CAR_Public/150604.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 111


                            Headlines


AAG CREPE: Faces "Doric" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sued Over Failure to Design POS for Blind
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizner" Suit Says
ALSIDE INC: Faces "Luckey" Suit Over Defective Glass Windows
AMERICAN REALTY: Johnson Parties File Support Papers for Accord

AMERICAN REALTY: W2007 Grace I Still Defends Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Gnipp" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
APPLE INC: Removed "Walker" Class Suit to S.D. California
AQUA LUNG: Faces "Huntzinger" Suit Over Defective Dive Computers
ARIZONA CARDINALS: Sued Over Injuries Caused Pain Killers

ASPLUNDH EXPERT: Faces Victims' Class Suit Over 2011 Fire
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Dist. Court Ruling in "Bartlett" Action Upheld
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in Forex Class Suit
BELL CANADA: Hit With $750 Million Class Suit

BLACK'S COPY: Removed "Tejada" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
BLT SUPPORT: "Epperson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CACH LLC: Removed "Echols" Suit to Arizona Federal District Court
CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CCC-BOONE LLC: Court Grants Reconsideration Bid in Schneider Case

CENTURY SUPERMARKET: "Abreus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CFRA LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Corbin" Suit Claims
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: All Claims in "Howard" Action Dismissed
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss CACAC
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims

COMVERSE INC: Defending Against Four Class Action Litigations
COMVERSE INC: Parties in Katriel & Deutsch Cases Await New Judge
CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Faces Class Suit by Consumer Protection Office
CPFL ENERGIA: Faces Class Action by Federal Public Attorney
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Illegal Company Sale

CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Delayed
CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: To Defend Against "Zinno" Class Action
CUSTOM CLIMATE: Show Cause Order Entered in "Smith" Action
DAN LEPKE: Faces "Connelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DENSO CORP: All European Files 3rd Suit Over Price Fixing

DENSO CORP: All European Files 4th Suit Over Price-Fixing
DENSO CORP: All European Files 5th Suit Over Price-Fixing
DUKE ENERGY: Settles Suit Filed by Robbins Geller, Kessler Topaz
EAST BABYLON: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims

ELITE LINEN: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ELITE PALACE: "Catana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: NJ Property Owners Oppose $9.6MM Settlement
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Win Class Status on 2nd Attempt
ETS SERVICES: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FAMILY DOLLAR: Store Manager Loses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
FAMILY HOME: "Qian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLINT, MI: Citizens File Suit Over Water Source
FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Suit
FRANCE RAILWAYS: Faces Class Suit by Heirs of Holocaust Victims

GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Infant Formulas, Suit Claims
GIGA LTD: Faces "Cardova" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Data Breach Suit
INTUIT INC: Faces "Stock" Suit Over Alleged Security Breach
JACK IN THE BOX: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand Order in Gessele Case

JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss "Peters" Case Still Pending
KENNETH EISEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Luster" Suit Claims
KNCMINER: Bitcoin Company Facing Class Suit in Stockholm
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Pemberton" Suit Over Breach of FCRA
LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Approval Hearing on TCPA Settlement

LINKEDIN CORP: Ducks Credit Reporting Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Hyldburg" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Assocs. Files RICO Class Suit
MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept Gambling $100MM for Prison Rape Suit
MIDWEST MAINTENANCE: Faces "Bolanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid to Appeal Order Staying Cases Denied
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 9th Cir. Relaxes Timeliness Test Cases
NESTLE CANADA: Pet Owner Sues Over Beneful(R) Dog Food
NETFLIX INC: Appeal in Securities Litigation Remains Pending
NEW ORLEANS: Suit v. Sewage & Water Board Stays in Dist. Court

OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: 4,131 Workers Could Join Class Suit
PEAK POWER: Faces "Camp" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PERION NETWORK: Court Dismissed Class Action Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Argues Smokers Suffer No Economic Damage
PINNACLE RECOVERY: Sued in N.Y. Over Debt Collection Practices

PJT PARTNERS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Physicians Formula Suit
PLAYTIKA SANTA: Illegally Operates Virtual Casino, Suit Claims
PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standard Act
QUICKSILVER INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: "Thompson" Stayed Pending Ruling in Other Cases

REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Ticket Refund Possible in 8 Months
REMINGTON ARMS: Class Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
S & H INSTALLERS: "Kennedy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SANDISK CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit
SANTANDER DRIVE: DBTCA Defending Against SDNY Action

SAVANNAH'S ON HANNA: Settles Exotic Dancer's Wage Dispute Suit
SHOE CARNIVAL: Petition for Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Removed "Rose" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
SONG & ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
SUPER STORE: Court Grants Class Certification to Workers' Suit

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Faces "Tarrant" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TATA CONSULTANCY: IT Workers File Discrimination Class Suit
TCP INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Class Suit
TIM PARTICIPACOES: TIM Celular Faces Class Action
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Intelig Faces Class Action

TRANSURBAN: Faces Lawsuit Filed by Local Drivers
TROVER SOLUTIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Mallon" ERISA Suit
UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties Reached Agreement to Settle Class Action
UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over FDCA Violations
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Filipino Veterans' Claims Upheld

UNITED STATES: "Avery" Case May Not Proceed as Class Action
VENOCO INC: Trial Expected to Occur in 2015 in Class Action
VERTEX ENERGY: Vertex Refining Named as Defendant in "Davis" Case
WALGREENS CO: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Bernstein Liebhard
WALGREENS CO: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Suit

WINGS OVER: Faces "Meller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WHIPPERHILL CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Action Claims
WOKING GOURMENT: Faces "Ponciano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT


                            *********


AAG CREPE: Faces "Doric" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislav Doric and Konstantin Blokhintsev, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. AAG Crepe House Inc. d/b/a
Xo Creperie, Igor Korsunsky and Yelena Korsunsky, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02990 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 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 XO Creperie restaurant located at
2027 Emmons Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sued Over Failure to Design POS for Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case No. 2:15-cv-03860-MWF-
PJW (C.D. Cal., May 21, 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.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. owns and operate stores throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason L. Ribakoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. RIBAKOFF
      6819 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 307
      Van Nuys, CA 91405
      Telephone: (818) 778-6255
      Facsimile: (818) 778-6256
      E-mail: ribakoffjason@gmail.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizner" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Reizner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-03044 (D.N.J., April 30, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

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


ALSIDE INC: Faces "Luckey" Suit Over Defective Glass Windows
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Luckey, an individual, and CHRISTINE COLE, an individual,
on their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alside, Inc., d/b/a Alside Windows & Doors d/b/a
Alside, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02512-JRT-JSM (D. Minn., May 20,
2015), is brought on behalf of all homeowners who purchased two-
pane glass windows by the Defendants, which  contain certain
design, manufacturing, and workmanship defects and deficiencies
that make them highly susceptible to seal failure and other
mechanisms of condensation and corrosion.

Alside, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 3773 State Road, Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223.
Alside is in the business of designing, manufacturing,
distributing, and selling homebuilding products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex M. Nelson, Esq.
      William J. Rogers, Esq.
      Michael J. Lowder, Esq.
      BENSON, KERRANE, STORZ & NELSON, P.C.
      3800 American Boulevard West, Ste. 1500
      Bloomington, MN 55431
      Telephone: (952) 466-7574
      E-mail: anelson@bensonpc.com
              wrogers@bensonpc.com
              mlowder@bensonpc.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Johnson Parties File Support Papers for Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in an exhibit
to its Form 8-K Amendment No. 1 to Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, that the
parties to the Johnson class action lawsuit filed additional
papers in support of a settlement on December 3, 2014 and March
20, 2015.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson
Lawsuit) was filed in the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee by several current and former shareholders of the Series
B and C preferred shares of Grace Acquisition I. The complaint,
which alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach
of fiduciary duty that resulted in the loss of Series B and Series
C preferred share value, names Grace Acquisition I, members of
Grace Acquisition I's board of directors, PFD Holdings, LLC, GS
Group, Whitehall, Goldman Sachs Realty Management, L.P. and Grace
I as defendants. Shortly after the filing of the Johnson Lawsuit,
the defendants removed the case to Federal Court.

In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
back to the Circuit Court, which the defendants have opposed. On
July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand. In addition, in January 2014, the defendants also filed a
motion to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and the motion was fully
briefed on April 24, 2104.

In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff
in the same Circuit Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar
breaches against several of the same defendants named in the
Johnson lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's
board of directors. In January 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants
in the Dent Lawsuit agreed to stay that case in favor of
proceedings in the aforementioned Johnson Lawsuit.

In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a non-binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a
settlement of the claims raised in the Johnson Lawsuit. On August
22, 2014, the parties notified the Court of the proposed
settlement, and the Court agreed that the parties would no longer
be subject to pending deadlines in the current scheduling order.
On September 2, 2014, in light of the proposed settlement,
defendants filed a motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss
without prejudice to renew that motion later. The Court granted
the motion. The parties submitted the proposed settlement
stipulation and related papers to the Court for approval on
October 9, 2014, and filed additional papers in support of
settlement on December 3, 2014 and March 20, 2015.

The stipulation of settlement generally provides for the
following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that will result in
exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of Series B and C stock
outstanding; (2) the establishment of a $6 million fund to be
distributed pursuant to a plan of allocation to sellers of the
Series B and C preferred stock; and (3) an award of $4 million in
counsel fees, subject to approval by the Court. Therefore, during
the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company accrued $24.25
million related to the agreement which is included in accounts
payable and accrued liabilities in the accompanying combined
consolidated balance sheet and in contingent loss on litigation
settlement in the combined consolidated statement of operations
and comprehensive loss.

The Company anticipates funding the settlement with cash on hand
or, if necessary, funding from Whitehall. The Company expects that
the settlement of the Johnson Lawsuit, if approved, will result in
the release of those claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit. Ongoing
defense costs will be expensed as incurred.


AMERICAN REALTY: W2007 Grace I Still Defends Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in an exhibit
to its Form 8-K Amendment No. 1 to Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, that W2007
Grace I, LLC and WNT Holdings, LLC continue to defend a putative
class action lawsuit filed in September 2007, in the Circuit Court
of Shelby County, Tennessee (the Circuit Court) on behalf of the
former Series B and Series C preferred shareholders of Equity Inns
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against Equity Inns' former
directors. This complaint does not name Equity Inns or any
corporate entity as a defendant.

In February 2008, the Circuit Court denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint. In April 2010, the Circuit Court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which was
ultimately appealed and vacated by the Tennessee Court of Appeals
and remanded back to the Circuit Court.

During the second quarter of 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint and a new motion for class certification. In
April 2013, the Circuit Court granted the new motion and certified
a class and three subclasses. The defendants appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling, and in May 2014 the Tennessee Court of Appeals
vacated the Circuit Court's order certifying a class and remanded
the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion.

The Company does not believe that the disposition of such legal
proceedings and disputes will have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, continuing operations or cash flows of the
Company.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Gnipp" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Gnipp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01031 (N.D. Ohio, May
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing patient's personally identifiable information and
personal health information from data breach.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, Florida 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

       W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
       Larry A. Golston, Esq.
       Andrew E. Brashier,Esq.
       BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
       272 Commerce Street
       Post Office Box 4160
       Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160
       Telephone: (334) 269-2343
       Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
       E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
               larry.golston@beasleyallen.com
               andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com

          - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni
      Jeffrey D. Bores CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              david.scott@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com


APPLE INC: Removed "Walker" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Stacey Walker, Tyler Walker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Apple Inc. et al., Case No. 37-02015-00012943-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01147-
L-BGS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
      HOGUE & BELONG
      430 Nutmeg Street
      Second Floor
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 238-4720
      Facsimile: (619) 270-9856
      E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Steven A. Micheli, Esq.
      CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
      4510 Executive Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (858) 646-0007
      Facsimile: (858) 646-0008
      E-mail: smicheli@cdflaborlaw.com


AQUA LUNG: Faces "Huntzinger" Suit Over Defective Dive Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph A. Huntzinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Aqua Lung America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01146 (S.D.
Cal., May 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all consumers who
purchased Suunto-branded dive computers with defective software
and hardware that causes the Dive Computers to provide inaccurate
information about a dive.

Aqua Lung America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Vista, California. Aqua Lung is in the business of
distributing and marketing scuba diving products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Paula M. Roach, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              proach@bholaw.com

         - and -

      William A. Berman, Esq.
      Alicia M. Siminou, Esq.
      BERMAN & RIEDEL, LLP
      12264 El Camino Real, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 350-8855
      Facsimile: (858) 350-9855
      E-mail: wberman@bermanlawyers.com
              asiminou@bermanlawyers.com

         - and -

      John A. Knox, Esq.
      Douglas A. Hofmann, Esq.
      WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS, PLLC
      601 Union Street, Suite 4100
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 628-6600
      Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
      E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com
              dhofmann@williamskastner.com


ARIZONA CARDINALS: Sued Over Injuries Caused Pain Killers
---------------------------------------------------------
Etopia Evans, as the Representative of the Estate of Charles
Evans, et al., v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01457-WMN (D. Md., May 21, 2015), is an action
for redress of injuries as a proximate result of the alleged
conspiracy perpetrated by the 32 clubs that comprise the National
Football League.

According to the complaint, the Club doctors and trainers provided
players with pain killers, anti-inflammatories, and sleep aids to
get them back in the game as soon as possible, despite being
injured, often not telling the players what they were receiving,
and misstating the effects of the medications.

Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC is a successor to the Phoenix
Cardinals, St. Louis Cardinals, and Chicago Cardinals and is
engaged in promoting, operating, and regulating the National
Football League.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven D. Silverman, Esq.
      Alexander Williams Jr., Esq.
      Joseph F. Murphy Jr., Esq.
      Phillip J. Closius, Esq.
      Stephen G. Grygiel, Esq.
      William N. Sinclair, Esq.
      SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC
      201 N. Charles St., Suite 2600
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 385-2225
      Facsimile: (410) 547-2432
      E-mail: ssilverman@mdattorney.com
              awilliams@mdattorney.com
              jmurphy@mdattorney.com
              pclosius@mdattorney.com
              sgrygiel@mdattorney.com
              bsinclair@mdattorney.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 E. 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

         - and -


      Thomas J. Byrne, Esq.
      Mel T. Owens, Esq.
      NAMANNY BYRNE AND OWENS
      2 South Pointe Dr., Suite 245
      Lake Forest, CA 92630
      Telephone: (949) 452-0700
      Facsimile: (949) 452-0707
      E-mail: tbyrne@nbolaw.com
              mowens@nbolaw.com


ASPLUNDH EXPERT: Faces Victims' Class Suit Over 2011 Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Sevilla, writing for Statesman, reported that two suits filed
late against Asplundh Expert Tree Company seek damages resulting
from the 2011 Bastrop Complex Fire for homeowners whose property
valuation diminished by 25 percent or more.

Attorney Darrel Apffel of the Galveston-based Apffel Group and
attorney Robert Kizer of the Tuck and Kizer Law Group, both filed
suits against Asplundh Expert Tree Company on April 10 for damages
incurred by homeowners as a result of one of Texas' worst
wildfires.

Though the two year statute of limitations has long expired,
visiting District Court Judge Terry Flenniken's March 3 denial to
certify a pending class-action suit filed by Galveston attorney
Darrel Apffel extended the statute for property owners whose land
valuation diminished by 25 percent or more, as assessed by the
Bastrop County Central Appraisal District, between 2011 and 2012,
attorney Joe Grady Tuck of the Tuck and Kizer Law Group said in a
statement.

"Providence has accorded the victims of the worst fire in Texas
history another last chance to sign up, but the window of
opportunity may be very limited," Tuck said.

The suit filed by Kizer, on behalf of Bastrop District Attorney
Bryan Goertz and his wife, attorney Deborah Goertz, and numerous
other plaintiffs, alleges negligence and gross negligence against
the Pennsylvania-based Asplundh for contractual and common law
breaches of duties in connection to vegetation management for
local utility, Bluebonnet Electric Co-op, which is not named as a
defendant in either suit.

According to a website aimed at helping potential plaintiffs sign
up for the class-action suit, in 2011, Asplundh had a five-year
contract with Bluebonnet for maintenance of the power line right-
of-ways. Much like the cross claim filed by Bluebonnet in 2013,
the April 10 suit will allege that Asplundh failed in its tree
trimming and vegetation management duties, and the 2011 complex
fire and the subsequent damages were a direct result of the
alleged negligence, according to the website.

In 2011, Tuck and Kizer filed suit on behalf of the largest number
of individual plaintiffs in a similar suit, and that case settled.
In January, Tuck was involved in another suit that asserted
subrogation interests of insurers who paid homeowners' claims to
thousands of fire victims, and that case was settled on the third
day of trial.

Those settlements are under confidentiality agreements, according
to Tuck, and settlement figures were not made available.

Affected homeowners and potential plaintiffs can find more
information on the case and how to sign up at
www.bastropfiresuit.com, or interested persons can contact the
Tuck and Kizer Law Group at 512-321-4944.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Devin Magness, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Walled Lake Credit
Bureau, LLC, Urban Settlement Services, LLC d/b/a Urban Lending
Solutions, Dialogue Marketing, Inc., and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02402 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Dist. Court Ruling in "Bartlett" Action Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron R. Bartlett and Connie J. Beals-Bartlett appealed a district
court's order granting Bank of America, NA's (BOA) motion to
dismiss and dismissing for failure to state a claim their class
action complaint seeking damages for BOA's alleged failure to
comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) -- specifically, 15 U.S.C. Section
1681g(g) (2012). On appeal, the Bartletts contend that the
district court erred in finding Section 1681g(g) inapplicable to
their loan modification request.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
district court ruling in an opinion entered May 20, 2015, a copy
of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Hze3z4from Leagle.com.

According to the Fourth Circuit, the Bartletts alleged only that
BOA obtained Connie's credit score in assessing her eligibility
for loan modification. They made no allegation that BOA actually
obtained or used Byron's credit scores. Thus, the Fourth Circuit
concluded that the district court properly dismissed the
Bartletts' claim that Byron was entitled to the disclosures
mandated by Section 1681g(g).

The case is BYRON R. BARTLETT; CONNIE J. BEALS-BARTLETT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant-Appellee,
NO. 14-1895.

Scott C. Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- LEGG LAW FIRM, LLC, San
Mateo, California; Phillip R. Robinson --
phillip@marylandconsumer.com -- CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Appellants.

Brian R. Matsui -- bmatsui@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Michael J. Agoglia --
magoglia@mofo.com -- Angela E. Kleine -- akleine@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellee.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in Forex Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson and Phil Milford, writing for Bloomberg Business,
reported that Bank of America Corp. investors say they've settled
a lawsuit accusing the company of rigging prices in the foreign-
exchange market.

