---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 119


                            Headlines


27 WH BAKE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADT CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Hatamian Case
AIR CANADA: Class Action Lawyers Explain Plane Crash Suit
ALABAMA: Same-Sex Marriage Suit Obtains Class Action Status

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
AMEDISYS INC: Discovery in Securities Action Remains Stayed
AMEDISYS INC: In Preliminary Stages of Reviewing Class Suit Info
AMEDISYS INC: Wage and Hour Case Filed in Illinois Stayed
AMTRAK: Train Derailment in Philadelphia to Spur Lawsuits

AUSTRALIA: Karratha Ratepayers to Launch Case Over Power Project
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Securities Class Action for $180MM
BARCLAYS: Forex Rigging Penalties May Spur Class Actions
BARIATRIC FUSION: Recalls Dietary Supplements
BAYER: Appeals Court Won't Rehear WeightSmart Class Action

BEATS ELECTRONICS: Recalls Pill XL Speakers Due to Fire Hazard
BELFORD UNIVERSITY: Documents Over Diploma Mill Probe Released
BELFORD UNIVERSITY: Fake Degree Scam Victims Urge US Gov't Action
BIG LOTS: Recalls Hanging Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Approval Hearing in Jekowsky

BONSOY: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
BUTLER & HOSCH: Ex-Employees File WARN Act Class Action
CANADA: Aboriginals Demeaned in Schools, Commission Says
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ferguson" Suit Says
CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker & Van Nest to Defend Courier Class Action

CHAMP'S MUSHROOMS: Recalls Mini Bella Mushrooms Due to Listeria
CHICAGO: BOE Sued in Ga. Over Flawed Reverse Stock Split Methods
CHINA MOBILE: Moved to Dismiss Class Action
CON-WAY INC: Defending Against Calif. Wage & Hour Class Action
CONAGRA FOODS: Falsely Marketed Popcorn Products, Action Claims

CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Tillery" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COSTCO #159: Recalls Creamy Peanut Butter Products
CREE INC: Recalls LED T8 Replacement Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
CREE CANADA: Recalls 48" LED Replacement Lamps
CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action

DELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
DELTA OUTSOURCE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
DIAGEO: Aware of Thalidomide Risk Prior to Pullout, Book Says
DIAGEO AMERICAS: Falsely Marketed Bourbon Products, Suit Claims
DURANGO DINING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

E.I. DU PONT: Shareholder Derivative Suit Over Monsato Deal Nixed
ENERGY RESOURCES: Faces "Almazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Dick" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
ESPAR INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing

FACEBOOK INC: European Regulators Question Privacy Settings
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loeera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
FEDERATED COOPERATIVES: Recalls LED Bottles Due to Fire Hazard
FITBIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Sleep-Tracking Claims
FOOD CRAFT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

FURNITURE INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Soibelmman" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Airbag Class Action in Canada
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Transferred "Martin" Suit to C.D. California
GRANT PRODUCTION: Faces "Kreamer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

HEALTH COALITION: "Ongay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEALTHONE OF DENVER: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing in "Stransky"
HEMISPHERES CONDOMINIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers OT
HESS CORP: Appeals Court Upholds $3MM Default Judgment
HILTON WORLDWIDE: To Get Remaining Cash Collateral During 2015

HSBC HOLDINGS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Corrections Dept. Sued Over Inadequate Prison Care
ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Faces Football Concussion Class Action
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Filed in Securities Case

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Court Appointed Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend La Sondra Gallien Case
ITT EDUCATIONAL: SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Two Executives
JAMES HARDIE: Harbour Litigation to Fund Defective Cladding Suit
JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Pricing Strategies

JPMORGAN CHASE: Escapes $6.2MM London Whale Investor Suit
JULIANG HEALTHY: Recalls Goji Berry Products Due to Sulphites
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Remain in Preliminary Stages
KBR INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
KILLER SHRIMP: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Slattery" Suit Says

KRAPF'S COACHES: Drivers Can't Collect OT Wages, 3rd Cir. Rules
KVS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Patino" Suit Over Violation of FCRA
LINN ENERGY: Briefing on Class Certification Issues in Late 2015
LOGMEIN INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bolling-Owen" Suit to SC Dist. Court

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Loss in RWA Lawsuit Pegged at $300,000
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Appeal Court's Ruling in Prop 65 Matter
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Lawsuit at Preliminary Stage
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Balero Class Action

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 103 Pending Product Liability Class Actions
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Filed Oppositions to Motion in "Silverthorn"
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Steele Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Lyznick Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Steps Down Amid Flooring Safety Probe

MAZDA: Recalls 2004 B Series Models Due to Defective Airbag
MAZDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
MCDONALDS CORP: Low-Wage Workers Demand Minimum Wage Hike
MCLOONE'S ASBURY: Deal Resolving Ex-Employees' Suit Wins Okay
MECOX LANE: Says Unfavorable Outcome in Class Action "Remote"

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Truck Owners Mull Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Removed "Bey" Suit to Maryland District Court
MLS ACQUISITIONS: Faces "Abu-Taha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NABORS COMPLETION: Removed "Ridgeway" Suit to C.D. California
NAT'L FOOTBALL: $50-Mil. Publicity Rights Settlement Upheld

NAT'L RAILROAD: Amtrak Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Plaintiff Gets Massive Pension
NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Island Sued Over Inmate Sexual Abuse
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Torres" Suit to C.D. California
NUCOR: Race Discrimination Class Action Divides Fourth Circuit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Motion Filed Seeking Final Approval of Accord
OMNICARE INC: Supreme Court Vacated Court of Appeals Decision
ORTHOFIX INT'L: Milinazzo Dismissed From Class Suit
ORTHOFIX INT'L: Appeal of Adverse California Jury Verdict Pending
PACKERLAND WHEY: Faces "Drevenchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PANERA BREAD: Prepared to Defend Class Action
PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Class Actions in Early Stages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits
PFIZER INC: Plaintiff's Lawyers Appeal Class Action Rulings
PLAINS ALL: Sued Over Economic Losses Caused by Oil Spill

PPG ARCHITECTURAL: Recalls CIL(R) Scrub Free Deck Cleaner
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Provided Additional Disclosures in Settlement
RIGHT CHOICE: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RJ REYNOLDS: Engle Progeny Tobacco Litigation Drags On
SALLY HANSEN: Judge Approves Plaintiff's Expert in Hot-Wax Suit

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
SELECTION: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE: More Funding Pursued to Support Action
SPIRIT AIRLINES: 2 Class Actions in Discovery Process
TAKATA CORP: Faces Chrysler Airbag Class Action in Canada

TAKATA CORP: Class Action Plaintiff Speaks Out on Faulty Airbag
TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg Plans to Expand Airbag Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Marc Stanley Files Car Hacking Risk Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Multiple Law Firms Filed Class Actions
TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Guy" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Violation of TCPA

