alfa 10000 Unit / mL
Lot or serial number: EKS5N00

Recalling Firm: Janssen Inc.
                19 Greenbelt Drive
                Toronto
                M3C 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Janssen Inc.
                                19 Greenbelt Drive
                                Toronto
                                M3C 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


JEFFERIES GROUP: Settlement Reached in Delaware Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the remaining
defendants in the Delaware class action litigation entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.

Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia National
Corporation.  The Company said, "The class actions named as
defendants Leucadia, Jefferies Group, Inc., certain members of our
board of directors, certain members of Leucadia's board of
directors and, in certain of the actions, certain transaction-
related subsidiaries. On October 31, 2014, the remaining
defendants in the Delaware litigation entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation. The
terms of that agreement provide for an aggregate payment of $70.0
million by Leucadia, who will bear the costs of the settlement, to
certain former equity holders of Jefferies Group, Inc., other than
the defendants and certain of their affiliates, along with
attorneys' fees to be determined and approved by the court. The
settlement resolves all of the class-action claims in Delaware,
and releases the claims brought in New York."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Pleads Guilty to Rigging World's Currency Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet and Eric Tucker, writing for The Associated Press,
report that a group of global banks will pay more than $5 billion
in penalties and plead guilty to rigging the world's currency
market, the first time in more than two decades that major players
in the financial industry have admitted to criminal wrongdoing.

JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Barclays and The Royal Bank of Scotland
conspired with one another to fix rates on U.S. dollars and euros
traded in the huge global market for currencies, according to a
resolution announced on May 20 between the banks and the
Department of Justice.  A group of currency traders, who called
themselves "The Cartel," allegedly shared customer orders through
chat rooms and used that information to profit at the expense of
their clients.

The resolution is complex and involves multiple regulators in the
U.S. and overseas.

The four banks will pay a combined $2.5 billion in criminal
penalties to the DOJ for criminal manipulation of currency rates
between December 2007 and January 2013, according to the
agreement.  The Federal Reserve is slapping them with an
additional $1.6 billion in fines, as the banks' chief regulator.
Finally, British bank Barclays is paying an additional $1.3
billion to British and U.S. regulators for its role in the scheme.

Another bank, Switzerland's UBS, has agreed to plead guilty to
manipulating key interest rates and will pay a separate criminal
penalty of $203 million.

Big banks overall have already been fined billions of dollars for
their role in the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis.
But even so, the latest penalties are big.  Including a separate
agreement with the Federal Reserve announced Wednesday and another
announced last year, the group of banks will pay nearly $9 billion
in fines for manipulating the $5.3 trillion global currency
market.

Unlike the stock and bond markets, currencies trade nearly 24
hours a day, seven days a week.  The market pauses two times a
day, a moment known as "the fix." Traders in the cartel allegedly
shared client orders with rivals ahead of the "fix", pumping up
currency rates to make profits.

Global companies, who do business in multiple currencies, rely on
their banks to give them the closest thing to an official exchange
rate each day.  The banks are supposed to be looking out for them
instead of conspiring to get even bigger profits by using
customers' orders against them.  Travelers who regularly exchange
currencies also need to get a fair price for their euros or
dollars.

It is rare to see a bank plead guilty to wrongdoing. Even in the
aftermath of the financial crisis, most financial companies
reached "non-prosecution agreements" or "deferred prosecution
agreements" with regulators, agreeing to pay billions in fines but
not admitting any guilt.  If any guilt were found, it was usually
one of the bank's subsidiaries or divisions -- not the bank
holding company.

One of the most notable banks to plead guilty to any criminal
wrongdoing was investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert, which plead
guilty to fraud in the 1980s following the implosion of the junk
bond bubble.

The number of traders who participated in the criminal activity
was small.  JPMorgan, in a statement, said the one trader involved
has been fired.  Citi said it fired nine employees involved.

The agreement between the banks and the DOJ is subject to court
approval.  If approved, all five banks have agreed to three years
of corporate probation overseen by a court.  The banks will also
help prosecutors with their investigations into individual
criminal activity related to the currency market rigging.


KAM WAH: Recalls Glico Biscuit Sticks Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9834

  Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s) on    UPC
  ---------    -----------   ----   product       ---
                                    ----------
Glico Double  Biscuit 50 g   All codes     6 901845 040401
Pretz         Sticks (Milk         where milk
               & Coffee             is not
               Flavor)              declared in
                                    the list of
                                    ingredients.

Glico Pretz    Biscuit Sticks 65 g  All codes     6 901845 040357
               (Pizza Flavor)       where milk is
                                    not declared
                                    in the list of
                                    ingredients.


KAO USA: Faces Class Action Over "Ban Invisible Solid"
------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the maker of Ban Invisible Solid
antiperspirants and deodorants is being sued over allegations its
labeling and packaging was misleading to consumers.

Hong Chong, Lourdes Rosado, Lynn Moore and Josefina Valdez filed
the lawsuit against KAO USA Inc., claiming the products listed a
net weight 2.6 ounces greater than the actual weight of usable
product.  The so-called "non-functional slack-fill" deceived
customers into thinking they were purchasing more of the product
than it actually contained, the lawsuit said.

According to a table listed in the lawsuit, some of the
deodorants' net weights were nearly 20 percent more than the
usable product.

"Through these unfair and deceptive practices, (KAO) has collected
hundreds of millions of dollars from the sale of its products that
it would not have otherwise earned," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who purchased
the products and are asking for more than $5 million in damages
plus court costs.

They are represented by C.K. Lee of the Lee Litigation Group PLLC
in New York City.


KBK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Employees Travel Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ricard, Craig Melville, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. KBK Services Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00299 (W.D. Wis., May 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to compensate employees travel time hours
away from their home communities.

KBK Services Inc. performs sheet metal, steam fitting, and
plumbing work on construction projects throughout Northwestern
Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ,
      MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN, S.C.
      1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, S. 202
      P. O. Box 12993
      Milwaukee, Wi 53212
      Telephone: (414) 223-0437
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: yh@previant.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Flushable Wipes, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Honigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02910 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), is a class action brought in
connection with the purchase of Cottonelle Flushable Wipes &
Cleansing Cloths that were falsely marketed and advertised by the
Defendant as safe to be flushed.

The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not
disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or
septic systems.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
health care products worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Sean T. Masson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Karalis, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              smasson@rgrdlaw.com
              lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


KNCMINER: Faces Class Action by Advokatfirman Over Bitcoin
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Yim, writing for Coin Buzz, reports that a group of
approximately two dozen people represented by the Swedish Law Firm
Advokatfirman Rise & Co AB is bringing a class action lawsuit
against Swedish Bitcoin ASIC Manufacturer KnCMiner, a company that
was once famous for its high-quality bitcoin miners.

There are many reasons behind this lawsuit against KnCMiner, and
every person has their own different motives.  One of the
customers tells us his experience:

"I read in the local papers that a Swedish company was going to
make an ASIC.  They delivered the Jupiter (October batch) and I
was cursing my luck, that machine was awesome! I immediately got
in line for the next machine, the Jupiter (November batch) and
loved it, I had nothing but praise for KnC."

However, when KnCMiner announced their next batch of ASIC Mining
devices, this customer decided to order them, and he and others
were hit with delays and excuses.  KnCMiner offered "Super
Jupiter" devices instead of the "Neptunes" that they had
originally ordered, and when they were received, customer found,
much to their dismay, that "Super Jupiters" were second hand
machines that were running in KnC's data centers, which were
covered in dust, barely working and some even had shattered
pieces.

