CAR_Public/150609.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 114


                            Headlines


AA POULTRY: Recalls Contaminated Chicken & Turkey Products
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Similac(R), Suit Claims
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action in NJ
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Amended Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Defend Wage & Hours Case Against PSO

AMERICAN SCIENCE: Johnson & Weaver Probes Possible Violations
ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
ANGIE'S LIST: Responsive Pleadings Deadline Set in "Moore" Case
ANTHONY'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ARUBA NETWORKS: Agreement-in-Principle Reached in Class Action

ASK FOODS: Recalls Ground Stuffing Products Due to Misbranding
AT&T INC: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BATS GLOBAL: High-Frequency Traders' Class Action Nixed
BEST STORAGE: "Green" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BI-LO SUPERMARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Products

BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
BRIDGEPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Sommers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV: Wins Ruling in Tuition Fee Hike Suit
CAMERA VIDEO: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiff Obtained Class Certification Order

CAPRI NAILS: Faces "Rong" Suit Over Failure Overtime Wages
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Faces Second Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
CELERA CORP: June 28 Deadline to File Claim in Class Suit
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
CHC GROUP: Removed "McCrory" Class Suit to S.D. New York

CMG OIL: Sued in D.N.D. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Case Goes Back to Dist. Ct.
COOPER VISION: Faces "Burt" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
CRYSTAL TOUCH: Faces "Monarca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CULINARY BRANDS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Misbranding

EBAY INC: Defending Against Class Action Lawsuit
ENVIVIO INC: Funded Settlement Amount Into Escrow Account
FACEBOOK INC: Filed Opposition to Class Certification
FIRST AMERICAN: Defending Class Actions Over Improper Rate
FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case

FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Decertified
FIRST AMERICAN: Sager v. Interthinx Case Not Yet Certified
FIRST AMERICAN: 7 Class Action Cases Not Yet Certified
FITBIT: Faces New Round of Rash Complaints
GALESBURG, IL: Teachers' Unions's Grievances Head to Arbitration

GAWKER MEDIA: Use of Social Media to Notify Class Members Okayed
GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending by Vehicle Consumers
GENERAL MOTORS: NY Teachers File Consolidated Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Trial Held on Class Issues in GMCL Dealers' Claim
GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Litigation Over Ordinary Wages Regulation

GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Filed in Inventory Mgmt Securities Action
GILLEX FOODS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Considers Class Action Over Zofran
HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery & Other Pretrial Deadlines Stayed
HUNT'S POINT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Copper Sleeves, Suit Says
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Removed "Mansour" Suit to S.D. New York
INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTUIT INC: Faces "Lebinski" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

KARNES COUNTY, TX: Detention Facility Sued Over Conditions
KHUBBA AL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding & Allergens
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wyoming Sues Over 'Flushable' Wipes
LAWRENCE COUNTY: Settlement Deal Proposed in Solid Waste Case
LOBLAWS: Faces Class Action Over Bangladesh Factory Collapse

LQNN INC: Recalls Chicken, Beef and Pork Products
LU SIMON BUILDERS: Agency Launched Probe Over November Fire
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Justice Department Seeks Criminal Charges
MASSACHUSETTS: Richardson & Cumbo Files Class Action v. MBTA
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Insurance Carrier Paid Settlement Amount

METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Unpaid Intern Files Class Action in Calif.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: British Columbia Case Trial in 2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Argument Held in US Cell Phone Litigation
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Canadian Class Action Not Yet Active
NATROL INC: Leaf123 Settles Tea Product Labeling Class Action

NEW BEGINNINGS: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NEW YORK, NY: Four Nonprofits to Get Residual Settlement Funds
NEWMAN & LEVENTHAL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $140 Million
OHL-ARELLANO: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Says Suit Can Go Ahead on One Count
OLD WORLD: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Misbranding
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Complaint Dismissed, Claims Time-Barred
PIEDMONT REALTY: Georgia Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim
PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims

QUEENSLAND: Government May Launch Fresh Probe Into Flood
RITE AID: Indergit Class Action Still Pending
RITE AID: To Obtain Approval of Deal in Chase & Scherwin Case
RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed
RIWO INC: "Theodoridis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ROYAL BANK: Bank Unit Must Pay $1.4 Million in Fines, Finra Says
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Unable to Estimate Impact of Arbitration Bids
RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Illinois
SHIVA YOGA: School to Be Wound Up; Ex-Leader Facing Class Suit
SIRIUS XM: 2nd Circuit to Weigh in on Broadcaster Dispute

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action
SP WHOLESALE: Recalls Pork & Chicken Sausages Due to Misbranding
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Police Dep't Targets Latino, Suit Claims
SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Faces Class Action Over Grave Desecration
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action for $500 Million

SUNWATER: Breached Own Manual with Callide Dam Release
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Faces Class Action Over Memory Foam Mattress Odor
TFORCE ENERGY: Faces "Esterline" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TOP RANK: Faces "Mendez" Over Nondisclosure of Pacquiao Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Thrailkill" Suit in D.S.C. Over Pacquiao Injury

TOTAL PACKAGING: Recalls Turkey & Cheese Lunch Kits
TUK TUK: Faces "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Nate Quarry Surprised by Backlash to Lawsuit
UNION PACIFIC: No New Hearing Date on Class Certification Bid
UNITIL CORPORATION: Oral Arguments Conducted on Motion to Certify

US PENSION: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Imprudent Plan Investment
USG CORPORATION: July 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
USG CORPORATION: Canadian Suits Not Part of US Settlement
VICTORY KITCHENS: Recalls Chicken Noodle Soup Products
WACOAL AMERICA: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1.3MM

WALKER'S FOODS: Recalls Pork with Sauce Products Due to Allergen
WARREN COUNTY, NY: Court Denies Bid for Bed Tax Class Action
WEST BANCORPORATION: No Date Yet for Oral Argument in Appeal
WOODBURY COUNTRY CLUB: Man Sues for Receiving 2 Unsolicited Faxes
ZYK ENTERPRISES: Recalls Veal Products Due to E. Coli

* Accounting Allegations Hike Securities Suits, Cornerstone Says
* U.S. House of Representatives Reviews Class Action Bill


                            *********


AA POULTRY: Recalls Contaminated Chicken & Turkey Products
----------------------------------------------------------
AA Poultry Processing, LLC, a Ridgeland, Wis. establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,191 pounds of chicken and 21 pounds of
turkey products, which may have been contaminated with trichloro-
s-triazinetrione, which is not approved for use in poultry
processing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced .

The whole and cut chicken and turkey pieces were produced on
various dates from May 4, 2015 through May 11, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- Various weights of whole or cut chicken and turkey parts.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
45525" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Live poultry was
brought to the establishment for processing. Following processing,
the carcasses were returned to their original owners in Wisconsin.

The problem was discovered by FSIS in-plant personnel during
routine verification activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse allergic
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact Ty
Martin, Owner, at (715) 949-1108.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Similac(R), Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Marentette, Matthew O'neil Nighswander, and Ellen Steinlien,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02837-CBA-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and
misleading misrepresentations on its private-label Similac(R)
Advance(R) Organic Infant Formulas.

However, contrary to the Defendant's representation that the
Infant Formula is organic, it contained ingredients not permitted
in organic products, including sodium selenate, taurine,
cholecalciferol, l-carnitine, choline bitartrate, adenosine-5'-
monophosphate, cytidine-5'-monophosphate, disodium guanosine-5'-
monophosphate, disodium uridine-5'-monophosphate, calcium
pantothenate, cyanocobalamin, ascorbyl palmitate, choline
chloride, m-inositol, docosahexaenoic acid single cell oil,
arachidonic acid single cell oil, biotin, lutein, and beta
carotene.

Abbott Laboratories, Inc. owns and operates a pharmaceuticals and
health care company with its principal place of business in North
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      D. Gregory Blankinship
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3283
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

         - and -

      Yvette Golan, Esq.
      THE GOLAN FIRM
      1919 Decatur St.
      Houston, TX 77007
      Telephone: (866) 298-4150
      Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
      E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com

         - and -

      Kim E. Richman, Esq.
      THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      195 Plymouth Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (212) 687-8291
      Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
      E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernard M. Gross Files Class Action in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on April 30 filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of
New Jersey, 15cv03007, on behalf of purchasers of AERI common
stock between August 6, 2014 and April 23, 2015.  Aerie is a
clinical stage pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment
of patients with glaucoma and other eye diseases.

The Complaint was filed against AERI and its officers/directors
who misrepresented and/or concealed material adverse facts about
the Company's operations and financial prospects.  Specifically,
Rhopressa(TM) was in recent drug trials that compared it to an
older, twice per day eye drop called Timolol.  The study was
designed to show that Rhopressa(TM) was not inferior to Timolol at
reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) after two weeks, six weeks and
90 days of treatment.  In August, 2014, Aerie issued a press
release announcing that the Phase 2b clinical trial demonstrated a
strong IOP-lowering effect.  Pending successful advancement in
Phase 3 registration studies, the Company expected to submit an
NDA filing by mid-2016.  Shortly thereafter, one of Aerie's
largest beneficial holders of the stock sold 1.225 million shares
at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of $35.1 million.
Then, on April 23, 2015 Aerie announced that Rhopressa(TM) Phase 3
results did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of
demonstrating non-inferiority of IOP lowering for once daily
Rhopressa(TM) compared to twice daily Timolol.  As a result of
this news, the price of Aerie stock plummeted from $22.52 per
share to close at $12.87 per share on April 24, 2015, a one day
decline of nearly 64% on volume of nearly 14.7 million shares.  In
fact, defendants' statements about the prospects for the Phase 3
Rhopressa(TM) study were materially false and misleading as
Rhopressa(TM) was not performing as well as Timolol and would not
lead to commercial success.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than June 29, 2015.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.  To discuss
this action or ask questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel, toll-free 866-561-3600
or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or
susang@bernardmgross.com

The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT:

Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
E-mail:  susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com
Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Amended Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Lead
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which adds
Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and
transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated
Altisource share prices. The court subsequently appointed the
Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified
amount of damages. Altisource intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Defend Wage & Hours Case Against PSO
----------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
management will continue to defend the Wage and Hours Lawsuit
against Public Service Company of Oklahoma, an AEP electric
utility subsidiary.

In August 2013, PSO received an amended complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by 36
current and former line and warehouse employees alleging that they
have been denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to
overtime pay for "on call" time. They allege that restrictions
placed on them during on call hours are burdensome enough that
they are entitled to compensation for these hours as hours worked.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion to conditionally certify this
action as a class action, claiming there are an additional 70
individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
damages in the amount of unpaid overtime over a three-year period
and liquidated damages in the same amount.

In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the action as a class action.  Notice was
given to all potential class members and an additional 43
individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to
79 current and former employees. Management will continue to
defend the case. Management is unable to determine a range of
potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.


AMERICAN SCIENCE: Johnson & Weaver Probes Possible Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is
investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws
by American Science & Engineering Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The investigation will seek to determine if certain
officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties relating to its contractual agreements with the U.S.
Government.  American Science develops, manufactures, markets, and
sells X-ray inspection and other detection products for homeland
security, force protection, public safety, and other defense
applications in the United States and internationally.

On April 24, 2015, American Science revealed that it had received
a subpoena from the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA),
relating to an investigation by the GSA and the Department of
Defense of the Company's compliance with the terms of its
contractual arrangements with the GSA.

American Science receives a significant portion of its revenue
from the federal government.  On the news, American Science shares
fell over 8% in trading on April 24, 2015.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
or if you are an American Science shareholder and are interested
in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com --
by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.  If emailing, please include
a phone number where you can be reached.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


ANGIE'S LIST: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint has yet to be ruled upon
by the Court.

On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class
action complaints was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and
various of its current and former directors and officers as
defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's
List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second
putative securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second
complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al,
1:14-cv-0023. Both complaints allege that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting
material information from the Company's public disclosures
concerning the Company's business prospects.

On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A"). On August 29, 2014, Local 464A
filed its consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that Angie's List made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding its paid
membership model ("PPM"). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, which has yet to be ruled upon by the
Court.


ANGIE'S LIST: Responsive Pleadings Deadline Set in "Moore" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court issued an
Order approving the parties' proposed responsive pleadings
deadline in the case, Moore v. Angie's List, Inc.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges claims
of breaches of contract and covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and
violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, alleging, in part, that the Company lures
consumers to purchase membership fees for "access to purportedly
unfiltered reviews, ratings and search result rankings."

On April 10, 2015, the Court issued an Order approving the
parties' proposed responsive pleadings deadline.


ANTHONY'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Anthony's Restaurant, Inc.,
and Antonios Konidaris, Case No. 1:15-cv-04331 (N.D. Ill., May 15,
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 Anthony's Restaurant located at
4720 West 63rd Street, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARUBA NETWORKS: Agreement-in-Principle Reached in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aruba Networks, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, that
defendants and plaintiffs in the class action reached an
agreement-in-principle providing for the settlement of the
outstanding litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a
memorandum of understanding.

On April 3, 2015, Aruba Networks, Inc. filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement
(the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with respect to the special
meeting of Aruba shareholders scheduled to be held on May 1, 2015
(the "Special Meeting"). As previously disclosed, on March 3,
2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Hewlett-Packard Company ("Parent")
and Aspen Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving
the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, beginning on March
9, 2015, a number of shareholder class action complaints were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court") on behalf of a putative class of Aruba shareholders and
naming as defendants the board of directors of Aruba, HP, Merger
Sub, and, in some instances, Aruba: Ballester v. Aruba Networks,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10765-VCL (filed March 9, 2015); Williams
v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10778-VCL (filed March
11, 2015); New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Welfare Fund v.
Orr, et al., C.A. No. 10786-VCL (filed March 12, 2015); Maturi v.
Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10798-VCL (filed March 16,
2015); Adams v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10800-VCL
(filed March 16, 2015); Watts v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10802-VCL (filed March 17, 2015); Litwin v. Aruba
Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10825-VCL (filed March 23, 2015).
On April 10, 2015, the Delaware actions were consolidated as In Re
Aruba Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
10765-VCL (the "Action").

On April 22, 2015, defendants and plaintiffs in the Action reached
an agreement-in-principle providing for the settlement of the
outstanding litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"). Pursuant to the terms of
the MOU, without agreeing that any of the claims in the Action
have merit or that any supplemental disclosure was required under
any applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, the Company
agreed to make certain supplemental and amended disclosures in
this Current Report on Form 8-K. The MOU further provides that,
among other things, (a) plaintiffs will conduct appropriate
confirmatory discovery; (b) the parties to the MOU will enter into
a definitive stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and
will submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval;
(c) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the outstanding
litigation on the merits; (d) the Stipulation will include a
general release of defendants of claims relating to the
transaction; and (d) the proposed settlement is conditioned on
final approval by the Court after notice to Aruba shareholders.
There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or
that the Court will approve the settlement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to shareholders
of Aruba in connection with the proposed Merger.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the referenced lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the
extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with
any applicable fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering
into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further
litigation.


ASK FOODS: Recalls Ground Stuffing Products Due to Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
A.S.K. Foods Inc., a Palmyra, Penn. establishment, is recalling
approximately 414 pounds of ground stuffing product due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains soy lecithin, a known allergen which is not
declared on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

3-pound plastic tubs of Wegman's Herb Stuffing, With Pork and
Veal, with plant EST. 9551 printed on the label.

This item was produced on May 5, 8, and 12 of 2015. The product
bears the establishment number "EST. 9551" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. This item was shipped to Wegman's Grocery stores for
in-store Meat Department sales in Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered when an FSIS inspector performing
routine labeling verification noticed that the bread crumb
ingredient contained soy lecithin as a processing aid.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Sandy Grubb,
Customer Service at 1-717-838-6356 Ext 132.  Media with questions
should contact Wendie DiMatteo Holsinger, CEO, at
1-717-838-6356 Ext 132.


AT&T INC: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03716 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a multinational telecommunications
corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
      Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
      E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com
              daaron@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
      Brianna M. Primozic, Esq.
      POSNER & ROSEN LLP
      3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 389-6050
      Facsimile: (213) 389-0663
      E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com
              bprimozic@posner-rosen.com


BATS GLOBAL: High-Frequency Traders' Class Action Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Hope, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal judge dismissed three class-action lawsuits alleging stock
exchanges gave high-frequency traders an unfair advantage,
according to court documents.  The suits were inspired by
allegations made in author Michael Lewis' book "Flash Boys," which
last year argued the stock market was rigged in favor of
exchanges, big banks and high-frequency traders.

Harold Lanier, an individual investor and plaintiff in a case that
included three proposed class actions, alleged that exchanges
created an unfair marketplace by giving some trading firms and
banks a faster data feed for stock market prices than the data
feed used by other market participants.

On April 28, Judge Katherine Forest of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims, ruling
that the Securities and Exchange Commission approved of the way
the exchanges distributed data.  The suit was filed against all of
the U.S. stock exchanges, including those operated by BATS Global
Markets Inc., Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange
Inc.

Another lawsuit against high-frequency traders filed by the city
of Providence, Rhode Island, and other investors is ongoing. It,
too, was inspired by "Flash Boys," documents show.


BEST STORAGE: "Green" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Best Storage, Inc., Best Storage Northgate, L.P., and
Best Storage Constuction, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00118 (S.D. Tex.,
May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendant own and operate a Texas based company that
specializes in storage services, moving-truck rentals, and packing
supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
      WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 528-4455
      Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
      E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com


BI-LO SUPERMARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------
Bi-Lo Supermarket #5406, a Rossville, Ga. establishment, is
recalling approximately 11-22 pounds of ground beef products that
may be contaminated with pieces from a small plastic pop-up timer,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The ground beef item was produced on April 23, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 1-2 lb. packages of "Bi-Lo Market Style Ground Beef."
      The products subject to recall have a sell by date of
      4/25/15. These items were sold from one retail location to
      consumers from Georgia and Tennessee.

The problem was discovered by the company. The company notified
FDA of the issue and FDA notified FSIS on May 1, 2015.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
or oral injury associated with consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the consumer
call center, at (866) 946-6349. Media with questions about the
recall can contact Brian Wright, at media@biloholdings.com or
(904) 370-6029.

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


BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insider Asset Management, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Boulder Brands, Inc., Stephen B.
Hughes, James B. Leighton, and Christine Sacco, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01043 (D. Colo., May 18, 2015), asserts 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.

Boulder Brands, Inc. is a natural consumer packaged food company
with its principal executive offices located at 1600 Pearl Street,
Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


BRIDGEPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces "Sommers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Sommers, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Bridgepoint Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02748 (E.D. Pa.,
May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Bridgepoint Mortgage, LLC owns and operates a home loan and
mortgage company located at 259 East Market Street Bethlehem, PA
18018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV: Wins Ruling in Tuition Fee Hike Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Breeze reports that the Long Beach-based California State
University system acted properly when it hiked tuition in 2009,
despite claims by students that they were unfairly double-billed,
a jury ruled on April 30.

A San Francisco Superior Court jury voted 9-3 in favor of the
university, rejecting a class-action lawsuit that challenged the
validity of the CSU Board of Trustees' May 2009 vote to raise
tuition by 10 percent in the face of state funding shortfalls.

"The verdict affirms the California State University's commitment
to student success and the fiscal stability of the university for
future generations of Californians," said Framroze Virjee, CSU
executive vice chancellor and general counsel.  "While raising
tuition fees is always a decision of last resort, the CSU acted
reasonably and responsibly to preserve academic programs and
minimize disruption to students completing degree programs.

"With the state's reinvestment in the university, tuition fees
have remained stable for the past four years," Mr. Virjee said.
"The CSU continues to offer one of the most affordable quality
undergraduate degree programs in the nation."

Five students sued the CSU on behalf of about 200,000 students,
contending the fall 2009 tuition hike was illegal because they had
already paid their tuition for that semester.

The Board of Trustees voted on May 13, 2009 to boost tuition by 10
percent.  CSU officials said the system was facing "an
unprecedented and devastating financial crisis" at the time,
notably in the face of back-to-back cuts in state funding.  In
defending against the lawsuit, attorneys for the CSU argued that
students were repeatedly warned that tuition and fees can change
at any time.