UNITED PARCEL: Settles Overcharging Allegations for $25 Million
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Settles Damaged Sperm Class Suit
US AIRWAYS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Airline Ticket Sale
VECTOR GROUP: 21 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 161 Engle Progeny Cases at March 31

VECTOR GROUP: 48 Individual Actions Pending Against Liggett
VECTOR GROUP: 310 Engle Progeny Plaintiff Claims Remain Pending
VECTOR GROUP: Hearing Held on Remaining Tobacco Litigation Issues
VECTOR GROUP: 12 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through March 2016
VERIZON WIRELESS: Two Agencies Impose Penalty Over Cramming

VISIONAMICS INC: Faces "Reeder" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOLARIS AVIATION: Cohen Milstein Named Class Action Lead Counsel
WALGREEN CO: Finest Nutrition Class Action Goes to Federal Court
WARRIOR ENERGY: Court Tosses MCA Exemption Arguments in FLSA Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Settle Florida and Alabama Cases

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Kansas Court Certified Class of Plaintiffs
WESTERN WINDOW: Recalls Venetian Blinds Due to Strangulation Risk
WORLD WRESTLING: LoGrasso Urges Wrestlers to Join Class Action
ZIMMER: Jury Tosses Bellwether Durom Cup Hip Implant MDL

* Asbestos Case Filings Rise in Philadelphia, Court Records Show
* Disclosure of Medical Records Contentious Issue in Injury Cases
* Judicial Court Amends Class Action Rules on Residuals
* Maurice Blackburn Mulls Class Action Against Coal Industry
* Tobacco Cos. Get Favorable Ruling Deceptive Ads Dispute

* Workers' Defamation Claims Against Employers on the Rise


                            *********


27 WH BAKE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Gonzalez, Juan Jose Gonzalez Diaz, Hermogenes Bravo (a/k/a
Marcos Bravo) and Hermenegildo Flores, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. 27 W.H. Bake, LLC (d/b/a Flavors
Cafe), Omar Motair and Ramy Motair, Case No. 1:15-cv-04161
(S.D.N.Y., May 29, 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 deli and restaurant located at 27
Whitehall Street, New York, New York 10004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADT CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations in a securities
class action.

On April 28, 2014, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks
monetary damages, including interest, and class action status on
behalf of all plaintiffs who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period between November 27, 2012 and January 29, 2014,
inclusive.  The claims focus primarily on the Company's statements
concerning its financial condition and future business prospects
for fiscal 2013 and the first quarter of fiscal 2014, its stock
repurchase program in 2012 and 2013 and the buyback of stock from
Corvex Management LP ("Corvex") in November 2013.

On June 27, 2014, another plaintiff filed a similar action in the
same court. On July 14, 2014, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the caption Henningsen v. The
ADT Corporation, Case No. 14-80566-CIV-DIMITROULEAS, and
appointing IBEW Local 595 Pension and Money Purchase Pension
Plans, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System and KBC Asset
Management NV as Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. In
addition to the Company, the defendants named in the action are
Naren Gursahaney, Kathryn A. Mikells, Michael S. Geltzeiler, Keith
A. Meister and Corvex.

On September 25, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss this action and
the parties await the Court's decision on that motion. On November
13, 2014, Mr. Geltzeiler was dismissed as a defendant without
prejudice from this action.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in this action and is currently unable to predict the
outcome or if legal damages will be awarded.


ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Hatamian Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Court has
denied the motion to dismiss the case, Hatamian v. AMD, et al.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during
the period April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. The complaint
seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the
individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm technology and
"Llano" product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs
claim, allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid
for the Company's common stock during the period. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.


AIR CANADA: Class Action Lawyers Explain Plane Crash Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tutton, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
lawyers for one of the class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of
people involved in a plane crash at Halifax's airport in March
held a meeting for passengers on May 20 to explain why they may
wish to sign on to the legal case.

Ray Wagner, lead partner in his Halifax-based firm, and Joe
Fiorante of Vancouver-based Camp, Fiorante, Matthews and Mogerman,
talked to about 40 people who attended an information session
about how the action will seek damages for alleged physical and
psychological injuries suffered by passengers.

Their statement of claim in April was the second to be filed with
the Nova Scotia Supreme Court since Air Canada Flight 624 hit the
ground short of the runway on March 29.  It says Air Canada did
not adequately train the flight crew on the procedures for the
Airbus A320 and that the crew chose not to abort the landing when
they knew or ought to have known that a safe touchdown was
impaired or prevented by the weather conditions at the time.  The
claims have not been proven in court, and no statements of defense
have been filed.

The aircraft was flying from Toronto when it hit an antenna array,
slammed into the ground about 335 meters short of the runway and
skidded for another 335 meters before stopping.

All 133 passengers and five crew on board survived, although about
two dozen people were sent to hospital.

The suit says lead plaintiffs Kathleen Carroll-Byrne, Asher Hodara
and Malanga Georges Liboy are seeking damages alleging pain and
suffering, loss of past and future income and past and future
costs of care, among other claims.

Ms. Caroll-Byrne said in an interview after the meeting that she
has decided to be a lead plaintiff because she wants to help avoid
future accidents.

The U.S. citizen, who was flying from Seattle to Halifax when the
accident occurred, said she is "an emotional mess" since the
incident, has difficulty sleeping and frequently finds she is
crying.

Ms. Caroll-Byrne, 55, said the experience of seeing the passengers
again was helpful because they were able to share their
experiences and discuss the value of a lawsuit.

"Tonight was the first time we reconnected and saw each other, so
it was definitely emotional," she said.

"There were passengers who were tearful and we had to get tissues
for them. I know it was very emotional for a lot of us."

Lianne Clark, 54, who was also a passenger, said she attended to
find out more about her legal rights.

"Unfortunately today you have to do these kinds of things for
change to happen.  You have to hold people accountable for the
change to happen," she said.

The computer consultant said she has quit a job she commuted to in
Ottawa and has taken a pay cut to stay in Halifax because she is
less comfortable flying since the accident.  The suit names Air
Canada, Airbus SAS, NAV Canada, the Halifax International Airport
Authority, the Attorney General of Canada and an unnamed captain
and first officer as defendants.

Air Canada and Nav Canada said they could not comment as the
matter is before the courts.  The France-based Airbus and the
airport authority did not return requests for comment.


ALABAMA: Same-Sex Marriage Suit Obtains Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Kirby, writing for Al.com, reports that in ruling for the
plaintiffs in a same-sex marriage case -- but agreeing to delay it
from taking effect until an expected ruling in June by the U.S.
Supreme Court -- a federal judge in Mobile cast the issue in human
terms.

The six plaintiffs all found themselves unable to get marriage
licenses despite U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade's
Jan. 23 ruling striking down Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage.
Some probate judges resisted that ruling.  All of them eventually
stopped issuing licenses to gays after a March ruling by the
Alabama Supreme Court.