When the Neptune miners were delivered, they were packaged poorly,
causing a large number of them to be damaged during transit,
making customers have to ship them back for a working unit.  This
caused a major loss in profits, since a few weeks of mining time
was lost.

The devices are Bitcoin Mining ASICs.  KnC then started to accept
pre-orders for the "Titan", an ASIC Mining Device for scrypt-based
altcoins, such as Litecoin and Dogecoin. When these were
delivered, customers found that these devices only hashed at 10%
of their promised hashrate, because the software was extremely
badly-written.  The compensation was less than the correct value,
which outraged many customers.

Many of you may wonder what is so important about this; the fact
is that if a company promises to deliver a product worth $5,000,
for example, and they fail to do so, the customer should be
refunded with the $5,000 or a product with an equivalent value.
However, this isn't the case with KnCMiner, and the amount of
unsatisfied customers has led to this class action lawsuit against
the company, due to their severe mishandling the problems that
have arisen.

Swedish law indicates that a prison sentence of up to six years
long can be given for fraud, and given the current situation with
24 victims, the prison time could increase exponentially. If the
class action lawsuit is won against KnCMiner, it may prompt the
Swedish Authorities to start investigating KnCMiner's business
operations.


LA GRANJA: Faces "Tovar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Tovar and other similarly situated individuals v. La
Granja Parrilla & Seafood Inc., Gustavo Bartra, Racso Bartra,
Claudia Bartra, and Gustavo Bartra Jr., Case No. 0:15-cv-61071-DMM
(S.D. Fla., May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early State
---------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that a class action litigation
against Layne's subsidiaries is at a very early state.

On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that
Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and
unquantified damages.  On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed one of the other two company defendants without
prejudice.

"Since this litigation is at a very early state, Layne is
currently unable to predict its outcome or estimate our exposure,"
the Company said.


LOS ANGELES: Judge OKs Settlement in Lawsuit Against Deputies
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reports that a federal judge gave final approval
to a settlement in a class-action lawsuit alleging Los Angeles
County Sheriff's deputies engaged in violence and abuse against
jail inmates.

U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson made the determination
nearly four months after the nation's largest sheriff's department
agreed to federal court oversight and adopted a new use-of-force
policy as part of a settlement agreed to in December.

The settlement agreement in Rosas v. Baca, which was approved by
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, marked the latest in
several efforts to reform the scandal-plagued department beset
with allegations of rampant abuse by deputies, costly lawsuits and
federal convictions of deputies for obstructing an FBI probe into
jail beatings.

"The issue was making sure that inmates weren't subjected to
unreasonable and excessive force," ACLU Legal Director Peter
Eliasberg said.  "The nice thing is that this settlement agreement
not only tells the Sheriff's department what they have to do, but
it also is monitored . . ."

Since the agreement took effect, three court-appointed monitors
have overseen the department, according to the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the lawsuit in 2012.

Former inmate Michael Holguin, who took part in the lawsuit while
testifying in the case, alleges he was beaten after requesting to
take a shower, resulting in stitches to his head and a broken
kneecap.  The lawsuit was filed as the FBI investigated claims of
excessive use of force and then-Sheriff Lee Baca weathered
increasing criticism for being out of touch with his department,
which runs the county jail and also provides policing in
unincorporated parts of the county and some suburbs.

Baca stepped down in January after 18 underlings were charged with
federal crimes ranging from beating inmates and jail visitors to
obstructing justice.

The settlement provides no monetary damages and the department
didn't admit any wrongdoing.

Sheriff Jim McDonnell issued a statement, reading, "While more
work remains to be done to implement all the reforms our
Commission recommended, I am deeply committed to implementing and
institutionalizing meaningful and lasting change."


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Stipulation Reached to Settle Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13,
2015, that the defendants executed a stipulation of settlement to
settle the Securities Class Action.

Certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Questcor") 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.


MARIO'S CLEANING: Faces "Cadoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Gricelda Janeth Ramos Cardoza, and all others similarly situated
v. Mario's Cleaning Services, Corp. and  Mario G. Molina, Case No.
0:15-cv-61059-KAM (S.D. Fla., 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 home cleaning services company in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
MAXUM PETROLEUM: Faces "Lewandowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathen Lewandowski, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Maxum Petroleum Operating Company
and Pilot Travel Centers LLC d/b/a Pilot Flying J Case No. 1:15-
cv-00408-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants are providers of petroleum drilling and exploration
support services throughout the United State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070, 919 Market Street
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      Facsimile: (302) 658-7567
      E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.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.


MIDWEST SLEEP: Faces "Wehrle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Wehrle, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Midwest Sleep Associates, LLC d/b/a Midwest
Center for Sleep Disorders, Case No. 1:15-cv-04397 (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.

Midwest Sleep Associates, LLC owns and operates a health care
facility that sleeps disorder diagnostic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarmistha Banerjee, Esq.
      David J. Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      E-mail: buri@fishlawfirm.com
              dfish@fishlawfirm.com


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.


MINE SAFETY: Removed "James" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Andrew James v. Mine Safety Appliances Company,
et al., Case No. CV-2014-381-5, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Arkansas Civil Division to the U.S. District
Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00159-KGB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Federal Employers
Liability Act. The Plaintiff contends that Mine Safety failed to
provide its employees with protective clothing and devices
including, appropriate respirators that would have reduced or
eliminated exposure to silica, silica containing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Givens, Esq.
      PORTER & MALOUF, P.A.
      Post Office Box 12768
      Jackson, MS 39236-2768
      Telephone: (601) 957-7366
      E-mail: johnny@portermalouf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mary Clay Morgan, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC
      188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 948-8000
      Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
      E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Suits Filed v. New GM as of Jan. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20,
2015, that New GM disclosed in its 2014 annual report on Form 10-K
filed February 4, 2015, that since the beginning of 2014, New GM
had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition
switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders and had recalled an
additional 33.4 million vehicles to address certain electrical and
other safety concerns (collectively, the "Recalled Vehicles"). New
GM also disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, (i) 108 putative
class actions had been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic
losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of the Recalled
Vehicles (the "Economic Loss Actions"), and (ii) 104 putative
class actions had been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for personal
injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that
occurred as a result of the underlying condition of Recalled
Vehicles (the "Personal Injury Actions," and collectively with the
Economic Loss Actions, the "Recall-Related Actions").


NAPA AUTO: Recalls MetalPro-Urethane Catalyst Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53485

This recall involves MetalPro-Urethane catalyst used in
conjunction with the MetalPro paint series. The urethane catalyst
was sold in a 946 mL (product page number 6003C) and 360 mL
(product number 6001C) format.

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 NAPA Auto Parts has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 3,776 containers of the 360 mL format and 816
containers of the 946 mL format were sold at NAPA Auto Parts
across Canada.

The recalled products were sold in Canada between 2012 in 2015.

Manufactured in Quebec.

Distributor: NAPA Auto Parts
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

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/HQhjsI


NESTLE PURINA: Paliare Roland Files Class-Action Over Beneful
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Product News reports that Canadian pet owners, represented by
Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein LLP, a Toronto law firm,
have filed a class-action lawsuit against Nestle Purina Petcare
Canada, alleging its Beneful dry dog food contains substances that
are harmful to dogs.

The class action is for anyone living in Canada who might have
purchased Beneful dry dog food since March 2, 2013, and either had
a dog that became ill or died after consuming the product.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Beneful contains propylene
glycol, which is listed as an ingredient on the product packaging,
and toxins such as mycotoxins.