CAMERA VIDEO: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Moore v. Camera Video Clinic, Hanik Avshman, and Anatole
Levant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00350 (E.D. Tex., May 18, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate stores that provide camera and video
equipment and related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane Allister McClelland, Esq.
      SIMON HERBERT & MCCLELLAND, LLP
      3411 Richmond Avenue, Suite 400
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 987-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 987-7120
      E-mail: smcclelland@shmsfirm.com


CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiff Obtained Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in a class
action obtained an order for class certification.

The Company asid, "In 2010, we received two subpoenas from the SEC
requesting documents relating to, among other things, certain
sales transactions in 2009 and whether those transactions
potentially impacted the guidance issued by us in advance of our
follow-on offering in October 2009. As part of its investigation,
the SEC requested that we voluntarily provide certain documents
and other information. We fully cooperated with the SEC and on
December 15, 2014, the SEC imposed a cease-and-desist order and
civil penalties against us and Mr. Yan Zhuang, our Senior Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer. The SEC found that we had
violated the reporting, books and records, and internal controls
provisions of the Exchange Act resulting from our recognition of
revenue for certain transactions with U.S. customers during the
second, third, and fourth quarters of 2009. The SEC also found
that Mr. Zhuang was a cause of the violations. In addition, the
SEC found that by directing a customer to make certain revisions
to purchase orders, Mr. Zhuang had also violated Section 13(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act. In anticipation of the proceedings leading up
to the order, we and Mr. Zhuang submitted offers of settlement,
which the SEC accepted. Pursuant to the proceedings, the SEC
ordered us to cease and desist from committing any future
violations of the relevant provisions of the Exchange Act and
imposed a $500,000 civil money penalty. Similarly, the SEC ordered
Mr. Zhuang to cease and desist from committing any future
violations of the relevant provisions of the Exchange Act and pay
a $50,000 civil money penalty."

"Following the two subpoenas from the SEC in 2010, six class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and another
class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the California case. The New
York cases were consolidated into a single action in December
2010.

"On January 5, 2011, the California case was dismissed by the
plaintiff, who became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the
New York action. On March 11, 2011, a Consolidated Complaint was
filed with respect to the New York action. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged generally that our financial disclosures during
2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading; asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder; and named us, our chief executive officer and our
former chief financial officer as defendants. We filed our motion
to dismiss in May 2011, which was taken under submission by the
Court in July 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the
Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend, and the plaintiffs
filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint against the same
defendants on April 19, 2012. On March 29, 2013, the Court
dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against us
and certain named defendants alleging that our financial
disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading
and in violation of federal securities law. The court found that
the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a securities law
violation and granted our motion to dismiss all claims against all
defendants with prejudice. On December 20, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order
dismissing such class action lawsuit.

"In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against us
and certain of our executive officers in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice on August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges generally
that our financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or
misleading and brings claims under the shareholders' relief
provisions of the CBCA, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act
as well as claims based on negligent misrepresentation.

"In December 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario action
on the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the
claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff. The court
dismissed our motion on August 29, 2011. On March 30, 2012, the
Ontario Court of Appeal denied our appeal with regard to our
jurisdictional motion. On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of
Canada denied our application for leave to appeal the order of the
Ontario Court of Appeal.

"The plaintiff's motions for class certification and leave to
assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities
Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled for
argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013.
However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the
plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling us to file
additional evidence on the motions. On July 29, 2013, the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence. On September
24, 2013, the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal from the
July 29 order was dismissed.

"In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order granting him
leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario
Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation claims. In
January 2015, the plaintiff obtained an order for class
certification in respect of the claims for which he obtained leave
to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario
Securities Act, for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and
for oppression remedy claims advanced under the CBCA. We are
seeking leave to appeal from specific aspects of these two
decisions. The motion for leave to appeal will be decided in 2015.
We believe the Ontario action is without merit and we are
defending it vigorously."


CAPRI NAILS: Faces "Rong" Suit Over Failure Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
James Rong, Individually and on Behalf of Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Capri Nails and Eco Spa, Inc, Jae Woo Kim a/k/a David
Kim, Case No. 2:15-cv-02824 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 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 nail salon and spa on Oceanside,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Samuel, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      Facsimile: (212) 563-9870
      E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Faces Second Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Jennings, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that
two more Coco's Bakery locations in Southern California closed on
Thursday, officials with owner Food Management Partners, or FMP,
confirmed.  FMP, the new owner of parent company Catalina
Restaurant Group Inc., has closed a total of 77 locations in
recent weeks.  Catalina operates and franchises the Coco's Bakery
and Carrows family-dining brands.  As of March 31, it operated 149
restaurants.

The news comes as a second class-action lawsuit was filed, citing
both Carlsbad, Calif.-based Catalina Restaurant Group, as well as
new owners San Antonio-based FMP and other unnamed defendants, for
failing to give workers adequate notice of mass layoffs, according
to court documents.

FMP acquired Catalina in March. On April 1, its first day of
ownership, FMP abruptly closed 38 Coco's Bakery units and 35
Carrows restaurants, as well as two units of the fast-casual Ranch
House Cafe and Grill brand, according to former employees.

FMP officials confirmed on April 30 that two more Coco's
locations, in Santa Maria and Manhattan Beach, Calif., were
closed, but offered no details.  In the past, officials said it
was necessary to close restaurants that were not performing at a
competitive level to make both brands stronger.

Former employees said thousands of workers were left jobless after
the restaurants closed without warning.  Many learned of the
closures when they showed up for work and found a sign on the
door.

The layoffs also included an unknown number of workers at
Catalina's Carlsbad headquarters.

On April 27, a group of former workers from Orange County and Los
Angeles County, Calif., filed a class-action lawsuit citing
violations of federal and state labor codes known as Worker
Readjustment and Retraining, or WARN, acts.  The federal WARN Act
requires employers of 100 or more workers to give 60 days notice
of a plant or facility closure that impacts at least 50 full-time
employees.

Filed in the U.S. District Court of Central California, the
lawsuit names plaintiffs identified as Roseann Barnett, Gary
Bowles, Onesimo Cantoran, Sabino Gonzales, Adriana Macias, Marcos
Miranda, Angel Ortiz, Maria Ramirez and Violeta Ramirez, all of
whom have worked for Catalina for the past six months, for at
least 20 hours per week.

The lawsuit seeks civil penalties of $500 per day for each
violation, back pay and reimbursement of medical expenses that
would have been covered under the employee benefit plan.  The suit
is the second such case.  On April 8, former employee Ronald Ross
filed a class-action lawsuit, also citing WARN Act violations.

According to Nation's Restaurant News' Second 100 census, Coco's
had estimated U.S. systemwide sales of $141.5 million for fiscal
2013, a decrease of nearly 2 percent from the previous year.  The
chain had 113 units at the end of the year.

Carrows had estimated domestic systemwide sales of $55.2 million,
a decrease of nearly 5 percent from the previous year. The chain
had 58 units at the end of the year.

The family-dining segment has been showing strength recently, due
in part to lower gas prices, analyst Mark Kalinowski of Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC said in a report on April 30.  Both IHOP and
Denny's have reported strong same-store sales increases.

But the struggles of the Coco's and Carrows brands indicate that
"a rising tide does not lift all boats -- a lot of hard work, and
smart work, goes into making a restaurant concept successful, even
in a segment blessed with some outside help," Mr. Kalinowski
wrote.

Both IHOP and Denny's have made meaningful improvements to their
concepts, he noted.  And because both brands were born in
California and have a strong presence in the state, both will
likely benefit from the Catalina closures, he said.

"With over 70 Coco's and Carrows combined closing, and with most
of those closures apparently coming in California, it seems that
some IHOP and Denny's restaurants in the Golden State could
benefit in terms of new patrons," he wrote.  "We think they'll
like what they find."


CELERA CORP: June 28 Deadline to File Claim in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
GroundReport.com reports that the Shareholders Foundation
disclosed that a deadline is coming up on June 28, 2015 in the
settlement reached in the securities class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of investors who purchased shares of Celera Corporation
(formerly NASDAQ: CRA; Celera Corporation was acquired by Quest
Diagnostics in 2011) between April 24, 2008 to July 22, 2009.

Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of Celera
Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: CRA) between April 24, 2008 to July
22, 2009, have certain options and should contact the Shareholders
Foundation by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call
+1(858) 779 - 1554.

The settlement proof of claim form or detailed settlement notice
for the settlement in the Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ:
CRA) Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit can be downloaded
at: http://shareholdersfoundation.com/case/celera-corporation-
nasdaq-cra-investor-securities-class-action-lawsuit-06142010

In order to submit a claim an investor has to submit the claim
proof to the class action claim administrator in a timely manner.
The deadline to submit the proof with the class administrator is
June 28, 2015.  The class action administrator for this case is
Gilardi & Co LLC.

The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation
over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection
with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
between April 24, 2008 and July 22, 2009.  According to the
complaint the plaintiff alleges that Celera Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between April 24, 2008 and July
22, 2009 false and misleading statements regarding its business
and financial results, repeatedly assuring investors that Celera
Corporation would be able to increase the amount of its Lab
Services business that was under contract, thus making its ability
to collect on its receivables more predictable and less costly and
time consuming.  Defendants further assured investors that Celera
Corporation was adequately reserving for its bad debts.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, Celera Corporation stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period, trading as high as $16.23 per share in September 2008.

Then on July 22, 2009, Celera Corporation announced that its
"second quarter 2009 revenues relative to the prior year quarter
[were] expected to show a reduction for Celera Corporation's Lab
Services business."  According to Celera Corporation, the Lab
Services revenues were "adversely affected by lower than
anticipated sample volume due to broad economic pressures, lost
business as a result of the Company's efforts to collect aged
receivables, and the denial of reimbursement on a number of legacy
. . . tests by certain payors in some regions."  In addition,
Celera Corporation expected to record "significant charges in the
second quarter of 2009 for bad debt expense and impairment of
goodwill and intangible assets."  On this news, so the complaint,
Celera Corp's stock declined $1.91 per share to close at $5.83 per
share on July 23, 2009, a one-day decline of nearly 25%.

Celera Corporation, located in Alameda, California, is a
healthcare business focusing on the integration of genetic testing
into routine clinical care through a combination of products and
services.

Those who purchased shares of Celera Corporation (formerly NASDAQ:
CRA) have certain options and should contact the Shareholders
Foundation.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc., a biomedicine firm engaged in the
development of effective stem cell therapies for degenerative
diseases and immunotherapies for cancer, on April 30 disclosed
that it intends to vigorously defend against the claims made in a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed against the company
and two of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The complaint is based in
large part on an anonymous article published on the Seeking Alpha
website, which CBMG has already addressed on its website.  CBMG
has reviewed the complaint and views the allegations as meritless.

Adrienne Marie Ward of Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP ("EGS") will
serve as lead defense counsel for CBMG and its officers. Barry
Grossman of EGS will also advise the Company in connection with
its defense of the class actions.

               About Cellular Biomedicine Group

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. -- http://www.cellbiomedgroup.com
-- develops proprietary cell therapies for the treatment of
certain degenerative diseases and cancers.


CHC GROUP: Removed "McCrory" Class Suit to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. removed the class action captioned Peter McCrory,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHC
Group Ltd., et al., Case No. 651272/2015 from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      Scott Jacobsen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              sjacobsen@scott-scott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew J. Levander, Esq.
      DECHERT LLP
      1095 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10036-6797
      Telephone: (212) 698-3500
      E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com


CMG OIL: Sued in D.N.D. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lankford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CMG Oil & Gas, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00061-CSM
(D.N.D., May 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent the mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's
Ross, North Dakota site of employment.

CMG Oil & Gas, Inc. owns and operates gas stations with principal
place of business located at 9101 62nd Ave NW, Ross, North Dakota
58776.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Case Goes Back to Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation will be sent back to the
district court for continued proceedings, including completion of
discovery, motions, and trial.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing
conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of
natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs are making claims for the following:  full
consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs,
interest, and/or attorney fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases.
The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court decision and remanded the case to the
district court judge for further proceedings.  The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases.  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial
of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims.

In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In July 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.  In April 2015, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  The case
will now be sent back to the district court for continued
proceedings, including completion of discovery, motions, and
trial.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Burt" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beneta D. Burt, Judy Dillon,, Willie Dillon, Jeanne M. Lyles,
Brent Halversen, Stacia Winfield, Catherine Dingle, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision,
Inc. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson
& Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-cise Optical Group, LLC
a/k/a ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-00616-HLA-JBT (M.D.
Fla., May 18, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a
conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens
lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies
(UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big
box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that
prevent them from discounting those products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Courtney Kneece Grimm, Esq.
      John Andrew DeVault III, Esq.
      BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, PA
      The Bedell Bldg
      101 E Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 353-0211
      Facsimile: (904) 353-9307
      E-mail: cgrimm@bedellfirm.com
              jad@bedellfirm.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO AND KARON, PC
      55 Public Square, Suite 1500
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 622-1851
      Facsimile: (216) 622-1852
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com


CRYSTAL TOUCH: Faces "Monarca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Martinez-Monarca, Hilda Lucero, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Crystal Touch Cleaners, Inc. and
Bener Kandkhorov Case No. 1:15-cv-03791-KBF (S.D.N.Y., May 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dry cleaning and laundry shop
located at 607 Westchester Avenue, Bronx, New York 10455.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


CULINARY BRANDS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------
Culinary Brands Inc., a Vernon, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 4,038 pounds of pork products due to misbranding and
an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The pork product
was mistakenly mislabeled and may contain the wrong product, a
mushroom risotto which contains wheat, a known allergen which is
not declared on the product label.

The pork chile verde product was produced on March 30 and April 2,
2015. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 9-oz. plastic tray packages labeled "Simply Balanced Pork
      Chile Verde" bearing lot #A5089G2.
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
6009" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced
were shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received a customer
complaint that the package contained the wrong product.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Frank Calma, Chief Executive Officer, at (626) 289-3000 (ext.
116).


EBAY INC: Defending Against Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that "In May 2014, we publicly
announced that criminals were able to penetrate our network and
steal certain data, including user names, encrypted user passwords
and other non-financial user data, from eBay's Marketplaces
business unit. Upon making this announcement, eBay Marketplaces
required all buyers and sellers on the Marketplaces platform to
reset their passwords in order to login to their account. In
addition to making this public announcement, we proactively
approached a number of regulatory and governmental bodies,
including those with the most direct supervisory authority over
our data privacy and data security programs, to specifically
inform them of the incident and our actions to protect our
customers in response. Certain of those regulatory agencies have
requested us to provide further, more detailed information
regarding the incident, and we believe that we have fully
cooperated in all of those requests. To date, we have not been
informed by any regulatory authority of an intention to bring any
enforcement action arising from this incident; however, in the
future we may be subject to fines or other regulatory action.  In
addition, in July 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us for alleged violations and harm resulting from the
incident. We are vigorously defending the lawsuit."


ENVIVIO INC: Funded Settlement Amount Into Escrow Account
---------------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc. has funded into an escrow account its portion of a
class action settlement of approximately $1.0 million, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
January 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley
v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, each of our directors, our chief executive officer, our
chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of our IPO. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief."

"On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v.
Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On
November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California where they
were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW. A
similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012
entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and
Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior
Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

"On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933-
PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of
purchasers of our securities between April 25, 2012 and September
7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and our chief
executive officer and chief financial officer, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. In November 2014, we reached an agreement in
principle to settle the above-described actions without any
admission of any wrongdoing by us or any of the named defendants.
The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement
agreement, which must be approved by the court before becoming
final. The agreement requires us to contribute approximately $1.0
million toward the settlement. On March 16, 2015, we funded into
an escrow account our portion of the settlement of approximately
$1.0 million, and the remaining settlement payment will be covered
by our director and officer insurance providers. The settlement
payment will be released from escrow subject to and upon final
court approval of the settlement."


FACEBOOK INC: Filed Opposition to Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company filed its
opposition to class certification.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in
other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of
our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering
(IPO) and seeking unspecified damages. We believe these lawsuits
are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
them. The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along
with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as
NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by
NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York."

"In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and
granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our
directors and certain of our officers. The plaintiffs in four of
these derivative actions have filed notices of appeal. The appeals
have been fully briefed. On December 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in
the consolidated securities class action filed their motion for
class certification. On April 10, 2015, we filed our opposition to
class certification. In addition, the events surrounding our IPO
became the subject of various state and federal government
inquiries. In May 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) notified us that it had terminated its inquiry and that no
enforcement action had been recommended by the SEC."


FIRST AMERICAN: Defending Class Actions Over Improper Rate
----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents charged
an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction,
including:

** Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

** Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho, and

** Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County,
Florida.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only
granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone.  The Company has
been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been
able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is
immaterial to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a
whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the
Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, including:

** Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June
12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified.  The Company has
been unable to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Decertified
------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

** Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed
on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District
Court of Connecticut.

The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently
decertified.  The Company has not yet been able to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Sager v. Interthinx Case Not Yet Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
misclassified certain employees, including:

** Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.

Sager is a putative class action for which a class has not been
certified.  The Company has not yet been able to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: 7 Class Action Cases Not Yet Certified
------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services,
denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain
documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders and
others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain
laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations,
including:

** Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court of the
State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw,

** Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District
Court of New Jersey,

** Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky,

** Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

** Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

** Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

** Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado,

** Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, and

** In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal.
The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FITBIT: Faces New Round of Rash Complaints
------------------------------------------
Cristin Severance, writing for 10 News, reports that Team 10
uncovered several hundred new complaints about Fitbits that were
supposed to be fixed.  People are complaining online and to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission about rashes while wearing the
popular fitness trackers.  However, Fitbit stands by their
products and blames new rashes on users wearing the products too
tightly.

                          Rash of Rashes

Leslie Fisher bought a Fitbit two years ago after learning she was
pre-diabetic.

"Is it a bummer that I can't have red velvet cake -- yeah, but I
feel a lot better," the 45-year-old said.

The education and technology keynote speaker feels better thanks
to the high-tech tracker that never leaves her wrist.

Her Fitbit Charge helps her monitor her calories, steps and
exercise.

"For me, it was a great way to take the weight off and also to
live a healthier lifestyle," said Fisher.

Fisher was so happy with her first Fitbit Flex that she then
bought the Force.

"I love it -- absolutely love the concept. I love that I had a
watch on my hand. Love that I could see my data right there," she
said.

Fisher loved the Force too, until she said it abruptly woke her up
one night.

"It felt itchy, like you got bit by something," she said.

Fisher said her itch grew into a rash that eventually scabbed
over.  She checked online and learned that hundreds of people were
experiencing the same rash from the Force.

"I ended up with a scar . . . that was from the scab," she said.

Kim Reichelt in Boston was one of the first Force owners to
complain of a red, flaky rash.  The mom of three sent Team 10
pictures of her injuries from the fitness tracker.

"It was disgusting. It looked like some sort of industrial burn,"
said Reichelt.

Fitbit voluntarily recalled one million Force Fitbits in February
2014 after 10,000 people complained to the CPSC.  Fitbit said the
rashes from the Force were from users who experienced allergic
contact dermatitis and likely reacted to the adhesives used to
manufacture Force or, to a lesser degree, nickel in the stainless
steel casing.

"They discontinued the other band and they came out with this
replacement," said Fisher.

                  New products, New Rash Reports

Fitbit released the Surge, Charge and Charge HR at the end of
2014.  Fisher continued her commitment to Fitbit with the Charge.

"Within a week of owning it I got another rash," she said.

Fitbit promised the adhesive in the new products would not make
contact with the skin, but Team 10 found hundreds of rash
complaints online from Surge, Charge and Charge HR owners.  People
posted pictures of their rashes on Twitter, Facebook and
Instagram, while Fisher showed us other complaints on the Fitbit
forum.

"Day 3 with my 'new won't irritate skin' fitbt [sic] charge," one
Charge owner tweeted.