On May 21 Judge Granade agreed to make the current civil complaint
a class-action lawsuit, with the plaintiffs representing all gay
couples in Alabama who want to get married, and probate judges in
Mobile and Baldwin counties representing themselves and the other
66 probate judges.

Judge Granade offered a snapshot of each of the three couples
appointed lead plaintiffs in the class-action suit:

Kristie Ogle and Jennifer Ogle, according to Judge Granade's
written order, have been in a committed relationship for 22 years
and have been raising a child together since 2002 in Alabama. They
tried to obtain a license from the Mobile County probate office on
March 4, but Probate Judge Don Davis had closed the marriage
license office.  The next day, officials at the Baldwin County
probate office told them only opposite-sex couples could get
licenses.

"They experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as
family members in the event of an emergency," the judge wrote.

Keith Ingram and Albert Holloway Pigg III have been together about
a year.  They drove to Houston County to get married on Feb. 9 --
the day Granade's original same-sex order was to take effect --
but could not get a license.  The office again refused to issue a
marriage license on Feb. 17.  They learned from a phone call to
the Baldwin County probate office on March 5 that Probate Judge
Tim Russell was only granting licenses to "traditional" couples.
"Each day that they are not permitted to be married, they
experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as
family members in the event of an emergency," Judge Granade wrote.
"They are particularly anxious because Ingram has seen many
doctors over the past several months for an undiagnosed illness."

Gary Wayne Wright II and Brandon Mabrey have lived together in
Alabama for six years and have been in a relationship for 18.  The
Marshall County probate office told the couple on Feb. 12 that it
was not issuing marriage licenses to anyone.  The office said the
same thing on March 2.  Three days later, the couple
unsuccessfully tried to get a license from the Baldwin County
probate office.  The U.S. Navy discharged Wright in 1991 for being
gay.  A muscular disorder has forced him to use a wheelchair, and
he receives less in veterans' benefits than he would if married.

"Wright and Mabrey want to get married to make their family legal
and to declare their commitment to each other before their loved
ones and community," Judge Granade wrote.  "Each day that they are
not permitted to marry, they experience uncertainty about whether
they will be treated as family members in the event of an
emergency and they want to receive the legal protections and
responsibilities that marriage provides."

Judge Granade gave a sense that she is aware of the public
interest in the case.  She ordered the plaintiffs to notify each
probate judge of the class-action suit by certified mail but
included the following footnote: "While the court is confident
that all of the probate judges will be notified almost immediately
of this order through the news media and other avenues, the Court
finds formal notice to be prudent."


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rivky Horowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02650 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMEDISYS INC: Discovery in Securities Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all discovery in the
Securities Class Action Lawsuits is currently stayed pursuant to
federal law.

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former senior executives. Additional
putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July
14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the District Court issued an order
consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and
the Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same
order, the District Court appointed the Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers'
Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead
Plaintiffs") for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the
District Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit
with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative
Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court.

On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants'
motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision
reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities
Complaint. The case then returned to the District Court for
further proceedings, including consideration of a motion filed on
April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for leave to amend the
Securities Complaint. The defendants anticipate filing a brief in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
Securities Complaint. All discovery in the case is currently
stayed pursuant to federal law.

In addition, on March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (the
"Petition"). The Petition asks the Supreme Court to consider
whether the Fifth Circuit erred in reversing the District Court's
dismissal of the Securities Complaint. The filing of the Petition,
standing alone, does not affect the ongoing proceedings before the
District Court. The Petition remains pending before the Supreme
Court. No assurances can be given about the timing or outcome of
this matter.


AMEDISYS INC: In Preliminary Stages of Reviewing Class Suit Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and the
plaintiffs are in the preliminary stages of reviewing information
voluntarily provided by the other party in anticipation of
mediation in the Wage and Hour Litigation.

"On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations," the Company said. "The
former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all
hours worked over forty hours in violation of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a
per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted
in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying
them overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion
arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was
ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted
and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013,
held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that
the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a
week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime
under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock
work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations
based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of
current and former employees they allege are similarly situated,
plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages
going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the
Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the
statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs
who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the
date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for
conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this
lawsuit is issued following conditional certification."

"Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on
December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that
putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29,
2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court
granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional
certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of
notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to
opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to
putative class members. The period within which putative class
members were permitted to opt in to the action expired on July 16,
2014."

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new
claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that
the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were
owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from
overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not
properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.

On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five
years before the filing of their original complaint under the
KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to
add the claims under the KWHA.

The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to explore the
possibility of a mediated settlement of the Connecticut case, and
on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for
six months while they pursue this process, which was granted by
the Court on February 24, 2015. Each of the Company and the
plaintiffs are in the preliminary stages of reviewing information
voluntarily provided by the other party in anticipation of
mediation. There can be no assurance that mediation will lead to
resolution of this matter.


AMEDISYS INC: Wage and Hour Case Filed in Illinois Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that, "On September 13,
2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and
hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on
both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme
resulted in her misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby
denying her overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal
and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar
employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois
statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues
and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case."


AMTRAK: Train Derailment in Philadelphia to Spur Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in the wake of the Amtrak train derailment in Philadelphia that,
according to public officials, resulted in the deaths of at least
seven people and injured more than 200, lawsuits seem all but
certain to be filed.  But attorneys who spoke to The Legal on May
13 said that until federal investigations are complete, the
direction of the litigation will remain unclear.

The train traveling from Washington, D.C., to New York went off
the rails at a sharp turn in Philadelphia's Port Richmond section
around 9:00 p.m. on May 12, according to media reports.  The train
was carrying 238 passengers and five crew members, media reports
said, and well over 100 were reported to have received hospital
treatment as of press time.  Calls to Amtrak's media relations
office were met with repeated busy signals.

Personal injury lawyers said any potential claims made against
Amtrak would rely on whatever the National Transportation Safety
Board uncovers in its investigation.  That investigation,
according to attorneys, will likely focus on engineer error, drug
testing, track defects, faulty equipment, and what has been
recorded by the "black box."

Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky co-founder Robert Mongeluzzi,
who has experience in railroad accident litigation, said he has
already been contacted by a prospective client.

"Anytime there's a train derailment on a speed-limited sharp
curve, the primary thing you're going to look at is excessive
speed," Mr. Mongeluzzi said of the focus of an investigation.
"The fact that the worst, or one of the worst, train disasters in
U.S. history occurred there in 1943 and killed 79 people speaks
volumes about the safety of the curve."

If disregarding the speed limit was a factor in the derailment,
Mr. Mongeluzzi said, Amtrak could face greater civil penalties.
"The speed itself raises an issue of punitive damages and whether
it would be recoverable in this case," Mr. Mongeluzzi said.  "I
believe that they can be."