In fact, Paliare is partnering with the San Francisco law firm
Ram, Olson, Cereghino and Kopczynski LLP, lead counsel in the
proposed class action in California.  Paliare is continuing to
collect information from individuals who believe their pets have
exhibited signs of toxin ingestion after consuming Beneful dry dog
food.

Pet owners in Canada who purchased Beneful and believe their dog
or dogs became ill from eating it are urged to contact the firm.
In addition, the suit brought by Paliare alleges that Purina has
received many complaints about dogs becoming ill after eating
Beneful but has neither withdrawn the product, removed the harmful
ingredients or made any efforts to warn consumers of the potential
issues associated with its product.  None of the allegations in
the lawsuit have been proven in court, and it is expected Nestle
Purina Petcare Canada will deny liability, said Paliare.

Nestle Purina Petcare Canada was contacted but declined to
comment.


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 AUTO IMAGE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. New Auto
Image Marketing Incorporated, Rodrigo Oquendo, and Aramis
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-21893-JAL (S.D. Fla., 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 an auto repair shop in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Class Actions Filed Against Home Loan Servicing
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three
putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd. 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."


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.


OKLAHOMA CITY: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Corie Coker, for himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oklahoma City, Case No. CJ-2015-2019,
was removed from the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma County
Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-
cv-00442-L to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey J. Box, Esq.
      JEFFREY J. BOX PC
      2621 S Western
      Oklahoma City, OK 73109
      Telephone: (405) 600-9918
      Facsimile: (405) 632-8828
      E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net

         - and -

      Marvel E Lewis, Esq.
      MARVEL E. LEWIS PC
      701 NW 13th St
      Oklahoma City, OK 73103
      Telephone: (405) 521-8900
      Facsimile: (405) 604-9054
      E-mail: marvel@whiteandweddle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Richard C. Smith, Esq.
      Tina A. Hughes, Esq.
      MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR'S OFFICE
      200 N Walker Ave, Suite 400
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 297-2451
      Facsimile: (405) 297-3851
      E-mail: rick.smith@okc.gov
              tina.hughes@okc.gov


OLD DOMINION: Removed "Arteaga" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Andrew E. Arteaga v. Old
Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1502699, was removed
from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - San Bernardino) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00990-SJO-DTB
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-rated claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
      FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES APC
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 2490
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-7812
      Facsimile: (310) 552-7814
      E-mail: leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
      Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
      Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 315-8200
      Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
      E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
              skim@mcguirewoods.com
              mkane@mcguirewoods.com


PALETERIA LA: Recalls Ice Cream Bars & Popsicles Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Paleteria La Jalpita of Pasco, Washington, is recalling ice cream
bars and popsicles because it may contain undeclared milk and
sulfite. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
or sulfite run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

  PRODUCTS                 UNDECLARED    Net Weight
  --------                 ----------    ----------
Coco (Coconut) Popsicle    Sulfite       3 Fl oz.
Walnut (Nuez) Bolis        Milk          3.5 Fl oz.

Coconut popsicles were distributed through the state of Oregon and
Washington through retail and direct delivery and the Walnut Bolis
were sold only through the retail store located at 202 W. Lewis
Street, Pasco WA 99301. These products were sold between March
2015 and May 2015. Products are sold in a sealed clear plastic bag
or bolis (tube) and stored in a freezer. There are no codes on
labels.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The mislabeling issue was discovered during a routine inspection
by Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA).

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and WSDA.

Consumers who have purchased Paleteria La Jalpita are urged not to
consume products if they have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk or sulfite and they should return product to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1 (509) 545-9551 from 9am-8pm Pacific Time any day
of the week.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448796.htm


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."


PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Action Reached Tentative Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit filed by Humberto Ordaz have reached a
tentative settlement.

The Company is a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis
International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012),
involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related
claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former
employee in the Company's California administrative offices. The
plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit has
been pleaded but not certified as a class action. Mediation was
held during the third quarter of fiscal 2015. Currently, the
parties have reached a tentative settlement which is set for a
preliminary approval hearing on April 13, 2015. The tentative
settlement amount has been provided for in the Company's results
of operations.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Shedler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd, PCA Acquisitions V,
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03449-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May
20, 2015), seeks to put an end to 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


POPCORN FACTORY: Recalls Dill Pickle Popcorn Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Popcorn Factory of Lake Forest, Illinois is voluntarily
recalling 600 4oz bags of "Lite Works Dill Pickle Popcorn," (the
"Product") because it may contain undeclared milk. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

Product was distributed nationally in Burlington Coat Factory
retail stores.

The Product comes in a 4oz foil bag. A 5 digit lot code is printed
along with the best by date just above the price sticker located
on the lower left of the backside of the bag. The lot code of the
recalled product is 15111, the best by date is SEP 17, 2015.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the wrong
food product ingredients were packaged in the foil bags during
production. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was
caused by an error in the company's production and packaging
processes.

Consumers who have purchased the 4oz bag of Lite Works Dill Pickle
Popcorn with lot code 15111, best by date SEP 17, 2015 are urged
to discard the product. Consumers with questions may contact The
Popcorn Factory at 1-888-238-8107. Customer Service is available
Monday through Friday, 9am - 5pm CST. Customers who purchased the
recalled product may contact The Popcorn Factory for a
replacement.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm448561.htm


PORSCHE: Recalls 2015 Model Cars Due to Wiring Harness Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 19
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015217TC
ID number: 2015217

On certain vehicles, the wiring harness for the left rear radiator
fan may make contact with a carbon fiber heat insulation plate.
This could cause chafing of the wiring harness which could lead to
an electric short, increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect,
secure and repair the wiring harness if damage is found.
Affected products

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


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.


QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Dumpling Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9836

  Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s) on     UPC
  ---------    -----------   ----   product        ---
                                    ----------
Quality Super  Rajgira Laddu 100 g  Best Before:  Batch Number:
Tasty          - Puffed             2016 OC 25    1114T6
               Amaranth                           85441 00007 1
               Dumplings


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.


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.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q1 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the first
quarter of 2015, 11 tobacco-related cases, including one Engle
Progeny case, were served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees.  On March 31, 2015, there were 180 cases pending
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees: 163 in the
United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 167 total cases
on March 31, 2014.  The U.S. case number does not include the
approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia
state court as a consolidated action, 3,638 Engle Progeny cases,
involving approximately 4,681 individual plaintiffs, and 2,555
Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco
or its affiliates or indemnitees.  Of the U.S. cases pending on
March 31, 2015, 13 are pending in federal court, 149 in state
court and 1 in tribal court, primarily in the following states:
Maryland (33 cases); Florida (27 cases); Missouri (18 cases); and
New York (13 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 481 Engle Progeny Pending in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
481 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,157
of them were pending in state court.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida.  Such actions are
commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases.  As of March 31,
2015, 481 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and
3,157 of them were pending in state court.  These cases include
approximately 4,681 plaintiffs.

In addition, as of March 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 15
additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served.
One hundred nine Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida
state and federal courts since the beginning of 2012, and numerous
state court trials are scheduled for 2015.

The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons,
including voluntary and involuntary dismissals.  Voluntary
dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of
judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for
settlement," from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates.  An offer of
judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's
right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of
a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco.  Such offers are sometimes
made through court-ordered mediations.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR, PM & Lorillard Settle Engle Progeny Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the first
quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc.
and Lorillard, tentatively settled virtually all of the Engle
Progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court.
The total amount of the settlement was $100 million divided as
follows:

     RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
     Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and
     Lorillard - $15 million.