"I got the new surge, also got this rash," said another Surge
owner.

"I sent a tweet to Fitbit, I can't believe I have another rash.
Went online and sure enough other people were getting rashes as
well," said Fisher.

                           Lawsuit filed

Force and Flex injury lawsuits were filed in San Diego in March
2014 by John Fiske of John Gomez Trial Attorneys, on behalf of
Force users.  Tim Lapean in Saint Paul, Minnesota, is also
represented by Gomez Trial Attorneys, but he got his rash from the
Surge.  A new lawsuit has not been filed on behalf of Surge and
Charge owners.

"I didn't buy the other ones because of the rashes, but I had
heard with the new ones, they fixed the issues," said Lapean.

He called Fitbit's response to his rash complaint demeaning.

"They told me I was wearing it wrong and they sent me a pdf that
basically told me how to wear a watch," said Lapean.

Fitbit tells users complaining of rashes online to take off the
watch, and the company blames the new round of rashes on users
wearing it too tight.

"If there was any question, why would they release another one?"
asked Lapean.

                        Questions Over Cause

Many Fitbit owners wonder if the nickel or adhesive were the right
problems to address.

CEO James Park wrote in his October 2014 blog: "Independent test
results have not found any issues with the battery or electrical
systems."

Team 10 uncovered that the CPSC continued testing after the recall
and that chemicals from the battery were a plausible cause of the
reactions in a more than 500-page Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) response.

"If people are still getting rashes then it's obviously not
fixed," said Fredrick.

A CPSC spokeswoman told Team 10 they can't talk specifically about
a company unless that company gives them permission.

Team 10 found people are reporting rashes from the Surge and
Charge on the CPSC website Safeproducts.gov.

                          Fitbit responds

The company responded to a number of questions regarding the new
complaints:

"We learned a lot from Force, which was voluntarily recalled early
last year, and have applied these learnings to all of our
products.  While Force's housing and band were held together with
adhesive, which was determined to be the cause of nearly all
allergic reactions, the housing and band for Fitbit's new products
are held together with screws, completely eliminating the
potential for any adhesive to contact the skin.  We also
significantly reduced the amount of surgical-grade stainless
steel.  We have conducted extensive testing with laboratories and
consulted with top dermatologists to develop stringent standards
so that users can safely wear and enjoy our products, and we have
worked to ensure that our new products meet those stringent
standards.

As part of our commitment to help consumers live a healthier, more
active life, we've created a board of leading, certified
dermatologists who have helped us enhance our testing protocols
and develop wear and care guidelines so our users can maximize
their enjoyment of Fitbit products.  These guidelines are
available at www.fitbit.com/productcare."

Team 10: Was any more testing done to find out what caused the
rashes with the Force product?

"  -- Fitbit conducted a thorough investigation with Force and
found users who experienced allergic contact dermatitis likely
reacted to the adhesives used to manufacture Force or, to a lesser
degree, nickel in the stainless steel casing.  We have made this
information available to our users through this open letter from
the CEO: http://www.fitbit.com/forcesupport.

  -- Reactions we are seeing with other products are different
from the allergic reactions we saw with Force, and are not
uncommon with jewelry or wearable devices that stay in contact
with the skin for extended periods.  According to our consulting
dermatologists, they are likely from wearing the band too tight;
sweat, water, or soap being held against the skin under the
device; or from pressure or friction against the skin, and should
resolve quickly when users take a break from the device, usually
within hours or days."

Team 10: Are you getting complaints of rashes with the Surge,
Charge and Charge HR products, and if so, what is the company
telling customers and what do you believe is causing these rashes?

"We continue to be aware of very limited reports of skin
irritation by our users.  As the user base grows, we expect the
number of reports to grow even though the overall incidence rate
remains negligible.

The reactions we are seeing with new products are different from
the allergic reactions we saw with Force, and are not uncommon
with jewelry or wearable devices that stay in contact with the
skin for extended periods.  According to our consulting
dermatologists, they are likely from wearing the band too tight;
sweat, water, or soap being held against the skin under the
device; or from pressure or friction against the skin, and should
resolve quickly when users take a break from the device, usually
within hours or days.

We are encouraging anyone wearing an activity tracking wristband,
regardless of the brand, to follow four key elements for maximum
enjoyment: keep it clean, keep it dry, don't wear it too tight,
and give your wrist a rest.  These guidelines are available at
www.fitbit.com/productcare."

Team 10: Fitbit stated that independent testing did not find any
issues with the battery or electrical systems, but an email from
the CPSC in May of 2014 shows they continued testing after the
recall and that chemicals from the battery were a plausible cause
of the reactions.  Do you have any comment?

"  -- Independent test results have not found any issues with the
battery or electrical systems.

  -- Any issue a user experiences is likely from wearing the band
too tight; having something get under the device and held against
the skin; or from pressure or friction against the skin.  In any
of these circumstances, the issue could be located near the
charging port.

  -- We continue to monitor this issue, as it impacts all
companies that make products worn next to the skin, particularly
the wearables industry as people tend to wear devices for long
periods without giving their skin a break."


GALESBURG, IL: Teachers' Unions's Grievances Head to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zigterman, writing for The Register-Mail, reports that the
Galesburg teachers' union's grievances against District 205 appear
to be headed to arbitration.  The two grievances, filed with the
Illinois Education Association, accuse the district of not
applying the evaluations consistently across the different schools
in the district.

"One has specifically to do with inconsistencies in the
evaluations," Galesburg Education Association President
David Sharp said.  "And the other one also addresses a specific as
to how a certain evaluation was done and how it was different than
the rest of them."

He added, "We feel strongly that we needed to file the grievances
and that we need to come up with a solution to make it more
consistent.  That's my goal."

The GEA filed the grievances with the district about two months
ago, Mr. Sharp said, and Superintendent Bart Arthur denied them
earlier in April.

"They filed them as class action grievances," Mr. Arthur said.
"We denied them because there's only one person in each grievance
that they allege we violated their rights.  Class action is the
whole group. Basically they were fishing to see if there were
other people involved, and there weren't.  We feel we didn't do
anything contractually wrong with the procedures.  We're solid on
our stance."

Since the grievances couldn't be resolved at the local level, the
GEA has filed them with the IEA, which will decide whether to move
toward arbitration.  If it does, the IEA will notify the district
that the GEA is seeking arbitration.

Mr. Sharp noted that the GEA and district can still avoid
arbitration.

"I'm still willing to work with administration to get a solution
to this grievance problem so that it doesn't have to go all the
way to arbitration," Mr. Sharp said.

Overall, Mr. Sharp said relations with the district have improved
since last year's teachers' strike.

"I'm pretty happy with the progress that's been made," Mr. Sharp
said. "There has been a line of communication that has been opened
up that wasn't necessarily there in the past, and there has been
some issues and concerns that we've had, and we met and came to
solutions."


GAWKER MEDIA: Use of Social Media to Notify Class Members Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gauri Punjabi, Esq. -- GPPunjabi@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that in what appears to be a sign
of things to come, a federal court in New York recently approved
the use of social media to notify potential class members who were
more likely to be reached that way rather than by more traditional
forms of notice, such as regular mail.  The order permitting
social media use comes on the heels of a similar order by a
federal court in California.

In Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, former unpaid interns brought a
collective/class action against Gawker alleging violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law.
Recognizing that most, if not all, of the potential class members
use social media, a New York federal court allowed the interns to
submit a proposal to notify them through this medium.  The interns
initially proposed to give notice using a Twitter account called
"GawkerInterns" in conjunction with several hashtags; creating a
public LinkedIn group called "Gawker Intern Lawsuit" where any
person, whether inside or outside of the class, could comment;
posting a link to the Court-authorized notice on multiple Reddit
pages and on Tumblr; and "friending" interns on Facebook, sending
them messages directing them to the lawsuit website, and
publishing a public Facebook group called "GawkerInternLawsuit".

The court rejected the interns' initial proposal in its entirety,
finding it substantially overbroad.  The Court had expected the
interns to use social media to provide private, personalized
notifications to potential class members whose identities were
known but could not be reached through other means.  The interns'
proposal, on the other hand, provided, at best, messages to the
general public and lacked "any realistic notice of specifically
targeting its notice to individuals with opt-in rights."  It was
clear to the Court that the primary purpose of the interns'
proposal was to punish Gawker by publicizing the lawsuit rather
than provide notice of opt-in rights.  But the court did let the
plaintiffs take another stab at a revised proposal and this time
it gave the thumbs up.

The revised proposal was far narrower and allowed notice via
social media with a message "substantially similar" to that
contained in traditional forms of notice already approved by the
Court and therefore removed "the danger of simply advertising a
lawsuit against Defendants."  Specifically, the plaintiffs
proposed utilizing:

Twitter: the plaintiffs using the handle @Gawkerintern would
follow the intern and then if the intern followed them back, the
plaintiffs would send them a private message about how to join the
lawsuit.

Facebook: plaintiffs would try to "friend" the interns and send
them a message about the lawsuit; alternatively, if they did not
accept the friend request, they could send a private Facebook
message.

LinkedIn: plaintiffs could send an "In-Mail" message to the intern
about the lawsuit.

The court largely accepted the proposal except that it required
the plaintiffs to "unfollow" interns who did not respond to the
private Twitter message, and it did not allow them to "friend" any
interns on Facebook; at most, they could send them a private
Facebook message.

The Gawker Court was not the first and will not be the last court
to approve of the use of social media to provide notice.  In
March, a federal court in California, in Woods v. Vector Mkt.
Corp., granted a proposal to provide notice of a FLSA collective
action using Facebook.  Unlike in Gawker, these plaintiffs
proposed using a short Facebook ad that required users to enter
their last name and last four digits of their social security
numbers before redirecting them to the official case website and
long-form notice of their opt in rights.  Because it was not clear
that email could provide a reliable form of contact to these
potential class members, the court found the Facebook ad a
"particularly useful form of ensuring actual notice."  The court
further found that the proposed verification process would filter
out ineligible claims.  Courts have also approved the use of
social media to distribute other forms of legal notice.  For
example, a New York state family court allowed a summons and
petition to be served via Facebook on an individual in a child
support proceeding who maintained an active presence on Facebook
but whose actual physical whereabouts were uncertain.

As social media use continues to grow, it is likely courts will
increasingly approve of notification via social media where it is
more likely to reach potential class members or other parties that
way.  In order to avoid the use of social media, employers,
therefore, should maintain up-to-date records of employees'
traditional contact information.


GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending by Vehicle Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that through April 20, 2015
the Company is aware of 108 putative class actions pending against
GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging
that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM
or General Motors Corporation.

The Company said, "In the year ended December 31, 2014 we
announced a number of recalls relating to safety, customer
satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to
repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances
unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or
"off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in
turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash."

"Through April 20, 2015 we were aware of 108 putative class
actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial
courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased
vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases). Additionally, through April
20, 2015 we were aware of 21 putative class actions pending in
various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that
sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S. In the aggregate
these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as
well as punitive damages and injunctive and other relief.

"Through April 20, 2015 we were aware of 144 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM
alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the
subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In
the aggregate these personal injury cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief.

"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that
certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits
involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that
may be related to the recalls announced in the year ended December
31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal
court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict
litigation). Through April 20, 2015 192 cases have been
transferred to, and consolidated with, the multidistrict
litigation.

"Because many of the plaintiffs in the actions described in the
above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors
Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for
liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the
terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted
against us for, among other things, personal injury claims based
on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or
conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting
successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors
Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the
Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision precluding claims against us
based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or
conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability
claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been
expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims
that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise
viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing
acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General
Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will
appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision."


GENERAL MOTORS: NY Teachers File Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the putative
shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court appointed the New
York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On
January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several
current and former officers and employees (the Defendants). On
behalf of purchasers of GM common stock from November 17, 2010 to
July 24, 2014, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges
that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating
to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC
filings and other public statements. On March 13, 2015 Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.


GENERAL MOTORS: Trial Held on Class Issues in GMCL Dealers' Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial of the class
issues in the GMCL Dealers' Claim was completed in the fourth
quarter of 2014.

On February 12, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL.

In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the
business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to
initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff
Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from
the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such
other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010.
The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to
comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory
duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff
Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the
Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The
Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down
agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial
pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" Canadian
Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure
of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted
out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the
certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in the
fourth quarter of 2014.

"We are now awaiting a decision from the Ontario Superior Court.
The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because
liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to
this litigation. We cannot estimate the range of reasonably
possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a
variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes
are valid," the Company said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Litigation Over Ordinary Wages Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is party
to litigation with current and former salaried employees over
allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation.

The Company said, "Commencing on or about September 29, 2010
current and former hourly employees of GM Korea Company (GM Korea)
filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court
in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than
10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses
and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due
under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act.
On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level
appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the
Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees
which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and
initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation
of the relevant statute."

"In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case
involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed
many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea
and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is
favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held
that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of
Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive
application of this rule would be barred under certain
circumstances.

"On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with
respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and
remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its
December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union
agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages
retroactively to March 1, 2014. Therefore our accrual related to
these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the
Pensions liability.

"We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450,
"Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 568 billion
South Korean Won (equivalent to $512 million) at March 31, 2015,
which relates to periods before March 1, 2014.

"We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried
employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation.
At March 31, 2015 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in
excess of the amount of our accrual of 168 billion South Korean
Won (equivalent to $152 million). Both the scope of claims
asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual
claim elements may change if new information becomes available.
These cases are currently pending before various district courts
in Korea and the Supreme Court."


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Filed in Inventory Mgmt Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff filed an
appeal in the Inventory Management Securities Class Action.

The Company said, "On June 29, 2012 a putative securities class
action was filed against us and a number of our past and current
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (George G. Scott v. General Motors
Company et al). Purporting to sue on behalf of owners of common
stock deriving from our 2010 initial public offering, plaintiff
asserts non-fraud prospectus based liability claims under various
federal securities statutes alleging that the Company has made
false statements about its vehicle inventory controls and
production decisions, particularly with respect to full-size
trucks. The plaintiff's complaint requests compensatory damages,
rescission and litigation costs, fees and disbursements. On
November 21, 2012 the court appointed the Teamster's Local 710
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the matter. On February 1, 2013
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 4, 2014 the
district court granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the
case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an appeal."


GILLEX FOODS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown v. Gillex Foods, Inc., d/b/a
Subway, Sab Food, Inc., d/b/a Subway, and Minhaz Lakhani, Case No.
1:15-cv-04363 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Subway franchise with several
locations in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Considers Class Action Over Zofran
------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago law firm said it is considering filing the first
nationwide class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the
makers of Zofran, a powerful anti-nausea drug alleged to increase
the risk of birth defects when used by pregnant women,
particularly during the first trimester.

Moll Law Group (www.molllawgroup.com) reports that, based on a
federal investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
announced that GSK agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion to
resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the
company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs,
including Zofran.  The law firm notes, however, that this ruling
does not specifically address the severe fetal defects that Zofran
allegedly may cause.

"As early as 1992, GSK began receiving more than 200 reports of
birth defects associated with the use of Zofran by pregnant women,
conditions ranging from congenital heart, orofacial and septal
defects to kidney malformation and even stillbirths," said
attorney Ken Moll of Moll Law Group, which concentrates in product
liability and protecting the rights of consumers.  "We believe the
number of events reported to GSK is only a small fraction of the
actual incidents.  However, in all that time, GSK failed to warn
and never updated Zofran's labeling to disclose that the drug can
cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

"Despite evidence showing the unreasonable risk of harm to babies
exposed to Zofran prenatally, GSK continued to promote to
obstetrics and gynecology healthcare practitioners, among others,
that Zofran is a safe treatment alternative for morning sickness
in pregnant women," Moll said.  "In addition, back in 1999, the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) directed GSK to immediately
cease distribution of its promotional materials about the drug, a
mandate we believe was disregarded.

"The Zofran lawsuit we are considering would focus on such acts
and how GSK failed to protect newborns from serious and life-
threatening medical conditions," Moll added.  Moll said his firm
has initiated discussions with women whose babies were possibly
affected through use of Zofran during pregnancy and is available
to talk to others (Moll can be contacted at 312-462-1700).

According to Moll, GSK developed Zofran to treat cancer patients
afflicted with severe cases of nausea that resulted from
chemotherapy or radiation treatments.  The FDA approved Zofran for
such use in 1991.

"However, due to the many cases of pregnancy-related nausea, and
the absence then of a prescription medication approved by the FDA
for such a condition, GSK recognized an opportunity to
significantly expand sales of Zofran and proceeded to promote its
off-label use to pregnant women," said Moll.

A new FDA rule that takes effect this June will help expand the
availability of information about drugs such as Zofran, Moll said.
The rule will require manufacturers to summarize the risks of
using a drug during pregnancy, offer data to support that summary,
and provide healthcare providers key information to help them
counsel pregnant women about the use of drugs.

"But GSK should be taking measures immediately to comply with this
vital FDA stipulation to prevent further harm and injuries to
newborns," said Moll.

                          About Moll Law Group

Chicago-based Moll Law Group represents people around the nation
who were severely injured, and families who have lost a loved one,
due to defective products, dangerous prescription drugs, faulty
medical devices or unsafe vehicles.


HALLIBURTON CO: Fact Discovery & Other Pretrial Deadlines Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the securities and
related litigation, the district court has held a hearing to
consider whether there was an impact on the Company's stock price
from the alleged misrepresentations, and fact discovery and other
pretrial deadlines have been stayed.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed
against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
initiated an investigation in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed
a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in
March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and
us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order
in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The
Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In January
2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and
accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011
and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit
ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to
obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the
Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was
returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of our
other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit
returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the
court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition
for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In
April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the
District Court's order certifying the class.

"We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November
2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held
before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued
its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class
member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but
holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by
presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price
from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and
the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court
vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. Fact discovery and other pretrial deadlines
have been stayed. The court has not yet issued a ruling on class
certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."


HUNT'S POINT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Sanchez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class v. Hunt's Point
Triangle, Inc., William Hangan, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No.
1:15-cv-03787 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Hunt's Point Triangle, an adult
entertainment club in the County of Bronx. New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George Theodore Peters, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS
      402 W. 145th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10031
      Telephone: (347) 751-0157
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0921
      E-mail: george.peters@myatty1.com


IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Copper Sleeves, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ideavillage Products Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-03365-ES-
JAD (D.N.J., May 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
purchasers of  Copper Fit brand knee and elbow sleeves that were
falsely marketed by the Defendant that the products help relieve
aches and pains and speed muscle recovery time. In fact, they do
not provide any additional benefits beyond those provided by
ordinary, less expensive, non-copper-infused knee and elbow
sleeves.

Ideavillage Products Corp. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in Wayne, New Jersey. Ideavillage
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells Copper Fit brand
copper-infused knee and elbow sleeves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1819
      E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1819
      E-mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: 314-226-1015
      Facsimile: 202-789-1819
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rashelquist@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
              bomarty@hudsonlaw.net

         - and -

      Erica Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Removed "Mansour" Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Stephen Mansour, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iDreamSky
Technology, Ltd., et al., Case No. 651340/2015, was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03794 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      Scott Jacobsen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              sjacobsen@scott-scott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 1036-6518
      Telephone: (212) 735-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
      E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com


INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Insulet Corporation, Duane Desisto, Patrick J.
Sullivan, Allison Dorval, and Brian Roberts, Case No. 1:15-cv-
11855-JCB (D. Mass., May 15, 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.

The Defendants are engaged in the development, manufacturing and
sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the
OmniPod System), an insulin infusion system for people with
insulin-dependent diabetes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward F. Haber, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry W. Jander and all other individuals similarly situated v.
International Business Machines Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03781-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 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.

International Business Machines Corporation is a technology and
consulting company with a principal office a New Orchard Rpad, MD
261, Armonk, New York 10504.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY L.L.C.
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: eglenn@zamansky.com
              jake@zamansky.com
              samuel@zamansky.com


INTUIT INC: Faces "Lebinski" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
James Lebinski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02209 (N.D. Cal., May
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems to
prevent fraudulent tax returns from being e-filed in the name of
Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class.