Matthew Casey of Ross Feller Casey said that without an
examination of the facts uncovered, it's hard to make predictions
just yet.

"The devil will be in the details of the investigation," Mr. Casey
said.  "Historically . . . these kinds of derailments have
involved, at least in some respect, poor track maintenance."

Mr. Casey said that in similar rail accident cases, Amtrak has had
to cover the liability of other companies that own or lease the
tracks and have a responsibility to maintain the tracks.

"But, of course, at this point no one knows what caused the
derailment," he added.

Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter said any litigation that takes
place will most likely occur in Pennsylvania federal court, with
all cases consolidated.

"In mass disasters, there's always a consolidation of the cases,
although there could be more than one venue," Mr. Kline said.
"These cases will likely be litigated in federal court, and if
that's the case there will be consolidation in one venue."

Mr. Mongeluzzi agreed that the litigation will probably end up in
federal court.

"The position that Amtrak is going to take is that since the U.S.
government owns more than 51 percent of Amtrak, it requires being
in federal court," he said.

Both Messrs. Mongeluzzi and Kline likened the case to the Pier 34
collapse near Penn's Landing in May 2000, a case Mr. Mongeluzzi's
firm handled.  Though there will be coordination and
consolidation, Mr. Kline said the litigation will not be a class
action, nor will there be a settlement after two or three cases
are tried.

"This is not akin to a pharma litigation where there are tens of
thousands of cases with the need for bellwether trials," Mr. Kline
said.  "This is much more akin to the BP disaster . . . where
there are a smaller number of claims, yet a large enough number of
claims for consolidation."

But Mr. Kline reiterated that potential plaintiffs and their
families are still reeling from the accident and the investigation
has only just been launched.

"We don't know any of the facts at this point, like the conduct of
the engineer who was involved.  There needs to be drug testing and
a variety of other things," Mr. Kline said.

Lawyers who have represented Amtrak in litigation in the past,
including Joseph Bottiglieri of Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata
in Washington, D.C., and Yuri Brunetti of Landman Corsi Ballaine &
Ford in Philadelphia, did not return calls seeking comment.

Maureen Rowan of Philadelphia-based Gallagher & Rowan, a firm that
represented Amtrak previously, deferred comment to the company's
media office.

Additionally, in the past Amtrak has called upon large law firms
such as Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius to defend it
against other types of claims.


AUSTRALIA: Karratha Ratepayers to Launch Case Over Power Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Smale, writing for ABC North West WA, reports that The
Karratha City Ratepayers and Residents Association is set to begin
legal proceedings against the agencies involved in the rollout of
an upgrade to the town's power supply.  The Pilbara Underground
Power Project is set to improve power to thousands of homes and
businesses in Karratha with an underground network.  In August
last year, protests from Karratha ratepayers led to an extension
in payment due dates, and installment plan options.  Some
ratepayers had bills for thousands of dollars.

Marc Fogarty, Treasurer for the Karratha City Ratepayers and
Residents Association, told the ABC's Hilary Smale that debt
collectors are now being used to recover funds from residents
refusing to pay.  They're now in the process of forming a class
action against the City of Karratha, Horizon Power, and the State
government for their handling of the whole project.

The ratepayers association allege there's been negligence, a lack
of following of procedures and due diligence, and a lack of
consultation.

Mr. Fogarty says there's no reason the ratepayers should have paid
anything for the Horizon Power led project.

"The cost benefit to them is vastly superior than it is to any
council feedback  . . . it just doesn't make sense why they need a
public contribution."

"If it goes to court we will be pursuing the full amount plus
damages, if that's what is required to make this message clear
that we believe that there has been a complete let down by all of
the relevant agencies.

If it goes to that, that's just more taxpayers money that's going
to be wasted."

In a statement, the City of Karratha confirmed there are 250
properties for which no payment has been made, half of which are
for service charges between $100 and $5000.  A total of 95% of
properties have now made payment either in full or through
individual payment plans.

Tracy Armson, Communications Manager for Horizon Power, says the
project is an important upgrade of the region.

"Obviously it's a concern to Horizon Power that the Ratepayers
Association doesn't really want the project in Karratha, because
we think that there's a significant number of benefits."

Ms. Armson says the safety of staff and the public is driving the
project.

"Our first priority is always the safety of the general public and
our staff who have to go out and repair damage after cyclones, so
that's why Horizon Power and the State government are fully
committed to this project."

The City of Karratha says that Council will continue to work with
the Karratha City Ratepayers and Residents Association and all
remaining property owners in a constructive and appropriate manner
to ensure a positive outcome is achieved.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Securities Class Action for $180MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, Stephanie Russell-Kraft, Jody Godoy and Evan
Weinberger, writing for Law360, report that the Bank of New York
Mellon Corp. said on May 21 it will pay $180 million to resolve a
putative class action brought by institutional investors accusing
the company of running a deceptive foreign currency exchange
program, according to a document filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The tentative settlement will resolve claims brought by the state
of Oregon on behalf of several public pension funds and others
alleging BNY Mellon misled investors by making deceptive public
statements about its foreign exchange program in violation of
securities laws.

"This settlement effectively resolves virtually all of the
currently pending foreign exchange-related actions, with the
exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers,"
the company said in the regulatory filing.

The deal brings an end to the long-running multidistrict
litigation first brought in 2011, alleging that BNY Mellon told
customers it provided the "best execution" for foreign currency
trades when in reality it bought the currencies at the lowest
price of the day and sold it at the highest, pocketing the
difference.

In March, BNY Mellon paid $714 million to settle fraud claims by
the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York attorney
general and others over the foreign exchange program.  BNY Mellon
also admitted to certain facts and agreed to fire two executives
implicated in the scheme.

According to prosecutors, BNY Mellon employees admitted to
investigators that the bank neither sought the best rates for the
exchange program's customers nor provided the best execution.

The investor class sought damages on behalf of investors who
purchased BNY Mellon stock between February 2008 and October 2011.

The bank had argued in April it should be able to defend itself
separately against each institutional investor's claim.

Some members of the putative class knew about the bank's pricing
as they had used its currency exchange product, some did not rely
on the information, and still others did not suffer damages as a
result of the alleged misstatements, the bank said.  The different
levels of knowledge and reliance among the plaintiffs would make
it impossible to determine classwide damages, the bank said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Max W. Berger, John C. Browne
and Jeremy P. Robinson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP and Keith Ketterling, Keith Dubanevich, Scott Shorr and Keil
Mueller of Stoll Berne.