The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but does
not cover 16 federal progeny cases previously tried to verdict and
currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; approximately
26 federal progeny cases pending as of March 31, 2015 involving
pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two federal
progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.  In March 2015, RJR
Tobacco paid its share of the settlement, $42.5 million, to an
escrow account under its control for disbursements and has
reflected this balance as restricted cash in other current assets
with a corresponding balance in other current liabilities in RAI's
condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31,
2015.

At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue
was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings.  RJR Tobacco
has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and
concealment) is a violation of federal due process.  In 2013,
however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh
Circuit, rejected that argument.  In addition to this global due
process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal
defenses as appropriate in each case.  These defenses may include,
among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper
member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any
statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted
unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by
applicable statutes of limitation, or that any injury was caused
by the smoker's own conduct.  In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
and Russo v. Philip Morris USA Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the
Florida Supreme Court held that, in Engle Progeny cases, the
defendants cannot raise a statute of repose defense to claims for
concealment or conspiracy.  The defendants in each of these cases
filed a motion for rehearing on April 17, 2015.  On April 8, 2015,
in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Eleventh Circuit
found meritorious a defense that, in Engle Progeny cases, federal
law impliedly preempts use of the preserved Engle findings to
establish claims for strict liability or negligence.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 29 Engle Progeny Cases Tried Have Become Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that twenty-nine Engle
Progeny cases that were tried have become final through March 31,
2015.  These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco
of $214.71 million ($163.36 million for compensatory and punitive
damages and $51.35 million for attorneys' fees and statutory
interest).

During the first quarter of 2015, a payment of $1.27 million was
made: $1.26 million for compensatory and punitive damages and
$11,000 for attorneys' fees and statutory interest in satisfaction
of the adverse judgment in the Webb case, described below.  Based
on RJR Tobacco's evaluation, an accrual of $68.2 million ($53
million for compensatory and punitive damages and $15.2 million
for attorneys' fees and statutory interest for Hiott, Starr-
Blundell, Clayton, Ward, Hallgren, Cohen, Sikes, Thibault and
Buonomo) was recorded in RAI's condensed consolidated balance
sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Judgments Total $293MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been
entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount
of $132,752,360 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the
amount of $160,717,000 in punitive damages, for a total of
$293,469,360.  All of these verdicts are at various stages in the
appellate process.  RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has
valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues
beyond the due process issue.  It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and
its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking and health claims,
including in Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle
Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny
case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can
be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could
have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI
in a particular quarter or year.  This position on loss
recognition for Engle Progeny cases as of March 31, 2015, is
consistent with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss
recognition for other smoking and health litigation.  It is also
the policy of RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation
at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the
amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case
basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 58 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru Q1 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there are
approximately 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or
B&W set for trial through March 31, 2016, but it is not known how
many of these cases will actually be tried.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other
cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-
related trials in 2015. There are six cases, exclusive of Engle
Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of March 31, 2015 through
March 31, 2016, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees:
one non-smoking and health case, one class action and four
individual smoking and health cases.

There are approximately 58 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W set for trial through March 31, 2016, but it is not
known how many of these cases will actually be tried.

From January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2015, 112 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including six
trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original
proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some
cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 54
cases, including 15 mistrials, tried in Florida (53) and West
Virginia (1).  Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned
in 52 cases tried in Florida and one in New York.  Three cases in
Florida were dismissed during trial.  One case in Florida was a
retrial only as to the amount of damages.  In another case in
Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include
compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 12 Engle Progeny Cases v. RJR Tried in Q1 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the first quarter
of 2015, 12 Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco was a
defendant were tried:

* In Gray v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent to be 50% at
fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $6 million
in compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

* In Hecht v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

* In McKeever v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiff
dismissed RJR Tobacco during jury selection.

* In Lennox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

* In Sowers v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Charles
Sowers, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and
awarded $4.25 million in compensatory damages.  Punitive damages
were not awarded.

* In Landau v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff but awarded no compensatory
damages and no entitlement to punitive damages against RJR Tobacco
and another defendant.  The jury awarded $100,000 in compensatory
damages against the remaining defendant, allocated fault 75% to
the plaintiff and 25% to the remaining defendant and found
entitlement to punitive damages.

* In McMannis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

* In Caprio v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury informed the
court that they could not reach a unanimous verdict.  The court
directed the jury to complete the verdict form on the questions
where there was unanimous agreement.  For a detailed description
of the case.

* In Zamboni v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Robert
Hoover, to be 60% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault and the
remaining defendant to be 10% at fault, and awarded $340,000 in
compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

* In Dion v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict.

* In Pollari v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Paul
Pollari, to be 15% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 42.5% at fault and
the remaining defendant to be 42.5% at fault, and awarded $10
million in compensatory damages and entitlement to punitive
damages.

* In the Gore v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. retrial, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent,
Gloria Gore, to be 54% at fault, RJR Tobacco 23% at fault and the
remaining defendant 23% at fault, and awarded $2 million in
compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

In addition, since the end of the first quarter of 2015, a
decision was entered in the following Engle Progeny case:

* In Ryan v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial due to the opinion being issued by the Florida Supreme
Court in Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 100 Individual Smoking Cases Pending v. RJR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
100 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR
Tobacco, B&W, as its indemnitee, or both. This category of cases
includes smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought
by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs, but does not include the
Broin II, Engle Progeny or West Virginia IPIC cases discussed
below. A total of 98 of the individual cases are brought by or on
behalf of individual smokers or their survivors, while the
remaining two cases are brought by or on behalf of individuals or
their survivors alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke, referred to as ETS.

A description of the non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and
health cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which went to
trial or were decided during the period from January 1, 2015 to
March 31, 2015, or remained on appeal as of March 31, 2015.

On May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal
injuries that the plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of
unsafe and unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for
economic losses she sustained as a result of unfair trade
practices of the defendant.  The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 58%
at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at fault, awarded $13.9
million in compensatory damages and found the plaintiff to be
entitled to punitive damages.  In December 2010, the court awarded
the plaintiff $3.97 million in punitive damages.  Final judgment
was entered in December 2010, in the amount of $11.95 million.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for offer of judgment
interest, and awarded the plaintiff $15.8 million for the period
of December 6, 1999 up to and including December 5, 2010, and
approximately $4,000 per day thereafter until an amended judgment
was entered.  The amended judgment was entered in the amount of
approximately $28.1 million in March 2011.  RJR Tobacco filed a
notice of appeal in September 2011, and the plaintiff thereafter
cross appealed with respect to the punitive damages award.  In
September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued an opinion that certified the following question to the
Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit premised on strict
products liability against a cigarette manufacturer based on
evidence that the defendant purposefully manufactured cigarettes
to increase daily consumption without regard to the resultant
increase in exposure to carcinogens, but in the absence of
evidence of any adulteration or contamination?"    Subsequently,
the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit to amend the certification order to add a
second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i
to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a
claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act] against a
cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of its
cigarette products)?"  The Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's
motion.  The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified
question and denied the plaintiff's request to amend the question
with the same additional question that the plaintiff proposed to
the Second Circuit.  Oral argument is scheduled for April 22,
2015.  The Second Circuit has retained jurisdiction over the
parties' appeals and will decide the case after the Connecticut
Supreme Court has completed its proceedings.