The investors, several pension and hedge funds, didn't reveal how
much the bank would pay in a statement by their law firm, Scott &
Scott, announcing the deal. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG
settled the same lawsuit earlier this year, agreeing to pay $99.5
million and $135 million, respectively.

The settlement couldn't be immediately confirmed with the
Manhattan federal court where the class-action suit was filed two
years ago. A bid to dismiss the case was denied in January.
Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-
based bank, declined to comment.

The investors said financial institutions conspired since 2003 to
manipulate benchmark trading rates in the $5.4 trillion-a-day
foreign exchange market.

Allegations of rigging have triggered regulatory probes around the
globe. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. recently agreed to pay $714
million to settle U.S. and New York state allegations that it
defrauded clients in foreign-exchange transactions for as long as
a decade.

Bank of America agreed to help the investors in their lawsuits
against other financial institutions, according to the statement.
"The agreement ensures crucial cooperation that will assist
victims in obtaining additional monetary relief from other
financial institutions that took advantage of their clients," said
Christopher Burke, a lawyer for the investors.

The remaining defendants include Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA,
Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the law firm said.

The case is In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, 1:13-cv-7789, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York (Manhattan).


BELL CANADA: Hit With $750 Million Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reported that a $750-million national class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Bell Canada over alleged
breaches of privacy arising from its recently discontinued target
ads program.  The suit against subsidiaries of Bell alleges that
the defendants used the program to track, collect and sell the
sensitive account and internet browsing information of their
customers to advertisers.  It seeks $750 million in damages for
breach of privacy, breach of contract and breach of the
Telecommunications Act.

A similar lawsuit has also been launched in Quebec, counsel for
the plaintiffs, Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said in
a statement.

Bell issued a statement saying it would not comment on the
allegations contained in the lawsuit, which have not been proven
in court.

Although Bell has already cancelled the program, the company has
indicated it plans to reintroduce it in the future and might
expand it to include landline use and TV viewers.  However, it has
said it would seek explicit customer consent through an opt-in
approach. By building consumer profiles, such programs allows
advertisers to tailor or target ads to specific consumers.

The suit, against Bell Mobility Inc. and Bell Canada Inc. on
behalf of Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile customers, targeted what
Bell labelled as its "relevant ads program," which was launched in
November 2013.

'Unprecedented' amount of complaints

Following Bell's announcement of the program, the federal privacy
commissioner began an investigation due to "an unprecedented
volume of complaints," the statement from the lawyers said.

On April 7, the commissioner said it had found that Bell violated
the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act because it did not adequately disclose the nature of
the information and customers were not given the option to
properly consent to the use of their information for the program.
According to the report, customers were automatically included in
the program unless they specifically opted out -- something
113,000 Bell customers decided to do.  However, the privacy
commissioner said Bell should not assume because customers didn't
opt out that they were consenting to having vast amounts of their
personal information used in this way.

In addition to cancelling the program, Bell said that it would
delete all customer profiles created under it. However, in
addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the appointment of an
expert to "oversee and confirm the destruction of the personal
information," the statement from the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

"The Relevant Ads program was a misguided attempt by a Canadian
telecommunications company to generate advertising revenue," said
Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers. "If allowed to proceed, it
constitutes a threat to the core privacy rights of all Canadians."
Lawyer David Robins of Sutts, Strosberg said that through the
class action "the plaintiff seeks to hold Bell accountable and
stop other providers from selling customers' personal information
without informed consent."

Two other groups, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the
Consumer Association of Canada, have filed complaints to the CRTC
against Bell's old program and say they will continue the fight
against any revised initiative.


BLACK'S COPY: Removed "Tejada" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Frank Tejada and others similarly
situated drivers v. Black's Copy Services, Inc., and Black's
Photocopy Service, Inc., Case No. 15-006056CA01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21633-MGC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

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


BLT SUPPORT: "Epperson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Epperson v. BLT Support Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749
(N.D. Tex., May 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

BLT Support Services, LLC operates Bear Creek dental offices with
its principal place of business located at 1550 Edison Drive,
Dallas, Texas 75207.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R Tucker, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES R. TUCKER, P.C.
      3100 Drexel Drive
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Telephone: (214) 505-0097
      Facsimile: (214) 599-8874
      E-mail: jrtuckerpc@aol.com


CACH LLC: Removed "Echols" Suit to Arizona Federal District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned William Echols, on behalf of a
class of similarly situated Arkansas residents v. Cach, LLC, Case
No. CV-13-00126, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clark
County, Arkansas to the U. S. District Court Western District of
Arkansas (Hot Springs). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:15-cv-06042-RTD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Becky A. McHughes, Esq.
      Christopher D. Anderson, Esq.
      Jennifer Liwo, Esq.
      Josh Edgar McHughes, Esq.
      THE MCHUGHES LAW FIRM, LLC
      Post Office Box 2180
      Little Rock, AR 72203
      Telephone: (501) 376-9131
      Facsimile: (501) 918-4005
      E-mail: becky@mchugheslaw.com
              christopher@mchugheslaw.com
              jennifer@mchugheslaw.com
              josh@mchugheslaw.com

         - and -

      David M. Donovan, Esq.
      WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
      200 River Market Ave., Ste. 200
      Little Rock, AR 72201-1769
      Telephone: (501) 372-1406
      Facsimile: (501) 372-1209
      E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com


CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Catamaran Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04513
(N.D. Ill., May 21, 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.

Catamaran Corporation is a corporation incorporated under the
Business Corporations Act of the Yukon Territory, Canada (YBCA),
with its principal place of business and executive offices located
at 1600 McConnor Parkway, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-
6801. Catamaran is engaged in pharmacy care service business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
      LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD
      351 W. Hubbard St., Suite 401
      Chicago, IL 60654 US
      Telephone: (312) 634-0057
      Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
      E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com
              newton@laskyrifkind.com


CCC-BOONE LLC: Court Grants Reconsideration Bid in Schneider Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In JONATHAN SCHNEIDER, DEANNA REARY, AND LANGDON CLAY, all
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CCC-BOONE, L.L.C. AND CAPSTONE PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-144, (W.D. N.C.), before the
court are Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of
Reasonableness of Fees Sought and Defendants CCC-Boone, L.L.C. and
Capstone Properties, L.L.C.'s Motion to Reconsider of the Granting
of Attorney's Fees and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in
Support of Reasonableness of Attorneys Fees. Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated reply in response to Defendants' filings.

On October 21, 2013, Defendants removed this case from the
Superior Court of Watuaga County. On November 20, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand. On November 21, 2014, the Court remanded
the case to Watauga County and granted Plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees and costs without deciding the exact figure.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion in Support of Reasonableness
of Fees Sought. The Court retained jurisdiction over the fees
issue, but allowed the remainder of the case to proceed in state
court.


District Judge Richard L. Voorhees, in an order dated May 19,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1HzfJZqfrom
Leagle.com, concluded that that the imposition of costs is not
appropriate in this instance.

"While the Court ultimately lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the case, it is clear that the standard for imposition of
fees is not strict liability. The Court finds that the defect in
the notice of removal is more akin to a procedural defect and
amounts to an error in referencing the wrong portion of 28 U.S.C.
[Section] 1332. While such an error is important -- the result in
this case was granting the motion to remand -- awarding fees in
this instance would not deter subsequent removals that contain
negligently drafted notice of removals," Judge Vorhees held.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is
granted, issues regarding the amount and reasonableness of the
fees are moot, and the Court will not award costs under Section
1447(c), ruled the Court.

Jonathan Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua
-- pcapua@capualawfirm.com -- Capua Law Firm, PA.

Deanna Reary, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua
Law Firm, PA.

Langdon Clay, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua
Law Firm, PA.

CCC-Boone, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl Brown --
gregory@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn
-- justin@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP.

Capstone Properties, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl
Brown, Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn, Brown Law LLP.


CENTURY SUPERMARKET: "Abreus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yamile Abreus and other similarly situated individuals v. Century
Supermarket D & C, Inc., Sonia Cruz, and Danny Cruz, Case No.
1:15-cv-21947 (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CFRA LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Corbin" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limecca Corbin, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. CFRA, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00405 (M.D.N.C., May 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

CFRA, LLC operates IHOP franchise restaurants in Alabama, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Harris, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON &MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON &MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com
              jrathod@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
              mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: All Claims in "Howard" Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all claims against the
Company in the Francis Howard class action have been dismissed
with prejudice.

On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard ("Howard"), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit
against the Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael
Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the "Individual
Defendants"), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities,
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason & Associates
P.L.L.C. ("Creason"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The class action lawsuit alleges violations
of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants,
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only
the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against
the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint alleging similar claims to those previously
asserted. On March 17, 2014, the parties signed a settlement
agreement for a total of $850,000, with $837,500 to be paid on
behalf of the Company by its insurance carrier, and $12,500 to be
paid by Creason. On August 14, 2014, the Court approved the
settlement, which is now final. As a result, all claims against
the Company have been dismissed with prejudice.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss CACAC
------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and John
F. Levy anticipate that they will file a motion to dismiss a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "CACAC").

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

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

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

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

On March 27, 2015, the Yun Group filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "CACAC").  The CACAC adds three
underwriters as defendants, Burnham Securities, Axiom Capital
Management and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. The CACAC alleges that
the Company engaged in a fraudulent scheme by engaging in
undisclosed and improper lending practices and made misleading
representations regarding its underwriting policies, the loan
portfolio quality, the loan loss allowance, compliance with U.S.
GAAP and its internal control systems. The defendants' date to
answer or move is May 26, 2015, and the Company and Mr. Levy
anticipate that they will file a motion to dismiss the CACAC.  The
Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  At this early stage of the
proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate the probability
of success or loss.


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02840-JD (E.D. Pa., May 21, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and  unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


COMVERSE INC: Defending Against Four Class Action Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that Comverse Technology,
Inc., (or CTI), the Company's former parent, and certain of its
former subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of
Comverse, Inc.), were named as defendants in four potential class
action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to
recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or
breach of contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding
illegal backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain
current or former employees from exercising certain stock options.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.


COMVERSE INC: Parties in Katriel & Deutsch Cases Await New Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Katriel and Deutsch cases await a decision on the plaintiffs'
motion seeking to have the case assigned to a new presiding Judge.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Comverse Technology, Inc., (or CTI), on March 26, 2009, by
plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd. employee) and Deutsch
(a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The Katriel case (Case
Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case Number 1335/09) both
seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed
to have been incurred as a result of CTI's negligence in reporting
and filing its financial statements, which allegedly prevented the
exercise of certain stock options by certain employees and former
employees. By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009,
the court ordered that these cases, including all claims against
CTI in Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be
stayed until resolution of the actions pending in the United
States regarding stock option accounting, without prejudice to the
parties' ability to investigate and assert the unique facts,
claims and defenses in these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court
lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint and motion to certify a class of plaintiffs in a single
consolidated class action. The defendants responded to this
amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a
further reply on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the
case was held on December 25, 2012, during which all parties
agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation.

The mediation process ended without success. According to the
parties' consent to submit summations in the motion to certify the
claims as a class action, including the certification of the class
of plaintiffs, the court held the following dates for submission
of summations: Summations on behalf of the plaintiffs were
submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on behalf of the
defendants were submitted on November 20, 2014; and summations of
response by the plaintiffs were submitted on December 30, 2014. On
February 9, 2015, the Judge presiding over the case recused
herself. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the
Court seeking to have the case assigned to a new presiding Judge
and the parties are awaiting a decision.

On July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order that
CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to satisfy any
potential damage awards that may be awarded in this case, but did
not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. On July 25, 2012, the
court decided that it will not rule on the motion until after it
rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs. On
August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the
court's decision to the Israeli Supreme Court (or Appeal) and on
November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion.
On July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Supreme
Court to withdraw the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal was
dismissed.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases.


CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Faces Class Suit by Consumer Protection Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that CPFL Paulista is a
defendant in a class action suit commenced by the Consumer
Protection Office (Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor) of Campinas
in the State of Sao Paulo, seeking to suspend the tariff
adjustment authorized by ANEEL for 2009.

"The claim against us was rejected by the court of first instance,
but the Consumer Protection Office appealed the decision.  The
tariff adjustment remains in force until a ruling on appeal is
made.  We believe that the risk of loss in these proceedings is
possible and therefore have not recorded any accounting provision
in this respect," the Company said.


CPFL ENERGIA: Faces Class Action by Federal Public Attorney
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that, "We are subject to
legal proceedings relating to the authorization of certain of our
Hydroelectric Power Plants.  These proceedings include a class
action suit commenced by the office of the Federal Public Attorney
of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul, challenging the validity of
the environmental license for the Rio das Antas hydroelectric
complex and seeking an injunction to prevent construction of the
plants.  The request for an injunction was denied by the lower
court and the appeal court, but confirmation of the appeal court
decision has been outstanding since 2012.  We believe that the
likelihood of loss is remote.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Illegal Company Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence G. Farber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01367 (S.D. Tex., May 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with their attempt to sell the Partnership to Crestwood
Equity Partners LP and its general partner, Crestwood Equity GP
LLC by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a limited partnership organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Crestwood
provides midstream asset services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
      Ste 3950, 700 Louisiana
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that in the Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, the District Court has delayed proceedings
on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class
certification remand proceedings.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. In October 2013,
the District Court held a case management conference to determine
the scope and schedule of the remand proceedings, which are
underway. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits
of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand
proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.


CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: To Defend Against "Zinno" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CTPartners Executive Search Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
February 27, 2015, a putative class action against CTPartners
Executive Search Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors
was filed (Zinno v. CTPartners Executive Search Inc., et al.,
Southern District of New York, Case No. 15-cv-1476). Plaintiff
alleges certain violations of the Federal securities laws, and
seeks damages on his own behalf and on behalf of the putative
class for general damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief. Management
believes these allegations are without merit and will defend this
action vigorously.

"We are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an outcome, favorable
or unfavorable, to CTPartners or to estimate the amount or range
of any potential loss at this time," the Company said.


CUSTOM CLIMATE: Show Cause Order Entered in "Smith" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH and MICHAEL HERRING, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CUSTOM CLIMATE CONCEPTS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-614-
J-34JRK, (M.D. Fla.) is before the Court sua sponte.

On March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida. Defendant then filed a Motion to Transfer Venue, and on
May 15, 2015, that court entered an order directing the Clerk of
the Court to transfer this case to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. Thereafter, the Clerk
transferred the case to the Court in the Jacksonville Division of
the Middle District of Florida. However, upon review of
Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Jacksonville Division does not appear
to be the appropriate Division for this proceeding. Pursuant to
Local Rule 1.02(c), Local Rules, United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), "[a]ll civil
proceedings of any kind shall be instituted in that Division
encompassing the county or counties having the greatest nexus with
the cause, giving due regard to the place where the claim arose
and the residence or principal place of business of the parties."
Additionally, Local Rule 1.02(e) provides that "[t]he Court may,
within its discretion, . . . order that any case, civil or
criminal, be transferred from one Division to any other Division
for trial[.]"

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs Michael Smith and Michael Herring
assert claims against Defendant Custom Climate Concepts, Inc.
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
Although the Complaint does not disclose in what county or
counties Plaintiffs reside, Defendant's headquarters and sole
office location is in Sarasota, Florida, which the Court notes is
located in Sarasota County.

In light of this, District Judge Marcia Morales Howard issued an
order on May 19, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1AEtnh4from Leagle.com, directing the Plaintiffs to
show cause by a written response filed on or before June 3, 2015,
why this case should remain pending in the Jacksonville Division.

In their written response, Plaintiffs should provide the Court
with information from which the Court can determine which
"Division encompass[es] the county or counties having the greatest
nexus with the cause. . . ," added Judge Smith.

Michael Smith, Petitioner, represented by Matthew P. McCue --
mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Law Office of Matthew P. McCue,
Phillip T. Howard -- tim@howardjustice.com -- Howard & Associates,
PA & ANTHONY PARONICH -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- BRODERICK
LAW PC.

Michael Herring, Petitioner, represented by Matthew P. McCue, Law
Office of Matthew P. McCue, Phillip T. Howard, Howard &
Associates, PA & ANTHONY PARONICH, BRODERICK LAW PC.

CUSTOM CLIMATE CONCEPTS, INC., Respondent, represented by Michael
F. Coppins -- mcoppins@coppinsmonroe.com -- Coppins, Monroe,
Adkins & Dincman, PA.


DAN LEPKE: Faces "Connelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Connelly, David Winchell, on behalf of themselves and
all others sharing a question of common interest v. Dan Lepke
Trucking LLC, Lepke Trucking & Excavating LLC Daniel Lepke, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00308-jpd (W.D. Wis., May 21, 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 trucking company with its
principal place of business located at E3014 County Road OK,
Chaseburg, 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


DENSO CORP: All European Files 3rd Suit Over Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
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-11827-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2015)
(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

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Pamela A. Markert,Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              pmarkert@cerallp.com


DENSO CORP: All European Files 4th Suit Over Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
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-11831-GCS-EAS (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

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Pamela A. Markert,Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              pmarkert@cerallp.com


DENSO CORP: All European Files 5th Suit Over Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
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-11828 (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

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Pamela A. Markert,Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              pmarkert@cerallp.com


DUKE ENERGY: Settles Suit Filed by Robbins Geller, Kessler Topaz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP announces the Duke Energy Corporation Securities
Litigation:

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION ("DUKE") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 11, 2012 AND JULY
9, 2012, INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING FORMER PROGRESS ENERGY INC.
("PROGRESS") SHAREHOLDERS WHO ACQUIRED SHARES OF DUKE COMMON STOCK
DIRECTLY IN THE MERGER OF DUKE AND PROGRESS (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS")

Please read this Notice carefully. Your rights will be affected by
the Settlement of a class action lawsuit.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for $146,250,000 in cash
has been reached.  A hearing will be held before the Honorable Max
O. Cogburn Jr. in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, United States Courthouse, Charles R.
Jonas Federal Building, 401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, NC
28202, at 9:30 a.m., on August 12, 2015, to determine: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement for $146,250,000 in cash should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling
Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated March 5, 2015 should be granted;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds should
be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (4) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (5) whether Lead
Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses
(including lost wages) in connection with their representation of
the Settlement Class should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Final Approval Hearing (the
"Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"),
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at Duke Energy Corp. Securities Litigation
Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
990, Corte Madera, CA  94976-0990, (888) 287-5302.  Copies of the
Notice and Proof of Claim can also be downloaded from the
settlement website, www.dukesecuritiessettlement.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim by mail postmarked no later than July 13, 2015 or submitted
electronically no later than July 13, 2015.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments entered by the Court in this litigation.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds,
the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses; and/or the request by Lead Plaintiffs for
reimbursement of costs and expenses in connection with their
representation of the Settlement Class.  Any objections must be
filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Settling
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June
8, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.  If you are a Settlement Class Member, you also have the
right to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class.  Requests for
exclusion must be submitted to the Claims Administrator such that
they are received no later than June 8, 2015, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.