BNY Mellon is represented by Reid M. Figel -- rfigel@khhte.com --
Andrew E. Goldsmith -- agoldsmith@khhte.com -- Andrew M.
Hetherington, Andrew Chun-Yang Shen, Anna Mayergoyz Weinberg,
Caitlin Sinclair Hall, David Lawrence Schwarz, Derek Tam Ho,
Geoffrey Morris Klineberg, Jessica Caroline Collins, Joseph
Solomon Hall, Kenneth M Fetterman, Kevin J Miller, Michael N.
Nemelka, Thomas Wooten Traxler Jr. and Whitney Corinne Cloud of
Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC.

The case is Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. et al., case number
1:11-cv-09175, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


BARCLAYS: Forex Rigging Penalties May Spur Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
FXMania reports that after regulators fined several banks,
including Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, $5.6bn for rigging
forex markets, legal experts have warned this may act as a
springboard for many more new class-action legal claims on the
same companies.  The Sunday Telegraph has resuscitated a similar
earlier story from but now has reported opinions from some lawyers
that settlements in the UK and Europe could ultimately exceed the
regulators' penalties.  Some cases having already been settled in
the US, where such cases are easier to arrange, but law firm
Hausfeld, which has been involved in several class action cases in
the US, has begun to drum up support from institutions, with court
cases expected in Europe before long.


BARIATRIC FUSION: Recalls Dietary Supplements
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bariatric Fusion Inc., of Elma, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 800 Dietary supplements. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child-resistant and senior friendly as
required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The chews inside
the package contain iron, which can cause serious injury or death
to young children if multiple chews are ingested.

This recall involves all 60-count bags of cherry flavor Soft Chews
Iron with Vitamin C dietary supplements. The pink re-sealable bag
has an image of cherries and a leaf on the front of the package.
"Soft Chews Iron with Vitamin C," "Cherry flavor," "Bariatric
Fusion," "60 Soft Chews" and "Dietary Supplement" are also on the
front. Lot number 14191C2 is printed near the bottom of the back
of the bags being recalled.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/phxjrlh

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Bariatric Fusion distributors, drug stores, and medical and
wellness centers nationwide and online at BariatricFusion.com,
BariatricChoice.com and DietDirect.com from September 2014 to
February 2015 for about $23.

Consumers should immediately place the product out of a child's
sight and reach, and return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund or for free Soft Chews Iron with Vitamin C dietary
supplements in compliant packaging.


BAYER: Appeals Court Won't Rehear WeightSmart Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur H. Bryant, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that what should judges do when a class action charges a company
with cheating thousands of people out of small amounts of money
each, but there are no records of who those people are? For
decades, the answer has been clear: Certify the class if it meets
the requirements for class certification, then distribute any
funds recovered to class members who submit valid claim forms or
affidavits.  If that's not sufficient, distribute the funds to
appropriate others via cy pres awards so the case compensates the
class members to the extent it can, holds the defendant
accountable and deters the defendant and others from violating the
law and class members' rights in the future.

In a series of recent decisions exemplified by Carrera v. Bayer,
however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has come
up with a new answer: Refuse to certify the class because the
class members are not "ascertainable" and let the defendant keep
the money.  The court on May 1 declined to rehear the case en
banc.

Carrera was a typical consumer class action that would have been
regularly certified in the past.  It sought damages from Bayer
Corp. for falsely and deceptively promoting WeightSmart, a dietary
supplement.  The proposed class was clearly defined in objective
terms (all people who purchased WeightSmart in Florida in a
specified time period).  Bayer's total liability was capped at a
finite amount based on its records and Bayer could not have been
held accountable without a class action. The district court
certified the class.

But the Third Circuit reversed because the class members were not
"ascertainable."  It held that consumer class actions cannot be
certified unless the plaintiffs can prove they will be able to:
first, identify -- or "ascertain" -- the individual members of the
class; second, do so through a process that is "reliable,"
"administratively feasible," and does not require "much, if any,
individual factual inquiry"; and third, do so without relying on
affidavits and claim forms because they are not sufficiently
"reliable."

Carrera and the Third Circuit's related decisions have created
enormous confusion because they take what has long been viewed as
an implicit requirement for class certification -- that the class
be ascertainable and defined in objective terms -- and turn it
into a new requirement that the class members be ascertainable and
identifiable through what the Third Circuit calls objective
evidence (business records).

A MATTER OF LOGIC

The former was implied as a matter of logic.  For a class action
to effectively resolve a group's claims, the group had to be
defined in objective terms (such as all people who bought a
specific product between specific dates), not subjective terms
(such as all people "active in the peace movement") or terms that
turn on the merits (such as people adversely affected by "the
invalid regulation").  The latter is impossible to meet in almost
all cases involving small, over-the-counter purchases and
conflicts with what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the "policy
at the very core of the class action mechanism," ensuring justice
can be done where "small recoveries do not provide the incentive
for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her
rights."

This inherent conflict is creating extraordinary turmoil.
Clients, lawyers and judges are spending enormous resources
litigating whether previously routine class actions can be
certified, what "ascertainability" means, whether it is required,
what a "reliable" and "administratively feasible" process is and
whether it's required, how much factual inquiry is enough but not
too much, and why affidavits and claim forms -- used for decades
and recommended to judges in the Manual for Complex Litigation --
are suddenly not "reliable" in class actions.

Courts are issuing varying rulings.  And some are arguing that --
combined with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Concepcion and
Italian Colors enforcing class action bans in corporations'
adhesive consumer and small business "agreements" -- the Third
Circuit's "ascertainability" requirement will eliminate consumer
class actions and let wholesale violations of the law go
unchecked.

But the confusion from Carrera may be otherwise resolved, as it
was long ago.  The Ninth and Eleventh circuits are poised to
address the Third Circuit's approach.  The New Jersey Appellate
Division has just rejected it.  The Advisory Committee on the
Civil Rules and its Rule 23 Subcommittee are being urged to rule
it out.  And the Third Circuit just issued Byrd v. Aaron's, which
overturned a district court's decision denying class certification
on "ascertainability" grounds.  The decision tries to "clarify"
its reasoning and says the district courts have overreacted to the
Third Circuit's rulings. Concurring in the result, Judge Marjorie
Rendell urged the Third Circuit to admit it had made a mistake:

"It is time to retreat from our heightened ascertainability
requirement in favor of following the historical meaning of
ascertainability under Rule 23," she said.

To find that meaning, look back to 1967, when this
"ascertainability" confusion was first expressed and resolved.  In
what the Rule 23 Subcommittee calls the "famous California case of
Daar v. Yellow Cab," the cab meters had been set too high in Los
Angeles for a period of time and a class action was filed.  The
company argued the class could not be certified because the class
members were impossible to identify.  The court said, "Defendant
apparently fails to distinguish between the necessity of
establishing the existence of an ascertainable class and the
necessity of identifying the individual members of such a class as
a prerequisite to a class suit."

The court held that the former was required; the latter was not,
and Yellow Cab was held accountable.  We will see if the current
federal courts resolve the confusion the same way.