Intuit, Inc. is a provider of financial software solutions to
consumers and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
      E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel , Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342 0700
      Facsimile: (484) 580 8747
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
              scarlato@lawgsp.com
              penny@lawgsp.com


KARNES COUNTY, TX: Detention Facility Sued Over Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit filed by three mothers who entered the U.S.
illegally with their children and who are detained at an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'residential center' in Texas
claims ICE is retaliating against them for protesting their
continued detention, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports.

The women, two of whom are from Honduras and one is from Brazil,
are held in the Karnes County Residential Facility south of San
Antonio along with their children pending a court hearing on their
asylum claims, say they led eighty of their fellow residents in a
hunger strike, and in response, officials placed them in isolation
cells and threatened to separate them from their children.  They
claim in the lawsuit, which is filed in U.S. District Court in San
Antonio, that the GEO Group, Inc, the private firm which operates
the facility under contract with ICE, fired all of the women who
participated in the hunger strike from their jobs in the Center,
and 'falsified charges of insurrection against the hunger
strikers.'

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all of the
women at the facility and all who will be detained in the future,
and asks a judge to allow residents to exercise their rights to
demand their release and protest what they say are the inadequate
conditions of their detention, without facing retaliation.

ICE earlier denied that a hunger strike had taken place, and
rejected allegations that any residents of the Karnes facility
were victims of retaliation, saying the facility doesn't have the
'isolation cells' that the women claim they were placed in.
Officials took reporters on a closely controlled tour of the
facility where they were shown women and children eating in the
cafeteria, playing in an outdoor playground, and living in small
but well-furnished dormitory-style rooms, equipped with flat
screen TVs.

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fully respects the
rights of all people to voice their opinion without interference,
and all detainees, including those in family residential
facilities such as Karnes, are permitted to do so," an Immigration
and Customs official who asked not to be identified said.

ICE said the huge residential detention facilities in Karnes City
and in Dilley Texas, about 100 miles to the west, are an effective
and humane alternative for maintaining family unity as families go
through immigration proceedings or await return to their home
countries."  All of the residents are women who arrived in the
U.S. during the immigration spike last summer.  Most say they were
fleeing, in the words of the lawsuit 'widespread life threatening
violence and sexual violence in their home countries,' and have a
'credible expectation of being granted asylum in the U.S.

The continued detention of women and children has sparked
widespread protests and several other lawsuits challenging the
legality of open-ended incarceration of children.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said during the opening of
the Dilley facility earlier this year that one of the reasons the
facilities exist is to send the message to other would be
immigrants that "if you enter the United States without
permission, it is now more likely that you will be detained and
sent back."


KHUBBA AL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding & Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khubba Al Nahrain, Inc., a Skokie, Ill. establishment, is
recalling approximately 665 pounds of beef products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products contain wheat, soy, and milk, known allergens which
are not declared on the product label.

The beef items were produced on various dates from September 11,
2014 to April 29, 2015. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S POTATO
      CHOPS" with lot numbers "11915, 10615, 07515, 36014, 33514,
       28314 or 25314" on the packaging label.

  --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KUBBA
      HALAB" with lot numbers "25314, 28314 or 33514" on the
      packaging label.

  --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KRASS"
      with lot numbers "02615 or 10615" on the packaging label.

  --- 10-lb. packages containing 10 pieces of "ARCHIE'S KUBBA
       TAPSI" with lot number "07515" on the packaging label.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
45103M" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced
were shipped to retail locations in Illinois and Michigan.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review by FSIS
personnel.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Refat Nissan, Owner, at (847) 834-4383.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/v528iM


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wyoming Sues Over 'Flushable' Wipes
---------------------------------------------------
Sputnik News reports that the city of Wyoming is pointing to
costly damages they say are being caused by residents using the
wipes.

"These flushable wipes do not degrade after flushing," the lawsuit
reads.  "Rather, the flushable wipes remain intact long enough to
pass through private wastewater drain pipes into the municipal
sewer line, causing clogs and other issues for municipal and
county sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants, resulting in
thousands, if not millions, of dollars of damages."

Wyoming may be the first city to take class-action status on
behalf cities facing sewer-system issues caused by the flushing of
wet wipes.  A post made on the Facebook account of Wadena,
Minnesota, states "A wipe labeled flushable only means they will
fit down the piping within your home."  Cities argue that these
wipes travel beyond private wastewater drain pipes and wind around
pumps at lift stations causing wastewater to reach higher
elevations.  They also state that these wipes get caught in
screens creating large clumps known as "Polar Bears."

The lawsuit filed in federal court by Wyoming, Minnesota, urges
companies including Kimberly-Clark to cease marketing products as
"flushable," and "sewer-safe."  It also seeks the creation of a
fund to compensate cities for the costs of removing wipes from
their sewer systems.

According to Bob Brand, Kimberly-Clark's director of external
communications, the company conducts "extensive testing" on
products it calls "flushable" such as Kleenex Cottonelle
FreshCare, which is labeled with the words "SafeFlush Technology"
beside an image of a wipe going down a toilet.

Trade groups supporting the industry making wet wipes argue that
the plumbing-related problem being faced by cities result from the
flushing of wet wipes that are not marketed as flushable.  These
items include cheap baby wipes which are meant to be wrapped in
disposable diapers and discarded in the trash.

Dave Rousse, president of the Association of Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry, says the industry expresses empathy for issues that non
flushable materials are causing for wastewater operators.
However, he maintains certain companies are not to blame.

"We take great exception to any effort to blame flushable wipes
for the problems being caused by nonflushable wipes," Rousse told
the Star Tribune.


LAWRENCE COUNTY: Settlement Deal Proposed in Solid Waste Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonece Dunigan, writing for Times Daily, reports that lawyers
representing the Lawrence County Commission have drafted a
proposed settlement agreement that will require the commission to
return $300,000 to the solid waste fund during a four-year period.

The $75,000 annual payments would come out of the county's general
fund and would be placed in the Lawrence County Solid Waste
Account.  The first transfer, which is $90,000, would include
attorney fees for the plaintiff.

Dalton McCreless accused the commission of overcharging for
garbage fees in a class action lawsuit filed December 2013.
Residents pay $15 a month for garbage services.

County Attorney Dave Martin said a settlement would not result in
a reduction in garbage rates.  The county's garbage fee puts it in
line with Moulton's garbage fee, he said, which is also $15.
Martin said the municipality has a compact service area and
shorter routes, which cause less wear and tear on trucks.  Martin
said the fee, as well as the settlement funds, will lead to
improvements in the county's solid waste service.

"The money from the settlement will be put back into the solid
waste fund, and that money can be used for a transfer station or
other solid waste services," Martin said.

Attorney Ken Webb, of Montgomery-based Webb and Eley, presented
the draft agreement to the public during a special meeting April
17.  Webb represents the commission in the case.  Webb said it was
cheaper for the county to negotiate terms with the plaintiff's
attorneys than to go to trial.

"It would have cost both sides hundreds and thousands of dollars
to prosecute and defend if we would have gone through a trial,"
Webb said.

McCreless' class action lawsuit accused the commission of using
the funds for purposes other than solid waste, which he said
violated state law.

In July 2013, the commission voted to transfer $65,000 from the
solid waste account in order to meet payroll, but returned the
funds after finalizing a $400,000 line of credit.

A 1998 state Supreme Court ruling and a 2011 attorney general's
opinion support the lawsuit's claim that the use of solid waste
money should be restricted to that department.

Moulton-based attorney Christine Graham, who represents the
plaintiff, said she hopes the settlement will serve as a warning
to other officials who might see garbage fee collections as
another piggy bank to get through tough financial times.

"I hope the people of Lawrence County will look at this and be
reminded that there are state laws regarding solid waste funds and
that they're not to be used for general fund purposes," she said.

Under the proposed settlement, commissioners would agree not to
use solid waste funds to finance matters other than those
involving solid waste.  The commission did not admit to any
wrongdoing in the settlement agreement.

There will be a public hearing to discuss the fairness of the
settlement.  Martin said former Cullman County Circuit Judge Frank
Brunner will set the hearing date after the agreement is filed in
circuit court.  All solid waste customers will receive a notice of
the hearing at least 60 days before the hearing date. If customers
don't agree to the settlement agreement terms, they can challenge
its fairness during the hearing.


LOBLAWS: Faces Class Action Over Bangladesh Factory Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Loblaws
is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the retail
giant knew of a "significant and specific risk" to workers making
garments for its Joe Fresh clothing line in a Bangladeshi factory
before the building collapsed, killing more than 1,000 people.

Toronto law firm Rochon Genova launched the lawsuit on behalf of
those who survived the 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza and the
estates and dependants of those who died in the building.

A statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court seeks $1.85
billion in damages for wrongful death and injury for members of
the proposed class action, and punitive damages of $150 million.
It alleges Loblaws knew before the collapse that Bangladesh
factories had "an extremely poor record" of workplace safety
standards and industrial building standards.

"The Loblaws defendants were aware that there was a significant
and specific risk to workers who manufactured Joe Fresh garments
and who were employed by their subcontractors in Bangladesh," the
statement of claim said.

"The Loblaw defendants were aware that the reason that
subcontractors . . . could manufacture and supply the Joe Fresh
garments at such low costs was not only because the garment
workers were paid extremely low wages . . . but also because the
subcontractors often operated sub-standard and unsafe factories."

George Weston Limited, which operates Loblaws, and Bureau Veritas,
a company used by Loblaws to audit garment factories, are also
named as defendants in the suit.

A spokesman for Loblaws said the company planned to "vigorously
defend" itself.

"We believe that this claim is without merit," said Kevin Groh,
the company's vice-president of corporate affairs and
communication.

"We hope this claim does not distract from the positive work
Loblaws has done and continues to do in respect of this tragedy,
and that it does not discourage others from making similar
contributions."

Loblaws is part of the Rana Plaza Arrangement, a fund established
to provide relief to those affected by the collapse.

Rana Plaza was outside the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, and
housed five garment factories when it collapsed, killing 1,127
people and injuring about 2,500.  The incident is considered
Bangladesh's worst industrial disaster.

The lawsuit notes that many of Joe Fresh's garments were made in
the factory, which was operated by Loblaws Bangladeshi
subcontractors, including one called New Wave.  The building had
several illegally constructed floors which were added without
building permits or proper structural engineering, the statement
of claim said, noting that on the day of the collapse, the
building had eight levels.

"Rana Plaza building was exhibiting clear warning signs of
impending collapse and fresh structural cracks were noted in the
building the day before the collapse," the statement of claim
said.

The building had actually been ordered evacuated a day before the
collapse, the statement of claim said, but workers were ordered
back in the following day.

"New Wave and the other factory managers told the garment workers
that the building was safe and threatened to cut the workers' pay
or terminate their employment if they did not return to work," the
statement of claim said.

Those factory managers were facing a delivery deadline of 24,000
pieces of boys' pants for Loblaws, the statement of claim said.

"This stringent deadline from the Loblaws defendants forced New
Wave workers back into the building into unsafe and life-
threatening working conditions," the statement of claim alleged.

"Neither the Loblaws defendants nor the Bureau Veritas defendants
took any steps or made any efforts to release New Wave from the
delivery obligations or to prevent workers from re-entering the
Rana Plaza."


LQNN INC: Recalls Chicken, Beef and Pork Products
-------------------------------------------------
LQNN, Inc., a Garden Grove, Calif. firm, added additional items to
the recalled products list, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The added products should have been part of the original 213,192
pounds of chicken, beef and pork products that were recalled on
May 20, 2015. The new total recalled poundage is 440,923pounds.
The products which were moved and sold in commerce, included the
unapproved use of another facility's mark of inspection, which has
been identified as Establishment number 18995. LQNN, Inc.,
operating as Lee's Sandwiches, has been processing products from
federally-inspected establishments and re-packaging them without
the benefit of inspection. Products produced without inspection
present potential of increased human health risk.

The various poultry, beef and pork items were produced prior to
May 26, 2015.  The following additional products are subject to
recall:

  --- 63,734-lb of "Ham & Cheese CROISSANT."
  --- 5,218-lb. of "Cooked Dry SHREDDED PORK Cha Bong Thit Heo."
  --- 8,631-lb. of "SHREDDED PORK Bi."

On May 20, 2015, the company recalled 213,192 pounds of chicken,
beef and pork products produced prior to May 26, 2015.  The
following products listed below were included in the initial
recall:

The following products are subject to recall and were sent to
various restaurant locations in Arizona, California, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas to be cooked and served to consumers.
The following products may contain "Est. 11041" or "P-11041"
inside the USDA mark of inspection:

  --- 54,509 -lb. of "Banh Bao Pork & Egg Steamed Bun."
  --- 15,147 -lb. of "Banh Bao Trung Cut Pork & Quail Egg Steamed
      Bun Vietnamese Style."
  --- 55,114 -lb. of "PORK PATE CHAUD (LARGE)."
  --- 6,016.5-lb. of "PORK PATE CHAUD (SMALL)."
  --- 50,036-lb. of "CHICKEN PATE CHAUD (LARGE)."
  --- 6,184.5-lb. of "CHICKEN PATE CHAUD (SMALL)."

The following products are subject to recall and were sent to the
aforementioned restaurant locations in Arizona, California,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas to be prepared and served to
consumers. The following products may contain "Est. 11041" or "P-
11041" inside the USDA mark of inspection:

  --- 22,812-lb. of "SLICED OIL BROWNED TURKEY PREMIUM BREAST
      MEAT FULLY COOKED."
  --- 2,453.5-lb. of "SLICED SALAMI MEAT with wine FULLY COOKED."

The following products are subject to recall and were sent to
various retail locations in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma,
Oregon and Texas for retail distribution to consumers. The
following products may contain "Est. 18995" inside the USDA mark
of inspection:

  --- 222.25-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "FRUIT BEEF JERKY
      (Kho Bo)."
  --- 352-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "B.B.Q.  BEEF JERKY
      (Kho Bo)."
  --- 354-lb. of 4-oz. plastic containers of "Curry BEEF JERKY
      (Kho Bo)."

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a surveillance
review. During this review, FSIS personnel observed and detained
non-federally inspected products which were produced at the
warehouse distributorship and had applied USDA marks of inspection
without authorization.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Tom Quach, Chief Operating Officer, at (714) 333-8688.


LU SIMON BUILDERS: Agency Launched Probe Over November Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Toscano and Rania Spooner, writing for The Age, reports that
the rapid spread of a fire through a Docklands apartment tower was
caused in part by combustible construction materials, a review has
found, sparking an investigation into building practices and
paving the way for an expensive class action.

The Victorian Building Authority has launched an investigation
into LU Simon Builders after the MFB revealed that the external
cladding of the 23-storey Lacrosse Building was untested and had
"contributed to the spread of the fire".

The cause of the blaze in the early hours of November 25 was
revealed to be an unextinguished cigarette on a sixth-floor
balcony, which spread to a plastic container, a timber table top
and a nearby air-conditioning unit.

Fast-running flames soon ignited external wall cladding and aided
by "combustible material located within the wall structure"
quickly spread to the top of the building, the MFB reported.

The MFB called on the City of Melbourne to push for a review of
the Building Act and regulatory framework in the wake of the
incident.  Resident John Wong -- who was only able to return home
in April -- said the report's findings were a "relief" because
many who witnessed the blaze believed it had spread too quickly.

More than 100 owners and residents have contacted law firm Slater
and Gordon regarding a potential class action.

"It was obvious that it wasn't quite right how quickly the fire
propagated and moved up the floors within minutes," Mr. Wong said,
adding that he would be attending a meeting hosted by the City of
Melbourne.

MFB Chief Fire Officer Peter Rau said the building's external
cladding, Alucobest, had undergone scientific testing and was
found in breach of combustibility requirements for a high-rise
building.

"The external cladding material on this building did not prevent
the spread of the fire, as required by the building code," Mr. Rau
said.

LU Simon managing director Peter Devitt said aluminium composite
panels including Alucobest had been widely used in Australia for
decades.  He said the cladding complied with Australian standard
tests for ignitability, spread of flame, heat and smoke.

But in 2010, when the building was commissioned, there was no such
product that passed the test for "combustibility", he said.

Ben Hardwick, of law firm Slater and Gordon, said legal action
potentially worth tens of millions had been on hold awaiting the
outcome of the MFB investigation.

"Owners and residents of this building are rightly asking how an
occupancy permit was ever issued for this building," he said.

"They now face the prospect of not only having to deal with the
fall out of the fire but will be faced with costly rectification
works to replace the external walls to the building."

He said whoever was responsible for issuing the occupancy permit
in 2012 would "certainly have a number of questions to answer".

High occupancy rates in the La Trobe Street apartment tower and
excessive amounts of combustible material stored on balconies were
also found to have contributed to the spread of the fire.

Victorian Building Authority technical and regulation director
Jarrod Edwards said the new investigation would probe the conduct
of LU Simon Builders and the building surveyor.

Mr. Edwards said investigators would try to identify whether the
non-compliant external cladding had been used elsewhere.

Mr. Devitt said other factors were to blame for the ignition and
rapid spread of the fire, including an absence of sprinkler
systems on the balconies.  He said planned balcony sprinklers had
been removed by fire authorities prior to LU Simon's involvement
in the project.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Justice Department Seeks Criminal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department is
seeking criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators in an ongoing
investigation over imported products.

The company revealed the Justice Department push in a regulatory
filing on April 29 while also posting a surprise loss for the
quarter and announcing the departure of its chief financial
officer.

The CBS news show "60 Minutes" reported in March that the
company's laminate flooring made in China contained high levels of
formaldehyde, a carcinogen.  Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. has
said that it complies with applicable regulations for its
products, including California standards for formaldehyde
emissions.

The company said on April 29 that its March sales declined 12.8
percent due to the allegations and that it had spent $2.3 million
on an air-quality assurance program it put into place for
customers to calm fears about the flooring.

CEO Robert Lynch said during a conference call that Lumber
Liquidators has stopped buying Chinese laminate flooring for now,
using instead products from parts of Europe and North America.

According to a regulatory filing, the Justice Department is
seeking charges under the Lacey Act which, among other things,
bans illegally sourced wood products.

The best estimate of the probable loss that may result from the
Justice Department action is about $10 million, the company said.
There are more than 100 pending class-action lawsuits related to
the flooring from China, the company said.

For the period ended March 31, the company lost $7.8 million, or
29 cents per share.  That compares with a profit of $13.7 million,
or 49 cents per share, a year earlier.  The loss caught industry
analysts off guard.  They had projected a profit of 15 cents per
share, according to a survey by Zacks Investment Research.

Revenue was $260 million.

CFO Dan Terrell will leave the company in June.  He has held the
position since October 2006. The company appointed Gregory Whirley
Jr., formerly of Ernst & Young LLP, as interim CFO.


MASSACHUSETTS: Richardson & Cumbo Files Class Action v. MBTA
------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson & Cumbo, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Keolis Commuter
Services, LLC on behalf of MBTA commuter rail customers who
purchased January, February or March, 2015 monthly passes.  The
law firm said it continues to investigate the viability of a class
action against the MBTA on behalf of subway or T customers who
purchased monthly passes.  The MBTA is offering a 15% discount on
May, 2015 monthly passes or one day of free rides to placate its
commuters for the substandard service it provided.  This empty
gesture falls well short of fair compensation for what amounted to
"service" consisting of:

   -- countless cancellations and delays;

   -- constantly changing schedules falling short of a full
schedule;

   -- an ineffective alert and/or notice system to keep riders
informed of cancellations, delays and schedule changes; and

   -- complete indifference by the MBTA towards its customers.

These issues resulted in service outages well above 15% of full
service or the equivalent of one day of free rides.  Of note, the
MBTA fined Keolis $900,000 for cancellations and delays this past
winter -- the maximum allowed under its contract with Keolis.
Apparently, the MBTA thinks the commuter rail service was
substandard as well.