EAST BABYLON: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Guo Song v. East Babylon Chinese Restaurant Inc., ABC Corp.,
d/b/a "Eastern Babylon Chinese", Bo Ren, Jin Xiang Zou, John Does
and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 9:15-cv-80649-DMM (S.D. Fla., May
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal
address at 1251 Deer Park Ave # 8, North Babylon, NY 11703.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. v. Eclinicalworks, LLC,
Eclinicaldirect, LLC, Eclinicalweb, LLC, and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01023v-CEH-EAJ (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2015), arises out
of the Defendants' unlawful practice of placing calls on consumers
telephone using an automatic dialing system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 436-0598
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ELITE LINEN: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Elite Linen, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02831-JS (E.D. Pa.,
May 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Elite Linen, LLC provides complete linen processing, restaurant
line supply, and linen rental services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Patrick Murphy Jr., Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
      One Penn Center Suite 1230
      1617 John F Kennedy Blvd
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 375-0961
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


ELITE PALACE: "Catana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Martinez Catana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Elite Palace LLC, Albert Vaynshteyn and Igor
Tsan, Case No. 1:15-cv-02976-RRM-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a banquet hall and catering
facility located at 69-02 Garfield Avenue, Woodside, New York
11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: NJ Property Owners Oppose $9.6MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolfe, writing for Law360, reported that three New Jersey
property owner plaintiffs in a class action alleging a wide-
ranging conspiracy to rig municipal tax lien auctions said they
cannot accept a total settlement of $9.6 million because it's
inadequate, improperly executed and preferential to certain
plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Arlene Davies and Laura and Todd Zahn, members of an uncertified
class seeking certification, asked U.S. District Judge Michael
Shipp to deny preliminary approval of the most recent $1.25
million proposed settlement from seven of the defendants.  If
accepted, the sum would be added to the $8.33 million in
settlements that have already received preliminary approval, and
would put the court on track to end the case.

The objecting plaintiffs argue that the potential total settlement
is inequitably inadequate when compared to the $100 million to
$200 million fraud the defendants perpetuated over 11 years, and
that it gives preferential treatment to class members with a
current lien on their homes, is the product of "arm's-length"
bargaining without formal discovery, and lacks reasonable
justification and proper notice to plaintiffs, like the other 14
settlements.

"Preliminary approval is only appropriate where 'the proposed
settlement is the result of parties' good faith negotiations,
there are no obvious deficiencies, and the settlement falls within
the range of reason," the objectors said. "[T]he settlements fall
far short of the 'range of reason' required for preliminary
approval, especially given the potential damages and strength of
the case. Preliminary approval should be denied."

In addition to the perceived inadequacy of the settlement, the
objectors argue that the class counsel, being led in the interim
by Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, has not
provided the class with reasonable notification about settlement
agreements and has not provided sufficient information for members
to assess whether or not the settlements are reasonable.

"In the motion for preliminary approval, class counsel provide no
estimate of the size of the class, the scope of the conspiracy,
the damages caused by the conspiracy, or the best possible
recovery in the case," the objection said. "The court thus has no
basis on which to grant approval other than class counsels' say-
so. The law requires more."

Davies and the Zahns also complain that although the settlement
agreements do not contain a "final" fee agreement, they do state
that class counsel may be able to take an "unreasonable" fee of up
to one-third of the settlement amount, which would add up to more
than $3 million. In the absence of discovery or disclosure of
expert opinions from the class counsel, the objectors contend that
they want more than what they've gotten for a $3 million price
tag.

In an email to Law360, Greenberg said the arguments the objectors
have raised come well after a deadline for responses from
plaintiffs and are without merit. He said the judges have rejected
similar contentions made in response to previous settlement
proposals and that other arguments that have been raised "simply
reflect the objectors' fundamental misunderstanding of the facts
and procedural history of this case, the terms of these
settlements, and the legal standards for preliminary settlement
approval."

According to court filings, New Jersey law allows the auctioning
of tax liens that remain unpaid after a waiting period. The law
requires that investors bid on the interest rate that delinquent
property owners will pay upon redemption, starting with an 18
percent rate that is reducible to zero through a competitive
bidding process.

The class claims the defendants began conspiring in 1998 to
allocate the liens among themselves and not bid against each other
in order to make sure the interest rates didn't drop below the
legal maximum of 18 percent.  The plaintiffs say the conspiracy
harmed thousands of New Jersey real property owners by forcing
them to pay higher interest rates on their tax sale certificates
than they would have without the collusion, according to the
amended complaint.

Following a probe into the scheme, the U.S. Department of Justice
secured more than a dozen guilty pleas, including that of Remick,
who acknowledged in April 2013 that he submitted bids in line with
agreements to divvy up the liens with other bidders.

Judge Shipp in November dismissed two claims from the class action
but declined to fully toss the suit, ruling the plaintiffs had
adequately stated their antitrust claims.

According to court filings, 15 individuals and entities have
pleaded guilty to conspiring to rig auctions, and a number of
others are under indictment.

Objector plaintiffs are represented by Dennis J. Drasco of Lum
Drasco & Positan LLC, Steven F. Molo, Thomas J. Wiegand and Martin
V. Totaro of MoloLamken LLP, and Hays Gorey Jr. of Geyer & Gorey
LLP,

The class is represented by Hausfeld LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP with Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC as liaison counsel.

The case is In Re: New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust
Litigation, case number 3:12-cv-01893, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Win Class Status on 2nd Attempt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that a Virginia federal
judge certified a class action alleging that Equifax Information
Services LLC misreported the status of certain state court
judgments, after the Fourth Circuit had reversed an earlier class
certification.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne said plaintiff Donna Soutter
had proposed a "materially different" definition on remand and had
established that some of Equifax's representations weren't true.
Her new class definition consists of consumers who told Equifax of
a disposed state court judgment before Equifax published an
inaccurate report between February 2008 and February 2013.  The
judge rejected Equifax's argument that a class couldn't be
ascertained because the 1,000 or so members would have to be
manually identified by going through its records.

"Equifax's very business model includes gathering and distilling
information from a wide variety of sources in order to glean
insights about individuals," the judge said. "The irony here
presumably is not lost on Equifax, and certainly is not lost on
the court."

Judge Payne also rejected Equifax's contention that the "frozen
scans" used for archival information do not reflect the exact date
when consumer files were updated with a correction.  The judge
said that its claim that it wouldn't be able to tell if a
correction preceded the report was "little more than a paper
obstacle," and that Equifax had offered no evidence this situation
existed for the class.

Soutter claims that Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
by erroneously including a state judgment against her that had
been set aside and dismissed in 2008.  Soutter had been sued by a
credit union after falling behind on her credit card; the credit
union agreed to dismiss the suit after she entered a payment plan.
However, the state court wasn't told about the settlement, which
entered a default judgment against Soutter.

After the mistake was revealed, the court set the judgment aside
and dismissed the suit.

Equifax obtains Virginia court records from LexisNexis, according
to the opinion.

"Equifax blurred the critical difference between the manner in
which it collects information about the entry of judgments and the
manner in which it collects information about the disposition of
judgments," the judge said.

According to the judge, the record now shows that LexisNexis
followed similar procedures for the automated collection of
judgment disposition information until at least 2009 and didn't
require the manual collection of disposition information from
courts.

The judge rejected Equifax's argument that Soutter didn't show
that it didn't follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum
possible accuracy, According to the opinion, Equifax also argued
that what was reasonable for a consumer in rural Virginia wouldn't
be reasonable for a city dweller.

"Equifax's contention is based entirely on the now disproven
notion that Equifax's default procedures for collecting
information about judgment dispositions varied from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction," the judge said.

Soutter settled a similar lawsuit, stemming from the same disposed
judgment, with Trans Union LLC for $1.4 million in 2013.

Representatives for the parties didn't respond immediately to
requests for comment.

Soutter is represented by Leonard Anthony Bennett, Janelle Mason
Mikac, Matthew James Erausquin, Robin Ann Abbott, Casey Shannon
Nash and Susan Mary Rotkis of Consumer Litigation Associates PC
and Dale Wood Pittman of the Law Office of Dale W. Pittman PC.
Equifax is represented by Keasha Ann Broussard, Barry Goheen and
John Anthony Love of King & Spalding LLP and John Willard
Montgomery Jr. of Traylor Morris & Elliott PC.

The case is Soutter v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case
Number 3:10-cv-00107 (E.D. Va.).


ETS SERVICES: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Wilson and Feabon Thomas, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and all others similarly-situated v. ETS Services,
Inc., Louison & Pancham Transportation Corp., Allied Airport
Shuttle Service, Inc., Colette Stevens, and Albert Hoyte, Case No.
1:15-cv-02994-WFK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate as a single enterprise, offering ground
transportation services that shuttles passengers to and from
Newark Liberty International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, and John
F. Kennedy International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Store Manager Loses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
January 2014 decision by a federal court granting summary judgment
for Family Dollar in an ex-employee's class action lawsuit was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April
9.

Albert Itterly was a Family Dollar store manager in Allentown
between July and November 2007 who filed a class action suit in
March 2008 alleging he and other managers were denied overtime
compensation payments in violation of both the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).
Itterly claimed to be working 63.5 hours per week and earning a
weekly salary of $930.00, which did not include additional
compensation for any time worked past 40 hours in a given work
week. Under PMWA, executive employees are classified as exempt
from consideration for overtime pay.

However, the plaintiff argued he was not strictly an executive
employee performing managerial duties such as supervision,
scheduling, disciplining and hiring of subordinate employees, and
"virtually all of his time" was spent performing non-managerial
work in the course of the store's daily business, such as
unloading freight merchandise deliveries, stocking shelves and
working cash registers.  Besides non-managerial tasks occupying
the lion's share of his work hours, Itterly's complaint further
claimed his executive duties were also shared by assistant store
managers and his ability to have complete oversight of the running
of the store was limited by his district manager.

Family Dollar's opposing contention centered on Itterly's
executive managerial responsibilities being crucial for the day-
to-day operation of the store, and should thus take precedence
over any other tasks during the course of the work day.

In January 2014, Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted a motion
for summary judgment in favor of Family Dollar, deciding that
there was no question Itterly was correctly classified as an
executive employee and thus ineligible for overtime compensation.

"Under the facts of this case, the defendants meet the burden of
proving that the plaintiff's primary duty was management of the
store," Stengel wrote. "A reasonable jury could not find that the
plaintiff falls outside of the executive exemption and therefore
be entitled to overtime under the PMWA."

Stengel also pointed to 21 similar cases made by store managers
against Family Dollar in the Western District of North Carolina,
all of which resulted in summary judgment in favor of the company,
and saw no reason to rule differently in this particular instance.

Itterly appealed Stengel's decision to the Third Circuit, before
Circuit Judges D. Michael Fisher, Kent A. Jordan and Joseph A.
Greenaway, Jr.

But in authoring his opinion on behalf of he and his colleagues,
Greenaway concurred with Stengel that Itterly was ultimately an
executive employee and unable to receive overtime pay.

"In making this determination, we look to whether the management
activities are critical to the successful operation of the
enterprise," Greenway said in a 12-page opinion released.

Greenaway opined Itterly's executive responsibilities were in fact
critical for successful day-to-day operation of the business, thus
giving them "primary duty" status and priority over his non-
executive responsibilities.

"Appellant is an exempt employee under the PMWA as a matter of
law," Greenaway wrote. "Appellant performed managerial duties
critical to the success of the Allentown store with minimal direct
supervision. The fact that he consistently performed nonexempt
tasks the majority of the time does not alter our analysis."


FAMILY HOME: "Qian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Zhen Qian, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and
Queens Inc., Thomas O'Brien, Jane Zhang, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe"
# 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02981 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate home health care and hospice
facility located at 168 Seventh Street, Brooklyn, New York 11215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


FLINT, MI: Citizens File Suit Over Water Source
-----------------------------------------------
Kurt Nagl, writing for MLive.com, reported that the Coalition for
Clean and Safe Water announced that the group has retained
attorney Trachelle Young to seek legal action against Flint,
Michigan.

The announcement came during a water meeting in April at Saints of
God Church that was hosted by the Concerned Pastors for Social
Action. The meeting also included representatives from the Flint
Democracy Defense League, Flint Water Class Action Group, Water
You Fighting For?, Poverty Round Table and other activist groups
that make up the coalition.

More than 50 community members attended the meeting, many of whom
applauded the announcement.

The Rev. Alfred L. Harris Sr., president of the Concerned Pastors
for Social Action, said he feels Flint deserves the best water
source, and the group will not back down until it gets it.

Attorney Young, a former appointed city attorney under then-Mayor
Don Williamson who practices out of Flint, said although she has
never handled a case like the one she has just taken, she said she
is confident her 20 years experience will prove effective.
"We believe legal action is necessary," Young said. "We will be
filing an action, and we will be seeking a preliminary
injunction."

Young said she wants to move forward as quickly as possible, but
that there is still a lot of documentation and collecting of
affidavits from residents to be done.

Councilman Eric Mays, an outspoken member of the coalition, said
the legal action will be aimed at the decision-makers of the city,
namely the emergency manager and the governor.

"This is a snowball getting ready to roll," Mays said. "Legally,
we are going to ask a question, and we are going to get an answer
one way or another."

Young said it will be "more than two weeks and less than two
months" before any action is taken, as she gathers materials for
the case.

"We are going to go legal," she said "And we are going to go fast
and furious because we are on a mission."


FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reports that Florida Hospital tried to dismiss a class
action lawsuit that claims it failed to safeguard patient records
that were stolen during a breach several years ago.  It comes as
the organization announced more than 9,000 additional records were
stolen by employees between 2012 and 2014. Richard Faircloth was
surprised to learn Florida Hospital is dealing with a second major
security breach involving patient records in the past several
years. "They can prevent this," he said.

He's part of the class action lawsuit filed after three former
workers were convicted of stealing information from patients
between 2009 and 2011.

FBI agents said they'd sell it to people who solicited those
patients for chiropractic and legal services. "Apparently,
unfettered access by numerous employees to thousands and thousands
of patient records across multiple facilities," said attorney
Edmund Normand. Attorneys for the organization filed a motion to
dismiss, saying the plaintiff hasn't identified a single promise
made by Florida Hospital to provide them with data protection
services. It goes on to say paperwork given to patients doesn't
contain such promises. Normand thinks Florida Hospital could have
prevented a separate breach, in which two workers allegedly stole
personal and financial patient information between 2012 and
2014."And there are simple industry standard safeguards that can
be put in place that would prevent this exact same thing, yet
Florida Hospital has refused to do so," Normand said.

Faircloth was recently informed his identity was used to register
a car in Memphis, a place he hasn't visited in 40 years. "It
worries me. What could happen in the future?" he said.

There's no way to link the incident in Tennessee with the breach
from Florida Hospital. The class action lawsuit seeks monetary
damages. Channel 9 emailed a Florida Hospital spokesperson for
comment but has not heard back.


FRANCE RAILWAYS: Faces Class Suit by Heirs of Holocaust Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Rodriguez, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that a
federal lawsuit by a suburban Chicago descendant of Holocaust
victims alleged the French national railway confiscated property
and belongings from tens of thousands of Jews and other
"undesirables" sent to Nazi concentration camps from France.

He suit also seeks restitution from the railroad for the third-
class train fares it billed the Nazis. But victims instead were
stuffed into cattle cars for the journey to the concentration
camps, according to the suit.

"Unfortunately for the 70 years or so since the French railway was
involved, they have never been held accountable for their
actions," Karen Scalin, 65, a Lincolnshire woman whose
grandparents perished in Auschwitz in November 1942 after they had
fled to France from Germany in 1937, said in a phone interview.

Two French citizens who also lost family in Auschwitz joined in
the suit.

In a reversal in February, the French government announced it was
negotiating to pay reparations for the first time to several
hundred Holocaust survivors now living in the U.S. who had been
moved to concentration camps on government-owned rail cars during
World War II and are now living in the U.S.

But Chicago attorney Steve Blonder, who filed lawsuit, said the
benefits established by the French government are limited and do
not compensate Holocaust victims or their heirs for property
confiscated by the railway.

Blonder maintained that the suit has standing in the United States
because the plaintiff's claims arise under international law
enforceable in federal court. The French national railway also
sells tickets in the United States through Rail Europe Group,
which has a contact center in suburban Rosemont, according to the
suit

The suit also contended that despite the passage of almost 75
years, the statute of limitations has not expired for such
litigation because it was only in 2012 that the French national
railway opened some of its archives to the public.

"There have been efforts to get the French railway to step up and
fulfill their responsibility for these atrocities, and they
haven't done it, so the time was right," Blonder said. "The result
for Karen and people like her, they're left with nothing."

A spokesman for the French national railway could not be reached
for comment, but the company has previously declined to comment on
reparations negotiations.

A similar proposed class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of
Hungarian Holocaust survivors against Hungarian State Railways by
a Northwestern University law professor, was thrown out by a
federal judge in Chicago in 2013. The court said the plaintiffs
had to sue in Hungary before coming to the United States,
according to attorney Anthony D'Amato, who filed the lawsuit.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Infant Formulas, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hasemann and Debbie Hoth, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-02995-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle
infant formula, that were falsely marketed by the Defendant that
it can reduce the risk of infants developing allergies.

The Defendant's health claim that partially hydrolyzed whey
protein reduced the risk of infants developing food allergies is
false and deceptive because according the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) there is no credible evidence to support
that relates consumption of 100 percent partially hydrolyzed whey
protein in infant formula to a reduced risk of food allergy.

Gerber Products Company is a Michigan corporation with its
headquarters located in Florham Park, New Jersey. Gerber is a
purveyor of baby food and baby products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
              ggranade@reesellp.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net

         - and -

      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (646) 873-7654
      Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
      E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 275-5275
      Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


GIGA LTD: Faces "Cardova" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Cardona v. Giga Ltd d/b/a Ciao Bella Ristorante, Case No.
2:15-cv-00170 (N.D. Ind., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
      MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
      445 N Pennsylvania St Suite 401
      Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
      Telephone: (317) 637-2345
      Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
      E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew K. Crawford at King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra,
reported that a New Jersey federal judge dismissed a class action
lawsuit against Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. alleging the
company failed to protect the personal information of thousands of
insurance network members following the theft of two company
laptops.