On June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR
Tobacco.  The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit
Court, Alachua County, Florida.  The plaintiff alleged that as a
result of using the defendants' products, she suffers from lung
cancer and emphysema.  Final judgment was entered in July 2013.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in August
2013.  On December 5, 2014, the First DCA reversed the trial
court's directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the
plaintiff's design defect claims, affirmed on all other issues,
and remanded the case for a new trial.  The defendants' motion for
panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certification to the
Florida Supreme Court was denied on February 26, 2015.  The new
trial has not been scheduled.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in West Virginia IPIC on June 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court in the West
Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases required briefing and
scheduled a hearing on June 8, 2015.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began
in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly
1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to
cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco,
B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated
for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be
followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left
standing.  Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff
claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case
management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April
2013.  On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended
with a virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013.  The
jury found that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not
defective due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that
defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did
not engage in conduct which would warrant punitive damages.  The
only claim remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that
all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between
1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.

In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
verdict, issuing an opinion without oral argument.  In January
2015, the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied.  The
trial court then set a hearing for February 26, 2015 to address
the narrow ventilated filter failure to instruct claim left open
by the jury verdict.

The defendants believe that there are only approximately 30
plaintiffs remaining who arguably claim to have smoked a
ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant period, and that
the claims of all other plaintiffs must be dismissed.  The
plaintiffs contend that the definition of ventilated filter
cigarettes is broader than cigarettes with ventilated filters, and
they contend there may be roughly 300 plaintiffs eligible to
pursue failure to instruct claims.

The court required briefing and scheduled a hearing on June 8,
2015.  On April 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The plaintiffs are
seeking review of the amended judgment on Phase I, the opinion
affirming the judgment on Phase I, and the order denying the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.

In addition to the foregoing claims, various plaintiffs in 1999
and 2000 asserted claims against retailers and distributors.
Those claims were severed and stayed pending the outcome of Phase
I.  Also, six plaintiffs asserted smokeless tobacco claims against
various smokeless manufacturers including American Snuff Co.
Those claims were severed in 2001, and the plaintiffs took no
action to prosecute the claims.  They have recently sought to
activate those claims. The defendants will assert various defenses
to all of these claims, including that all of the additional
claims were either covered by the Phase I verdict or abandoned.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid Share of Engle Progeny Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in March 2015, RJR
Tobacco paid its share of the settlement in the Engle Progeny
Cases, $42.5 million, to an escrow account.

Trial began in July 1998 in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The Engle class consisted of Florida citizens and residents, and
their survivors, who suffer from or have died from diseases or
medical conditions caused by an addiction to smoking.  The action
was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W.  In July 1999, the Engle jury found
against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other defendants in the initial
phase of the trial, which addressed alleged common issues related
to the defendants' conduct, general causation, the addictiveness
of cigarettes, and potential entitlement to punitive damages.

On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, the jury
returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the class of
approximately $145 billion, including verdicts of $36.3 billion
and $17.6 billion against RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively.

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively decertified the
class, and it set aside the punitive damages award as both
premature and excessive.  However, the court preserved a number of
findings from Phase I of the trial, including findings that
cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive,
and that defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market,
breached duties of care, and concealed health-related information
about cigarettes.  The court authorized former class members to
file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the
preserved findings would have res judicata effect in those
actions.

In the wake of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, thousands of
individuals filed separate lawsuits seeking to benefit from the
Engle findings.  As of March 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was a defendant
in 3,638 Engle Progeny cases in both state and federal courts in
Florida. These cases include approximately 4,681 plaintiffs. Many
of these cases are in active discovery or nearing trial.

During the first quarter of 2015, however, RJR Tobacco, together
with Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard, tentatively settled
virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them
in federal district court.  The total amount of the settlement was
$100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard - $15
million.  The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny
cases but does not cover 16 federal progeny cases previously tried
to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal;
approximately 26 federal progeny cases pending as of March 31,
2015 involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two
federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

In March 2015, RJR Tobacco paid its share of the settlement, $42.5
million, to an escrow account under its control for disbursements
and has reflected this balance as restricted cash in other current
assets with a corresponding balance in other current liabilities
in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of
March 31, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in Sateriale Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is tentatively
scheduled to begin on November 3, 2015, in the case Sateriale v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that
in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of
Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs,
attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that
the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange
for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices,
deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and
expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010.  The class definition changed to a class consisting of all
persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem
Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before
the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs also brought
the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting
of all California residents meeting the same criteria.  In May
2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for
failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.  In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court,
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.

In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012.  RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.  In June 2014, RJR
Tobacco filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification.  Oral arguments on those
motions were held on September 15, 2014.  On December 19, 2014,
the court denied RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment and
certified a class of California residents who hold Camel Cash
certificates which were distributed between 1992 and the program's
termination on October 1, 2006.

In January 2015, RJR Tobacco filed motions for reconsideration of
the court's order on class certification and summary judgment.  On
April 8, 2015, the judge denied both of RJR Tobacco's motions for
reconsideration.  Trial is tentatively scheduled to begin on
November 3, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 Lights Class Suits Pending in Ill. and Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that "lights" class-action
cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois (2) and
Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover
$50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims
that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or
were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The
cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection
and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC,
historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in
December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Yet in "Price" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that briefing is complete
but oral argument has not been scheduled in the appeal in Price v.
Philip Morris, Inc.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court
reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the
trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5,
2006, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
and for entry of final judgment.  The case was dismissed with
prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis
for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in
February 2009.

In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006.  The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  On September 28, 2011, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave
to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  In December 2012, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, Fifth Judicial District.  In April 2014, the appellate
court reinstated the 2003 verdict.  In May 2014, Philip Morris
filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court
and a motion for supervisory order.  Philip Morris has requested
the Illinois Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Judicial District
to vacate its April 2014 judgment and to order the Fifth Judicial
District to affirm the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's
petition for relief from the judgment, or in the alternative,
grant its petition for leave to appeal.  On September 24, 2014,
the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear Philip Morris's appeal.
Briefing is complete.  Oral argument has not been scheduled.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is
scheduled for May 27, 2015, in the case Turner v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of
the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above, which the
judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency
stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the
court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's
appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order
request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status
conference is scheduled for May 27, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Howard v. Brown & Williamson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed in February 2000 in
Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class
in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order
staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. case. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no
activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is
scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case, Collora v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  A status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a status conference is
scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case, in Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp.

in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  A status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. A C & S Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Parsons v. A C & S,
Inc., remains automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.
The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.  In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court,
Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in
February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by
tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use
of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become
addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case
was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is
currently no activity in this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Claim Filed in "Bourassa" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an amended claim has
been filed in the case, In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited.