Years of MBTA mismanagement and a culture of indifference are the
real reasons the MBTA failed its customers and provided
substandard service this past January, February and March.  Among
other issues, the MBTA lacked the proper equipment to deal with
winter storms.  Maybe the MBTA just didn't have the money to
purchase the proper equipment?  Actually, it did.  As
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker pointed out at his April 8,
2015 press conference discussing the Action Report issued by the
Panel he commissioned to investigate the problems the MBTA and
Keolis experienced this past winter, the MBTA failed to spend $2.3
billion of its capital budget over the last 5 years without
explanation.  Maybe the MBTA should have spent this money on the
proper equipment that would allow it to effectively deal with
winter storms.

The Action Report also noted that the MBTA is spending $66.5
million, out of its capital budget, on 444 employee salaries for
an average annual salary of $150,000 per employee.  Apparently,
paying employees high salaries is a better use of capital money
than purchasing the proper equipment.  The Action Report also
noted that, on average, an MBTA employee takes 11-12 weeks off per
year; that is 3 months and does not include weekends.

Another example of ineffective spending by the MBTA was reported
in the Boston Globe days before the first snow storm hit.  The
Globe story details how the MBTA spent $224 million on 40
locomotives that were delivered in an unusable condition.  As of
January, 2015, only 2 of the 40 were in service.  The Globe story
also references the $144 million the MBTA paid to a South Korean
company for 75 passenger cars that were delivered 30 months late
and "so trouble-prone [that] many of their parts . . . had to be
replaced."

The Governor's Report also noted the following problems with the
MBTA:

The catastrophic winter breakdowns were symptomatic of structural
problems that require fundamental change in virtually all aspects
of the MBTA.  p. 4

Measured against national benchmarks and other transit systems,
the T's operating costs are too high and its productivity and
performance is too low.  p. 4

The MBTA is largely ineffective in managing its work due to weak
workplace customs and practices.  p. 23

[The MBTA displays a] lack of customer focus [and] . . . is not
organized to operate as the customer-oriented business it is.
p. 30

                           *     *     *

Nick DeLuce, writing for BostInno.Streetwise.co, discloses that
just as it appeared things might start improving with the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the public transit
authority is again finding itself in a spot of trouble.

On April 22, just days before the MBTA offered a day's worth of
free subway, bus, ferry and commuter rail rides, as well as a 15
percent discount on monthly passes, Richardson & Cumbo, LLP filed
a class action lawsuit against the T for a breach of contract in
January, February and March, as well as unjust enrichment during
that time.  The law firm is also seeking charges against Keolis,
the Commuter Rail operator for the same counts.

Those three months, of course, were when the lion's share of this
winter season's historic snowfall dominated the region.  Boston
recorded more than 112-inches of snow, making it one of the
snowiest cities in the entire country last winter.

Citing the findings of Gov. Charlie Baker's MBTA advisory panel
report, which essentially points out every aspect of the MBTA
that's functioned poorly over the years (basically, everything),
the law firm alleges that the MBTA had ample time and resources to
dig itself out of the snow in between storms.  Failure to do so,
the suit says, was a breach of contract and the embattled
transportation agency must be held accountable.

The text of the suit indicates that no specific monetary value is
being sought, but rather the court should determine the
appropriate compensation for those who purchased monthly passes
during those months.  It also reads that the customer appreciation
day, for which commuters received free rides for a day on, not
count as a legally binding reimbursement.

According to Boston.com, MBTA spokesperson Joe Pesaturo said "The
MBTA has not seen the civil complaint."


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Insurance Carrier Paid Settlement Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
insurance carrier paid the settlement amount in the Securities
Class Action Matter.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers. All of these
actions were consolidated by the Court on October 24, 2013 under
the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities
Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which alleged that during a
purported class period of April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013,
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its
financial performance and business prospects and overstated the
Company's reported revenue. The complaints purported to assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on May 5, 2014 with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4,
2014, adding an additional claim for scheme liability under
Section 10(b). Defendants again moved to dismiss on July 10, 2014.
On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3
million. On November 3, 2014, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and, on February 16, 2015, granted
final approval of the settlement.

The settlement amount was paid by the Company's directors' and
officers' insurer. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had an
accrued liability recorded of $3.3 million, included in "accounts
payable and accrued liabilities," and a corresponding receivable
from its insurance carrier since it would cover this loss,
included in "trade and other accounts receivable,". As the
Company's insurance carrier paid the settlement amount during the
quarter ended March 31, 2015, the Company removed the liability
and associated receivable at this time.


METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Unpaid Intern Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Pedersen, writing for Deadline, reports that another
disgruntled former intern for the entertainment industry is suing
over the concept of internship vs. free labor.  This time the
defendant is MGM, which is on the receiving end of a class-action
lawsuit filed on April 30.  Kimi Gupta interned at the Beverly
Hills offices of MGM HD, the studio's cable network, in 2012.  The
kicker here is Gupta's internship has to be among the shortest of
any plaintiff in any of the myriad intern lawsuits -- 15 days, of
which only five appear to be workdays.  Add this one to the list
of intern lawsuits against the likes of NBCUniversal, Viacom, CBS
and Fox Searchlight.

The 22-page new complaint filed in Los Angeles alleges that MGM
interns served as unpaid employees and were told "there was always
a chance of getting hired" if they worked for free for a while.

"In their operations, Defendants systematically employed unpaid
interns, including students such as Plaintiff, and recent and not
too recent college graduates, without pay to perform various
scheduling tasks," the suit claims.  Those tasks included
scheduling "of television programs for airing, maintaining records
of scheduled programs, tracking programs which were ready to be
aired, and entering program and scheduling information into
Defendants' computer data-base."

It adds: "Uncompensated interns such as Plaintiff were an
important source of labor on Defendants' operations and performed
important tasks for Defendants.  Use of such labor allowed
Defendants to avoid payment of employment and other taxes, and
gave Defendants an unfair advantage over those who fairly
compensated their employees.  All of the work performed by
Plaintiff and other interns was performed for the immediate
advantage of Defendants and was performed at the expense of
employees or interns who otherwise would have been compensated by
Defendants pursuant to applicable laws."

The suit  claims that MGM terminated Gupta's internship "because
she allegedly made 'mistakes' on an examination but gave Plaintiff
no feedback or input as to the nature of the mistakes, further
demonstrating that the purpose for employing Plaintiff was
primarily to provide Defendants with an immediate advantage rather
than to furnish training or educational experience for Plaintiff
and other interns."

MGM had no comment on the suit, which alleges failure to pay
minimum wage and failure to pay compensation at time of
termination.  It seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages.  Also
named as defendants are MGM HD Productions and parent company MGM
Holdings Inc. Ms. Gupta's attorneys are John P. Kristensen and
David L. Weisberg of Los Angeles and Michael V. Pundeff of San
Diego.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: British Columbia Case Trial in 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a British Columbia
class action is now scheduled for trial in 2016.

The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair
competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various
state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005."

"We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made
in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class
members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for
purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware
and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies
by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage
of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we
ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who
make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total
remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $200 million,
all of which had been accrued as of March 31, 2015.

"Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in
the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After
the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in
October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate
court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is
now scheduled for trial in 2016. The other two cases are
inactive."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Argument Held in US Cell Phone Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal in the U.S.
cell phone litigation is scheduled for argument in May 2015.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects. "We have assumed
responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and
have been substituted for the Nokia defendants," the Company said.
"Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for
certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed.
In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines."

"In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to
exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the
basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in
December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a
separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation
testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law
because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets,
including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. In August
2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted an order
permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in October
2014. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal
challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific
evidence. The appeal is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Trial
court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Canadian Class Action Not Yet Active
-----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Nokia, along with
other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant
in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used
cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of
users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint
in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants.
The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to
be served.


NATROL INC: Leaf123 Settles Tea Product Labeling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving Leaf 123, Inc. (formerly known as Natrol, Inc.), the
manufacturer of Laci LeBeau Super Dieter's Tea.  The proposed
settlement requires Leaf 123 to make certain modifications to the
labeling and packaging of its products.

On April 16th, 2015, Federal Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon
preliminarily approved a settlement resolving this lawsuit.  The
lawsuit claimed that Leaf 123 made false and misleading claims
regarding its products.  Leaf 123 denies these allegations and
continues to stand by its products and advertising. The Court has
not decided which side is right.  Instead, the parties have
decided to settle the case.

The proposed settlement requires Leaf 123 to change the labeling
and packaging of its products.  The required changes include
adding warnings to the products and removing claims about the
effectiveness of its products in reducing weight.

Class members, those who purchased one of more of Leaf 123's
Products for household or personal use between December 20, 2009,
and April 16, 2015, may have their legal rights affected by this
settlement and are advised to learn more about the proposed
settlement and their options.

The Laci LeBeau Super Dieter's Tea products involved in this
lawsuit include: Cranberry Twist, Natural Botanicals, Natural
Botanicals Maximum Strength, Acai Berry, Cinnamon Spice, Cinnamon
Spice Maximum Strength, Lemon Mint, Lemon Mint Maximum Strength,
Tropical Fruit, Peppermint, and Apricot.

Class members wishing to exclude themselves from the settlement,
comment, or object to the settlement, must do so by May 23, 2015.
Class members who do nothing will be part of the settlement (if
approved) and will release all claims asserted in the lawsuit.

This press release is only a summary of the full class action
settlement.  Detailed information on the terms of the settlement,
how to object to the settlement, how to exclude yourself from the
settlement, and other important information can be obtained by
visiting www.LaciLeBeauLawsuit.com calling toll-free 1-888-963-
9429, or writing to: Laci LeBeau Class Action Settlement, c/o
Classaura Class Action Administration, 780 Morosgo Dr #14103,
Atlanta, GA 30324.


NEW BEGINNINGS: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Harris, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. New Beginnings Senior Estates, et al., Case No. 4:15-
cv-01317 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

New Beginnings Senior Estates owns and operates an assisted living
facility in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W., Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: Four Nonprofits to Get Residual Settlement Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, and The Bronx Defenders, all leading
civil rights advocacy groups and law firms, on May 1 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has approved their request to equally distribute nearly
$165,000 in remaining class-action settlement funds among four
high-quality and innovative nonprofits.  The four organizations --
Picture the Homeless, Ali Forney Center, Streetwise & Safe, and
the Urban Justice Center Sex Workers Project -- will each receive
over $40,000 to continue providing critical services to the
homeless and other underserved New Yorkers.

The $165,000 is the remaining unclaimed funds of a class-action
settlement from 2012, which required New York City to pay $15
million to approximately 22,000 New Yorkers who were illegally
charged by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under
unconstitutional "loitering" statutes.  New York State and Federal
Courts had struck down these laws in the 1980s and 1990s, but the
NYPD continued to enforce these void statutes, often targeting
people based on poverty, race, and sexual orientation.

The three co-counsels -- NYLPI, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady
LLP, and The Bronx Defenders -- released the following statement:

"According to the cy pres doctrine, residual settlement funds may
be distributed to support a purpose that is in the interest of the
original class members.  The four nonprofits not only serve the
homeless, LGBTQ, and other marginalized New Yorkers who were
initially impacted by the enforcement of void loitering laws, but
will also know how to best use the remaining funds by providing
community-centered legal and social services."

"We are delighted that the Court has approved our plan to
distribute the remaining funds and look forward to further
extending the impact of our original settlement by putting the
additional $165,000 to good use."

The Urban Justice Center Sex Workers Project released a statement:
"The Sex Workers Project is delighted to receive these funds.  We
will use this money to assist sex workers by providing legal and
social services grounded in human rights values, and to continue
to advocate that the criminal justice system treat sex workers
with dignity and fairness."

Picture the Homeless released a statement: "We are grateful to the
Court and the other participating organizations.  We look forward
to using these resources to continue our work to educate and
organize homeless folks about their rights, and to advocate for
fair and constitutional treatment of homeless people in the
future."

          About New York Lawyers for the Public Interest

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) advances equality
and civil rights, with a focus on health justice, disability
rights and environmental justice, through the power of community
lawyering and partnerships with the private bar.  Through
community lawyering, NYLPI puts its legal, policy and community
organizing expertise at the service of New York City communities
and individuals.  NYLPI's partnership with the private bar
strengthens its advocacy and connects community groups and
nonprofits with critical legal assistance.  NYLPI is the recipient
of The New York Community Trust Nonprofit Excellence Awards.

                  About the Bronx Defenders

The Bronx Defenders provides innovative, holistic, and client-
centered criminal defense, family defense, civil legal, and social
work support services to 35,000 indigent residents of the Bronx
each year.  Through community education, leadership development,
impact litigation, and legislative reform, it looks beyond
individual cases to challenge the entrenched problems that drive
our clients into the criminal justice system.  Its success in and
dedication to using affirmative litigation to address endemic
problems is based in our deep knowledge of its clients' concerns,
and complements our community engagement efforts.

          About Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP is a litigation boutique that
handles a diverse array of civil rights, civil liberties,
commercial, criminal, and ethics-related matters.  It has one of
the leading civil rights practices in the country.  Its areas of
expertise include First Amendment, employment and housing
discrimination, election law, sexual harassment and assault,
children's rights, disability rights, prisoners' rights, police
misconduct, wrongful death, wage and hour, and class action
litigation.


NEWMAN & LEVENTHAL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Mercado, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Newman & Leventhal Caterers, Inc., Burton Leventhal,
Jamie Kindos, and Leslie R. Grand, Case No. 1:15-cv-02852
(E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a premier Glatt Kosher catering
business, with a principal place of business at 45 West 81st
Street, New York, New York 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $140 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Broughton, writing for Mortgage Servicing News, reports
that Ocwen Financial and Assurant have reached an agreement to
settle charges that the embattled mortgage servicer profited from
kickbacks on force-placed insurance policies with struggling
homeowners.  The settlement, filed in federal court, would provide
$140 million in monetary relief to nearly 400,000 borrowers.  It
would also provide an additional $10 million for legal fees and
expenses.

At issue in the class-action suit are insurance policies placed on
foreclosed properties, to cover hazard, flood, flood-gap and wind
insurance.  Plaintiffs in the case accused Ocwen of inflating
premiums and profiting from kickbacks through an arrangement with
Assurant, the New York-based insurance provider that administered
the policies.

"Ocwen decided to settle this matter to avoid prolonged and
distracting litigation.  The company does not admit any liability
or wrongdoing with respect to this matter," the company said in an
emailed statement.

The settlement covers homeowners who were charged for policies
between Jan. 1, 2008 and Jan. 23, 2015.

Under terms of the agreement, Ocwen would be prohibited from
accepting commission for force-placed policies, or entering into
"quota-share" arrangements with insurers.  The settlement would
also prohibit Assurant from accepting payments from Ocwen for
below-cost or free outsourced services.

"We do not acknowledge any wrongdoing in this case, but feel it's
in the best interest of our company to attempt to resolve the
matter," Assurant said in an emailed statement.

The settlement is pending final approval in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The class-action
settlement is the latest in a string of legal and financial woes
for the Atlanta-based Ocwen.

The company in December agreed to pay $150 million to settle
allegations by New York regulators that it fudged foreclosure
documents.  As part of that agreement, the company's founder and
executive chairman, William Erbey, said he would step down after
30 years with the company.

Ocwen posted a $546 loss for the 2014 fiscal year, mainly because
of increased legal charges.


OHL-ARELLANO: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis E. Mora v. OHL-Arellano Construction Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-21844-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

OHL-Arellano Construction Company is a general contractor
specialized in the construction and renovation of healthcare
facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Says Suit Can Go Ahead on One Count
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Courier Press, reports that an Indiana
Court of Appeals ruling said a lawsuit pending against Old
National Bank since 2010 can go forward with one of its five
claims.  The class action lawsuit accuses the Evansville-
headquartered bank with purposefully posting debit card and ATM
transactions so as to increase depositors' overdraft fees.  Class
actions allow one or more people to file a lawsuit on behalf of a
larger group.  Three former Old National customers -- Steven
Kelly, Jon Cook and Rebecca Cook -- filed the lawsuit in
Vanderburgh Circuit Court in December 2010.  It charges that the
bank increased overdraft fees by processing electronic
transactions from highest to lowest amount instead of in the order
they were made.

The bank argued that federal banking laws preempted those claims
and sought a summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit.  At issue
are banking practices before Aug. 15, 2010, when a federal
regulation called "Regulation E" took effect.  The rule requires
banks to give customers a choice as to whether or not they want to
opt in to "overdraft courtesy" policies.  The customers in the
lawsuit alleged they were charged multiple $35 overdraft fees on
every-day debit card purchases as a result of the bank's practice
of posting transactions in order from high to low.

Vanderburgh Circuit Court Judge David Kiely denied the bank's
motion for summary judgement in April 2014 after the two sides
failed to resolve it with mediation.  The bank then appealed
Kiely's ruling.

"We're very excited about the ruling. It's a huge victory and we
were confident we would win," said Scott Danks, an attorney
representing the customers.  "I look forward to trying this case
in court."

The next step will likely be the setting of a trial date, he said.

Jeff Knight, chief legal counsel at Old National, said the company
is still deciding how it will respond to the ruling.

"We're very pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with us and
dismissed four of the five counts.  As to the remaining count,
we're evaluating what our next steps should be with our counsel,
who's been handling the appeal."

One option the bank is considering, Knight said, is whether to ask
the Indiana Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision.

In the ruling, Appeals Court Judges L. Mark Bailey, John Baker and
Margaret Robb concluded that while banks are authorized to charge
overdraft fees, they are not authorized to ignore state law.  As a
result, they ruled, the bank had not shown that the customers'
breach of contract claim was invalid.

The judges wrote: "We cannot, by examination of the contract and
with reference to undisputed facts, conclude that the Deposit
Agreement unambiguously and consistently provides for the sums
actually charged by the bank.  Summary judgment is inappropriate
where, as here, a factfinder could infer from the designated
materials that the bank breached its duty of good faith and fair
dealing."

However, the judges also threw out conversion, unconscionability,
and unjust enrichment claims that alleged Old National Bank
intentionally exerted unauthorized control over deposits, as well
as the lawsuit's claim that the bank violated the Indiana Crime
Victim Relief Act.

"We are aware of no substantive cause of action in Indiana to
recover monetary damages for drafting or enforcing an
unconscionable contract term," the judges wrote.


OLD WORLD: Recalls Roast Beef Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------
Old World Meats, a Duluth, Minn. establishment, is recalling
approximately 12 pounds of roast beef products due to misbranding
and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product
contains soy, a known allergen, which is not declared on the
product label.

The sliced roast beef was produced on April 3 and May 8, 2015. The
following product is subject to recall:

  --- 0.5-lb. packages containing "OLD WORLD MEATS TOP ROUND
      ROAST BEEF."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"EST.34448" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The items produced
were sold in a retail location in Minnesota.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review by FSIS
personnel.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Paul Wrazidlo, owner, at (218) 340-7682.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/h4VQYN


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Complaint Dismissed, Claims Time-Barred
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Carol A. Doyle granted the motion filed by the
Chapter 7 trustee for Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., to dismiss
the complaint in the case captioned Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC
and Gainesville Coins, Inc., on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ira
Bodenstein, not individually but solely as the duly appointed
trustee of the estate of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 14 A 00837 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).

Former customers of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., who traded
foreign currencies and over-the-counter metals, filed an adversary
proceeding alleging claims against Ira Bodenstein, the chapter 7
trustee of Peregrine, based on the prepetition theft of millions
of dollars committed by its founder and former CEO, Russell
Wasendorf, Sr.

The trustee moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  He contended that:
(1) the adversary proceeding is really a time-barred proof of
claim against the Peregrine bankruptcy estate; (2) the fraud and
embezzlement committed by Wasendorf cannot be imputed to the
debtor; and (3) the claims are barred by collateral estoppel and
law of the case.

Judge Doyle granted the trustee's motion.  She held that the
plaintiffs have chosen the improper procedure of filing an
adversary proceeding 2 years after the claims bar date to assert
facts and legal theories that should have been alleged in their
original proofs of claim.  Judge Doyle concluded that all of the
claims in the complaint are time barred and must be dismissed.
The court no longer addressed the other issues raised in the
trustee's motion to dismiss.