An unknown thief stole two password-protected laptop computers
from Horizon's headquarters containing information of more than
839,000 Horizon members.  Horizon reported the incident to the
police within days and began an investigation into the amount and
type of information in the stolen laptops.  Horizon notified
potentially affected members of the theft via letter and press
release.  Horizon also offered free credit monitoring and identity
theft protection for members who had Social Security numbers
stored on the stolen laptops.

Four Horizon members filed a class action on behalf of themselves
and other Horizon members whose personal information was housed in
the stolen laptops.  They alleged that, as "a direct and proximate
result of Horizon's wrongful actions and inaction," they "have
been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased
risk of harm from identity theft, identity fraud, and medical
fraud, requiring them to take the time and effort to mitigate the
actual and potential impact of the Data Breach on their lives."
Thus the plaintiffs claimed to have sustained "economic damages
and other actual harm for which they are entitled to
compensation."  The plaintiffs also asserted federal causes of
action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and several state law
causes of action.

The federal court rejected each of these claims for lack of
standing.  The court observed that three of the plaintiffs failed
to point to any individual harm.  The court held that plaintiffs'
"allegations of hypothetical, future injury are insufficient to
establish standing" because plaintiffs had "not suffered any
injury" and would not sustain an injury "[u]nless and until these
conjectures come true."  In other words, because there was no
"misuse" of information, there was no "harm."

With respect to the fourth plaintiff, who had alleged an actual
injury, the court concluded that he too lacked standing.  The
fourth plaintiff asserted that the Horizon laptop thief filed a
fraudulent joint tax return under his and his wife's names and
that the unknown culprit attempted to fraudulently use his credit
card.  Regarding the tax return, the court concluded that the
plaintiff could only "demonstrate the remote possibility, rather
than the plausibility, that the fraudulent tax return was
connected to the Horizon laptop theft."  Accordingly, the
plaintiff's tax fraud injury is not "fairly traceable" to Horizon.
Regarding the credit card, the court reasoned that the plaintiff's
current credit card information (as opposed to a new credit card,
which can be fraudulently obtained using a stolen Social Security
number) was not on the stolen laptops.  Therefore, "any harm
stemming from the fraudulent use of [plaintiff's] current credit
card is not 'fairly traceable' to [Horizon]."

Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs' various New Jersey state
law claims for lack of jurisdiction.  The court explained that
because it lacked original jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal
claims, it lacked discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

The Horizon decision is another indication that courts are
unwilling to entertain claims from customers who have had their
personal information stolen purely because their information has
been stolen.  Customers must show that there has been some sort of
misuse of their information traceable to the data breach and that
misuse resulted in some harm.


INTUIT INC: Faces "Stock" Suit Over Alleged Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Stock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02287-NC (N.D. Cal.,
May 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all individuals and
businesses in the United States whose personal information was
used to file fraudulent tax returns through TurboTax as a
proximate result of the Defendants' failure to implement
reasonable and adequate security measures.

Intuit, Inc. is an American software company that develops
financial and tax preparation software and related services for
small businesses, accountants and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
      Ari Cherniak, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
      1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (310) 601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
              ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
              acherniak@hammondlaw.com


JACK IN THE BOX: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand Order in Gessele Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed from a district court order remanding to
state court a putative class action by employees of Jack in the
Box Inc. (the Employees), asserting violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and Oregon law.

The case is captioned JESSICA GESSELE; ASHLEY ORTIZ; NICOLE
GESSELE; TRICIA TETRAULT; CHRISTINA MAULDIN; JASON DIAZ, both on
behalf of themselves individually and in addition, on behalf of
the other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. 15-35262.

The Employees made similar claims in a previous suit. The district
court found that the FLSA claims in that suit were untimely
because the Employees had failed to file the written consents
required in FLSA collective actions within the statute of
limitations. The district court dismissed the prior action without
prejudice, describing the failure to file timely consents as
depriving the court of jurisdiction. Jack in the Box did not
appeal.

The Employees then filed the instant case in state court,
asserting FLSA claims not included in the previous suit. Jack in
the Box removed, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1331, and diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court remanded, finding
the jurisdictional assertions barred by issue preclusion and
judicial estoppel in light of the dismissal of the prior suit.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
district court's remand order and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with its ruling.

A copy of the memorandum dated May 19, 2015, is available at
http://bit.ly/1d8HSyCfrom Leagle.com.


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss "Peters" Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in the case Marco Peters v.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., remains pending before the District court.

The Company said, "On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar, along with our
directors and officers at the time of our initial public offering,
or the Individual Defendants, and the underwriters of our initial
public offering were named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York captioned Marco Peters v.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-CV-7133
(S.D.N.Y.). In an amended complaint filed on June 1, 2012, the
plaintiff, representing a class of all purchasers and acquirers of
ADSs of JinkoSolar between May 13, 2010 and September 22, 2011,
inclusive, alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making
material misstatements or failing to disclose material information
regarding, among other things, JinkoSolar's compliance with
environmental regulations at its Haining facility. The amended
complaint also asserted claims against the Individual Defendants
for control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities
Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On January 22, 2013,
the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the
amended complaint as against all defendants. The plaintiff
appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an order on July 31,
2014 vacating the District Court's Order and remanding the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. Defendants filed a
further motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains
pending before the District court. We are unable to reliably
estimate the probability of prevailing in the case and the scope
of any liabilities."


KENNETH EISEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Luster" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Luster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kenneth, Eisen & Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-
0142-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful practice of placing calls on consumers telephone using an
automatic dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
     SKAAR AND FEAGLE,LLP
      Suite B, 2374 Main Street
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1970
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

         - and -

      Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
      Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
              krisskaar@aol.com


KNCMINER: Bitcoin Company Facing Class Suit in Stockholm
--------------------------------------------------------
P.H. Madore, writing for Cryptocoins News, reported that a group
of two dozen people (and growing) represented by Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. (Stockholm) is bringing a class action
lawsuit against Swedish Bitcoin firm KnCMiner, the one-time
premier manufacturer of Bitcoin mining hardware.

There are a range of issues for the court to consider, but the one
CCN is most intimately familiar with is the one that our source, a
member of this class action lawsuit, who told us about his
experience with KnC. Here is a pruned (moderately edited) version
of his lengthy story:

   "I read in the local papers that a Swedish company was going to
make an ASIC. I called the number listed, but thought it might be
another scam. Then 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 only regretted not ordering more of them. I made my
money back on that plus then some. I eventually bought 6+ more
machines. I had nothing but praise for KnC, they were from my town
and they were the darling of the bitcoin industry, actually making
machines and delivering on time while people like Butterfly Labs
were still cheating customers. When they announced their next
batch of miners, things turned sour, and KnC started to show their
true colors. A lot of customers decided to take the "Super
Jupiters" instead of waiting and we (on the forums) were shocked
when the pictures hit of what the "Super Jupiters" actually were:
second hand machines that were running in KnC's data centers,
coated with dust, barely working. I was thinking of cancelling my
order (like a lot of folk on the forums) but then KnC announced
the "Hash while you wait" as well as the bonus machine so I, and a
lot of folk on the forums stuck it out. Finally got my hands on my
Neptune miner (delivered past the due date) and had a few
problems. KnC worked to resolve them (although not as fast as
before, now we had to wait weeks for KnC to first "analyze" what
was wrong and then send a replacement). It was better than what
those poor people got with their "Super Jupiters" anyway."

Remembering how well they delivered when they first came to
market, I jumped on the bandwagon in the first 5 minutes of when
they announced they were going to make a Scrypt miner, I bought
into the Titan.

"I was one of the first to get a Titan, and had probably the most
problems. It would not hash over 30MHs, well below the 300
promised, with constant restarts as a bonus. I remember getting it
and it sat in the corner, powered down,when I started calling KnC
and writing on the forums.What KnC sent us was a miner that was
clearly not even half-baked, the software was pre-alpha (I'm a
programmer myself). [. . .] It was not till two weeks or so later
that KnC released an update and I could finally hash a bit without
the constant restarts, but still well below the 300MHs promised.

My miner was so bad, and I made so much noise about it, that KnC
eventually remote connected to my computer and made a few software
changes to get my miner not to shut off and even start to hash a
bit.

I was still one of the lucky ones, as I had signed up in the first
few minutes for the Titan, my machine had a warranty for a clearly
less-than-half-baked machine.

After a while with the firmware updates and over-clocking the
machines I started to get the promised 300MHs, or close enough
(290MHs-295MHs) so when I saw the offer to change to a Batch 2
Titan or stick with the Neptune as the bonus machine, I figured by
Batch 2 (remembering the old Jupiter machines) they would have
fixed everything. I chose a Batch 2 Titan for my bonus machine.
All the while we were having huge problems with their machines
(fires, burnt out cores, random shutdowns, etc.). [At the same
time], KnC was making press/twitter etc releases about how happy
their customers were with the junk they had sent them. A bit after
that they took away the option for a Batch 2 Titan, but I, and
others have emails that we sent KnC asking for confirmation that
we were getting a Batch 2 Titan, and always got a reply saying,
yes, it's confirmed.

Then I finally got the infamous email telling me that due to
"technical issues" I was not going to get my Batch 2 Titan, take a
Neptune or take 3 BTC. That was the final straw. Do KnC value
their Titans at just 3 BTC now after [charging] 10,000 USD for
them? (The price of BTC was around $230 when we got the "offer",
so a total of ~700 USD.) This was such a blatant bait and switch
and I (and quite a few others) were furious. KnC was only doing
this because they had gotten so used to cheating people and
getting away with it. I was determined that I was going to do
something about it.

After more than 48 hours, KnC had failed to provide comment for
this article. However, the law firm did confirm to CCN that the
case was active. Magnus Daar, a partner at the firm, said:

I can confirm that there are three pending class action suits
against KnCMiner and at least 24 individual actions.
The lawyer also confirmed for us that our contact was indeed a
client.

The Big Deal

What's the big deal, some might wonder. At least they didn't send
nothing, or essentially offer nothing, as was the case with
Butterfly Labs. The answer is simple: the big deal is that if a
company charges someone $10,000 for something and then doesn't
deliver, it is in their best interest (if they don't want to get
sued) to return that $10,000. By whatever means necessary.

Our contact was not the only one to have a horrible experience
with KnCMiner who reached out. Another had no problem with us
using his name for this article. He is Chandra Das and he resides
in Florida. He has not yet joined the class action suit against
KnC, hoping, as he said to this writer, "KnC would get their act
together soon."

But, to be blunt, that seems unlikely. KnC is presently offering
Chandra 6.5 Bitcoins to refund him for an order he placed last
June. As he put it:

The price of bitcoin last summer was about $600. US dollar price
for a Mini Titan with shipping to the US was $3,897.60. On June
17, 2015 payment of this US dollar amount in bitcoin would be
about 6.5 bitcoin. [. . . } KnCMiner now proposes to repay 6.5
bitcoins as a "full refund" for an order totaling $3,897.60.
Current price on Bitstamp at time of this message is $216. A
refund of 6.5 BTC would not be a full refund, but would be about
36% of the amount paid ten months ago.

It may be hard to believe that a company that has been so enriched
by this community is simultaneously so willing to treat its
members with such disregard. It seems that somewhere along the way
they lost sight of their mission of "securing the world's most
trusted blockchain" and moved on to "securing the linings of
KnCMiner's pockets."

KnCMiner Going Strong

Despite having no less than 24 customers dissatisfied enough to
involve the courts, KnCMiner has not cut and run in the sense that
they are still doing business. While they failed to respond to
CCN's requests for comment on this article, even insofar as giving
us a bland piece of advertising jargon,on the 11th of March they
updated their news category with an explanation of why they had
removed their web store.

We've finished shipping most of the hardware we've had on order
and the final deliveries of the Titan and other bonus offers will
ship over the next few weeks. [. . .] As we're moving away from
mail-order sales we've removed the web shop from our domain and
we're switching systems for support, accounts, log-in, mobile
access and more.

This last bit will be interpreted by the burned customers out
there in only one way: they're trying to delete the past and move
forward. Fortunately, Bitcoiners are savvy record keepers, by and
large, and those who have been done wrong have all the evidence
they'll need to successfully bring suit against KnC.

In the case of Chandra Das, it seems a matter of time before he
decides to join in the case against KnC. He had the following
advice to offer to newcomers who might cross paths with KnCMiner:

KnCMiner has thankfully moved out of the mining hardware business
to offer their cloud mining services. Taking the decision to
purchase cloud hashing requires due diligence and a degree of
trust in the service provider. The customer's trust is an
invaluable commodity. KnCMiner would be wise to salvage their
early customers' trust, if they have hopes of returning on
investments from the venture backers of their cloud hashing.

Swedish law indicates that prison sentences up to six years long
can be imposed for the crime of fraud, and presumably in situation
with this many victims, this could translate into a lot more time,
depending on how the case were pursued. It would seem that Swedish
authorities might take more interest in the doings of KnC if and
when the class action suit against them is successfully won.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Pemberton" Suit Over Breach of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Pemberton, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01037 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Approval Hearing on TCPA Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Schmidt, writing for KSHB Kansas City, reported that Life
Time Fitness has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for
between $10 million and $15 million concerning whether texting its
members violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Members who received a text message from Life Time Fitness from
January 1, 2014 to April 15, 2014, could be reimbursed from the
class action settlement.

The class action suit and settlement

According to the settlement agreement, in April 2014, several
class actions were filed against Life Time alleging it violated
the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages. Claims were filed
against Life Time in federal court in 13 states, including
Missouri, according to court documents.

Court documents state Life Time specifically disputes it violated
the TCPA, while plaintiffs argued the company used an automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial prerecorded voice message
to contact plaintiffs or potential class members without their
express consent. The company also states in the settlement
agreement it doesn't believe the allegations are fit for a class
action suit.

But court documents state Life Time "has agreed to settle this
litigation on the terms set forth, subject to Court approval."

How to be reimbursed if you received a text

Life Time said those who received text messages may submit a claim
for a choice of a cash award of $100 or a membership award that
allows them to pick either a free three-month single membership at
a Life Time Gold club of their choice, or a $250 credit toward any
membership at any Life Time club as long as they are on the
membership.

According to Life Time's settlement website, a member's cash award
or membership award may be more or less depending on the number of
claims submitted, the type of award class members choose, the cost
of administration and the amount of court-awarded attorneys' fees
and costs.

You can visit Life Time's settlement website for more information
on submitting a claim and your legal rights and options in the
settlement.

Dates and deadlines for those making claims are
Exclusion deadline: Postmarked by June 5, 2015
Objection deadline: Postmarked by June 5, 2015
Claim filing deadline: Postmarked or submitted online by July 6,
2015
Final approval hearing: July 30, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

When asked for comment, Life Time Fitness' corporate office
directed us to the website it created in regard to the settlement.

On the Net: https://www.lifetimetcpasettlement.com/


LINKEDIN CORP: Ducks Credit Reporting Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse House Service, reported
that professional networking site LinkedIn dodged class action
claims that it gives consumer reports of prospective employees to
paid users in violation of federal credit-reporting laws.

Lead plaintiffs Tracee Sweet, Lisa Jaramillo, James Ralston, and
Tiffany Thomas filed their class action against LinkedIn in
Federal Court this past October, claiming that the company
furnishing potential employers -- and any LinkedIn member that has
a premium subscription -- with consumer reports packaged as
reference reports, without meeting all the requirements under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, employers looking to hire can view
names and employment positions of other LinkedIn members who are
"linked" to the candidate because they have worked together.

Once the employer pays the required subscription fee, it can
generate its own list of what LinkedIn calls "trusted references"
for the potential employee. But LinkedIn never informs the
prospective employee that a third party has been given the
information, the plaintiffs said in their complaint.

Employers and other premium subscription users can then use
LinkedIn's search function to view the profile of any trusted
reference and message them through the company's internal
messaging system, InMail. But the accuracy of the report relies on
both the honesty of the candidate and the trusted references used
to research the applicant, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs claimed they were offered and then denied jobs
because of faulty information provided by the trusted references.

LinkedIn moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs
could not show the reference searches meet the definition of a
credit report under FCRA. The company also said employment
histories contained in the reference searches are generated from
direct experiences and transactions with users, and that FCRA
doesn't apply since users provide employment histories knowing the
information will be published online.

Furthermore, LinkedIn said plaintiffs can't show that the company
aggregates the information for the purpose of handing consumer
reports over to third parties, and that the information has no
bearing on the prospective employee's character.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal found that -- for now, at least
-- the plaintiffs' claims lack merit. He agreed with LinkedIn that
the definition of a consumer report does not include everything an
employer would use to evaluate a job candidate.

"Even if plaintiffs are correct that the consumer report
definition encompasses communications that could be used for the
purpose enumerated in FCRA, as LinkedIn notes, this definition
would not extend to all communications 'with any attenuated
connection to employment,'" Grewal wrote. "Further, plaintiffs
reliance on cases in which courts held that communications could
be consumer reports if they fell within one of the purposes
authorized under FCRA is misplaced."

He added: "Likewise, plaintiffs' position that their allegation
that the reference search results are used, expected to be used
and marketed by LinkedIn to be used 'for employment purposes' is
sufficient 'at this stage of the litigation' lacks merit."

However, Grewal granted the plaintiffs another change to amend
their complaint, saying "the court is not yet persuaded that
plaintiffs' defects are beyond cure."  They had until May 19 to
file an amended complaint.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Hyldburg" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher and Coleen Hyldburg, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-11879 (D.
Mass., May 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured,
labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with
relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards.  The Chinese
Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde,
which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United
States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency
for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Pkwy, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              ari@hbsslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Assocs. Files RICO Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Construction defect law firm Robertson & Associates, LLP, filed a
RICO class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (NYSE:
LL) and the companies Lumber Liquidators has hired to conduct
indoor air testing for formaldehyde in its customers' homes.

The lawsuit names Building Health Check, LLC, and EDLab, a
division of Pure Air Control Services, Inc., of Clearwater,
Florida, as co-defendants. The suit alleges that Lumber
Liquidators "has hired a mold lab to conduct formaldehyde gas
emissions testing and is trying to lull its customers into a false
sense of security with the accreditation and proficiency of its
chosen lab."

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the defendants from
continuing to misrepresent the accreditation of the lab and that
the Bio-Badge home-test kit is the same as used by "professionals"
to test for formaldehyde in indoor air.