BEATS ELECTRONICS: Recalls Pill XL Speakers Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Beats Electronics LLC, of Culver City, Calif. and Apple Inc., of
Cupertino, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 222,000
Beats Pill XL speaker in the U.S. (and about 11,000 in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The battery can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves all Beats Pill XL portable, wireless
speakers. The recalled products are plastic, capsule-shaped
speakers about 4 inches tall by 13 inches wide by 4 inches deep
with a plastic mesh grille on the front and a built-in carrying
handle to the rear. The small "b" Beats logo is on the grille and
"beatspillXL" is on the handle. The speakers come in five colors
black, white, pink, metallic sky and titanium.

Apple has received eight reports of incidents of the speakers
overheating, including one with a burn to a consumer's finger and
one with damage to a consumer's desk.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/p4oes3s

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Apple
Retail Stores and major retail stores nationwide and online at
Apple.com and Beatsbydre.com from January 2014 through June 2015
for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Apple for a $325 Apple Store credit or electronic payment.
Apple will provide a postage paid box for consumers to send their
Pill XL speaker to Apple.


BELFORD UNIVERSITY: Documents Over Diploma Mill Probe Released
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune reported that New York Times reporter Declan Walsh, whose
expose uncovered Axact's fake degree empire, has released
documents pertaining to his investigations into the IT company's
dubious online college websites.

The documents were shared by Mr. Walsh using the online file
sharing service Dropbox on May 23.  They include scans of
registration documents for the mailboxes of Belford High School
and Belford University in Texas and California, a copy of Axact's
internal publication, screen grabs from the school owner's
testimony, an image of the location listed as the address for the
bogus International Accreditation Organisation and scans of an
article in Arab News which linked Axact with fake degrees being
sold abroad.

Mr. Walsh also shared a guide to the documents he uploaded online.
According to the guide, disgruntled American students of Belford
High School and Belford University brought a class-action lawsuit
in an American court in 2009 which ended three years later with a
$22.7 million judgment against the schools.

"During the hearings, a Karachi man named Salem Kureshi claimed to
be the owner of the schools and denied any link to Axact," Walsh
wrote in the guide.  "But registration documents for the schools'
mailboxes in Texas and California show that the schools' mail was
being forwarded to Axact's Karachi headquarters," he added.

Mr. Walsh said the Texas mailbox was opened by a man from Karachi
named Syed Asim Hashmi, who was listed as a former Axact employee
on page 19 of the IT company's 2010 publication "Axactian".  The
internal magazine came out four years after Hashmi opened the
Texas mailbox.

Meanwhile, the Arab News article, written by technology journalist
Molouk Ba-Isa on October 6, 2009, identified Axact's Karachi
office as the source of fake degrees being posted abroad via
Dubai.  According to Mr. Walsh, the article was later pulled from
the Internet following a legal threat from Axact's lawyers, but
never formally retracted.


BELFORD UNIVERSITY: Fake Degree Scam Victims Urge US Gov't Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GeoTV reports that lawyers for 30,000 Americans scammed by a bogus
degree mill linked to Pakistani company Axact are calling on the
US government to act in the case, says a report by a US newspaper.

An investigative report by The New York Times accused Karachi-
based company Axact of reaping millions of dollars by selling fake
academic degrees online.

The NYT report mentioned the class action lawsuit filed by two US
attorneys as part of the larger on-going international scam of
selling fake degrees run by the firm, which has become the focus
of massive a criminal investigation in Pakistan following the NYT
investigative story.

Attorneys at the Googasian Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills, which
represents 30,000 victims of the scam, now say they are hoping to
achieve justice for the thousands of Americans who were harmed by
"crooks".

The US authorities have enough material to act on the case,
attorney Dean Googasian told The Oakland Press.

A US District Court in Detroit gave a $22 million judgment in
favor of the 30,000 Americans almost three years ago, but the
money has not been collected because the defendant is outside of
the US.

The 30,000 American victims received fake degrees from Belford
High School and University, which has been linked to the alleged
global scam run by Axact.

"They preyed on people in Michigan and throughout the country for
years," said Tom Howlett, another attorney who represents the
plaintiffs.  "It was a case about a fake high school being run by
a bunch of scam artists."

"The crooks behind this scam are using the US mails, they are
using the wires here through the internet and telephone, they are
utilizing the name and signature of the Secretary of State John
Kerry and the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and they
are ripping off American citizens," said Mr. Googasian.  "All of
which give the US government ample incentive to put a stop to it."

Mr. Howlett said the US Attorney's office, the Justice Department
and the State Department in Washington, DC should look into the
matter.

A call to the US Attorney's office in Detroit seeking comments on
the case has not been returned yet, said the report published by
The Oakland Press.

One of the thousands of victims, 31-year-old Elizabeth Lauber,
said she paid about $300 for what she was made to believe was an
accredited degree from Belford High School, only to find out if
was bogus when she applied to university for higher education.

According to court records, the school was associated with
addresses in Panama and also in Texas.

During a court deposition, the defendant, Salem Kureshi, who
appeared via Skype from a dark room in Pakistan, said he started
the online school. His attorneys later withdrew from the case.

Ms. Lauber said her goal is not to get the amount back she paid
for the fake degree but to make sure it doesn't happen again with
anyone else.

"I just want them to stop cheating and lying to other people," she
told the newspaper.


BIG LOTS: Recalls Hanging Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots Stores Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 16,000 Hanging chairs. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hanging chairs can tip over when they face sideways and swing
beyond the base, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves egg-shaped hanging chairs that are made from
brown plastic wicker pattern mesh and have red seat cushions. They
hang from a chain connected to a black metal pole and U-shaped
base.

Big Lots has received eight reports of the hanging chairs falling
in stores with consumers in them, including five reports of minor
injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nzt3gen

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Big
Lots stores from December 2014 through January 2015 for about $300
including the base.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hanging
chairs and return the chairs to Big Lots for a full refund.
Consumers can discard the base.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Approval Hearing in Jekowsky
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria issued an order on May 26, 2015,
amending the summary of applicable dates in the order granting the
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the
case captioned BARRY JEKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-
02158-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court's order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1IC9I4dfrom Leagle.com, provides the following new
Summary of Applicable Dates:

1. Preliminary Order Approved by the Court March 24, 2015

2. Class Notice to be sent by Claims Administrator June 8, 2015
(Settlement Agreement and Release Section IV-A) (Preliminary
Approval Order +75D)

3. Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Class July 13,
2015 Counsel (Deadline for exclusions/objections -10D)

4. Exclusion from the Settlement Class postmarked by July 23, 2015
(Settlement Agreement and Release Section VI-A) (Mailing of Class
Notice +45D)

5. Objection to the Settlement postmarked by July 23, 2015
(Settlement Agreement and Release Section I-28) (Mailing of Class
Notice +45D)