A copy of the May 13, 2015 memorandum opinion is available at
http://is.gd/74qJj1from Leagle.com.

                     About Peregrine Financial

Peregrine Financial Group Inc. filed to liquidate under Chapter 7
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 12-27488)
on July 10, 2012, disclosing between $500 million and $1 billion
of assets, and between $100 million and $500 million of
liabilities.

Earlier that day, at the behest of the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, a U.S. district judge appointed a receiver and
froze the firm's assets.  The firm put itself into bankruptcy
liquidation in Chicago later the same day.  The CFTC had sued
Peregrine, saying that more than $200 million of supposedly
segregated customer funds had been "misappropriated."  The CFTC
case is U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Peregrine
Financial Group Inc., 12-cv-5383, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).

Peregrine's CEO Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. unsuccessfully attempted
suicide outside a firm office in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on July 9,
2012.

The bankruptcy petition was signed in his place by Russell R.
Wasendorf Jr., the firm's chief operating officer. The resolution
stated that Wasendorf Jr. was given a power of attorney on July 3
to exercise if Wasendorf Sr. became incapacitated.

Peregrine Financial is the regulated unit of the brokerage
PFGBest.


PIEDMONT REALTY: Georgia Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Claims Journal, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court denied an insured's bad faith claim against
its insurer for its refusal to pay a settlement because the
insured settled on the amount without the consent of the insurer
that was required by the policy.

A $10 million excess policy issued by XL Specialty Insurance to
Piedmont Realty Trust included a "consent to settle" provision
requiring the insured to obtain the insurer's consent for any
settlement of a securities claim that the insured became "legally
obligated" to pay.  The insurer's consent "shall not be
unreasonably withheld," according to the clause.

The policy also contained a "no action" provision barring the
insured from suing the insurer unless the insured has been in
"full compliance with all of the terms" of the policy.  This
provision also stated that the amount of the settlement shall have
been determined by a judgment after an actual trial or by a
written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the insurer.

Piedmont Realty Trust held two policies -- a $10 million primary
policy issued by Liberty Surplus Insurance Co. and the excess
policy from XL Specialty Insurance Co.

Piedmont was named a defendant in a securities class action in
which the plaintiffs sought more than $150 million in damages.
After years of discovery, summary judgment rulings and appeals,
then another appeal, the plaintiffs and Piedmont agreed to
mediate.  By this time Piedmont had exhausted the limits of its
primary policy and also had used up $4 million of its $10 million
from the XL excess policy.

Entering into mediation, Piedmont sought XL's consent to settle
the claim for the remaining $6 million on the excess policy.  XL
agreed to contribute $1 million but no more.

Without further notice to XL and without obtaining XL's consent,
Piedmont agreed to settle with the plaintiffs for $4.9 million.  A
district court approved the settlement.  Piedmont demanded XL pay
the full settlement but XL refused.  Piedmont sued XL for breach
of contract and bad faith failure to settle.

The district court dismissed Piedmont's claim but Piedmont
appealed to the 11th Circuit Court.  Piedmont, which claimed that
XL's refusal to consent was unreasonable, lost again.  Its
subsequent appeal went before the state's high court.

Chief Justice Hugh Thompson wrote the opinion in the 6-0 ruling
that had one justice not participating.  The decision upheld the
ruling by the 11th Circuit Court.

Calling the XL policy's consent to settle and no action policy
provisions "unambiguous," the Georgia Supreme Court found Piedmont
was correctly barred from pursuing its bad faith action against XL
because Piedmont had failed to obtain XL's consent before settling
on the amount.  Piedmont thus failed to fulfill one of the agreed-
upon terms of the policy.

Piedmont argued that the policy expressly stated that XL could not
withhold its consent unreasonably.  But the high court said an
insurer is required to act reasonably even where there is no such
express language in the policy.

The court also rejected Piedmont's assertion that because XL
denied the claim it was then estopped from insisting that Piedmont
needed to obtain its consent prior to settling.  The court said XL
did not "wholly abandon" Piedmont and did not refuse to pay the
underlying claims; on the contrary it provided Piedmont with
coverage and a defense throughout the underlying proceedings.

Finally, Piedmont maintained that since the district court
approved the mediated settlement amount, Piedmont was "legally
obligated" to pay it and thus XL must consent.  But the court
noted that the consent to settle clause precluded Piedmont from
entering into a settlement agreement without XL's prior consent in
the first place, and the district court's approval could not force
XL to pay an amount that only Piedmont approved.

"Piedmont could not settle the underlying lawsuit with out XL's
consent -- in breach of its insurance contract -- and then, after
breaching the contract, claim that the district court's approval
of the settlement imposed upon XL a distinct obligation to pay the
settlement on Piedmont's behalf," Justice Thompson wrote.


PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Medina, Agustin Martinez, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Pro Oilfield Services, LLC, f/k/a
Maxx Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01320 (S.D. Tex.,
May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Pro Oilfield Services, LLC owns and operates oil and gas
production facilities in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


QUEENSLAND: Government May Launch Fresh Probe Into Flood
--------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that the Queensland's government may launch a
fresh inquiry into a deadly flood in which 12 people died.  The 12
died when a churning wall of water surged through Grantham, west
of Brisbane, washing away homes on January 10, 2011.

In March Lockyer Valley Mayor Steve Jones called for an inquiry
into whether natural or man-made features along Lockyer Creek
affected the way the wall of water struck.  Grantham residents did
not give evidence to the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry,
which wrapped up in 2012.

The flood and loss of life was an absolute tragedy, premier
Annastacia Palaszczuk told the Macquarie Radio Network.  She said
her government was giving "very serious consideration" to a new
inquiry.

"I've asked for some independent legal advice because I believe
that those families do need some closure."

Mr. Jones welcomed Ms. Palaszczuk's approach and said he would
work with the government to put all the facts on the table.

"It needs to also look at how the flooding was originally
investigated," Mr. Jones said.

Local people believe the flood filled a quarry on a creek bend
down-stream from the town of Helidon before bursting through an
embankment and surging down Grantham's main street.  The previous
floods inquiry found the quarry did not contribute to the
disaster.  Some residents have attended meetings with a Melbourne
law firm to discuss a possible class action against Wagner
Brothers, which owned the quarry at the time.


RITE AID: Indergit Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that the Company has been
named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite
Aid Corporation et al pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf
of current and former store managers working in the Company's
stores at various locations around the country.

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges that we failed to pay
overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under
certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other
relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked
for us as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered
that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported
members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and
former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit
action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.
On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied our motion for
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. We
filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September
26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. We
subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the
Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September
2014. Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class
certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately
1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York.
At this time, we are not able to either predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to
the lawsuit. Our management believes, however, that this lawsuit
is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit."


RITE AID: To Obtain Approval of Deal in Chase & Scherwin Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that with respect to cases
involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v.
Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court
and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County
Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the
Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters.
The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of
pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of
$9.0 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in
the process of obtaining Court approval.


RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in the employee seating
case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior
Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  "We filed our motion for
decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012.
Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was
granted in May 2014. We filed a petition for review of the
appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court,
which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall
case are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court
in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other
than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), we, at this time, are not able
to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a
potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits," the
Company said.


RIWO INC: "Theodoridis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hatice Theodoridis, Amides A. Galdamez, and other similarly-
situated individuals v. Riwo, Inc. d/b/a Schnitzel Haus
Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21853-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Riwo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL BANK: Bank Unit Must Pay $1.4 Million in Fines, Finra Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Rieker at The Wall Street Journal reports that Wall
Street's self-regulator ordered Royal Bank of Canada's investment-
banking and wealth-management unit to pay $1.4 million in fines
and restitution for improper sales of structured investment
products to more than 200 retail investors.

Between January 2008 and December 2010, RBC Capital Markets failed
to detect that 99 of its financial advisers sold about 364 reverse
convertible securities to about 218 customers who were looking to
invest conservatively or didn't have enough income to sustain the
risk, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. said
Thursday.  The clients lost at least $1.1 million combined,
according to Finra's enforcement action.

Reverse convertible securities are interest-bearing notes tied to
the performance of an asset, usually stocks.  They are popular
with retail investors because they generally offer high yields,
but investors can lose money if the value of the underlying stock
falls below a certain level.  In a general warning to investors in
2010, Finra described them as "complex investments that often
involve terms, features and risks that can be difficult for retail
investors and registered representatives to evaluate."

"Securities firms must ensure that their brokers understand the
inherent risks associated with the complex products they are
selling, and be able to determine if they are suitable for
investors before recommending them to retail customers," Finra
enforcement chief Brad Bennett said Thursday.

RBC will have to return a total of $434,000 to customers, and pay
a $1 million fine.  RBC already reimbursed some customers in a
class-action lawsuit settlement, and Finra ordered restitution to
the remainder of the affected customers, the regulator said.

RBC neither admitted nor denied the charges.  A spokeswoman for
the bank said it fully cooperated with the Finra investigation
that led to the enforcement action.  "Beginning in early 2013, we
have made process improvements as well as policy and procedure
changes regarding reverse convertible notes to ensure proper
supervision and controls," she said.

Between 2008 and 2010, RBC offered at least 3,000 different
reverse convertible products to its customers and executed more
than 100,000 reverse convertible transactions in at least 5,000
customer accounts without the appropriate procedures to follow
securities regulations, Finra said.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Unable to Estimate Impact of Arbitration Bids
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
unable to estimate the possible impact of the demands for
arbitration submitted by crew members.

"A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels," the Company said.  "The complaint
alleged that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other
crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom
attendants were required to work back of house assignments without
the ability to earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the
U.S. Seaman's Wage Act."

"In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the
complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining
agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United
States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district
court's dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for re-
hearing and re-hearing en banc. In October 2014, the United States
Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' request to review the order
compelling arbitration.

"Subsequently, approximately 575 crew members submitted demands
for arbitration. The demands make substantially the same
allegations as in the federal court complaint and are similarly
seeking damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate
amount. Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for
arbitration are being brought individually by each of the crew
members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom
attendants. At this time, we are unable to estimate the possible
impact of this matter on us. However, we believe the underlying
claims made against us are without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against them."


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 30 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Rubicon Technology, Inc. common stock in the
Company's public offering on or about March 19, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 30, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rubicon/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Rubicon, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.  Rubicon is a vertically integrated,
advanced electronic materials provider specializing in
monocrystalline sapphire, which is commonly used as a substrate
(i.e., base layer) in light emitting diode (or LED) lighting
technology.

On December 6, 2013, Rubicon filed with the SEC an amended shelf
registration statement, which included a form of prospectus
authorizing the Company and to-be-identified "selling
stockholders" to sell up to $100,000,000 worth of shares of
Rubicon common stock, at any time, in one or more offerings.  On
March 19, 2014, Rubicon filed with the SEC a prospectus
supplement, offering to register for sale at $13.00 per share 2.5
million shares of Rubicon common stock (not including an
overallotment of 375,000 shares) by selling shareholder Cross
Atlantic Funds (a group of funds controlled by one of Rubicon's
directors).  The Offering was sold pursuant to the Form S-3A, the
Prospectus and the Prospectus Supplement.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
its preparation.  Specifically, the Registration Statement
negligently failed to disclose material trends, events and
uncertainties known to management that were reasonably expected to
have a material impact on the Company's income from continuing
operations, including the reversal of its trend of shrinking
losses, higher-than-expected development costs and inventory
write-offs due to Rubicon's inability to sell certain of its
wafers during its 2014 first quarter at prices greater than their
cost to manufacture, causing such inventory to be impaired under
applicable accounting rules and regulations.

Then on May 1, 2014, the Company issued a press release and hosted
a conference call regarding its first quarter of 2014.  The
Company reported disappointing financial results and revealed,
among other things, that the trend of shrinking gross losses,
operating losses, and losses per share from the prior quarters had
dramatically reversed in the first quarter of 2014, reporting
substantial increases in gross losses of $7.5 million, losses from
operations of $10.9 million, and losses per share of $0.43.  After
the earnings call on May 1, 2014, the price of Rubicon common
stock declined by 16%, from about $10 per share to $8.51 per
share, and declined another almost 6% to $8.01 per share on May 5,
2014.  The stock currently trades at below $4.00 per share, a 70%
decline from the Offering price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Rubicon common stock in the Company's public offering on or about
March 19, 2014.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class
actions including actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


SHIVA YOGA: School to Be Wound Up; Ex-Leader Facing Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Platt, writing for Mornington Peninsula News, reports that
the final winding up of the financial affairs of the organization
behind the Shiva School of Meditation and Yoga, Mt Eliza, could
depend on "litigation flowing" from allegations against its former
spiritual leader, Russell Kruckman, also known as Swami
Shankarananda and Swamiji.

Paul Burness and Con Kokkinos of Worrells Solvency & Forensic
Accountants were appointed voluntary liquidators of the troubled
Shiva Yoga Inc.  Mr. Burness said the timing of the winding up of
the organization would be determined by the "litigation flowing"
and contingent liabilities.  Once finalized, the liquidation will
see the end of an organization that has been a significant part of
the Mt Eliza community for the past 25 years.

As well as running a cafe in the village its Saturday night
gatherings, or satsangs, were regularly attended by more than 350
people, including residents of the ashram.  The decision to wind
up the organization behind the ashram at 27 Tower Rd follows last
December's announcement by the school that Mr. Kruckman "has had
secret sexual relations with a number of women from the ashram
community" and that police are investigating allegations of sexual
assault and a class action announced by St. Kilda lawyer Angela
Sdrinis.

Mr. Burness said Shiva Yoga owned three properties near the
ashram, two in Petrel Ave and one in Clendon Close.  They are
collectively valued at just under $3 million, although one has a
mortgage.  The most valuable property connected to the yoga
school, the ashram in Tower Rd, is owned by Swami Shankarananda
and is not subject to the liquidation.

Financial statements of the tax-exempt Shiva Yoga Inc. for the
year ended June 2014 show $1.38 million has been spent improving
the ashram building and lists Swami Shankarananda as having loaned
the organization $373,508.  The statements show "retained
earnings" of $2.9 million.

Mr. Burness said Swami Shankarananda had placed caveats dated
April 22, 2015 on the titles on one of Shiva Yoga's Petrel Ave
properties in and the one in Clarendon Close.  A further caveat
had been lodged on the title of the Tower Rd property by Shiva
Meditation Inc. in 2005.  Mr. Burness said his appointment by
members of Shiva Yoga was preceded by a Declaration of Solvency
lodged with Consumer Affairs Victoria outlining that the
association was in a position to pay all creditors in full within
12 months of the winding up.

"There was no doubt that it was a very difficult decision to make
for the members and that they had been proactive in putting the
organization into the hands of independent party, so as to
maximize any surplus assets being available from the association,"
Mr. Burness said in a news release dated April 23.

"I am cognizant of the allegations against the ashram and would be
dealing with all potential claims as part of the liquidation
process."


SIRIUS XM: 2nd Circuit to Weigh in on Broadcaster Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that on April 15, 2015, the Second
Circuit granted digital broadcaster Sirius XM Radio, Inc.'s
(Sirius XM) petition for interlocutory appeal of U.S. District
Judge Colleen McMahon's November 2014 ruling that New York state
law provides copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an
exclusive right of public performance.

The Second Circuit's consideration of this significant and ongoing
issue of copyright law will be the first from any U.S. Court of
Appeals.  The ruling is expected to have far-reaching impact not
only on pending litigations, but also on the possible negotiation
and/or legislation of licensing and royalty rates for pre-1972
sound recordings transmitted over satellite and other digital
mediums.

                       The District Court Case

In 2013, Flo & Eddie, Inc. (Flo & Eddie), founded by members of
the 1960's musical groupThe Turtles, initiated a series of class
action lawsuits in California, New York, and Florida against
satellite radio provider Sirius XM.

Each lawsuit alleged that in failing to license or otherwise pay
royalties for the right to perform (digitally broadcast) pre-1972
sound recordings, Sirius XM infringed Flo & Eddie's exclusive
public performance right in violation of relevant state copyright
and misappropriation laws. [1] Sirius XM denied that the
respective state statutes provided for, or otherwise permitted the
inference of, a public performance right in pre-1972 sound
recordings.

On November 14, 2014, Judge McMahon (sitting in the Southern
District of New York) denied Sirius XM's motion for summary
judgment and ruled that Flo & Eddie, as the owners of a variety of
pre-1972 sound recordings, had the right to exclusively perform
those works.

           The Petition for Interlocutory Appeal

On December 12, 2014, Judge McMahon denied Sirius XM's motion for
reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling.  However, on
February 10, 2015, the court granted Sirius XM's unopposed motion
to certify an interlocutory (immediate or mid-case) appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (b).

Judge McMahon granted the motion after finding that the summary
judgment order involved a controlling question of law -- namely,
whether "holders of common law copyrights in pre-1972 sound
recordings," such as Flo & Eddie, have an exclusive right of
public performance under New York law.  The court declined to find
that Sirius XM's additional basis for interlocutory appeal -- that
applying the New York statute violated the U.S. Commerce Clause --
constituted a controlling question of law.[2]

With respect to the summary judgment order, the court explained,
reversal of that ruling would mean that "significant portions of
[the] lawsuit -- including the public performance copyright
infringement and unfair competition claims -- will have to be
dismissed."

On the other hand, affirmation of the summary judgment order would
require the parties to "turn their attention to the thorny but
ultimately soluble issue of how to license and compensate public
performances of [pre-1972] recordings" -- an act which the court
believed "will never proceed until there is a definitive ruling on
this question of first impression."

Judge McMahon stayed the action pending a decision by the Second
Circuit.

                    The Second Circuit Appeal

On February 20, 2015, Sirius XM petitioned the Second Circuit for
permission to take an interlocutory appeal on the following two
issues:

Under New York law, do the holders of common law copyrights in
pre-1972 sound recordings have, as part of the bundle of rights
attendant to their copyright, the right of exclusive public
performance?

Does the Dormant Commerce Clause prohibit the State of New York
from enforcing a property right that it recognizes at common law?

On April 15, 2015, Circuit Judges John M. Walker, Jr., Guido
Calbresi, and Reena Raggi granted the petition.

The first issue (right of public performance) goes directly to the
question addressed by Judge McMahon on summary judgment, and
answered in Flo & Eddie's favor.  On appeal, Flo & Eddie likely
will reassert the arguments made on summary judgment in this and
prior/pending cases in California and Florida, most notably, the
state legislature's opportunity and failure to exclude a public
performance right from the relevant statute.  In contrast, Sirius
XM's arguments likely will focus on the lack of case law on this
issue and the fact that, historically, satellite and digital
broadcasters -- similar to terrestrial (analog) radio, restaurants
and bars -- have been able to broadcast pre-1972 sound recordings
as a matter of course.

The second issue (Commerce Clause) concerns Judge McMahon's
conclusion that there was no substantial ground for difference of
opinion on whether New York's statute is a "regulation" subject to
Commerce Clause scrutiny (she concluded that it was not).  On
appeal, as previewed in its petition to the Second Circuit, Sirius
XM will argue that the FCC requires it to broadcast uniformly, yet
the "practical effect of applying a New York performance right
. . . would . . . require [it] to comply with New York law
nationwide, which would per se violate the Commerce Clause."

                      What Happens Next

While presently there is no timetable for the Second Circuit
argument and ruling, the possibility of clarity and precedent (at
least for district courts under the Second Circuit's authority) on
these important issues will be closely watched by industry experts
on both sides of the dispute.  Interestingly, the appellate
court's grant of Sirius XM's petition comes just days after bi-
partisan introduction of the "Fair Pay Fair Play Act," which aims
to implement a "performance royalty" to compensate recording
artists for each radio broadcast of their sound recordings, and
establish a federal right of public performance for pre-1972 sound
recordings.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grant Cameron Lawyers on April 29 disclosed that a new class
action launched by a Christchurch lawyer against Government-owned
Southern Response has brought an international litigation funding
heavyweight to the potential $1 billion class action case.

Class action specialist Grant Cameron is inviting over 3000
unsettled Southern Response policyholders to join in a united
effort to force Southern Response to meet its contractual
obligations.