This lawsuit is the first case filed against Lumber Liquidators
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"). The suit alleges that Lumber
Liquidators and the testing companies it has hired engaged in a
pattern of racketeering, through mail and wire fraud, to conceal
the true concentrations of formaldehyde gas emissions from Lumber
Liquidators' laminate flooring by using a laboratory which is only
accredited to analyze microorganisms (such as mold) and is not
accredited to conduct analysis on chemicals, such as formaldehyde.
The lawsuit alleges that Lumber Liquidators and the testing
companies it hired have falsely misrepresented the nature of the
lab's accreditation, which is in environmental microbiology. The
suit also alleges the defendants falsely represented that the home
test kit offered by Lumber Liquidators is the "most effective way
to measure the total level of formaldehyde in the home" and that
the "Bio-Badge" is the "same sample screen used by professionals."

The Plaintiffs allege that in addition to using the home test kits
provided by Lumber Liquidators, two of the three plaintiffs hired
professional companies to conduct indoor air testing in rooms
where Lumber Liquidators' laminate floors were installed, and that
the results revealed excessive levels of formaldehyde gas several
times above the minimum risk levels published by the U.S. EPA, the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA).

The Complaint alleges that when one of the plaintiffs, Craig
Lyznick, informed Lumber Liquidators that the results of air
sampling performed by a professional consultant in his home
revealed formaldehyde gas levels of 0.046 parts per million (ppm),
he was told by a Lumber Liquidators customer relations
representative to retest using Lumber Liquidators' home test kit,
which is a plastic badge the user is instructed to hang four feet
above the floor for 24 hours. Lyznick's formaldehyde gas
concentration of 0.046 ppm far exceeds California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's health-based
recommendation that formaldehyde levels not exceed 0.027 ppm for
an 8-hour exposure and 0.002 ppm for chronic exposure. The ATSDR
has set its Minimal Risk Level (REL) for chronic (long term)
exposure to formaldehyde at 0.008 ppm in order to minimize the
risk of cancer.

"Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the offer by Lumber
Liquidators to provide a free home indoor air test kit is a
subterfuge designed to further Lumber Liquidators' defense
strategy to convince their customers that the Formaldehyde
Flooring is '100% safe' when it is not and to prevent their
customers from learning the true levels of formaldehyde gas
emissions from the Formaldehyde Flooring in their homes and to
deceive customers into not demanding that the Formaldehyde
Flooring be replaced with non-toxic laminate flooring at Lumber
Liquidators' expense," according to the lawsuit.

This is the third lawsuit filed by Robertson & Associates, LLP,
against Lumber Liquidators.

In March, Robertson & Associates filed lawsuits in the federal
court in California and Nevada on behalf of consumers who
purchased allegedly toxic laminate flooring from Lumber
Liquidators.

Consumers who purchased Chinese-made laminate flooring and were
sent home test kits by Lumber Liquidators may contact Alex "Trey"
Robertson, IV, senior partner at Robertson & Associates, LLP, at
www.classactionlumberliquidators.com or by calling 818-851-3850.


MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept Gambling $100MM for Prison Rape Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron French, writing for Bridge Magazine, reported that Toni Bunton
believes she knows how this story will end.  She knows, because
she's lived it.  For 13 years, the Michigan Attorney General's
office fought a lawsuit that alleged sexual assaults of women
inmates in state prisons, including Bunton. The state fought the
class-action lawsuit, which eventually involved about 500
prisoners, even after a guard was convicted of sexual assault and
the state lost the first two trials involving some of those women
in what was going to be a long series of trials in the case, both
with multi-million-dollar verdicts.

In 2009, the state finally agreed to settle the class-action
lawsuit for $100 million -- four times what lawyers for the women
offered to settle for years earlier.

The state finds itself in a similar legal predicament.  In late
2013, before Michigan had even finished paying off that $100
million settlement, the Michigan Department of Corrections was
sued again, this time by male inmates 17-years-old or younger, who
say the state did little to protect them from sexual assaults in
the adult prison system.

So far, to the dismay of critics, the state appears to be
following the same legal game plan of foot-dragging used to
disastrous effect in the earlier sex assault case -- even as they
battle the same civil rights attorneys who successfully
represented Bunton and other women prisoners. Despite stark,
detailed testimony from several young inmates, the state Attorney
General's office has flatly denied all of the claims, filed appeal
after appeal during the case and, according to lawyers for the
inmates, rebuffed overtures to settle the litigation.

The outcome for the state in this case could be even worse. U.S.
Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, who sponsored the Prison Rape
Elimination Act in 2003 that first attempted to address prison
sexual assaults, told U.S. News and World Report in 2013 that for
states that are not addressing sexual assault aggressively,
"damages could reach billions" if they ignore or slow-walk rape
prevention policies recommended in PREA.

It's a strategy that puzzles legal experts, and could prove costly
to state taxpayers, because Michigan is an outlier in continuing
to mandate that 17-year-olds be treated as adults for sentencing
purposes, and because more inmates are seeking to join the class
action lawsuit as it drags on.

"This case is going to grow by the minute," Bunton said. "If
they're concerned about taxpayers, if they want to lower
recidivism rates, we have to put a stop to this (lawsuit) now."
The current suit claims teen offenders were sexually assaulted in
Michigan prisons under a state policy that, until August 2013,
allowed young inmates to be placed in cells with adult inmates.
Prison officials, the suit contends, ignored or laughed off the
inmates' complaints, and even groped several of the teenagers
themselves. The inmates' lawyers accuse state prison officials of
creating a culture of institutional indifference to the attacks.
All of the alleged incidents took place between 2010 and 2013,
long after the state acknowledged in 2004 that juvenile offenders
were "five times more likely" to be sexually assaulted in prison
than adult prisoners.

Since the suit was filed in December 2013, lawyers representing
the state's Attorney General's Office have papered courtrooms from
the Washtenaw Circuit Court to the Michigan Supreme Court with at
least seven interlocutory (interim) appeals, seven requests to
delay the case until motions are appealed, and motions so numerous
that Washtenaw Circuit Judge Carol Kunhke set up a weekly
afternoon hearing time for the case.

Lawyers for the state have been sanctioned three times by judges
for delays. The Attorney General's scorched earth defense of the
suit recently drew attention when the office issued subpoenas for
a reporter's notes following interviews with prisoners involved in
the lawsuit and recordings from an interview plaintiffs attorney
Deborah LaBelle conducted with Michigan Public Radio (AG Bill
Schuette later apologized and withdrew the subpoenas).

Schuette's office's aggressive handling of the case drew the ire
of Court of Appeals Judge Amy Ronayne Krause, who blasted a legal
maneuver to transfer the case to the state's Court of Claims where
it could not be heard by a jury. "This request for declaratory
actions is really some sort of horrible, frivolous attempt to
manufacture jurisdiction in the Court of Claims," Krause said. "I
find your arguments to be really rather . . . odious."

The voluminous legal filings is the same approach the state used
in Neal V. Michigan Department of Corrections, the lawsuit
involving the women prisoners who were sexually assaulted.

"It's a tactic," said Ron Reosti, one of the team of attorneys
representing the women prisoners, but who is not involved in the
current juvenile offender lawsuit. "There's nothing conceptually
complicated about this litigation. This was a matter of them
objecting and filing these appeals and interlocutory appeals. They
tried to exhaust the other side."

It's an especially puzzling tactic to try again, considering that
the attorneys for the juvenile offenders are largely the same
lawyers who successfully slogged through 13 years of court
hearings in the women prisoner lawsuit.

The state appears to be addressing the case the same way it
addresses run-of-the-mill legal challenges by inmates, the vast
majority of which are filed by the prisoners themselves without
attorneys, said University of Michigan Law Professor Margo
Schlanger, who helped develop policy recommendations for the
federal Prison Rape Elimination Act. In those cases, the state's
maneuvers can be effective, because prisoners often can't
effectively address appeal after appeal on technical issues.
A class-action lawsuit, brought by the same team of attorneys who
won a $100 million settlement in a strikingly similar case, can't
be handled like a pro se lawsuit of a prisoner complaining about
cafeteria food, Schlanger said.

"It's one thing for Michigan to make this mistake once," Schlanger
said. "Maybe they think (the women prisoner sex assault case) was
a once-in-a-lifetime case and now this is back to normal. But
there's normal and not normal."

Roesti said the Attorney General's Office's aggressive tactics in
the women's case were obvious and, in retrospect, a disservice to
the state and its taxpayers.

"There were many occasions (in the women's prisoner case) when
they could have gone to trial much sooner," Reosti said. "They
delayed it as much as they could. There's no doubt that was a
tactical choice by the state."

It may have cost the state $75 million.

Thousand of complaints, few confirmed

Between 2004 and 2013, Michigan inmates filed more than 3,500
sexual abuse-related complaints, according to the MDOC. The state
substantiated 6 percent of the claims.

Complaints of sexual harassment by guards were the most likely to
be filed (2,850 total in 10 years), and least likely to be
substantiated (1 percent).

There were about 31 reports per year of non-consensual sex acts
across the prison system, with 25 percent substantiated.
Some young inmates in the current lawsuit they were hesitant to
file complaints at the prison because they didn't think they would
be taken seriously or because they were afraid of the
consequences.

Pay me now or pay me more later

A related suit in federal court awarded 32 women prisoners who
alleged to have been sexually assaulted a total of $2.8 million.
After that case (which featured the same lawyers) concluded in
2000, LaBelle says she offered to settle the virtually identical
state case involving about 250 women prisoners for $25 million.
In 2007, when the class of women inmates had grown to 381, LaBelle
said she made another offer to settle, this time for $47 million.

The state chose not to settle. Two years later, the state agreed
to pay $100 million to more than 500 prisoners and their
attorneys.

Of course, the state pays nothing if it wins the teenage inmate
case in court, and the inmates have yet to prove their claims
under a difficult legal standard.

But if the state loses, the longer a case goes on the larger the
payout in most cases. That's partly because the number of people
in the class grows as word spreads about the case. Attorney fees
can also increase as they spend more time and effort in court,
while interest piles up on any damage awards. That's what happened
in the women prisoner case, Reosti said.

"It cost the state to continue to have the problem (of prison
sexual assault) fester, and removed the possibility of negotiating
a settlement," Reosti said. "We would have settled the case at an
earlier stage for a lot less money."

The current case involving juvenile offenders began with seven
prisoners, and now has more than 200 current or former juvenile
prisoners.

Former Attorney General Mike Cox, who was in office for the final
seven years of the women prisoner sex assault lawsuit, did not
respond to a request by Bridge Magazine for comment.

Neither Bill Schuette, his Attorney General's Office nor the
Department of Corrections will answer specific questions about the
current case.

MDOC Spokesperson Chris Gautz sent a statement to Bridge saying
that "we are confident the assertions made in the lawsuit are
false and we are vigorously defending the department."

AG Spokesperson Andrea Bitely declined to tell Bridge how many AG
attorneys are assigned to the juvenile offender lawsuit or how
many hours has been devoted to the case so far.

But documents filed in the case indicate the AG's office has
already paid $311,000 for a firm to locate and redact portions of
more than 400,000 pages of MDOC documents relevant to the suit,
with 31 attorneys and 17 other staffers working to complete the
MDOC contract.

"The Michigan Attorney General's office has a duty to represent
the State of Michigan and the taxpayers in all cases against the
State," Bitely told Bridge in a statement, "and John Doe v. MDOC
(the teenage offender lawsuit) is no different."

In one way, though, John Doe V. MDOC is very different from the
thousands of cases filed by prisoners annually: the potential it
holds to punch a $100 million hole in the state budget.

LaBelle, who now is leading the case for the juvenile offenders,
says the MDOC and the attorney general's office have declined to
discuss a settlement in the current lawsuit.

The state's decision to dig in its feet doesn't surprise Bill
Goodman, a civil attorney in Detroit who has decades of experience
in lawsuits against government entities.

"There is this triggered response that the state Attorney
General's Office has for litigation like this, that this is the
enemy and we're at war," Goodman said. "It's far too much of a
programmed response . . . that can cost the state a lot of money."
Schlanger, the UM professor, sees the same counterproductive
dynamic at work.

Lawyers for the state "are used to pricing out cases as not worth
very much, because they're used to facing prisoners who can't
prove their claims, and if they prove their claims, they can't
prove damages because they can't show lost wages," said Schlanger.
"But when a prison is faced with a case where there is a lawyer
who knows how to prove damages, and you've got these kind of
damages (civil rights violations) that don't turn on wages and
medical care, that's unusual.

"They should understand from a risk management standpoint, they
should be handling it different from normal cases."

Good lawyering or good politics?

There may be more than legal strategy involved in how the case is
being pursued by the Attorney General's office. Joe DiSano, a
Democratic political consultant, speculates that there may be no
political upside for Schuette, who is widely expected to run for
governor in 2018, to appear "soft on crime" by offering juvenile
offenders millions of dollars in a court settlement.

Despite growing bipartisan consensus both in Michigan and
nationally that the U.S. incarcerates too many people for too
long, and that prison itself is not the best setting for young
offenders, Schuette helped kill sentencing reform bills that would
have decreased the number of inmates in state prisons.

Schuette "is an old-fashioned, law-and-order candidate who
understands the strength of being seen that way," DiSano said.
The state's approach to this lawsuit, though, isn't playing well
even among some arch-conservatives.

Well-known conservative Detroit News columnist Nolan Finley
recently called for the state to settle the case, saying the AG's
office and the MDOC were either being "stubborn or stupid," and
that the state was "again rolling the dice in a very expensive
game."

"When (Schuette) has lost Nolan Finley," DiSano said, "there's no
one left to lose."

'The nightmares never go away'

Bunton, one of the plaintiffs in the women prisoner sex assault
case, is out of prison now. But she said the current case brings
back memories of her own court struggles.

"People say prisoners are liars or they deserve what they get,"
Bunton said.

"They see them just as prisoners, but they're human beings. For
men, it takes an incredible amount of courage to come forward and
talk about the horrendous things that happened to them. It's not
just what is going on in prison; 98 percent of them are coming
home to a community near you, and you want them to come out as
redeemable human beings.

"If (the state) settled this case now and make the appropriate
changes, they will walk away spending a few dollars, but walk away
doing the right thing," Bunton said. "If they let this case go on,
there's going to continue to be more abuse, more retaliation and
all the other trauma that goes on when a lawsuit like this
happens.

"We can't let our prisons be like this," Bunton said. "The
nightmares never go away."


MIDWEST MAINTENANCE: Faces "Bolanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Bolanos, Sergio Ortega, Eder Gama, Angel A. Bolanos,
Sebastian Gama, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Midwest Maintenance Group,
Inc., Premier Cleaning Group, Inc., Soldra Cleaning Services,
Inc., Marla Grundhoefer, and Szczepan Jozef Soldra, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04511 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial and residential
cleaning services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid to Appeal Order Staying Cases Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman issued on May 18, 2015, a
memorandum opinion and order in IN RE: MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY,
f/k/a General Motors Corporation, Debtors, NOS. 15-CV-772 (JMF),
15-CV-776 (JMF), (S.D.N.Y.).

In each of these cases, Plaintiffs in ignition-switch-defect-
related lawsuits against General Motors LLC ("New GM") moved for
leave to appeal, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
158(a)(3), from interlocutory orders of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York --
specifically, from orders staying their cases pending adjudication
of New GM's motion to enforce a Sale Order and Injunction entered
July 5, 2009.

Judge Furman denied the motions saying allowing Plaintiffs to
appeal would not serve to "avoid protracted and expensive
litigation." Instead, it would serve only to undermine orderly
adjudication of the many cases in the MDL and final resolution of
the issues addressed in the Bankruptcy Court's April 15, 2015
ruling. The bottom line is that Plaintiffs will have ample
opportunity to argue (in whatever forum is appropriate) that their
claims are not subject to New GM's motion to enforce and, if they
are correct, to pursue their claims in the MDL; there is no reason
to allow them to pursue those arguments separately from the other
plaintiffs in actions before the Bankruptcy Court or in the MDL,
he said.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot come close to demonstrating "the
existence of exceptional circumstances to overcome the general
aversion to piecemeal litigation and to justify a departure from
the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the
entry of final judgment," Judge Furman concluded

Judge Furman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate 15-CV-772
Docket No. 3 and 15-CV-776 Docket No. 2 and to close both cases.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1Qe61Asfrom
Leagle.com.

Ishmael Sesay, Appellant, represented by Gary Peller, Gary Peller.

Joanne Yearwood, Appellant, represented by Gary Peller, Gary
Peller.

General Motors LLC, Appellee, represented by Scott Ian Davidson --
sdavidson@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 9th Cir. Relaxes Timeliness Test Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Landy, in an article for JD Supra, reported that in Jordan v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-35943 and 15-35113, 2015 WL
1447217 (Apr. 1, 2015 9th Cir.), a Ninth Circuit panel held that
cases subject to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") become
"removable" only when removal under CAFA is first ascertainable
even if the initial pleading earlier disclosed a separate non-CAFA
basis for removal which the defendant chose not to pursue.

This holding changes Ninth Circuit law which ordinarily requires
courts to strictly construe removal statutes against removal and
to generally treat as untimely any notice of removal filed more
than 30 days after receipt of an initial pleading disclosing a
removal basis.  The panel considered itself no longer bound to
this circuit precedent given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135
S. Ct. 547 (2014), which recognized Congress's strong preference
that federal courts adjudicate certain interstate class actions.
A significant Ninth Circuit shift, Jordan opens the door for more
lenient and less technical applications of removal requirements in
CAFA cases.

In Jordan, plaintiff mortgagor commenced a putative class action
against Nationstar in state court alleging violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The initial pleading
specified no amount in controversy.  Despite the removable FDCPA
claim, Nationstar did not file a removal notice within 30 days of
receiving the initial pleading as 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1)
prescribes.  When plaintiff's interrogatory answer later disclosed
her $25 million damages estimate, Nationstar filed a notice of
removal based on CAFA jurisdiction.  The plaintiff moved to remand
the case, arguing removal was untimely.

In opposing remand, Nationstar claimed the interrogatory answer
provided the first occasion to ascertain an amount in controversy
exceeding $5 million, a CAFA element.  And although 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b)(3)'s plain language bestows a second 30-day
removal window in such instance only if removability was not clear
from the initial pleading, Nationstar urged the district court to
recognize CAFA as a "second and separate ground for removal" that
opened a second 30-day removal window "even if the initial
complaint provided some other ground for removal."  As analogous
precedent, Nationstar cited a Ninth Circuit decision, Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006), that deemed
a defendant's removal under the "federal officer" removal statute
(28 U.S.C. Section 1442) timely even though the initial pleading
disclosed a separate basis for removal (which defendant chose not
to pursue) and the 30-day removal window triggered by the initial
pleading had closed.  Durham based its result on the particular
importance of "federal officer" removal rights, citing
instructions by Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court to broadly
construe the "federal officer" removal statute.  Nationstar
invited the district court to extend the logic of Durham to
removals under CAFA.