6. Follow-up Post Card Reminder to class members to July 27, 2015
submit claim form (Settlement Agreement and Release Section I-29)

7. Deadline to submit claim forms September 8, 2015 (Settlement
Agreement and Release Section III-A) (Mailing of Class Notice
+90D) 8. Claims administrator provide BMW a list of all September
18, 2015 conditionally approved Claims (Settlement Agreement and
Release Sec. V-C) (Claim deadline +14D)

9. Claims Administrator's Compliance Declaration September 18,
2015 (Settlement Agreement and Release Section V-H) (Deadline to
file final approval motion -10D)

10. Motion for Final Approval and Response to Any October 5, 2015
Objection filed by (USDC-ND Cal Local Rule 7-2) (Hearing -35D)

11. Reply to Objection October 19, 2015

12. Final Approval hearing October 29, 2015

13. Effective Date November 30, 2015 (Settlement Agreement and
Release Section I-19) (Final Approval Order +31D)

14. Payment of all approved claims by Claims December 10, 2015
Administrator (Settlement Agreement and Release Section V-I)
(Effective Date +10D)

15. Checks expire March 10, 2016 (Settlement Agreement and Release
Section V-H) (Issuance +90D)

16. Compliance Hearing TBA (July 2016)

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP MARK A. CHAVEZ -- mark@chavezgertler.com --
Mill Valley, CA, KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP BRYAN KEMNITZER,
NANCY BARRON ELLIOT CONN, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Barry Jekowsky and the proposed class.


BONSOY: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------
Brad Woodhouse, Esq. and Sarah Schnabel, Esq. of Corrs Chambers
Westgarth, in an article for Lexology, report that on May 7, 2015,
the Court approved the Bonsoy class action settlement which had
been brokered just prior to trial in October last year.  As well
as a reminder of the high stakes nature of product liability class
actions for all parties, the settlement approval decision confirms
that the courts take a pragmatic approach when it comes to the
settlement of product liability class actions.

THE LONG ROAD TO SETTLEMENT

As is often the case with product liability class actions, the
Bonsoy class action followed a voluntary recall and the threat of
regulatory action. The recall, on Christmas Eve 2009, was prompted
by allegations of unusually high levels of iodine in Bonsoy soy
milk.  A class action in the Victorian Supreme Court against the
Australian distributor of Bonsoy followed in 2010, brought on
behalf of all consumers who alleged injury by reason of their
consumption of the soymilk in the 5 year period prior to the
recall.  Both the Japanese manufacturer and exporter (which Corrs
represented) were later joined as defendants to the proceedings.

The settlement was reached with a 6 week trial looming and
involved a $25 million lump sum payment inclusive of costs and a
settlement distribution scheme.  Under the proposed scheme, the
group members' entitlement to part of the proceeds is dependent
upon an assessment that the claim satisfies causation and any
relevant statutory thresholds.


BUTLER & HOSCH: Ex-Employees File WARN Act Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a week
after they lost their jobs suddenly, former employees of the
Butler & Hosch law firm scrambled to deal with the aftermath.

"I know a woman who is being thrown out of her house, with her
baby," said Domenique Grant, who said she was a former employee of
the firm in Miami.  "I know we shouldn't be living from paycheck
to paycheck, but that's the reality today."

Former employees and court documents told a grim tale of the final
days at the foreclosure law firm, which had offices in Orlando,
Miami and Dallas, among many other cities.

"We had no warning.  We were told nothing.  We were called into a
teleconference meeting with all the other offices on May 21 and
told we wouldn't be paid for the past three weeks," Grant said.

The failure of executives to warn employees about the pending
collapse has drawn a lawsuit filed on May 21 in Fort Lauderdale
federal court.  It names two former Butler employees as
plaintiffs, but it seeks class-action status on behalf of 700
former employees of the firm.

The lawsuit alleges that the firm failed to abide by the federal
WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification).  The act
requires most companies with 100 or more employees to warn of mass
layoffs 60 days in advance.

In response to a reporter's questions, a spokeswoman for the
Florida Bar said attorneys and law firms are not even required to
report the closure of a firm to the Bar.  People with complaints
about individual attorneys can file a formal grievance by
contacting the Florida Bar.

Lawyers are required to notify clients and seek permission of the
court to withdraw from representation and take reasonable steps to
protect client interests.

At least one attorney, Geoffrey Sanders of Orlando, has filed a
claim in Orange County Circuit Court against the Butler firm for
$5,000 in travel expenses he is allegedly owed dating back to
August.

Eatonville property

One of Central Florida's busiest developers backed off from a $10
million offer he had made to develop the former Hungerford
Elementary site in Eatonville.

Randall Greene, partner with DCS Holdings, said he's no longer
interested because town officials decided to pursue a closed
bidding process instead.  DCS is best known locally for developing
upscale homes at Bella Collina near Clermont.

The town has been trying to help the Orange County School District
sell the Hungerford site for years since the school closed in
2009.  "We're backing off.  We're pulling the plug.  We would
enter it as a clean competition, but right now we're out,"
Mr. Greene said.

In an interview, Mr. Greene accused Mayor Anthony Grant of trying
to line up another development team that the mayor knows
personally.  Ms. Grant denied those allegations.  "I've met with
several developers but I haven't chosen a particular developer.
The way to avoid allegations like this is to have a fair, open
process."

Mr. Greene's proposal was to pay assessed value for the property
and invest up to $250 million in a mixed use development.


CANADA: Aboriginals Demeaned in Schools, Commission Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kennedy, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that Canadians
must acknowledge that for generations their public schools have
fed them misinformation about aboriginal people, says the chair of
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Justice Murray Sinclair, whose commission has examined the history
and abuses that took place in Indian residential schools, made the
comment in a personal interview with the Citizen.  Justice
Sinclair's commission has finished six years of hearings and
research and will publicly release its findings in Ottawa on
June 2.

The TRC's report will provide a detailed account of how 150,000
aboriginals were stripped from their families starting in the
1880s and sent to church-run schools established by the federal
government.  The last residential school closed in the 1990s.

The report will chronicle the abuse many faced, and how the system
scarred several generations of aboriginals, leaving their
communities in shambles.

But Justice Sinclair emphasized that one of the most important
messages that will come from the report is that the consequences
of the school system are far more wide-reaching than many realize.

"This is not an aboriginal problem," he said.  "This is a Canadian
problem.  Because at the same time that aboriginal people were
being demeaned in the schools and their culture and language were
being taken away from them and they were being told that they were
inferior, they were pagans, that they were heathens and savages
and that they were unworthy of being respected -- that very same
message was being given to the non-aboriginal children in the
public schools as well."

As a result, he said, many generations of non-aboriginal Canadians
have had their perceptions of aboriginal people "tainted."

"They need to know that this history includes them," Justice
Sinclair said of Canadians.  He said many people have told the
commission they did not know their country had set up a school
system that treated aboriginal children so poorly.