"Southern Response is only meeting 40 to 50 percent of the amounts
claimed based on its own inadequate building reports.  This is not
an organization concerned with its policyholders.  This is an
organization concerned with limiting its own financial exposure,"
he said.

Mr. Cameron says many Cantabrians are under too much financial
stress to fund court action on an individual basis and a no win --
no fee alternative is the only way to take action without any
risk.

The action against Southern Response is being underwritten by
Litigation Lending Services, an international consortium that
specializes in class actions.

"Our litigation funder can get independent experts to tell you the
real value of Cantabrians' claims, and fight for damages including
anxiety, stress, relocation, rent, storage and any other cost
because of payout delay."

Mr. Cameron says LLS is a very substantial company and it only
funds actions where its lawyers consider there is a high
likelihood of success.  This gives the funder the confidence to go
ahead on a "no win no fee" basis.

"That means, in the unlikely event of the action being
unsuccessful, LLS would meet any court costs.  It won't cost
individual policyholders in the action a dollar."

Mr. Cameron says the earthquakes were in 2010 and 2011 and, over
four years later, Southern Response policyholders are still
waiting for their claims to be resolved fairly.  "That is four
years of hardship, worry, and stress".

"Individuals tell me they feel powerless dealing with Southern
Response.  It's easy for organizations to delay payouts when they
are dealing with individuals.  A class action empowers individual
policy holders and will force Southern Response into action."

Mr. Cameron has taken several successful class actions including
against the Government on behalf of the families of the 14 victims
of Cave Creek disaster when Department of Conservation viewing
platform collapsed in the West Coast's Paparoa National Park in
April 1995.  In April 2001, he was successful in achieving redress
for former patients abused at Lake Alice psychiatric hospital, and
recently he achieved success in the Supreme Court for the Quake
Outcasts group over Christchurch red zone issues.

Mr. Cameron said his legal practice had negotiated a fee with the
underwriters.  "If the action is successful, LLS and GCA fees will
not exceed 20 percent of the claim and in some circumstances, the
amount will be significantly less.  Put simply, if the
policyholder does nothing, they are likely to only get 40-50
percent of their claim value met by Southern Response.  If a
policyholder spends no more than 20 percent of their claim value,
they are in line to recover 100 percent of their claim."

As required, the funder will also pay for expert reports for
policyholders, so the true damage and remedial options will be
known.  He said court action was not inevitable.  "Southern
Response may recognize that it is now in a very vulnerable
position and it may decide it's prudent to reach a negotiated
resolution with us. Obviously, that would be the sensible way to
resolve matters," he said.

Mr. Cameron said Southern Response policyholders could join the
class action through a special website www.srca.co.nz or by
contacting GCA Lawyers directly on contact@srca.co.nz or (03) 365
1347.

"There's a great deal of truth in the old union saying, 'unity is
strength'," he said. "Joining together gives policyholders the
strength to impose change on Southern Response, and to put power
back in their hands.  I'm sure many will find it an extremely
satisfying experience," he said.


SP WHOLESALE: Recalls Pork & Chicken Sausages Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
SP Wholesale Meats, a Portland, Ore., establishment, is recalling
approximately 1,729 pounds of raw pork and chicken sausage
products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The product contains wheat, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10-pound boxes with 4 oz. and 2 oz. links of CASCADE FARMS
      "Chicken Apple Sausage" with a lot number of 079.
  --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S
      TOLUCAN BRAND "Chorizo Verde" with a lot number of 084,
      097, 104, 111, 113 and 118.
  --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S
      TOLUCAN BRAND "Chorizo Rojo" with a lot number of 104, 111,
      113 and 118.
  --- 1-pound packages with 4 oz. links and bulk of DON FELIPE'S
      TOLUCAN BRAND "Chicken Chorizo" with a lot number of 079,
      098, 112 and 119.

The products bear the establishment numbers "EST. P-2886" and
"EST. 2886" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to restaurants in Oregon and Washington.

The problem was discovered when SP Wholesale Meats received an e-
mail notice of an FDA recall involving Oregon Spice Co. due to the
presence of wheat/gluten. The oregano was recalled due to the
presence of wheat that was formulated into the sausage products.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Charlie Ryan, President, or Jim Register, General Manager, at 503-
234-0579.


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Police Dep't Targets Latino, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CBSNewYork reports that Suffolk County police officers
systematically targeted Latinos for unfounded traffic stops, a new
lawsuit alleges.  The federal class-action suit charges that at
least 21 Latinos were stopped and some were robbed of money, WCBS
880 Long Island Bureau Chief Mike Xirinachs reported.

"Suffolk County police officers, for at least a decade, have been
conducting a regular pattern of crime, mostly robberies, against
Latino victims," said attorney Foster Maer, who represents the
plaintiffs.

Retired Sgt. Scott Greene was arrested last year after he was
caught on camera by undercover officers taking money from a Latino
driver.  When Sgt. Greene was arrested, authorities portrayed him
as acting alone, 1010 WINS' Mona Rivera reported.

"We're aware of a number of officers who were playing different
roles in this criminal behavior," Mr. Maer said.  "But the problem
is that the Suffolk County police and the district attorney aren't
looking into the involvement of the other officers, other than to
take their word that they weren't involved."

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

The Suffolk County Police Department released a statement saying
that efforts have been made in recent years to improve the
agency's relatinoship with the Latino community, including
minority recruitment, community outreach and cultural sensitivity
training.

"While we do not comment on pending litigation, it is important to
note Sgt. Greene's arrest was a result of an investigation
conducted by the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk
County District Attorney's Office," the Police Department said.
"We believe his actions to be violative of his oath of public
office, the public trust and the law and are not representative of
the members of the Suffolk County Police Department."


SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Faces Class Action Over Grave Desecration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Press Enterprise reports that relatives of the deceased buried
at Sunnyslope Cemetery's potter's field  have filed a class-action
lawsuit requesting $5 million in compensation, claiming management
of the nonprofit cemetery recklessly regraded the area last year
and removed markers to conceal existing gravesites "for the
purpose of selling plots of land" to unsuspecting buyers,
according to a copy of the complaint submitted to Riverside County
Superior Court.

Amador Corona, the Corona-based attorney representing the
families, met with 15 plaintiffs in his office on April 29.  The
family members stood in a semi-circle, listening as Corona pointed
to an old photograph taped to a display board: 3-year-old Bill
Cervantes grasping his brother's white cross headstone in one
hand, a bouquet of flowers in the other.

"This is Mr. Cervantes," Mr. Corona said, redirecting his pointed
finger to an 88-year-old man with white hair and light blue eyes
seated nearby. " His little brother was buried there, now this
site is gone. . . . It was just bulldozed over and discarded."

ONGOING ISSUE

It's not the first time the potter's field has been investigated
for alleged grave desecration.  In 1994, a geophysical survey of
the area was ordered by state and county officials after several
families claimed their relatives were buried under land developed
in the 1980s.

The report, prepared by Peterson & Associates and shared by
attorney Corona, stated the fenced-in area east of the pepper tree
contained human remains.  Results for Area A, the fenced-in area
west of the tree, were inconclusive.  The state Cemetery Board
suspended the search of two more parcels after running out of
funding.

Last year, Area A was sold to the Islamic Society of Corona-Norco.
There are currently 17 gravesites, but the area will hold up to
400 plots.  Attorney Scott Schutzman, who is working alongside
attorney Corona in this case, said the class-action suit will also
seek compensation for the families of those recently buried in the
Muslim cemetery.

Ron Mowry manages Sunnyslope.  He said that in 1992, he took
photos and videos of the property to document current conditions.
He contends there were only five remaining tombstones -- all east
of the potter's field pepper tree.

"The final determination (of the study) was that they didn't find
any proof of remains there," Mr. Mowry said of the present-day
Muslim burial ground.  "I don't believe anyone is buried other
than in the current area of potter's field."

Mr. Mowry says his records show 258 people were buried in the
potter's field, but the log book lists only name and date of
burial -- not specific coordinates.

Mr. Corona said library records revealed nearly 600 indigent
burials in the potter's field, though he could not provide exact
locations.

"We're concerned that the new burials are within the potter's
field area," Mr. Corona said.  "If they have plot maps to indicate
where (past) burials were done, we'd like to see that. . . . We
want to find locations for all known burials in potter's field."


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Settles Class Action for $500 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that SunTrust
Mortgage Inc. has agreed to pay $500 million as part of a class
action settlement with the federal government and the attorneys
general in 49 states and the District of Columbia related to
SunTrust's alleged misconduct regarding its mortgage servicing and
foreclosure practices.  If you were a SunTrust borrower who was
foreclosed upon between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2013, you may be
eligible for benefits from the SunTrust settlement.

SunTrust was accused of signing foreclosure documents without
confirming the facts were correct.  The mortgage company was also
accused of signing the documents without having a notary present.

The SunTrust settlement will provide approximately $500 million in
various forms of relief to eligible borrowers.  Under the terms of
the SunTrust settlement, approximately $40 million in direct
payments will be distributed to foreclosed borrowers.  The
SunTrust mortgage settlement was reached in June 2014 and took
effect in September 2014.

The SunTrust settlement administrator mailed Claim Forms to
approximately 45,000 Class Members earlier in April.  If you did
not receive notice of the SunTrust settlement but believe you may
qualify for benefits, contact the settlement administrator at 1-
866-590-8532.

Who's Eligible

Borrowers must meet certain minimum criteria to be eligible for
payment from the SunTrust settlement:

The loan must have been serviced by SunTrust at the time of the
foreclosure sale;

The loan went into foreclosure sale between Jan. 1, 2008 and
Dec. 31, 2013;

The borrower made at least three payments on the loan;

The home was, or was intended to be, the borrowers' primary
residence at the time the mortgage loan was obtained;

The borrower had a mortgage loan secured by a one-to-four unit
residential property; and

The unpaid principal balance of the first-lien mortgage loan did
not exceed $729,750 for a one-unit property; $934,200 for a
two-unit property; $1,129,250 for a three-unit property; or
$1,403,400 for a four-unit property.

Borrowers who received a payment from the National Mortgage
Settlement (involving Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank,
Wells Fargo, and GMAC/Ally) or the National Ocwen Settlement
(involving Ocwen Loan Servicing, Litton Loan Servicing, and
American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. aka Homeward Residential)
are ineligible to receive a payment from the National SunTrust
Settlement.

Note: Borrowers from Oklahoma are not eligible for direct payments
because Oklahoma did not join the SunTrust settlement.

Potential Award

Varies. The Notice Package, which was mailed earlier in
March 2015, will contain a letter containing the minimum payment
you are eligible to receive and instructions on how to file a
claim.  According to the SunTrust settlement website, eligible
loans will receive a minimum payment of approximately $850.

If you did not receive a Notice Package but believe you may be
eligible for benefits from the SunTrust settlement, contact the
settlement administrator at 1-866-590-8532.

Claim Form Deadline
6/4/2015

Case Name
United States of America, et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01028-RMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia

Settlement Website
www.NationalSunTrustSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
National SunTrust Settlement Administrator
1-866-590-8532
SettlementAdministrator@NationalSunTrustSettlement.com


SUNWATER: Breached Own Manual with Callide Dam Release
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Wordsworth, writing for ABC News, reports that the operator
of central Queensland's Callide Dam appears to have breached its
own flood operation manual when it unleashed millions of tonnes of
water due to Tropical Cyclone Marcia in February.  The emergency
release contributed to the flooding of hundreds of homes around
Biloela and Jambin, and left downstream residents wondering why
there was not a better warning system in place.

The ABC revealed on April 29 that despite the pleas of locals, dam
operator Sunwater allowed Callide Dam to fill to 89 per cent
before Cyclone Marcia hit.  Documents obtained under Right to
Information show they were also unable to accurately predict when
the dam would reach 100 per cent capacity and needed to spill.

Regardless, at 8:18pm on February 20, a failsafe mechanism kicked
in and the gates opened automatically.  But it was not until 8:39
p.m. that Sunwater began warning downstream residents through text
messages and phone calls.

Queensland Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said locals faced
a similar flood after Cyclone Oswald in 2013.

"There are some significant concerns about this which were raised
going back a couple of years ago," Mr. Springborg said.

"We have a couple of reviews and we'll wait and see the outcome
but I think this information which has been released gives further
cause for concern."

Manual confirms advance warning of a spill must be given

Sunwater's logbooks showed that when one resident was called by
the dam operator, she complained it was not enough warning.  She
appears to have been right.  Sunwater's own flood operation manual
confirms there should be advance warning of a spill.  Section A.5
states "before a spillway release is made, the dam operator must
make sure that . . . downstream residents . . . have been given
notice of the impending release".

Damien Scattini, a principal and class action specialist at law
firm Maurice Blackburn, said it was Sunwater's duty to notify
people before they do that release.

"They didn't do so -- they left it 20 minutes or so and thank God
no-one was killed as a result," he said.

The flood manual indicates an advance warning to residents should
be made when the reservoir level hit 215 metres in height, if it
was raining heavily, and major inflows were expected.

Sunwater's dam level records showed a 215-metre height was reached
shortly after 7:15pm on the night of Cyclone Marcia -- more than
an hour before the warning actually went out.

Class action being investigated

Brendan Prendergast, a partner with Maddens Lawyers, is
investigating a class action for residents whose homes and
businesses were flooded.

"The by-products of successful litigation are often that the
defendant -- in this instance SunWater -- if this class action is
successful, may modify the way it controls and operates the
Callide Dam so that we don't have February 2013 and the events of
2015 reoccurring every time there's a cyclonic rainfall pattern in
the area," he said.

Sunwater declined to be interviewed but a spokeswoman said all of
the information would inform the inquiry that had been ordered by
the State Government and that Sunwater did not want to pre-empt
the review's findings.

Queensland Treasurer Curtis Pitt said he was eagerly awaiting the
report.  "Clearly local residents have expressed concerns and
that's why the inquiry is in place and that's why we're asking the
questions," he said.  "We'll be as keen as the resident to find
out what the results of that inquiry are."

The report was scheduled to be handed over to Emergency Services
Minister Jo-Ann Miller by May 22, but the Government extended the
deadline to June 5.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Faces Class Action Over Memory Foam Mattress Odor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kath, writing for CBS Boston, reports that claims that smell
came from his newly delivered mattress, a $3,200 Tempur-Pedic
memory foam mattress.  He claims the mattress made him feel ill,
with a significantly elevated pulse rate and respiration.  His
girlfriend had similar complaints.  "I just get heaviness in my
lungs," she said.  "It definitely impacts my breathing."

There are dozens of similar complaints online including one from a
woman named Cherrie from Attleboro.  "After spending ten minutes
in the room, I became extremely nauseous and dizzy," she posted.
Another consumer said, "I had a severe allergic reaction to my new
Tempur-Pedic mattress and ended up in the hospital."

Those are just a sample of the complaints cited in a class action
lawsuit filed in California. The suit suggests the company is well
aware of the issue.  It states: "Tempur-Pedic omits telling its
potential and actual customers that numerous past customers have
complained about the odor."  The suit also states: "Numerous past
customers have reported allergic symptoms."

The I-Team took hidden cameras inside a number of mattress stores
to find out exactly what consumers are told about the issue.  In
one store we asked if the Tempur-Pedic mattresses were hypo-
allergenic.  The salesperson didn't know right away, but left the
showroom to ask.  When he returned he insisted they were hypo-
allergenic.  When we asked about the smell the salesperson said,
"For the first four or five days you can smell them, but after
that, it's gone."

That's exactly what the company told us.  In a written statement a
spokesperson said, "For those who notice an odor, they usually
find that it dissipates in a week or so."  But many customers
complain the smell and the health effects last for months.
So what's in these mattresses that cause that odor? "We don't
know, that's the problem," explained Elizabeth Saunders, an
environmentalist with Clean Water Action.  Manufacturers are not
legally required to disclose the chemicals in many products,
including mattresses.

But lawyers in the class action suit claim testing of Tempur-Pedic
products consistently shows the mattresses contain harmful
chemicals, including formaldehyde.

"Formaldehyde is a major concern.  It's a carcinogen,"
Ms. Saunders said.  "It's also used for preserving specimens, or
embalming. It doesn't sound like anything you want to have in your
body."

After four months of pleading with the manufacturer, the consumer
said the company finally agreed to take the mattress back and
refund his money.

Tempur-Pedic claims that less than one percent of their customers
have complaints about the smell.  Now the courts will decide if
the company withheld information from consumers.


TFORCE ENERGY: Faces "Esterline" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Esterline Jr. v. TForce Energy Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01039 (D. Colo., May 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

TForce Energy Services, Inc. operates an oil rigging mobilization
company in North Dakota and throughout several other States, with
its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry Clyde Bonnett, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      304 Peak Trail
      Durango, CO 81303
      Telephone: (970) 247-9413
      Facsimile: (970) 247-9560
      E-mail: jbonnett@bffb.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Mendez" Over Nondisclosure of Pacquiao Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03693-DSF-AS
(C.D. Cal., May 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Byron T. Ball, Esq.
      THE BALL LAW FIRM LLP
      644 S Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (310) 446-6148
      Facsimile: (310) 441-5386
      E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Thrailkill" Suit in D.S.C. Over Pacquiao Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Thrailkill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:15-cv-02028-TMC
(D.S.C., May 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Joseph Hodge, Esq.
      Timothy Ryan Langley, Esq.
      HODGE LAW OFFICE
      PO Box 2765
      Spartanburg, SC 29304
      Telephone: (864) 585-3873
      E-mail: chodge@hodgelawfirm.com
              rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com


TOTAL PACKAGING: Recalls Turkey & Cheese Lunch Kits
---------------------------------------------------
Total Packaging of KY, Inc., an Owensboro, Ky., establishment, is
recalling approximately 18,000 pounds of Anytime Foods Turkey and
Cheese Lunch Kits due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains egg, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the product label.

The turkey and cheese product was produced on May 4, 5, 12 and 18.
The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 4 compartment plastic tray packages labeled "ANYTIME FOODS
      TURKEY & CHEESE LUNCH KIT."

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number
"P6734A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was
shipped for institutional use only.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while performing an
operational sanitation task.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Matt Steele, Quality Assurance Director, at (270) 684-9223.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5bR1Iw


TUK TUK: Faces "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Onecimo Cano, Vincente Bautista, and Alberto Bautista, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Tuk Tuk NY, Inc.,
and Pentip Mulkern, Case No. 1:15-cv-02849 (E.D.N.Y., May 18,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 49-06
Vernon Boulevard, Long Island City, New York 11101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Nate Quarry Surprised by Backlash to Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Al-Shatti, writing for MMAFighting.com, reports that when
Nate Quarry signed on to be one of the original three plaintiffs
in the class-action lawsuit filed against the UFC, he knew some
sort of backlash was inevitable.  Quarry, along with UFC veterans
Jon Fitch and Cung Le, filed a complaint last December alleging
that the UFC had engaged in unlawful antitrust practices.  That
lawsuit has since broadened into five separate lawsuits from a
total of 11 past or present UFC fighters.  As the case marches
forward to the gradual beat of the legal drum, Quarry has found
himself surprised by the increasing frequency of criticism he
hears from fight fans who view the suit as nothing more than a
cash grab from a handful of disgruntled fighters.

"What we're trying to do is we're trying to shape MMA for future
generations so these up-and-coming kids have a legitimate shot of
having a career and following their dreams.  But we can't do that
when we have one company that's completely dictating the terms of
the entire sport," Quarry told MMAFighting.com.

"It always shocks me when people say, 'oh, these athletes are just
spoiled athletes.'  Really? So the guys who trained for 10 or 15
years, not just for free, but paying for their lessons at the
gyms, and then started fighting for free on the amateur circuit,
turned pro and fought for a couple hundred bucks here and there,
whose dream is just to be a fighter that loves this experience,
they're the greedy ones compared to the billionaire owners of the
corporation?

"[The same people who are] standing here saying, 'nope, all of
this money is ours.  You're just greedy.  Oh, by the way, you
can't have anymore sponsors unless we say you can.  Oh, by the
way, you have to fight here.  You have to fight then.  You have to
fight who.'  It's just ridiculous, and we're seeing a big change
in climate."