The district court declined, adhering to the traditional strict-
construction afforded removal statutes generally.  In remanding,
it ruled that "the general principles of removal jurisdiction
apply in CAFA cases" and "the relevant removal date is the date on
which the case itself becomes removable."  Nationstar appealed.

The Jordan panel reversed.  It agreed that Section 1446(b)(3) only
grants a second 30-day removal window if "the case stated by the
initial pleading is not removable."  But, citing Durham, it
identified "two plausible ways to construe" the term "removable."
One way is "binary -- either there is some basis [for removal] or
there's not."  The other, less strict way, depends on whether "the
particular basis on which removal is sought becomes apparent from
the record."  As the Jordan panel noted, it was the Supreme
Court's command to liberally construe the "federal officer"
removal statute that led Durham to construe "removable" in a non-
binary fashion.

The panel perceived a similar command in regard to CAFA in the
Supreme Court's December 2014 Dart Cherokee decision.  There, the
Court, in addressing whether a notice of removal need only allege
(rather than prove) CAFA's amount-in-controversy element, remarked
"that no antiremoval presumption attends cases involving CAFA,"
and noted Congress's "overall intent . . . to strongly favor the
exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions with
interstate ramifications."  The Jordan panel, spurred by this
language, selected a non-binary construction:

   "[A] case becomes 'removable'  . . . when the CAFA ground for
removal is disclosed."  Applying this rule, the case against
Nationstar became "removable" only when Nationstar received the
interrogatory answer, not before.  This opened Section
1446(b)(3)'s second 30-day removal window even though the initial
complaint had revealed a separate removal basis.

Jordan represents a potentially significant shift.  At a minimum,
it signals a willingness by the Ninth Circuit to interpret removal
statutes in CAFA cases more liberally than the plain language
might in the past have allowed.  In close removal cases, Jordan
will assist defendants seeking CAFA-based removals.


NESTLE CANADA: Pet Owner Sues Over Beneful(R) Dog Food
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Nestle Canada
Inc. (carrying on business under the name Nestle Purina Petcare
Canada) by Colleen Gendron on behalf of all Canadian pet owners
who purchased dry dog food manufactured and sold by Nestle Canada
Inc. under the brand name Beneful(R).  The claim alleges that this
dog food contains substances that are or can become harmful to
dogs, and it is therefore not fit for canine consumption.

The claim alleges that Beneful(R) dry dog food contains propylene
glycol, and toxins including mycotoxins which can be poisonous to
dogs.  Symptoms of toxin poisoning can include sudden onset of
stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or
failure, kidney failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight
loss, seizures, and bloat.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court, and it is expected the defendant will deny liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by the law firm Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP is
working in co-operation with the San Francisco law firm Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP who are lead counsel in a
similar proposed class action brought on behalf of American pet
owners who fed their dogs Beneful(R) dry dog food.
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP is continuing to collect
information from individuals who believe their pets have exhibited
signs of toxin ingestion after consuming Beneful(R) dry dog food.
If you believe your pet became ill from eating Beneful(R) dry dog
food, please let us know.

More details regarding the claim will be available at:
www.benefulclassaction.com


NETFLIX INC: Appeal in Securities Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by lead plaintiffs in the Netflix, Inc., Securities
Litigation remains pending, Netflix said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the
first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20,
2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and
requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25,
2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On
February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Management
has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however,
based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that
the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is
reasonably estimable.


NEW ORLEANS: Suit v. Sewage & Water Board Stays in Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit denied a
petition for permission to appeal a remand order in RONDA
CRUTCHFIELD, wife of/and; WADE CRUTCHFIELD; AUDREY HAINES, wife
of/and; JOSEPH A. HAINES; MATELLA MOSBY; VELMA B. RENARD; KATIE
ANTHONY, wife of/and; RICKY ANTHONY, SR., Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
BENJAMIN DIGGINS, SR.; SANDY WHEELER; ADRIANN WHITAKER; HAROLD
WHITAKER; MATTIE WOMBLE, Petitioners, v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD
OF NEW ORLEANS; HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA; GRIFFIN DEWATERING
SOUTHWEST, L.L.C.; BLUE IRON FOUNDATION AND SHORING, L.L.C.; BHATE
GEOSCIENCES CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Respondents, NO. 15-90014.

Petitioners requested leave to appeal the district court's denial
of a motion to remand the matter to state court. Petitioners
relied on 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c), a provision of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), as the basis of the Fifth
Circuit's jurisdiction.

"Yet it appears that we do not have jurisdiction under that
provision, as this case was not removed on the basis of CAFA, nor
was the district court's denial of the motion to remand premised
on CAFA," the Fifth Circuit held in its May 19, 2015 ruling, a
copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LWiho5from
Leagle.com. "Even assuming this court has the discretion to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 1453(c), we would choose not
to do so, as no CAFA-related issues are raised in the petition for
permission to appeal."


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: 4,131 Workers Could Join Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with 135,338 current and former workers already part of a class
action against it, Outback Steakhouse has provided the names of
another 4,131 who could join the federal lawsuit for unpaid wages.

The restaurant chain notified the plaintiff class of the
additional current and former workers who qualify for the class
action, and U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey on April 10 gave
the new potential class members until July 20 to join.

The restaurant chain will spend $3,621 to mail consent forms in
English and Spanish to the potential new class members.  If all
potential members join, the class action would have 139,469
members seeking reimbursement for all hours worked and overtime
wages.

Lead plaintiff Brooke Cardoza sued in October 2013, claiming the
restaurant chain forced workers to start work 10 to 15 minutes
early without clocking in and did not allow them to take mandated
paid and unpaid work breaks.  Nor did it pay workers for overtime,
mandated training, testing or company meetings and events, Cardoza
claimed.

The class includes all hourly Outback Steakhouse workers who were
employed from three years before the October 2013 filing.

Australian-themed Outback Steakhouse had 769 restaurants
throughout the United States as of 2013.  The restaurant chain's
owner, Bloomin' Brands, is a Fortune 1000 company that generated
more than $3.9 billion in revenue in 2012, according to the
complaint.

The class seeks compensation for unpaid wages and overtime,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees and costs.  They are represented by Don Springmeyer, Esq. --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- at Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman
& Rabkin, of Las Vegas.

Named as defendants are Bloomin' Brands, OSI Restaurant Partners,
Outback Steakhouse of Florida and OS Restaurant Services.

Outback Steakhouse officials could not be reached for comment.


PEAK POWER: Faces "Camp" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Neal Camp, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(B) v. Peak Power Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01762 (N.D.
Tex., May 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Peak Power Services, Inc. is a power, communication and
construction company that supplies DC power and wireless network
turnkey services to enterprise, utilities and the
telecommunications industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jesse Hamilton Forester, 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
              forester@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP
      Meadow Park Tower
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com


PERION NETWORK: Court Dismissed Class Action Case
-------------------------------------------------
Perion Network Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has ordered
the dismissal of a class action case.

The Company said, "In November 2013, we were served with a lawsuit
filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Department) against
us and our directors by an individual claiming to be a holder of
150 of our ordinary shares. The plaintiff alleged certain flaws in
the process, price and disclosure in connection with the
ClientConnect Acquisition. The plaintiff requested that the court
certify the lawsuit as a valid class action, a declaratory
judgment confirming the plaintiff's allegations and certain
remuneration for the purported plaintiff, including legal fees. In
October 2014, we filed an answer denying all the allegations and
moving to dismiss the lawsuit. In December 2014, the Court ordered
the dismissal of the case, without prejudice, at the request of
the parties. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the
plaintiff agreed not to file another lawsuit relating to the
transaction, and we agreed not to seek the recovery of costs, fees
or sanctions from the plaintiff or his attorneys in connection
with the case. We did not pay any consideration in connection with
the case or its dismissal."


PHILIP MORRIS: Argues Smokers Suffer No Economic Damage
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that smokers who won a $10 billion class
action judgment against Philip Morris in Madison County 12 years
ago suffered no economic damage, the cigarette maker is arguing at
the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Illinois law is clear that disappointed expectations are not
enough," Michelle Odorizzi of Chicago wrote in an April 13 reply
to a plaintiff brief.

"Plaintiffs must also show pecuniary loss," she wrote.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in 2005, but Fifth
District appellate judges reinstated it.

Fifth District judges ruled that smokers brought forth new
evidence that would have caused the Supreme Court to affirm the
judgment.

Supreme Court Justices chose to decide the case themselves, rather
than let the Fifth District tell them how they would decide it.
The Justices have not set a date for oral argument.

St. Louis lawyer Stephen Tillery sued against Philip Morris in
2000, alleging it violated Illinois consumer fraud law.  He
claimed that for 30 years, Philip Morris deceived millions of
smokers into expecting health benefits from light and low tar
cigarettes.  He sought to recover the difference between the cost
of light and low tar cigarettes and what smokers would have paid
if they had not expected health benefits.

Former Madison County circuit judge Nicholas Byron held a bench
trial in 2003, and ruled that Philip Morris violated the law.
He awarded more than $7 billion in compensatory damages, relying
on a "contingent valuation survey" that Tillery conducted.

Byron ordered distribution of any unclaimed funds to groups he
deemed worthy.  He allocated a fourth of the compensatory fund to
Tillery's legal team.  He awarded $3 billion in punitive damages
to the state of Illinois.  He estimated the net worth of Philip
Morris at $25 billion to $50 billion. With his ruling he in effect
wiped out 20 to 40 percent of the company.

Philip Morris petitioned the Supreme Court for direct review,
which the Justices first denied but later granted.  Philip Morris
pleaded to the Justices that Byron shouldn't have certified a
class action, that plaintiffs suffered no economic loss, and that
federal law preempted state law because the Federal Trade
Commission authorized light and low tar labels.

The Supreme Court reversed Byron in 2005, on the grounds of
federal preemption, without deciding the merits of class
certification or damages.  In 2008, the Federal Trade Commission
issued an opinion that it had not authorized light and low tar
labels.  Tillery tried to reopen the suit in Madison County,
claiming the commission's opinion counted as new evidence.
Byron's successor, circuit judge Dennis Ruth, declined to reopen
it.   Tillery appealed to the Fifth District, and succeeded in
restoring Byron's judgment.  Now, at the Supreme Court, Odorizzi
advances two arguments.
First, she disputes that the trade commission's opinion counts as
new evidence.

"Plaintiffs do not claim that the FTC's statements revealed any
previously unknown facts about what the FTC said or did over the
30 year class period," she wrote.

"On the contrary, it is undisputed that the historical record
remains the same as it was in 2005."

Second, if the opinion does count as new evidence, she asks the
Justices to reject the certification of a class and the
calculation of damages.

On class certification, she wrote that deception and causation
depend on individual knowledge, perceptions, preferences and
motivations.

"Plaintiffs point to the fact that all 23 of the class members
whose testimony was presented at trial said they had been
deceived," she wrote.

"But there is no basis for concluding that this tiny hand picked
fraction of the class reflected the entire class's knowledge or
beliefs."

She wrote that 17 of them continued buying light cigarettes after
they no longer believed them to be safer.  She wrote that Byron
violated due process by denying Philip Morris discovery of any
class member other than the 23.  On damages, she wrote that no
other court has accepted a survey that asked participants to
subjectively value an allegedly misrepresented product.

"This case illustrates why: the survey results bore no resemblance
to reality," she wrote.  She wrote that the survey was not
designed to yield a reasonable estimate of the actual value of
Lights.  She wrote that, "it was formulated to maximize damages by
pushing the value of Lights as close to zero as possible."  She
wrote that, "more than half of the class members who provided
testimony at trial kept buying Lights at the same price."

Former Gov. Jim Thompson, Esq. -- jthompso@winston.com -- at
Winston and Strawn in Chicago, worked on the brief.  So did Larry
Hepler, Esq. -- lhepler@heplerbroom.com -- and Beth Bauer, Esq. --
bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- both of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville.


PINNACLE RECOVERY: Sued in N.Y. Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Scott and Eduardo Pierre, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Pinnacle Recovery, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02985-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PJT PARTNERS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Physicians Formula Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PJT Partners Inc. said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 1 to
Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
15, 2015, that expert discovery is ongoing in the Physicians
Formula, Inc. Stockholder Litigation.

Blackstone Advisory Partners L.P. is named as a defendant in a
consolidated class action pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (In re Physicians Formula, Inc. Stockholder Litigation).
Purported classes of common stockholders of Physicians Formula,
Inc. allege that the directors of Physicians Formula, Inc.
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a merger
between Physicians Formula, Inc. and Markwins International
Corporation, as well as in connection with an earlier merger
agreement between Physicians Formula, Inc. and Swander Pace
Capital. Plaintiffs allege that the directors failed to maximize
shareholder value and that Physicians Formula, Inc.'s definitive
proxy failed to disclose certain material information to
stockholders. Plaintiffs claim that Blackstone Advisory Partners
L.P., which served as the financial advisor to the Special
Committee of the Physicians Formula, Inc. board of directors,
aided and abetted the director defendants in the alleged breach of
their fiduciary duty.

After the conclusion of discovery (other than expert discovery),
the director defendants and Blackstone each requested the Court's
leave to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs opposed
the request. The court denied the requests of the director
defendants and of Blackstone. Expert discovery is ongoing. There
is no date scheduled for any trial of the action.

Blackstone believes that the foregoing suits are totally without
merit and will continue to defend them vigorously.


PLAYTIKA SANTA: Illegally Operates Virtual Casino, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dupee, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Playtika Santa Monica, LLC and Caesars Interactive
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01021 (N.D. Ohio, May 21,
2015), arises out of the Defendants deceptive trade practices by
operating unlicensed gambling devices.

The Defendants operate a popular virtual casino under the name
"Slotomania".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
              jfuchs@crklaw.com
              jcohen@crklaw.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
      Amir C. Missaghi, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com
              amissaghi@edelson.com


PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standard Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Williams, John Mack, Chavez Lane, and Bianca Faircloth,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Pyramid Operating Group Inc. d/b/a International House Of Pancakes
a/k/a IHOP, Aramingo Operating Group Inc. d/b/a International
House of Pancakes a/k/a IHOP, Emad Elgeddawy, and HEM Mgmt 733,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02401 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


QUICKSILVER INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of Quiksilver Inc. (NYSE:ZQK) securities from June 6,
2014 through March 26, 2015 of the important June 1, 2015 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action filed by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Quiksilver investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Quiksilver class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-536.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
The lawsuit alleges that Quiksilver made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the suit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 1, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-536.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: "Thompson" Stayed Pending Ruling in Other Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action suit was filed by Gina Thompson and Karen
McCabe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, in
the Circuit Court of St. Charles, Missouri on January 15, 2015.
Defendants including the City of St. Peters removed the action to
federal court on March 4, 2015. Plaintiffs' claims pertain to the
use of red light cameras in the City. Both parties acknowledge
that the Missouri Supreme Court is reviewing three cases
challenging the constitutionality of the red light camera program.
The parties also acknowledge that Missouri Supreme Court's
decisions in those cases may impact this case. As such, the
parties requested that the Court stay the proceedings pending a
determination by the Missouri Supreme Court.

In a memorandum and order entered May 13, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1dATRFSfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Ronnie L. White held that:

* Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay is granted in part, consistent
  with the Memorandum and Order.

* Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay is granted and the case is stayed for
  60 days pending the determination of the Missouri Supreme Court
  regarding the red light camera program.

* Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
  Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on
  the Pleadings and Defendant City of St. Peters, Missouri's
  Motion for More Definite Statement and/or to Strike is granted.
  Plaintiff must file responses to the pending motions no later
  than 10 days after the Court lifts the stay.

* Defendants' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to file a
  Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
  Discovery is granted. Defendants must file a response to
  Plaintiffs class certification motion no later than 30 days
  after the stay is lifted.

The case is GINA THOMPSON and KAREN MCCABE, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
ST. PETERS, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:15CV404 RLW, (E.D. Mo.)

Gina Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan D. Sturycz --
nathan@swattslaw.com -- STURYCZ WATTS LLC, Joel Spencer Halvorsen
-- joel@swattslaw.com -- STURYCZ WATTS LLC & Patrick A. Watts --
pwatts@swattslaw.com -- KODNER AND WATKINS.

Karen McCabe, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan D. Sturycz, STURYCZ
WATTS LLC, Joel Spencer Halvorsen, STURYCZ WATTS LLC & Patrick A.
Watts, KODNER AND WATKINS.

St. Peters, City of Missouri, Defendant, represented by V. Scott
Williams -- swilliams@hazelwoodweber.com -- HAZELWOOD AND WEBER
LLC & John H. Kilper -- jkilper@hazelwoodweber.com -- HAZELWOOD
AND WEBER LLC.

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by JoAnn
Tracy Sandifer -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL, LLP & Omri E. Praiss -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com
-- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Ticket Refund Possible in 8 Months
---------------------------------------------------
Adriane Quinlan, writing for The Times-Picayune, reported that
after three years of controversy and five years of litigation,
when can drivers who paid traffic tickets through Jefferson
Parish's now-defunct red-light camera program expect a refund?
The answer: About 8 months, said attorney Galen Brown, who
represents drivers in a class-action lawsuit. And the refund
likely will be less than the $110 that each ticket cost.

Brown laid out a timetable after the Parish Council on April 15
authorized negotiations to settle litigation over the automatic
ticketing program. The settlement would close three lawsuits
involving cameras operated by Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. between
2007 and 2010.

The Parish Council shut off the cameras amid controversy over
payments to lobbyists who helped Redflex secure the contract.
Subsequently, Redflex sued the parish, and drivers who paid the
tickets or fought the tickets in court sued both the parish and
Redflex.

Those cases have bounced around the trial and appellate courts
ever since. Ahead of a new hearing in 24th Judicial District
Court, all three parties opted to discuss a settlement, said Guice
Giambrone, the attorney who represents the parish. They came to an
agreement that could result in refunds to 180,000 motorists.
Still, it's subject to approval of the driver plaintffs and the
courts.

"We came to a mutual agreement to resolve all Redflex lawsuits,"
said Giambrone, "We're going to put this to bed, once and for
all."

All drivers who paid or contested their tickets would be
automatically enrolled to receive refunds, unless they
deliberately opted out of the class action suit, said Brown, who
represents drivers who paid tickets. However, those refunds would
likely be less than $110, Brown said, as some of the ticket
revenue that the parish is holding could be used to pay the costs
of the litigation and to pay Redflex.