In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and
suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the
jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.  The plaintiff filed a
motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in
support in August 2013.  An amended claim was filed in December
2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Smith" Plaintiffs' Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a decision is pending
in the case, Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., related to the
plaintiffs' petition for review with the Supreme Court of the
State of Kansas.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims.  On
July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas
affirmed the grant of summary judgment.  On August 18, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas.  A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Faces 6 Smokeless Tobacco Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by
individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages
in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the usage of American Snuff Co.'s smokeless tobacco
products. These actions are pending before the same West Virginia
court as the smoker cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as RJR
Tobacco's indemnitee, or both.  Pursuant to the court's December
3, 2001 order, the smokeless tobacco claims and defendants remain
severed, and there has been no activity in these cases for the
last 14 years.  The plaintiffs have recently sought to resurrect
those claims.  The defendants will assert various defenses to
these claims including that they have been abandoned by years of
inaction.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: American Snuff Settled "Vassallo" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that pursuant to a second
amended complaint filed in September 2006, American Snuff Co. was
a defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending
in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries,
including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of
smokeless tobacco products, allegedly including products
manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than
$15,000. There is no punitive damages demand in this case, though
the plaintiff retains the right to seek leave of court to add such
a demand later. In April 2015, American Snuff Co. and the
plaintiff resolved the case through the "offer of judgment"
process.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Could Rule in June in ERISA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that depending on when that
brief is filed, the Supreme Court could rule on the defendants'
petition in June or early fall in the ERISA Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off.  The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion  for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and
RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June
2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which
the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered
mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September
2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June
2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice.  On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  On August 4, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit,
reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong
standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss
to the plan and remanded the case back to the district court to
apply the correct standard.  On September 2, 2014, the Fourth
Circuit denied the defendants' request for rehearing en banc.
The mandate from the Fourth Circuit was issued on October 1, 2014.
On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and
ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand,
with briefs due on various dates in January and February 2015.  On
December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Briefing on the
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court
has been completed, and on March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
invited the Solicitor General of the United States to express the
views of the United States with respect to the defendants'
petition for writ of certiorari.  The Solicitor General might file
his brief as early as late spring.  Depending on when that brief
is filed, the Supreme Court could rule on the defendants' petition
in June or early fall.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in Delaware Merger Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants in the
Delaware merger litigation (other than British American Tobacco
p.l.c.,, which was not named in the amended complaint) entered
into the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of the Delaware Actions.

In the third quarter of 2014, Lorillard, the members of
Lorillard's board of directors, RAI and BAT, were named as
defendants in 11 putative class action lawsuits brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by Lorillard shareholders challenging
the proposed Merger with RAI, referred to as the Delaware Actions.
The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
members of the Lorillard board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Lorillard shareholders by authorizing the
proposed merger of Lorillard with RAI.  The complaints also allege
that RAI and BAT aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duties allegedly committed by the members of the Lorillard board
of directors.  On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion
for consolidation of the lawsuits into a single action captioned
In re Lorillard, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, and for appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion to expedite.

Although they believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on
January 15, 2015, the defendants (other than BAT, which was not
named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Actions.  The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Actions.  In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions
agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI would make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which they did on January 20, 2015.

The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation
of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as
practicable.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation.  In such event, or if the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not
consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no
force and effect.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU Entered in North Carolina Merger Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that RAI and the director
defendants in the North Carolina merger litigation have entered
into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North
Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by
a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI.  The North
Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended
complaint was filed on November 7, 2014.  The amended complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI
shareholders by approving the Share Purchase and the sharing of
technology with BAT.  The amended complaint also alleges that
there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction, and
that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by its board of directors.  The North Carolina Action seeks
injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other
remedies.  On December 5 and December 8, 2014, all defendants
filed motions to dismiss and to stay discovery until the motion to
dismiss is decided.  On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the
North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and
votes scheduled for January 28, 2015.  RAI and the RAI board of
directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was
scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015.

RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws.  However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit.  The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action.  In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a
stipulation of partial settlement to be submitted to the court for
approval as soon as practicable.  The stipulation of partial
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the partial settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of partial settlement or that the court will approve
the partial settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
a stipulation.  In that event, the proposed partial settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect.  As is more
fully set forth in the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding,
the partial settlement will not resolve or terminate the non-
disclosure claims in the North Carolina Action and these claims
will continue to be litigated.  In addition, the partial
settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Merger.


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.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Parties to MOU Agreed to Enter Into Stipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2015,
that parties to the memorandum of understanding in the class
actions against Bally Technologies, Inc. have agreed promptly to
enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to
the Nevada court for final approval.

The following complaints challenging the merger have been filed in
the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of
Clark, Nevada (the "Nevada court"): (i) Shaev v. Bally
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705012-B; (ii) Crescente v.
Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705144-C; (iii)
Lewandoski v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705153-C;
(iv) Rosenfeld v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-
705162-B; (v) Stein v. Bally Technologies, et al., No. A-14-
705338-B; and (vi) Hahm v. Bally Technologies, Inc., No. A-14-
706234-C. Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on
behalf of the public stockholders of Bally Technologies, Inc. and
names as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games, Merger
Sub and Financing Sub. The complaints generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their consideration and approval of the merger.
Four of the six complaints also allege that all of the entity
defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches by the
individual defendants. Of the remaining two complaints, Shaev v.
Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., alleges that Scientific Games,
Merger Sub and Financing Sub aided and abetted the individual
defendants' purported breaches but makes no such claim against
Bally, and Hahm v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., alleges that
Bally alone aided and abetted the individual defendants' purported
breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin the
merger.

On August 26, 2014, the Shaev, Crescente, Lewandoski, Rosenfeld
and Stein actions were consolidated into a single proceeding under
the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, No. A-14-705012-B (the "Nevada Action"). The Hahm
action was consolidated into the Nevada Action after it was filed
on August 27, 2014. On or about September 19, 2014, the plaintiffs
served an amended consolidated class action complaint. On or about
October 3, 2014, those plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On October 7, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Nevada Action based on the plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. On October 8, 2014,
the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action withdrew their motion for
expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary
settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action (the "Settling Parties") entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement
in principle of all claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a
class-wide basis, subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the
plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and the approval of the Nevada
court. While Bally believes that no further disclosure was
required under applicable laws to supplement the preliminary proxy
statement Bally filed with the SEC on September 8, 2014, Bally
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain
supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy statement it
filed on October 20, 2014.

Bally and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely
to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously
denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed
any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that
were alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU outlines the terms of
the Settling Parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Nevada
Action.

The parties to the MOU have agreed promptly to enter into a
stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Nevada
court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Nevada
court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will
provide for, among other things, the conditional certification of
the consolidated Nevada Action as a non-opt-out class action. The
stipulation of settlement will provide for the release of any and
all claims arising from the merger, subject to approval by the
Nevada court. The release will not become effective until the
stipulation of settlement is approved by the Nevada court, and
there can be no assurance that the Settling Parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the
merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in
connection with the settlement, which are subject to court
approval, are not expected to be material. The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by Bally's stockholders in
the merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger.

The outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted with any
certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a
material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Bally.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion
of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent
injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the
merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in the lawsuits are without merit.


SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Greco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Seterus Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03450-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection
practices.

Seterus Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIROB IMPORTS: "Guevara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Guevara and Lorena M. Guevara, individually and on behalf of
all others situated v. Sirob Imports, Inc., Nick Boboris, and
Peter Boboris, Case No. 2:15-cv-02895 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sirob Imports, Inc. is an importer, distributor, and manufacturer
of food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased securities of
Sonus Networks, Inc. between October 23, 2014 and March 23, 2015,
inclusive.

Sonus shareholders may, no later than June 5, 2015, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.   If you
purchased shares of Sonus and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/sons.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that (1) Sonus
would be unable to close certain orders in the first quarter of
2015; and (2) Sonus would be experiencing longer decision cycles
from its customers.