The next step for Quarry and the rest of the plaintiffs comes in
May, when a California judge rules on Zuffa's motions to not only
relocate the suit from San Jose to Las Vegas federal courts, but
also to outright dismiss the complaints entirely.

The plaintiffs allege that the UFC has created a monopoly over the
professional mixed martial arts market, one which limits fighters'
earning potential through a variety of anti-competitive practices.
Quarry has long been a critic of the UFC's business practices
since exiting the promotion with a 7-3 record in 2010, writing
extensively on the subject on MMA forum The Underground.  The TUF
1 veteran fought for six years in the UFC, challenged for the
middleweight title in 2005 for a purse of $10,000, and was one of
many fighters to sign his likeness over in perpetuity for a
nominal fee.  He warns young fighters that the fight game "isn't a
charity, it's a business," and acknowledges that in the early
stages of his career, such practices may have been necessary to
help a struggling company to stay afloat.

But those days are over, Quarry says, and with many of the
fighters of his era trickling out of the sport "broke and broken,"
he's stunned by some of the vitriol he's received from the same
fans who reveled in the blood and sweat he and his comrades
sacrificed over their fighting careers.

"Everyone is so forgetful of the journey that everyone has gone
through," Quarry said.  "It used to be there were no requirements
for smoke alarms or fire exits.  This was brought along because of
the labor union.  Back in the day with the baseball players, the
NBA, the football players, they had no rights whatsoever.  They'd
go to work in the offseason while they're living their dream of
being a professional football player, then they'd go work at a gas
station in the offseason, while the owners are making millions and
billions of dollars and telling the fans out there, 'These guys
are just so ungrateful.  Wouldn't you love to be a professional
football player too?'

"The fans don't know any better, they just want to see a good
fight.  The other fighters, they aren't going to say anything
because they'll be blacklisted, they'll be put on the undercard,
now they're not ranked as high, or whatever it may be.  There's a
million ways that the UFC can completely screw with your career
without outrightly saying you're fired and cut."

Quarry knows change won't come overnight, so regardless of which
way the May ruling swings, he acknowledges that this case "is
going to be a really long process," one which could stretch over
the span of several years.

In addition to the complaint filed by he, Fitch, and Le, UFC
veterans Brandon Vera, Dennis Hallman, Mac Danzig, Kyle Kingsbury,
Darren Uyenoyama, Javier Vazquez, Pablo Garza, and Gabe Ruediger
have joined their name to separate but largely identical suits,
and Quarry believes that over time, the final tally may approach
anywhere from 500 to 1,000 fighters.

"It's time for everyone to band together," Quarry said.  "We're
just the ones who are in a position who can come out and do so. I
get messages from fighters constantly saying, 'as soon as my
career is over and I'm no longer dependent on that paycheck, I'll
be right there with you.'  I say, I understand you can't say
anything now because you have a family to feed and this is your
dream, and you're going to try and make it work as long as you
possibly can.  But they know at the end they're going to be left
with nothing, so they've gotta do what they can to make what they
can right now."


UNION PACIFIC: No New Hearing Date on Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Judge Paul Friedman
has not yet set a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented
by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust
lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three
other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of
complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the
named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common
fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

"In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of
the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following
numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the
complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect
purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling
dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state
laws.

"With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

"On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which
certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff
representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers
that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant
railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1,
2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling,
which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to
disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that
the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28,
2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address
the issues in the petition and to address whether the district
court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court
heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the
Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and
remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class
certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and
incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the
plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a
schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of the class
certification issue on remand.

"On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015 to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
defendant railroads are currently in the process of responding to
the plaintiffs' supplemental report. Judge Friedman has not yet
set a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification."


UNITIL CORPORATION: Oral Arguments Conducted on Motion to Certify
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral arguments on
motion to certify a class and a motion for summary judgment are
scheduled for June 5, 2015.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al
v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary
housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain
and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers
in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice
storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The
Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 ice storm.

Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the
complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a
class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision
denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.
The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (the "SJC"), and the SJC has now upheld the lower
Court's order. The Company does not have any information at this
time as to whether the plaintiffs will proceed with their lawsuit
on an individual basis in light of the decision by the SJC.

Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a
different theory than previously argued. The Company has filed its
opposition to this motion and has also filed a motion for summary
judgment. Oral arguments on both motions are scheduled for June 5,
2015. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in
the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court
accepted the parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing
into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to
believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend
itself vigorously.


US PENSION: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Imprudent Plan Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Forte, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative
Committee, Investment Committee, Richard Johnson and Edgar Grass,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03386 (D.N.J., May 15, 2015), s an action for
damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties, specifically by continuing to permit the Stock
Fund to be an investment option for Plan participants despite
knowing that it had become an imprudent investment.

The Defendants are named fiduciaries of the Plan for Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY LLC
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: jake@zamansky.com


USG CORPORATION: July 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the hearing on final
approval of the settlements in the Wallboard Pricing Class Action
Lawsuits is currently scheduled for July 15, 2015.

In late 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company
were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged
conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on
wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the
title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.
One group of plaintiffs brings their claims on behalf of a class
of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States
directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates from
January 1, 2012 to the present. The second group of plaintiffs
brings their claims on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum
wallboard who from January 1, 2012 through the present indirectly
purchased wallboard in the United States from the defendants or
their affiliates for end use and not for resale. In the fall of
2013, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and Ontario courts on
behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada. These Canadian
lawsuits also name as defendants CGC Inc., our Canadian operating
subsidiary, as well as other Canadian and U.S. wallboard
manufacturers.

USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing
lawsuits, believes these cases are without merit, and that USG's
pricing and selling policies were and are made independently and
in full compliance with the law. Class action antitrust litigation
in the United States, however, is expensive, protracted, and
carries the risk of triple damages and joint and several
liability.

"To avoid the expense, risk and further distraction of management,
in October 2014, we entered into settlement agreements in
principle with the attorneys representing the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiff classes in the U.S. wallboard pricing
lawsuits, for which USG recorded a $48 million charge in the third
quarter of 2014," the Company said. "In February 2015, we entered
into settlement agreements among the parties that memorialized the
October 2014 agreements in principle. Of the $48 million
settlement amount, $39.25 million is allocated to the direct
purchaser class settlement fund and $8.75 million is allocated to
the indirect purchaser class settlement fund. The settlement
agreements, in which we deny all wrongdoing, also include releases
by participating class members of USG, and its subsidiaries,
affiliates, and other related parties, for all conduct concerning
any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in
the lawsuits for the time period prior to and including November
30, 2014. Additionally, the settlement agreements grant us the
right to terminate the settlement agreements or reduce the
settlement amount in the event an agreed percentage of potential
class members (determined by their relevant wallboard purchases)
opts out of, or elects not to participate in, the settlements.
In the first quarter of 2015, the final versions of the settlement
agreements were preliminarily approved by the Court presiding over
the multi-district class action litigation. As a result of the
Court's preliminary approval of the class action settlements, we
deposited $39.25 million in March 2015 and $8.75 million in April
2015 into settlement fund escrow accounts. In the second quarter
of 2015, notice of the settlements will be provided to potential
class members who will be given the opportunity to participate in
the settlements, or, alternatively, opt out of the settlements by
the deadlines specified in the Court's preliminary approval
orders. Persons who opt out of the settlements are not bound by
the settlements, and may separately pursue their claims. After the
opt out deadlines have passed, the Court will then determine
whether to enter final approval of the settlements. The hearing on
final approval of the settlements is currently scheduled for July
15, 2015. Assuming the Court enters final approval of the
settlements and the settlement agreements have not been terminated
due to the number of opt outs exceeding the agreed percentage, USG
will have paid a maximum of $48 million to resolve the currently
pending U.S. direct and indirect purchaser class action cases. If
we are unable to settle the U.S. wallboard class action litigation
under the terms set forth in the settlement agreements, or at all,
there can be no assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will
not have a material effect on our business, financial condition,
operating results or cash flows."


USG CORPORATION: Canadian Suits Not Part of US Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement of the
U.S. class action lawsuits does not include the Canadian lawsuits.

In the first quarter of 2015, USG and seven other wallboard
manufacturers were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in
federal court in California by twelve homebuilders asserting
individual claims similar to the claims asserted in the U.S. class
action lawsuits. The homebuilders' lawsuit has been transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania that is presiding over the U.S. class action
lawsuits. The filing of this lawsuit indicates that the plaintiffs
intend to opt out of the class action settlements preliminarily
approved by the Court.

Based on the complaint, it appears that the majority of the
homebuilders are asserting claims as indirect, not direct,
purchasers. Indirect purchaser antitrust claims typically are
resolved for less than direct purchaser claims. It also appears
from the complaint that the homebuilder plaintiffs account for
approximately 5% or less of total U.S. wallboard purchases during
the relevant time period.

"We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving these
homebuilders' claims will not materially increase our exposure
from the $48 million agreed to in the class action settlements,"
the Company said.

The settlement of the U.S. class action lawsuits does not include
the Canadian lawsuits. "At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we
are not able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably
possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe,
however, that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or
cash flows," the Company said.


VICTORY KITCHENS: Recalls Chicken Noodle Soup Products
------------------------------------------------------
Victory Kitchens, a Toronto, Ontario, Canada firm, is recalling
approximately 4,672 pounds of chicken noodle soup products that
contain chicken from a country that is not eligible to send
product to the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The poultry
ingredients were sourced from Thailand, and were formulated using
poultry ingredients that were not produced under equivalent
inspection.

The frozen chicken noodle soup items were produced on February 5,
2014, April 1, 2014, and September 11, 2014. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- Boxes of "Chicken Noodle Soup" product code VK-HALCHX (four
      units per box).

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "I-
422" inside the USDA FSIS mark of inspection on the outside box
and the establishment number "Est. 711" inside the CFIA mark of
inspection on the immediate container. These products were
exported to Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and were not distributed
in the U.S.

The problem was discovered when a FSIS import inspector observed a
shipment certified by CFIA as formulated with poultry ingredients
sourced from Thailand while verifying new foreign inspection
certification requirements for source country and establishment.
This shipment was refused entry by FSIS. A subsequent FSIS
investigation into previous shipments from the producer, Victory
Kitchen Ltd. (Canada Est. 711), revealed that Victory Kitchen
formulated this product using poultry ingredients that were not
produced under equivalent inspection.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Allan Kliger, President of Victory Foods Ltd., (416) 766-5848.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/oqMYX8


WACOAL AMERICA: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1.3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a $1.3
million class action settlement was reached in a false advertising
complaint brought against Wacoal by the Federal Trade Commission,
alleging that its iPant products were marketed with misleading
claims.  If you purchased Wacoal iPant products after January
2011, you may be eligible for benefits from this class action
settlement.

The FTC filed this false advertising lawsuit against Wacoal
America Inc. for claiming that its caffeinated "shapewear"
undergarments are able to slim and reshape the body of its
customers.  The iPants lawsuit alleges that Wacoal's claim that
its iPant products are able to reduce cellulite and reduce a
person's thigh measurements are false and unsubstantiated.

Wacoal has been ordered by the federal agency to pay $1.3 million
that will be used to refund customers who purchased its shapewear
products.  Wacoal is also banned from making claims in the future
that a piece of clothing is able to contribute to weight loss or
reduce the size of a person's body.

The FTC's lawsuit was an "administrative complaint," which it
files when there is "reason to believe" there has been a violation
of the law and it believes it is the public's interest to file
such a complaint.

Wacoal and Maidenform Brands Inc. were hit with a class action
lawsuit in 2013 by customers claiming that its shapewear products
are not able to change a person's body as the companies claim.

The FTC announced the settlement agreement on Sept. 29, 2014.

Who's Eligible

A refund is available to anyone who purchased Wacoal iPant
products after January 2011.

Potential Award
Varies, depending on the type and number of products purchased.

Claim Form Deadline
05/19/2015

Case Name

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in the Matter of Wacoal America,
Inc., Docket No. C-132 30095.

Settlement Website

www.FTC.gov/Wacoal
Claims Administrator
FTC v Wacoal
P.O. Box 2222
Faribault, MN 55021-1622
1-866-783-5868


WALKER'S FOODS: Recalls Pork with Sauce Products Due to Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walker's Foods, a Carrollton, Ga., establishment, is recalling
approximately 46,612 pounds of pork with sauce products due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products contain soy, a known allergen, which is not declared
on the product label.

The below products subject to recall were produced between May 1,
2014 and May 7, 2015.

  --- 38,462.5 lbs. (in 5-lb. tubs) of "WALKER'S PIT COOKED
      BARBEQUED PORK WITH SAUCE" bearing packing codes "50115 to
      50716."
  --- 8,150 lbs. (in 24 oz. tubs) of "WALKER'S PIT COOKED
      BARBEQUED PORK WITH SAUCE" bearing packing codes "50115 to
      50716."

The products bear the establishment numbers "EST. 9062" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped for
institutional distribution and to retail stores in Alabama and
Georgia. The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector while
conducting a routine verification check.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Walker's Foods Public Relations Manager Nicole Walker at (770)
834-8171 or via email at Nicole@walkermeats.com.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Zfy7DP


WARREN COUNTY, NY: Court Denies Bid for Bed Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lehman, writing for PostStar.com, reports that concerned
Warren County is losing tens of thousands of dollars in occupancy
tax revenue annually, county officials are revisiting a law to
target online room resellers who do not pay the county's 4 percent
bed tax.

Room resellers, also known as room "remarketers," buy hotel or
motel rooms for discounted rates, then sell them for a profit.
Travelocity, Orbitz and Expedia are among the most well known.
They do not pay the municipal occupancy tax on the difference
between room rates, officials said.  Collecting sales tax and bed
tax from the dozens of online resellers has proved difficult for
the state and counties, and the issue is being litigated in state
Supreme Court downstate.

Warren County had looked into enacting a law in 2013 that would
impose financial penalties on resellers that don't pay occupancy
tax, but the law was put on hold because of the litigation.  The
county sought to be included as part of a "class action" in that
lawsuit, but a state appeals court recently denied a request for
class action status.  The lawsuit filed in Nassau County is
continuing, but other counties will not be a part of it.

The court action prompted county Attorney Martin Auffredou to put
together a new draft local law for county supervisors that would
seek to force resellers to pay and impose 5 percent penalties and
interest for nonpayment.  The county Board of Supervisors
Occupancy Tax Coordination Committee did not take action on the
proposal, pending further review.

County Treasurer Michael Swan estimated the county could be losing
out on $20,000 to $30,000 in bed tax from remarketers.

Kathy Muncil, chief executive officer of the Fort William Henry
Hotel and vice chairman of the New York State Hospitality &
Tourism Association, said many of the resellers are charging
occupancy tax to those who reserve rooms.

"They collect the money and keep it," she told county supervisors.

Saratoga County passed a similar law in 2012.  If Warren County
enacts the law, the county will have to figure out how it will go
about tracking and trying to get what it is owed, Mr. Auffredou
said.

"It's one thing to pass a local law. It's another to have the
software and personnel to collect this," he said.


WEST BANCORPORATION: No Date Yet for Oral Argument in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that West Bank's appeal to
the Iowa Supreme Court has not yet been assigned a date for oral
argument.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged
by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card transactions
are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than
allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly
posted debit card transactions for payment violated various
alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs are
seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief,
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of
fees and attorney fees. The case is currently being brought by
Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, in the Iowa District court for Polk County,
Iowa. West Bank believes it has substantial defenses and is
vigorously defending the action.

The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4,
2014. It dismissed one of the Plaintiffs' claims and found that
factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor
on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two
classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse
rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court. The appeals have not yet been
assigned a date for oral argument. The amount of potential loss,
if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now because of the
unresolved legal issues and because, among other things, the
multiple alternative claims involve different time periods,
burdens of proof, defenses and potential remedies.


WOODBURY COUNTRY CLUB: Man Sues for Receiving 2 Unsolicited Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Post reports that Steven Kirtman has legally lashed
out at a Long Island country club for sending him not one, but
two, unsolicited faxes. The Woodmere, LI, man says he isn't a
member or customer of the Woodbury Country Club, yet he received
faxes for club events, according to a lawsuit.  The unwanted ads
are an "unreasonable invasion of privacy," eat up his paper, ink
and toner, and clog his fax machine, Kirtman claims in a class-
action Brooklyn federal court lawsuit.  He wants unspecified
damages.


ZYK ENTERPRISES: Recalls Veal Products Due to E. Coli
-----------------------------------------------------
ZYK Enterprises, Inc. a Duvall, WA establishment, is recalling
2,522 pounds of boneless veal trim and whole veal muscle cut
products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The following boneless veal trim and whole veal muscle cuts
produced from January 2-23, 2015, are subject to recall:

  --- 60 lb. bulk boxes of boneless veal trim with a package
      produced date of January 5, 2015.
  --- 60 lb. bulk boxes of boneless veal trim with a package
      produced date of January 20, 2015.
  --- Various size bulk boxes ranging from 22 to 63 lb. of
      boneless veal trim and whole muscle cuts with multiple
      package dates from January 2-8 through January 23, 2015.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
9325" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the boxes.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while reviewing
records following a positive test for E. coli O157:H7 on May 15,
2015.  A subsequent review of test records indicated that the
company failed to report positive tests on January 6, 2015 and
January 20, 2015. Product from these lots was shipped for further
processing to wholesale establishments in California,
Massachusetts, and Washington state.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under
5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F. The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers or media with questions regarding the recall can call
Zeeshan Qazi at (425) 788-1128.


* Accounting Allegations Hike Securities Suits, Cornerstone Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FEI reports that according to analysis by Cornerstone Research,
the numbers of class action securities suits with accounting-
related allegations increased from 47 in 2013 to 65 last year -- a
47 percent increase.  As a percentage of securities lawsuits, the
69 actions alleging accounting issues represented 41 percent (69
of 170), compared with 28 percent in 2013 (47 of 166) and 30
percent in 2012 (45 of 151).

Under Cornerstone's criteria, an "accounting-related" class action
includes allegations related to GAAP or auditing violations, or
weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting.

Although the overall number of actions has remained relatively
consistent, the SEC's expanded emphasis on accounting fraud seems
to have played a role in increasing accounting-related class
actions.  Last year, 18 accounting case filings referred to an SEC
inquiry or action, compared with five in 2013.

"The surge in accounting-related securities class actions is
particularly notable given the lack of change in the overall level
of securities class action filings in the past year," said Elaine
Harwood, a vice president of Cornerstone Research and head of the
firm's accounting practice, in a statement.

"The increase appears to be, at least in part, a result of the
SEC's heightened focus on accounting-related fraud as demonstrated
by the substantial growth in accounting case filings that refer to
inquiries or actions by the SEC."

Cornerstone said there were 63 securities class actions settled
last year, down slightly from 66 in 2013.  Among the cases settled
last year, 44 involved accounting allegations, the same number as
the year before.

Restatements Attracting Attention

The Cornerstone analysis also indicated a slightly stronger link
between accounting-related class actions and restatements.  In
their findings, 29 class actions (or 42 percent) cited
restatements, compared with 19 (or 40 percent) in 2014.  The
increase matches findings by Audit Analytics () that the number of
restatements by accelerated filers reached 309 last year, compared
with 290 in 2013 and 284 in 2012.

Internal Controls Allegations

Nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of the 2014 cases included
allegations of internal controls weaknesses.  Those 41 actions
compared with 34 in 2013 and 29 in 2012.  Of the 29 cases in 2014
that included a restatement, two in three also included
allegations of weaknesses in internal controls.


* U.S. House of Representatives Reviews Class Action Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that recently introduced
legislation that aims to limit class-action certification to
groups whose members suffered the same injuries received a chilly
reception from Democrats during a hearing in the U.S. House of
Representatives.

Several Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee
on the Constitution and Civil Justice said on April 29 at a
hearing that H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act of 2015, was so broad it could crush class actions for
consumers, as well as civil-rights and antitrust claims.


                            *********

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  * * *