Jefferson currently holds $21 million in fines from the program,
Brown said. In 2013, the Parish Council voted to use that money to
settle all the suits and to refund drivers.

"More likely it will be a partial refund, because Redflex is going
to be paid some of their contractual claim from all the money that
is being held in escrow," Brown said. "And that is all the money
that is going to be used to satisfy all claims."
"I couldn't even begin to tell you what the dollar amount will
be," Giambrone said.

First, however, the parish, Redflex and drivers participating in
the class action suits will seek an agreement, which will take its
time to craft, Giambrone said: "There's a lot of legalese there.
We all have to put in our two cents."

Then, drivers who did not opt out of the class action suits will
be notified of the terms of the proposed settlement and the date
of a public hearing, Brown said. That hearing likely will be
scheduled in about six months at the earliest, Brown said. It will
let members of the class say whether they agree to the terms of
the settlement.

Next, a judge will rule on whether to approve the settlement or
make changes, as well as how much the attorneys should be paid and
from what funds, Brown said. After that, all parties must wait 67
days for the passage of deadlines to file a new motion or a new
appeal, before divvying up the cash.

Redflex attorney Dominic Gianna, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment for this story. Galen Brown spoke for all
plaintiffs, including drivers who did fight their tickets in
court.

Councilmen Elton Lagasse and Chris Roberts said there were
concerns from the district attorney's office over paying the
settlement, which could slow refunds. Roberts said the district
attorney's office was concerned whether the refunds could amount
to a gratuitous donation of public money, a violation of
Louisiana's constitution.

Brown said those concerns arose only after a trial judge initially
dismissed the drivers' suit. Refunding the money at that point
might have been considered a donation, Brown said. But since an
appeals court sided with drivers' claims, the concern is moot.
"There's nobody seriously considering that anymore," Brown said.

When the time comes for the public hearing on the settlement and
the issuance of refunds, mailings will be sent to the last known
addresses of those who received the red-light tickets. Anyone who
received a ticket and did not opt out of the program, but whose
address has subsequently changed, may update their address at
www.jeffersonparishredlightclassaction.com.


REMINGTON ARMS: Class Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dennison, writing for The Montana Standard, reported that a
federal judge has preliminarily approved a settlement in which
Remington Arms Co. agrees to replace the trigger mechanism on
millions of Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifles, which a
Montana man has claimed for years are defective.

The order by U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith of Kansas City, Mo.,
endorsed a settlement of several class-action lawsuits filed by
consumers who said the Model 700 and other Remington rifles are
defective and dangerous.

However, the settlement and Remington's offer to replace the
trigger mechanisms on millions of rifles won't be final until
Smith issues a final order after a hearing scheduled in December.
The replacement of the trigger mechanisms in the Model 700 and
other rifles would culminate a 14-and-a-half-year crusade by
Richard Barber of Manhattan, whose son Gus died in 2000 after
being shot when a Model 700 rifle fired without the trigger being
pulled.

"With the retrofitting of all the Model 700s, I wholeheartedly
support that part of the settlement," he said. "The Model 700 has
been my focus -- that's what killed my son."

Barber spent years researching accidental shootings involving the
Model 700 and its trigger mechanism, which he says has a defect
that sometimes causes the rifle to fire without the trigger being
pulled.  He's said his primary goal is to get Remington to replace
the defective trigger mechanism and save other rifle-owners or
their family members from harm caused by accidental firings.

In the settlement, Remington does not admit the trigger mechanism
is defective and denies any wrongdoing. An attorney for Remington
did not reply to an email seeking comment.  If the settlement is
approved, Remington would pay for replacing the trigger mechanism
on the Model 700s and several other Remington rifles; offer
vouchers on several other rifles; and publicize its offer through
a website, emails and magazine advertisements.

Models affected by the settlement include more than 7 million
rifles sold in the United States. Barber estimated that about 5
million Model 700s are in use.

Details of the settlement include:

   * For Models 700, Seven, Sportsman 78 and 673 rifles, the
original Walker trigger mechanism would be replaced with a new X-
Mark Pro mechanism.

   * For Models 710, 715 and 770, the original trigger mechanism
will be replaced with a Model 770 connector-less mechanism.

   * For Models 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725, the company
will provide vouchers of $12.50 or $10, depending on the model,
redeemable for Remington products. These rifles are between 32 and
62 years old and cannot be retrofitted with a connector-less
trigger mechanism.

   * Models 700 and Seven rifles made between May 2006 and April
9, 2014, with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism, will be retrofitted
with a new assembly.  Remington had recalled these weapons after
discovering a flaw in the new trigger mechanism.

   * The weapons would be retrofitted at authorized repair
centers. Authorized centers nearest to Montana are in Burley,
Idaho, and Rapid City, S.D., but the settlement says additional
centers may be designated.

Remington will pay the costs of the repairs and the shipping of
any weapon repaired.

The company also agreed to pay the eight named plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit $2,500 each for their "time and effort"
associated with the case -- and up to $12.5 million to the
plaintiffs' attorneys, subject to approval by the court.


S & H INSTALLERS: "Kennedy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Kennedy, Patrick McGuire, and others similarly situated v.
S & H Installers, Inc. and Scott Woodall, Case No. 3:15-cv-00576
(M.D. Tenn., May 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

S & H Installers, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation that provides
supplies and woodworking services, including the fabrication of
construction materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
      CASTELLI & KNOX, LLP
      117 S Academy Street
      Murfreesboro, TN 37130
      Telephone: (615) 896-1000
      Facsimile: (615) 896-1027
      E-mail: kek@castelliknox.com

         - and -

      Robert B. Bragdon, Esq.
      BRAGDON & BRAGDON, PC
      752 S Church Street
      Murfreesboro, TN 37130
      Telephone: (615) 896-5600
      Facsimile: (615) 896-5680
      E-mail: bragdonlawyer@gmail.com


SANDISK CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
comprising purchasers of the securities of SanDisk Corporation
("SanDisk" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SNDK) between October 16,
2014 and March 25, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors with losses in excess of $100,000 in SanDisk stock are
encouraged to contact Casey Sadler, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail
to shareholders@glancylaw.com, to discuss this matter.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding quality
control within the corporate organizational structure, and an
overall decline in the Company's competitive advantages.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
regarding certain production qualification delays on certain of
its key products, and also failed to disclose that the Company was
experiencing lower than expected sales of enterprise products, and
was vulnerable to lower pricing in some areas of the business.

On March 26, 2015, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing a large reduction in its forecasted
revenues. The Company disclosed that this reduction in guidance
was "primarily due to certain product qualification delays, lower
than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing in
some areas of the business." On this news, shares of SanDisk
declined $14.98 per share, or 18.45%, to close on March 26, 2015,
at $66.20 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 29, 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 Casey Sadler,
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.

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


SANTANDER DRIVE: DBTCA Defending Against SDNY Action
----------------------------------------------------
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4 said in its Form 10-
D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 15, 2015, for the monthly distribution period from March 1,
2015 to March 31, 2015, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
("DBTCA") has been named as a defendant in civil litigation
concerning its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors ("Plaintiff Investors")
filed a civil action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court
purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label
RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged failure
to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts (the "NY
Derivative Action"). An amended complaint was filed on July 16,
2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the NY
Derivative Action. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors
moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY Derivative Action without
prejudice. Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group
of Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and
DBNTC in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the
same allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to
564 RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative
Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on
behalf of the named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a
putative class action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing
interests in those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is vigorously defending the
SDNY Action. DBTCA has no pending legal proceedings (including,
based on DBTCA's present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in
this paragraph) that would materially affect its ability to
perform its duties as Trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders.


SAVANNAH'S ON HANNA: Settles Exotic Dancer's Wage Dispute Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for The Patriot News, reported that an exotic
dancer who filed a federal fair wage lawsuit against a Harrisburg
club has reached an undisclosed settlement of the dispute, her
attorneys confirmed.

Angelique Britne Diaz claimed in her U.S. Middle District Court
suit that Savannah's on Hanna was breaching federal law by not
paying her a fair, government-required minimum wage for her
performances.

The Diaz case was one of two wage actions filed by dancers against
midstate clubs.

Diaz claimed she should have been treated as an employee, not an
independent contractor, and been paid at least the federal minimum
wage of $7.25 per hour when she worked at Savannah's from June
2013 to May 2014. Instead, she said none of the dancers were paid
by the club, and had to share their tips with the club and other
workers.  She never received overtime pay as required by law,
either, Diaz contended. She initially sought class-action status
for her suit, which she claimed would allow 75 or more other
dancers to join it as plaintiffs. The case never reached that
stage, however.

The operator of Savannah's, PJD Entertainment Inc., countered that
a contract Diaz signed to work at the club barred her from suing
and instead mandated that her dispute be addressed through
arbitration. PJD also denied the claims in the lawsuit.

Gregg Greenberg, one of Diaz's attorneys, said it was determined
that the dispute was indeed subject to arbitration, so the suit
was voluntarily withdrawn earlier. He and another of Diaz's
lawyers, Zachary Nahass, confirmed that a confidential settlement
was reached without arbitration, however.

The case was never certified as a class action. Greenberg said the
settlement is between PJD and Diaz alone.

"Savannah's is very pleased with the outcome," said Bryan Shook,
an attorney for PJD.

The other federal fair wage lawsuit filed by local exotic dancers
is still being pursued against Mr. G's Entertainment Inc.,
operator of Club 22 on Jonestown Road. The claims in that suit are
similar to those in the Diaz case.

Middle District Judge John E. Jones III granted class-action
status for the Mr. G's case and dancers have been filing notices
to join that suit.

Such wage-based legal challenges are becoming common in the adult
entertainment industry. The Maryland-based Greenberg said he has
filed such suits in several states. As Jones noted in addressing
the Mr. G's case, federal courts around the nation have granted
class-action status to similar disputes.


SHOE CARNIVAL: Petition for Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe Carnival, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the class action
plaintiff's petition for certiorari has been denied by the Supreme
Court.

The Company said, "On January 16, 2014, the District Court granted
our motion and dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice and
denied his motion to certify a class as moot, finding that our
actions did not violate FACTA and that our conduct, even if it did
violate FACTA, was not willful. On February 12, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2014, the
Seventh Circuit entered an order affirming the District Court's
order.  The plaintiff petitioned the United States Supreme Court
for certiorari, and the Supreme Court denied that petition on
February 23, 2015. The Supreme Court's order concludes this
litigation."


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Removed "Rose" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Michael Rose, et al., v.
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC00924, was removed from
the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00695-RWS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric F. Kayira, Esq.
      KAYIRA LAW, LLC
      200 S. Hanley, Suite 208
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 899-9378
      Facsimile: (314) 899-9382
      E-mail: eric.kayira@kayiralaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles W. Hatfield, Esq.
      STINSON AND LEONARD LLP
      230 W. McCarty Street
      Jefferson City, MO 65101
      Telephone: (573) 636-6827
      Facsimile: (573) 556-3632
      E-mail: chatfield@stinson.com


SONG & ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Castrovinci v. Song & Associates, Inc. and Young-Sook
Song, Case No. 9:15-cv-80649-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2015), seeks
to recover  unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an architectural, planning, and
interior design firm in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


SUPER STORE: Court Grants Class Certification to Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marijke Rowland, writing for The Modesto Bee, reported that a
lawsuit by employees of Central Valley-based dairy manufacturer
and distributor Super Store Industries is going forward.

Stanislaus Superior Court Judge John D. Freeland granted class-
action certification to 544 of the Stockton-based company's past
and present employees in a lawsuit over several years' worth of
back wages and other penalties.

Super Store Industries has plants and warehouses in Turlock,
Lathrop and Fairfield that manufacture and distribute dairy
products to retailers in California and parts of Nevada. The
company was founded by and is a joint partnership between the Save
Mart and Raley's grocery chains. Some of its products include the
Sunnyside Farms and Bayview Farms brands, which are carried by
area supermarkets.

The class action was filed in Stanislaus Superior Court in April
2012 by three former employees, one of whom has since dropped out
of the case. The current plaintiffs, John Hance and Joseph
Rubeiro, are seeking damages for overtime wages, back and unpaid
wages, denied off-duty and second-meal periods, inaccurate wage
statements, and more for all those in the class action.

The class-action plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys
from the Southern California-based Law Offices of Scott A. Miller
and Law Offices of Steven D. Waisbren. Super Store Industries is
being represented by the San Francisco-based firm Littler
Mendelson.

Miller, who is based in Sherman Oaks and has an office in
Sacramento, said the class action is seeking damages in "the eight
figures," but an exact amount is being calculated. He said a trial
date has been for for April 15, 2016.

"I am elated that the case is now certified as a class action, the
plaintiffs have won on every point," Miller said. "We feel real
good about this and we intend to make this right for the
employees."

His office said the lawsuit covers past and current employees who
fall within each claim's statutory period. Damages for overtime
and minimum wages are being sought back to 2008. Damages for meal
periods go back to 2009, and penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act go back to 2011.

Miller said Hance and Rubeiro were let go from the company before
the lawsuit was filed. They had both worked in production for
Super Store Industries for more than 20 years.

According to the Super Store Industries website, the company has a
fluid milk division in Fairfield, a dry grocery and frozen food
division in Lathrop, and a dairy for ice cream and cultured
products in Turlock. The Lathrop plant services more than 250
supermarkets, and the Turlock and Fairfield operations service
more than 400 stores.

Representatives from Super Store Industries could not be reached
for comment.


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Faces "Tarrant" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Tarrant, Denise Deanne and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-
06320-CJS (W.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sutherland Global Services, Inc. is a global provider of business
process and technology management services offering an integrated
portfolio of analytics-drive back-office and customer facing
solutions that support the entire customer lifecycle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


TATA CONSULTANCY: IT Workers File Discrimination Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thibodeau, writing for Computerworld, reported that an IT
worker is accusing Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) of
discriminating against American workers and favoring "South
Asians" in hiring and promotion. His complaint is being backed up,
in part, with numbers.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, claims that
95% of the 14,000 people Tata employs in the U.S. are South Asian
or mostly Indian. It says this practice has created a "grossly
disproportionate workforce."

India-based Tata achieves its "discriminatory goals" in at least
three ways, the lawsuit alleges. First, the company hires large
numbers of people who hold H-1B visas. From 2011 to 2013, Tata
sponsored nearly 21,000 new H-1B visas, all primarily for people
from India, according to the lawsuit's count. Second, when Tata
hires domestically in the U.S., "such persons are still
disproportionately South Asian." And third, Tata disfavors the
"relatively few non-South Asians workers that it hires" in
placement, promotion and termination decisions.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was filed by
Washington law firm Kotchen & Low. It's similar to against
Infosys, also by Kotchen & Low, in federal court in Wisconsin.
Both cases have the potential of putting a new light on the
operations of the H-1B-dependent offshore outsourcing industry and
its use of visa workers. The lawsuit is posted on the site DVG Law
Partner, which is also working on this case.

The lawsuit against Tata arrives at a time when a bipartisan group
of 10 U.S. senators is seeking investigation by federal
authorities into the displacement of U.S. IT workers by companies
that employ H-1B visa holders.

The plaintiff in the Tata case, Steven Heldt, is a former Tata
employee and "one of the few non-South Asians to gain employment
with Tata." In the lawsuit, Heldt is described as having had a
miserable experience during his 20-month employment period at
Tata, despite the fact that he holds a bachelor's degree in
economics, a master's degree in IT and numerous certifications,
and has nearly two decades of experience and a military career
that includes "service with distinction" in the U.S. Army's 101st
Airborne Division.

Heldt said that during his employment with Tata, he shuffled
around to jobs that "often involved only menial responsibilities"
and experienced "substantial anti-American sentiment" along the
way. The lawsuit contends that one top Tata HR manager instructed
recruiters to focus on hiring Indians, and that this official "has
expressed his dislike for American workers" and "believes Indians
were smarter and better qualified than Americans."

TCS, in response, said that it "is confident that Mr. Heldt's
allegations are baseless, and plans to vigorously defend itself
against his claims," said Benjamin Trounson, a company spokesman,
in a statement.

"TCS is an equal opportunity employer, and as such, bases its
employment decisions -- including recruiting, hiring, promotions,
retention, and discipline -- on legitimate non-discriminatory
business reasons without regards to race, national origin" and
other protected characteristics, said Trounson.

In regard to its U.S. hiring, Trounson said that alone Tata
recruited more than 2,600 U.S. hires, "many of whom are working on
technologies and systems that support critical client needs and
help to drive America's innovation economy."

Heldt began the process leading up to a lawsuit by filing a
complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the
U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.

Donna Conroy, who heads the tech advocacy group Bright Future
Jobs, which highlights discriminatory hiring practices in job ads,
said Title VII lawsuits "are unique in their power to force
cultural and policy changes in an entire industry."

"Whether [Title VII lawsuits] are won or lost," Conroy said, "the
publicity educates readers on proper and improper conduct from
HR."

With this lawsuit, Conroy said, "we can start the process of
exonerating the American IT workforce who have been relentlessly
denigrated in order to hide the tech industry's widespread
practice of discriminating against Americans."


TCP INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TCP International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company plans to
seek consolidation of the securities class action complaints filed
in the Northern District of Ohio and the Southern District of New
York.

Following press reports of the Hauser litigation filed in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, putative shareholders filed two securities class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, a securities class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and a securities class action complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The putative shareholders
assert a number of alleged securities violations against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, including
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The claims generally involve alleged material
misstatements and omissions in connection with the IPO prospectus
and registration statement and seek an unspecified amount of
damages. The Company plans to seek consolidation of the securities
class action complaints filed in the Northern District of Ohio and
the Southern District of New York. The Company believes these
claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. As this
litigation is in the early onset of discovery, the Company is
unable to determine the probability and amount of loss, if any,
related to this litigation.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: TIM Celular Faces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Tim Participacoes S.A. said in its Form 10-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries are subject to a number of class action claims where
the risk of loss is regarded as probable. These claims are
summarized as follows:

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio de Janeiro
challenging the Company's policy of charging a retention fee in
case of robbery of the clients' mobile device;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Minas Gerais
challenging the Company's policy of charging a retention fee when
a client intends to terminate the contract before the period
specified in the contract (when the client received a benefit, for
example a discount on the purchase of a mobile device);

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Minas Gerais in
order to investigate if the Company properly bills telephone
pulses, which are the unit of measurement consisting of 4 minutes
of voice traffic used to charge voice calls;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio Grande do
Norte in order to investigate the Company's advertisements;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Pernambuco
regarding to the placement of warranty language;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio Grande do
Norte concerning collection on certain value-added services from
prepaid customers;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Ceara questioning
damages due to contracts being rescinded by customers;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Sao Paulo
questioning customer service quality;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Sao Paulo related
to network quality in the Municipality of Cordeiropolis;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Paraiba, in order
to investigate the Company's advertisements;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Para, related to
network quality in the Municipality of Paragominas;

* A lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio Grande do
Norte related to network quality in the Municipality of Upanema;
and

* A lawsuit against Intelig in the State of Pernambuco related to
noncompliance with Anatel Resolution No. 85, article 61.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Intelig Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Tim Participacoes S.A. said in its Form 10-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries are subject to a number of class action claims where
the risk of loss is regarded as possible. These claims are
summarized as follows:

* A public civil action filed against Intelig by the State of Rio
de Janeiro involving advertising in the company building;

* The public civil actions filed against Intelig involving pricing
in areas considered border, filed by prosecutors in the states of
Parana, Rio de Janeiro and Federal District;

* The class actions filed against Intelig involving collection
outside the regulatory deadline set by Anatel in Cascavel,
Uberlandia, Fortaleza and Sao Paulo; and

* A public civil action filed against Intelig by the Public
Prosecutor of the Minas Gerais state questioning alleged improper
billing of users.