On March 24, 2015, Sonus lowered revenue guidance for the first
quarter of 2015 to a range of $47 million to $50 million compared
to previous guidance of $74 million.  Further, Sonus disclosed
that the "Company no longer expects to receive certain orders this
quarter that had been expected to be received at the back end of
the first quarter.  " These revelations contradicted Sonus's
representations made just weeks earlier, on February 18, 2015,
that it was "comfortable with the current consensus estimates for
the first quarter of next year of $74 million in revenue" and "our
first quarter is more backend loaded than the past few years but
the revenue is also far more diversified.  In short, we're not
dependent upon a single large deal in the quarter.  Instead, we
have a number of good sized deals in our funnel that we expect to
close over the next few week."

As a result of this surprising March 24th disclosure, shares of
Sonus common stock plummeted $4.46 per share or nearly 34%, to
close at $8.70 per share on March 24, 2015.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 5,
2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


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.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Easement Deed Entered in Kingsborough Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an Eastment Deed by
Court Order in Settlement of Landowner Action - Active Lines in
the class action complaint RICHARD KINGSBOROUGH, et al., for
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
1:14-CV-12049-NMG, (D. Mass.).

The parties in the Complaint entered into a Massachusetts class
settlement agreement in May 2014, and the District Court entered a
final order approving the settlement on April 8, 2015.

The Class comprises of all Persons who own or who claim to own,
for any period of time during a Compensation Period, any Covered
Property, provided, that "Settlement Class" or "Class" does not
include: (1) Right-of-Way Providers and their predecessors,
successors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, past or
present; (2) federal, state, and local governmental entities; (3)
Native American nations and tribes; or (4) any Person who files a
valid and timely exclusion on or before the Opt-Out Deadline.

The Settlement provides for the entry of an Easement Deed by which
the Settling Defendants acquire, to the extent that Class Members
have the right to transfer it, a permanent telecommunications
easement in the Right of Way adjacent to the property of each
Class Member.

Accordingly, Judge Gorton entered the Easement Deed in early April
2015.

Terms and conditions of the easement are detailed in the judge's
order dated April 8, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pMgKJPfrom
Leagle.com.


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.


STERLING BANCORP: MOU Reached to Settle "Graner" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2015, that Hudson
Valley Holding Corp. ("Hudson Valley") and Sterling Bancorp
("Sterling") entered on April 9, 2015, into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiff regarding the settlement
of a putative class action captioned Graner v. Hudson Valley
Holding Corp., et al., Index No. 70348/2014 (the "Action"),
pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Westchester (the "Court").

The Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
November 4, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
Hudson Valley shareholders will receive a fixed ratio of 1.92
shares of Sterling stock for each share of Hudson Valley common
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson Valley, Sterling, the other
named defendants and the plaintiff have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Action and release the defendants from all
claims relating to the Proposed Transaction, subject to approval
of the Court. Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiff's counsel also
has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the
MOU, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to Hudson Valley's shareholders in connection with the Proposed
Transaction or the timing of the special meeting of Hudson
Valley's shareholders, scheduled for April 30, 2015 at Hudson
Valley's headquarters at 21 Scarsdale Road, Yonkers, New York, at
11:30 a.m. local time, or the special meeting of Sterling's
stockholders, scheduled for April 28, 2015, at The University
Club, One West 54th Street, New York, New York, at 11:00 a.m.
local time, to vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger
Agreement.

Hudson Valley, Sterling and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiff in the Action and believe the
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by each
of Sterling and Hudson Valley with the SEC (the "joint proxy
statement/prospectus") are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson Valley, Sterling and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Action in order to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation.


TAVORA HOLDING: Recalls Vasco Da Gama Canned Seafood Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tavora Holding Co. Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9838

Industry is recalling Vasco Da Gama brand canned seafood products
from the marketplace because they may be contaminated with
dangerous bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled
products described below.

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.

Food contaminated with dangerous bacteria 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 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 name   Common name   Size   Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----   on product   ----
                                    ----------
Vasco Da Gama  Mussels in    115gEs1200559/   5 601105 090023
               Marinade sauce       PO CE
                                    L330 M11/
                                    2017

Vasco Da Gama  Octopus and   120g   L2639J-PTC   5 601105 225258
               Squid in             221 1P CE
               Garlic Sauce         11/2018

Vasco Da Gama  Squids in     120g   LI351I PTC   5 601105 071008
               Ravigot Sauce        221 1P CE
                                    08/2019

Vasco Da Gama  Portuguese    120g   LI8460 06/   5 601105 011516
               Sardines In          2019 L050 C
               Vegetable Oil        07/2015
                                    PT C 2211P
                                    CE

Vasco Da Gama  Portuguese    120g   L0851B08/    5 601105 011561
               Sardines in          2019,L3151
               Hot Tomato           08/2019,
               Sauce                L0151E
                                    08/2019
                                    PTC211 1P CE
Vasco Da Gama  Polvo E Pota  120g   L1120F PT     5 601105 062006
               em Oleo Vegetal      11/07/2017
               (Portuguese
               only) 0221 1P CE

Vasco Da Gama  Mussels in    115g   Es1200559/    5 601105 090016
               Red Pickled          PO CE
               Sauce                L203M 07/
                                    2017

Vasco Da Gama  Mackerel      120g   PT C221 1P    5 601105 020402
               Filets in            CE L30380
               Vegetable            FCO 10/2018
               Oil

Vasco Da Gama  Mackerel      120g   PT C2375 CE   5 601105 020501
               Filets in            PT G2375 CE
               Olive Oil

Vasco Da Gama  Portuguese    120g   L0551 E SA    5 601105 011523
               Sardines in          08/2019 PT
               Olive Oil            0221 1P CE

Vasco Da Gama  Octopus and   120g   L1831J PPC    5 601105 061009
               Squid in             06/2018 PT
               Ravigot Sauce        C221 1P CE

Vasco Da Gama  Portuguese    120g   L1850 I 51-P  5 601105 011561
               Sardines in Hot      PT C221 1P CE
               Tomato Sauce         07/2018

Vasco Da Gama  Portuguese    120g   L2850C SOP PT 5 601105 011547
               Sardines in Hot      C221 1P CE
               Sauce 07/2019

Vasco Da Gama  Small Sardines 90g   L2041L POP    5 601105 230047
               in Hot Sauce         01/ 2019 PT
                                    C221 1P CE
Vasco Da Gama  Small Sardines 90g   L2241L 01/    5 601105 230030
               in Tomato Sauce      2019 PT C221
                                    1P CE
Vasco Da Gama  Small Sardines 90g   L0344V PO PT  5 601105 230054
               in Vegetable         C221 1P CE
               Oil  04/2019

Vasco Da Gama  Horse Mackerel 120g  L0639B CARD   5 601105 130026
               in Vegetable         06/11/2018
               Oil                  PT C221 1P CE

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


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.


TRUMPS INC: Faces "Emelike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kechi Emelike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trumps, Inc. d/b/a Club Onyx, Rick's Cabaret
International, Case No. 3:15-cv-01728-B (N.D. Tex., May 19, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Trumps, Inc. owns and operates a family of gentlemen's clubs
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


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.


VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Undeclared Mustard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Vantage Foods Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

  Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s) on    UPC
  ---------    -----------   ----   product       ---
                                    ----------
  Compliments  Beef Sausages 500 g  All lots      0 68820 13010 9
                                    where mustard or
                                    and wheat are 0 68820 13007 9
                                    not declared
                                    on the label.


VIAND COFFEE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darqui Garcia, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Viand Coffee Shop of 61st. Inc. d/b/a Viand Coffee
Shop and George Kontogiannis , Case No. 1:15-cv-03854-RJS
(S.D.N.Y., 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 restaurant located at 673 Madison
Avenue, New York City, NY 1 0021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIATOR INC: Gets Final Court Nod on "Relente" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge entered an order on May 4, 2015, granting final
approval to the class action settlement in the complaint ROSALINA
C. RELENTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIATOR, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 12-CV-05868-JD, (N.D. Calif.).