TRANSURBAN: Faces Lawsuit Filed by Local Drivers
------------------------------------------------
Ari Ashe, writing for Washington's Top News, reported that three
drivers filed a class-action lawsuit against Virginia Express
Lanes operator Transurban, telling a federal court that the
company is not following the law and owes millions in damages to
the public.

"The Collection Defendants, operating as agents of and on behalf
of the Transurban Defendants, are participants in and profit from
this illegal scheme," according to the complaint.

Jo-Ann Brown, Mary Elisa Pizarro and Michele Osborne are the three
named plaintiffs on the case.  Brown owed Transurban $4.95 in
unpaid tolls, but the complaint says that Transurban pursued her
for $3,413.75.  Another was charged $17,000 for $36 in unpaid
tolls.

"The numbers really speak for themselves. They get so vastly
disproportionate to the toll that is owed that they cease to be
reasonable and the statute requires that they be reasonable," says
Walter D. Kelley, attorney at Hausfeld LLP, who is the lead
attorney representing the plaintiffs.

"As one person told Channel 9, 'They get you over a barrel like
that. They keep pushing you. They have the money and lawyers to do
that and you don't.' Well, this lawsuit will even the playing
field," he adds.

Faneuil Inc. and Law Enforcement Services are also named
defendants in the lawsuit. Law Enforcement Service is a Wisconsin-
based company that is contracted as a collections agency for
unpaid debts.

Transurban outsources other enforcement functions for unpaid toll
trips to Faneuil Inc., based out of Hampton, Virginia. For
example, Faneuil employee Alexis Brach negotiates on behalf of
Transurban. She also appeared in court for Transurban until one
Fairfax County District Court judge found since Brach was not an
attorney, nor a Transurban employee, she could not act in that
capacity.

"Essentially, Transurban is seeking to turn this into a cash cow.
It's not even clear that these people really missed the tolls
because Transurban admits its toll gantries don't always pick up
your E-ZPass," Kelley says.

The Virginia Department of Transportation acknowledges that
certain types of cars and windshields do mask the signal and could
cause a correctly mounted E-ZPass not to be read.

"We understand some Jeeps do present issues because of the upright
windshield positions in relation to the angle in which the tag
readers are mounted. If patrons complain of issues in the lanes,
we check to ensure the transponder is mounted correctly, and if
so, offer a bumper transponder as replacement for the interior
transponder," wrote VDOT spokeswoman Shannon Marshall in Sept.
2014.

Other known issues include certain types of tinting in the
windshield that scatter the signal from toll gantries and could
prevent a proper connection.

"It may be that what these problems are raising are issues that
the General Assembly will have to visit the next time it
reconvenes," Kelley says.

He says lawmakers should focus on the administrative fees and
civil penalties. He believes that Transurban does not need to
spend $100 in administrative costs per unpaid toll trip. For
example, Toni Cooley had 11 unpaid toll trips and got hit with
$1,100 in administrative fees.  He also believes the Virginia law
requires Transurban to first take a driver to court before it can
charge escalating civil penalties of $1,000 per unpaid trip on
subsequent trips.  Right now, if a driver has five unpaid toll
trips, each carries an escalating penalty, including $1,000 for
the fourth and each subsequent violation.

"I think a class action was inevitable.  Judgements are so large
sometimes that it shocks people.  I'm not surprised lawyers are
testing the legality of the system," says Del. Scott Surovell.
Transurban responded in a statement to WTOP, although it did not
address the lawsuit specifically because it hadn't finished
reading the complaint.

"We do not want to see a single customer in court.  We are pleased
that the vast majority of our customers pay at the time of travel
without issue, and less than 0.1 percent of 495 Express Lanes
trips end up in court," writes Transurban spokesman Mike McGurk.

"We have implemented First Time Forgiveness to provide E-ZPass
customers on the Express Lanes opportunities to avoid fees and
penalties all together.  As part of this program, we have also
capped the violation trips we send to court at four trips, or a
maximum of $2,200 (plus applicable court fees).  This commitment
means we do not pursue the potential tens of thousands of dollars
in civil penalties prescribed by Virginia law.  Our toll
enforcement practices meet the requirements of the Virginia Code
and the Virginia HOT Lanes Statute and Transurban does not profit
from our enforcement program or civil penalties," he writes.

The case has now been assigned to a U.S. District Court judge in
Alexandria, Virginia.  The entire case could be wrapped up within
2015, but Kelley hopes the case will open a dialogue with
Transurban on how to make the system better for the public.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Mallon" ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Mallon brought a putative class action contesting Trover
Solutions Inc.'s subrogation rights under a health insurance plan
and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Sections
502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1)(B),
(a)(3). Mallon was injured in a car accident and received tort
damages from a third-party driver, after which Trover Solutions
sought reimbursement of the benefits paid under the health
insurance plan. Although Mallon contested Trover Solutions'
subrogation rights under the plan, she ultimately paid the
reimbursement and brought this action. The District Court
dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.  Mallon appealed.

In an opinion entered May 19, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://bit.ly/1RDVelBfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court
of Appeals, Third Circuit held that the District Court did not
abuse its discretion when it held that Mallon was required to
exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.

Accordingly, the District Court ruling is affirmed.

The case is LYDIA MALLON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. TROVER SOLUTIONS INC., D/B/A
HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS; QCC
INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 14-3189.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties Reached Agreement to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2015,
that parties have reached an agreement to settle a Class Action
Lawsuit.

In June 2013, one purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and one purported class action complaint was filed the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the
Buyer's sole shareholder, Uni-Pixel, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Parent"), and the Parent's CEO, CFO, and Chairman. The
complaint filed in the Southern District of New York was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on July 2, 2013.  The
surviving complaint, Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc.,
et al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649) (the "Class Action Lawsuit"),
alleged that the Parent and its officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly
false and misleading statements concerning its licensing
agreements and product development.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Parent's common stock who purchased during the period from
December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013.  On July 25, 2014, the judge
granted in part and denied in part the Parent's motion to dismiss
the case, significantly limiting the claims remaining in the Class
Action Lawsuit.  On August 25, 2014, the Parent filed an answer to
the Class Action Lawsuit. In November 2014 the parties reached an
agreement to settle the Class Action Lawsuit.


UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over FDCA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Galina Sergeeva, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems LP, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02488 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Filipino Veterans' Claims Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In ROMEO DE FERNANDEZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; et al., Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 13-15526, Romeo R. De Fernandez, Ciriaco C. dela
Cruz, Valeriano C. Marcelino, and the Veterans Equity Center
appealed a district court's dismissal of their claims for lack of
jurisdiction.

Under provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 establishing the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund,
certain Filipino veterans of World War II, or their surviving
spouses, are entitled to one-time payments. The Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) requires applicants to prove they are
entitled to benefits, and specifies what evidence is acceptable.
Appellants brought this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and certain other Filipino veterans of World War II,
arguing that the evidentiary requirements violate their First and
Fifth Amendment rights.

The Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988 provides that most
benefits decisions of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are final
and unreviewable by district courts. Appellants concede they are
raising the same types of claims as were raised in Recinto v. U.S.
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 706 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir.).

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit held that
because "Recinto was binding on the district court, and is binding
on us . . . the district court properly dismissed  Appellants'
claims without leave to amend," and therefore affirmed the claims
dismissal.

A copy of the Court's May 19, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://bit.ly/1eLhyvrfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: "Avery" Case May Not Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In STEVEN AVERY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et
al., Defendants, NO. 2:15-CV-0252-MCE-EFB P., (E.D. Cal.),
Steven Avery is a federal inmate proceeding without counsel. He
has filed what he styles as a "motion for . . . stay, injunction,
and restraining order." He has also filed a motion for discovery,
a motion for judgment as a matter of law, an affidavit regarding
racial segregation, a civil cover sheet, an application to proceed
in forma pauperis, a document titled "amendments to above stated
case," a second motion for judgment as a matter of law, and a
second document purporting to "amend" earlier filed documents.  He
has not, however, filed a complaint. Accordingly, he has not
properly commenced a civil action.

In addition, Mr. Avery has requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis but has not submitted a certified trust account
statement. Mr. Avery purports also to be acting as "lead counsel"
in a "class action."

According to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan's order entered
May 18, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1KBFI8Wfrom Leagle.com, "There is no indication
that Mr. Avery is an attorney licensed to practice law and Mr.
Avery may not proceed with this case as a class action. It is
well-established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the
interests of a class."

He further ordered that:

1. The Clerk of the Court will send to Mr. Avery the form
complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. Within 30 days of the date of the order, Mr. Avery will either
pay the $400 filing fee or submit a complete application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of the order, Mr. Avery will submit
a complaint stating the nature of the action and his belief that
he is entitled to redress. Failure to comply with this order may
result in a recommendation of dismissal of the matter currently
designated as case number 2:15-cv-0252-MCE-EFB P.

Steven Avery, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nathan Maulding, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Steven Ingrahm, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Darin Martin, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nganatatafu Aholelei, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


VENOCO INC: Trial Expected to Occur in 2015 in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Venoco, Inc. and Denver Parent Corporation said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
15, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial
is expected to occur in 2015 in class action lawsuits.

In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each
of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its
directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012,
Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and
certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez
and his affiliates would effect the going private transaction.
Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional
suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed in federal
court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each of its
directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint in which they
requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the
merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger
should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be
awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the
breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions
have been administratively closed pending resolution of the
Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in
the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial
is expected to occur in 2015.


VERTEX ENERGY: Vertex Refining Named as Defendant in "Davis" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Vertex
Refining LA, LLC has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
by Stacy Davis, Becky Vallee and James A. Block (the
"Plaintiffs").

The Company said, "Vertex Refining LA, LLC, the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vertex Operating, our wholly-owned subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District For the Parish of Jefferson Louisiana on January
6, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Stacy Davis, Becky Vallee and
James A. Block (the "Plaintiffs") made certain allegations against
Vertex Refining LA, LLC, Omega Refining and the manager of the
Marrero, Louisiana facility (the "Defendants"). The claims are
structured as class actions relating to certain operations
performed at our newly acquired re-refinery located in Marrero,
Louisiana, including the alleged emission of noxious and harmful
substances. The Plaintiffs allege they are part of a valid class
due to the fact that they live and work near the facility. The
lawsuit relates to alleged actions and inactions related to the
facility between 2012 to present and includes allegations relating
to violations of various Louisiana statutes, allegations relating
to the misrepresentation of information to the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, allegations relating to
violations of hourly permitted emission limits, and alleged
failure to report an un-permitted point-source. The suit seeks
damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering,
medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of
Plaintiff's homes. The Plaintiffs further allege that there are
estimated to be over 1,000 class members to the suit, provided
that the proposed class is yet to be certified.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations
made in the complaint, provided that at this stage of the
litigation, the Company has no basis of determining whether there
is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims
and/or the potential outcome of the litigation," the Company said.


WALGREENS CO: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Bernstein Liebhard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of
common stock of Walgreens Co. ("Walgreens" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: WBA) during the period of March 25, 2014 and August 5,
2014 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the purported benefits of Walgreens'
strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH.
Specifically, defendants publicly announced goals for fiscal year
2016 of $1 billion in combined synergies and $9.5 billion in
adjusted earnings for the combined entity, but concealed a nearly
$2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings shortfall.

On August 4, 2014, Walgreens announced that its CFO, defendant
Wade Miquelon, would be resigning. Two days later, on August 6,
2014, defendants lowered the fiscal year 2016 adjusted earnings
target to $7.2 billion -- a staggering $2.3 billion below the
high-end of the range that they had previously announced to
investors.  Following these disclosures, Walgreens' share price
declined plummeted from a close of $69.12 per share on August 5,
2014 to a close of $59.21 per share -- a drop of over 14% -- on
August 6, 2014.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Walgreens common stock during the Class Period.
If you invested in Walgreens common stock as described above, and
either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security,
you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.
In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in
the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than June
9, 2015.

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 Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Walgreens
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.


WALGREENS CO: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common
stock of Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens" or the "Company") (NYSE: WAG)
between March 25, 2014 and August 5, 2014 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Walgreens shareholders may, no later than June 9, 2015, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Walgreens 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: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/wag.

Walgreens operates as a retail drugstore chain in the United
States. The Company sells prescription and non-prescription drugs
and general merchandise through its Walgreens drug stores. As part
of a corporate reorganization completed in connection with its
acquisition of Alliance Boots on December 31, 2014, Walgreens
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreen Boots Alliance
("WBA"), a global pharmacy-led health and wellbeing commercial
enterprise headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects,
including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic
partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH.  Specifically, defendants
publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in
combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings
before interest and taxes ("EBIT") for the combined entity, but
concealed a $1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings
shortfall and the reasons for the shortfall from the investing
public. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements
and/or omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens
stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of
$76.08 per share.

On June 19, 2012, Walgreens announced that it had entered into a
strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH ("Alliance Boots")
to create a global pharmacy-led health and wellbeing enterprise
(the "Walgreen-Alliance Boots Transaction").

Defendants heralded the partnership as providing an unmatched
supply chain, an unparalleled portfolio of health and wellness
brands, and a unique platform in developed and emerging markets.
The deal would occur in two parts. Under "Step One," which took
place in 2012, Walgreens acquired a 45% equity ownership stake in
Alliance Boots in exchange for approximately $6.7 billion in cash
and stock. Under "Step Two," Walgreens acquired the remaining 55%
on December 31, 2014 for approximately $5.3 billion in cash and
144.3 million shares of Walgreens' common stock. Significantly,
whereas the first step of the transaction did not require a
shareholder vote, the second step did require shareholder
approval.

In August 2012, after Step One of the Walgreen-Alliance Boots
Transaction closed, the Company provided a set of publicly
announced goals for fiscal year 2016 ("FY 2016 Goals").
Defendants spoke about the benefits of the partnership and the FY
2016 Goals became critically important metrics that were regularly
discussed by the Company and followed by analysts because they
quantified the purported benefits of the merger and were important
to assessing the merits of voting in favor of Step Two of the
merger. The goals included $1 billion in combined synergies and $9
to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes
("EBIT").

On August 6, 2014, Walgreens and Alliance Boots hosted an investor
call. During the call, Gregory Wasson ("Wasson"), Walgreens former
Chief Executive Officer, and Walgreens bundled the disclosure of
the new FY 2016 EBIT goal, which finally revealed the amount of
the massive shortfall that had been concealed during the Class
Period and that the purported benefits of the merger were not
nearly as robust as represented, with numerous optimistic
statements.  Wasson disclosed that the Company was now tracking to
a "mid-point" of $7.2 billion for FY 2016 EBIT, stating "we're not
happy about lowering our previous goals." Wasson claimed "we have
been challenged by the ongoing global pharmacy reimbursement
pressure, which continues, and the rapid and pronounced increase
in generic drug pricing, which we did not fully anticipate, and
now expect to persist longer than we anticipated." Wasson also
finally disclosed the reason for the shortfall, stating that
Walgreens had not been "able to fully mitigate [generic inflation]
given the structure of certain existing contracts."

On August 7, 2014, Cowen and Company reported that because the
updated $7.2 billion EBIT estimate included a new $1 billion in
cost savings that were additive to the previously disclosed $1
billion in synergies, Walgreens' base business would be declining
at a negative 4% CAGR over the next two years. This was far below
the initial forecast of $9 to $9.5 billion back in August 2012
that appeared to be based on a positive CAGR. In addition, Cowen
commented that "[m]anagement's focus on the call around increased
reimbursement pressures and generic inflation is a bit confusing
to us, given this is not a new issue and shouldn't come as such a
surprise," adding that "everyone has known about the issues of
generic inflation" and "other players in the space have been able
to more than compensate for these issues."

After these disclosures, the Company's stock price plummeted,
dropping from a close of $69.12 per share on August 5, 2014 to a
close of $59.21 per share on August 6, 2014, losing more than 14%
of the value of the share price.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 9,
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.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/wag.  For more information about class
action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.

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.

CONTACT: Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
Wayne, PA 19087
484-588-5516
877-316-3218
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/wag
rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


WINGS OVER: Faces "Meller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
David Meller and Kerstin Robinson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wings Over Spartanburg, LLC,
Wings Over America, Inc. d/b/a Wild Wing Cafe, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02094-PMD (D.S.C., May 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate Wild Wing Cafe franchised restaurants
located in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee,
Virginia, Texas, and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
      Lawrence Everett McNair III, Esq.
      JOHN G. RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE
      215 Magnolia Street, PO Box 1633
      Spartanburg, SC 29306
      Telephone: (864) 582-5472
      Facsimile: (864) 582-7280
      E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com
              lee@johnreckenbeillaw.com


WHIPPERHILL CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Sobiech, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Whipperhill Consulting, LLC, and Matthew P.
Fantaskey, Case No. 2:15-cv-00667-CRE (W.D. Pa., May 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Whipperhill Consulting, LLC provides high quality inspection
services to a variety of oil and natural gas companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


WOKING GOURMENT: Faces "Ponciano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ponciano, Miguel Ponciano, and all others similarly
situated v. Woking Gourment, Inc. a/k/a Woking Gourmet, Inc.,
a/k/a Pearl Chinese Restaurant, Sam Tsang, and Ling Wu Tsang, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01763-N (N.D. Tex., May 21, 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 Chinese restaurant in Dallas
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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  * * *