In the complaint, plaintiffs Rosalina Relente and Travis Anderson,
allege that Viator, a company that markets and sells "tours and
experiences" through its website, displayed some tours with a
"strike-through price" -- a price with a line running through it
to convey the fact that it was superseded. Plaintiffs claimed that
these strike-through prices misled consumers about the amount by
which the tours' prices were discounted.

The class consists of "All persons who purchased a Viator tour
worldwide using a California billing address from October 16, 2008
through June 7, 2014 when a Strikethrough Price was displayed with
no Special Offer Text."

Under the Settlement, Viator will be subject to a permanent
injunction requiring it to include a description of the basis for
a strike-through price whenever it lists one on its website or
apps. In addition, the Settlement provides for a $515,000
settlement fund, to be divided between the class members based on
how much they paid for their tour. There are 16,637 class members,
resulting in an average payout of $30.96.

A copy of Judge Donato's Final Order dated May 4, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/BwLjjXfrom Leagle.com.

Rosalina C. Relente, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel
Sitkin, Dacey & Sitkin, Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP & Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP.

Travis R. Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel
Sitkin, Dacey & Sitkin, Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino
& Kopczynski LLP & Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP.

Viator, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colette M. Coles, Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Rebekah E. Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP &
Wesley Ellsworth Overson, Jr., Morrison & Foerster LLP.


VIKING RANGE: Recalls Viking and Brigade Freestanding Gas Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53433

This recall involves Viking and Brigade brand freestanding gas
ranges. The recalled ranges come in widths of 30 inches (76
centimeters), 36 inches (91 centimeters), 48 inches (122
centimeters) and 60 inches (152 centimeters). They were sold in
stainless steel as well as a variety of other colours and various
surface burner configurations.

  Model Numbers beginning            Serial  Numbers and
  with these Letters and Numbers     Serial Number Ranges
  ------------------------------     --------------------
  VGIC306                            All
  VGIC308                            All
  VGIC366                            All
  VGIC368                            All
  VGIC486                            All
  VGIC488                            All
  VGIC530 and CVGIC530               All
  VGIC536 and CVGIC536               All
  VGCC530 and CVGCC530               040108 through 010313
  VGCC536 and CVGCC536               110108 through 010913
  VGCC548 and CVGCC548               020109 through 010913
  VGCC560 and CVGCC560               050111 through 010313
  VGSC530 and CVGSC530               063008 through 063014
  VGSC536 and CVGSC536               113008 through 063014
  VGSC548 and CVGSC548               030109 through 063014

The model and serial numbers can be found on a label in one of
three locations: On the bottom of the control panel above the
door, on the front of the oven cavity below the control panel, or
on the inside of the left side panel, which can be seen by
removing the left front grate and burner bowl.

The first six numbers in the serial number are the manufacture
date (MM/DD/YY format). Model numbers will have additional
characters at the end depending on the top configuration and
product finish. For example, a CVGIC530 with 4 burners in
stainless steel will be CVGIC530-4B-SS.

The ovens in the gas ranges can turn on by themselves when liquid
drips from the stove top into the oven, posing a burn hazard to
consumers.

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

Viking Range has received 4 reports in Canada and 71 reports in
the United States of the ovens in the gas ranges turning on by
themselves. There have been no reports of injuries or property
damage in Canada. In the United States, burn injuries were
reported in three incidents, while property damage was reported in
four cases.

Approximately 8,300 units were sold in Canada and 51,700 units in
the United States.

The affected ranges were sold in Canada and the United States from
July 2007 through June 2014 at various appliance retailers.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Viking Range LLC
              Greenwood
              Mississippi
              UNITED STATES

Viking Range to schedule a free in-home repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Viking toll-free at 1-
877-929-2581, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's website and click on Safety Recall
Information at the bottom right of the home page.

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/KMXSJe


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Heller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vipshop Holdings Limited, Ya Shen, and Donghao Yang,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03870-LTS (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Vipshop Holdings Limited is a Cayman Islands corporation that
operates as an online discount retailer for various brands in the
People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Ave, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (646) 581-9969
      E-mail: cdberger@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Natural Grocers Macadamia Nuts
-------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a Lakewood, Colo.,
based natural grocery chain, is recalling two lots of Natural
Grocers brand Macadamia nuts as the product has the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This recall was initiated after being notified of positive
Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA.

  UPC Code      Description          Packed on Dates
  --------      -----------          ---------------
0000080657552   RAW MACADAMIA NUTS   10oz 15-041 and 15-056

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 96 stores located
in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations
of Natural Grocers stores at:
https://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locationsdisclaimer icon.
Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

To date the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers
who may have purchased this product should return it to the store
for credit or refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling
Customer Service at (303) 986-4600, ext. 531, Monday through
Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (MST).


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in an Securities Class Action against Voltari
Corporation remains pending, Voltari said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014.

The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in
Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was our
predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has
changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the
case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors
and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn
P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett
Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner;
and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering,
including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are
named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages,
including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second
putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch
in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act."

"On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and
lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to
November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was
granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 25, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24,
2014 we filed our answering brief."


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Valrhona Milk Chocolates Due to Hazelnuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market's Oakland store located at 230 Bay Place is
voluntarily recalling Jivara Lactee Milk Chocolate Valrhona cut
and wrap pieces due to undeclared hazelnuts on the product label.
People who have an allergy or sensitivity to hazelnuts run the
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume the product.

The recalled product came in pieces wrapped in clear plastic wrap.
The recall includes all Jivara Lactee Milk Chocolate Valrhona cut
and wrap pieces packed on dates prior to May 19th 2015. This
product's UPC code is 250344025508.

This recall only applies to Whole Foods Market's Oakland store.
One mild reaction has been reported to-date. Customers who have
purchased this product should discard it and may bring in their
receipt for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market's Oakland
store at 510-834-9800 from 8:00 am - 10:00 PM Pacific time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm447919.htm


YOUKO TUDOU: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Youku
Tudou Inc. following the Company's announcement disclosing that
the Company had received and responded to queries from the SEC
regarding certain accounting treatment adopted by the Company in
its historical financial statements.  The lawsuit was filed in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Jahm v. Youku Tudou
Inc., number 15 CV 2875.  The lawsuit affects all investors in
Youku securities purchased between May 15, 2013, and March 19,
2015.

On March 19, 2015, Youku announced that had received and responded
to queries from the SEC regarding certain accounting treatment
adopted by the Company in its historical financial statements.  As
a result, the Company is attempting to resolve the SEC's comments
and intends to file its 2014 Form 20-F by the end of April 2015.

The stock fell from a closing price of $15.15 on Thursday, March
19, 2015, to close at $13.50 on March 20, 2015, a drop of
approximately 9%, on extremely high volume.  Shares of the Company
continued to fall in the weeks following the announcement, closing
at just $12.36 on March 30, 2015, representing a total drop of
over 18%.  The loss of market value was approximately $365
million.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than May 26, 2015.  As a member of the class, you may
seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you have questions
about your legal rights, would like a copy of the complaint or if
you have information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact
either attorney Steven P. Harte or Mark A. Delaney of Block &
Leviton LLP, www.blockesq.com, at (617) 398-5600 or at --
Steven@blockesq.com -- and -- Mark@blockesq.com -- respectively.


* 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  * * *