Justice Sinclair said the commission decided during its work that
it needed to be "gentle" with Canadians as they learned of their
country's past.

"We needed to be sure that people were brought to the table of
knowledge about this in a way that didn't scare them, didn't push
them away, didn't make them feel ashamed or guilty or that they
were to blame.

"But they needed to see that they were victims, too, of this
history."

In their report, Sinclair and his co-commissioners, former
journalist Marie Wilson and Alberta Chief Willie Littlechild, will
make recommendations to federal and provincial governments.  It's
clear one of them will be to ensure schools teach children about
the residential schools and indigenous culture.

"By including teaching around residential schools in Canadian
curriculum," said Justice Sinclair, "we are not only opening the
door to having aboriginal people become part of the circle, we are
also opening the eyes of Canadians to the fact that they have been
educated in the public schools about aboriginals historically, and
even today, in (a way) that is simply wrong and doesn't contain
accurate information."

Justice Sinclair's commission was established as part of a class-
action lawsuit settlement between residential school students and
the federal government and churches.

In addition to telling the truth behind the school saga, the
commission hopes to foster reconciliation between Canada's
aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

"The message for all Canadians is it's important for us to
understand that it's now time for us to live up to the reputation
that we think we had, that we thought we had -- and we don't
have," he said.

"It's important for us to understand that we have deluded
ourselves as a country to a certain extent because we have not
educated ourselves about this experience."

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which heard testimony
from more than 7,000 former residential school students, has
helped shine a light on their experiences.

Justice Sinclair said that now that those stories about "damaged"
people have been told and it is clear that "Canada is responsible
for that damage," it's time for aboriginals and non-aboriginals to
forge a better relationship.

"This is about your grandchildren," Justice Sinclair said he often
tells people.

"Because we're leaving them this society.  And do we want to leave
them a society in which they are always in conflict? Or do we want
to leave them a society in which they see themselves as partners
in this wonderful nation that we want to have, but we don't yet
have."


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ferguson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Ferguson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02660 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker & Van Nest to Defend Courier Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Restaurant-
delivery app Caviar Inc. has tapped Keker & Van Nest to fend off
claims it misclassified workers as independent contractors.

Partners R. James Slaughter, Ashok Ramani and Simona Agnolucci
entered their appearances on May 13 on behalf of the company.

Caviar uses couriers to drop off food orders for customers that
connect to the service online or through a mobile app and is one
of several "sharing economy" ventures facing litigation over its
treatment of workers.  A suit filed in March claims the company
avoided reimbursing couriers for work expenses by improperly
classifying them as independent contractors instead of employees.
Caviar, which was acquired by mobile-payment company Square Inc.
in August, claims on its website that its couriers earn up to $25
an hour on a flexible schedule.

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who sued on behalf of
a potential class of Caviar couriers, is also targeting car
services Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., cleaning-service
Homejoy and delivery service Postmates Inc.  She claims the
companies all misclassified their workers, and in so doing, denied
them employment benefits including minimum wage and overtime.

Keker & Van Nest also represents Lyft.  Paul Hastings represents
Homejoy, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represents Uber.  An attorney
has not yet entered an appearance for Postmates.


CHAMP'S MUSHROOMS: Recalls Mini Bella Mushrooms Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall
Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Champ's Mushrooms
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9872

Champ's Mushrooms is recalling Champ's Mushrooms brand Sliced Mini
Bella Mushrooms from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Champ's      Sliced Mini   680 g   BEST BEFORE  6 78286 29837 6
  Mushrooms    Bella                 15/JN/07
               Mushrooms

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/GgS8K8


CHICAGO: BOE Sued in Ga. Over Flawed Reverse Stock Split Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Huntley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chicago Board Of Options Exchange, Options
Clearing Corporation, and John Doe (Market Maker), Case No. 1:15-
cv-01945-AT (N.D. Ga., June 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UVXY and UVXY1 options
who suffered damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
flawed mathematical methodology for the reverse stock splits.

Chicago Board of Options Exchange is a national securities
exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and located in Chicago, Illinois.

Options Clearing Corporation is a Delaware Corporation based in
Chicago and is the lone clearing agency for equity options in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nikki G. Bonner, Esq.
      BONNER & PENN, P.C.
      One Alliance
      3500 Lenox Road, Suite 1500
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 995-6643
      Facsimile: (404) 995-6644
      E-mail: nikki@bonnerpennlaw.com


CHINA MOBILE: Moved to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------
China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group Limited said in its
Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that, the Company has moved to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit.

"Beginning in June 2014, we were named as a defendant in two
putative securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, which have since been consolidated into one suit in the same
court, In re China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, Ltd.
Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Civ. No. 14-4471, the Company said.
"The primary allegations are that certain Company filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission were false and/or misleading
about the Company's internal controls and compliance with U.S.
GAAP. On November 20, 2014, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed Miran Segregated Portfolio Company/Miran Long Short
Equity Segregated Portfolio as the lead plaintiff. Plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint on February 2, 2015 and on March 19,
2015 we moved to dismiss the complaint in full. We believe that we
have meritorious defenses to the complaint and we intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the claim."


CON-WAY INC: Defending Against Calif. Wage & Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Con-way is vigorously
defending itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious
legal defenses in the California Wage and Hour class action.

Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca
Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case).
The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey
County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court
of California, Northern District. On April 12, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiff's request for class certification in the Pina
case as to a limited number of issues. The class certification
rulings do not address whether Con-way will ultimately be held
liable.

Con-way challenged the certification of the class in this case,
and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con-way has denied
any liability with respect to these claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this case. There are multiple factors
that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate the amount of
potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter,
including: (1) Con-way is vigorously defending itself and believes
that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) at
this stage in the case, there are unresolved questions of fact
that could be important to the resolution of this matter.


CONAGRA FOODS: Falsely Marketed Popcorn Products, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Conagra Foods Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02424-JSW (N.D.
Cal., June 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who
purchased Crunch 'n Munch popcorn snacks, that are falsely
marketed by the Defendant as free of trans fat.

The popcorn snacks at issue contain partially hydrogenated oil
(PHO), a food additive banned in many parts of the world due to
its artificial trans-fat content. Artificial trans-fat is a toxic
carcinogen for which there are many safe and commercially viable
substitutes.

Conagra Foods Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures,
markets, and sells caramel popcorn snacks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Tillery" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tillery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cornell Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a CWES, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00454 (W.D. Tex., June 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Cornell Wireline Services, LLC provides well perforation services
to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


COSTCO #159: Recalls Creamy Peanut Butter Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco #159 (Ajax)
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9865

  Brand name  Common name  Size   Code(s)     UPC      Additional
  ----------  ----------   ----   on product  ---      info
                                  ----------           ----------
Kirkland      Natural      2 x 1  Best By    0 96619-  Sold only
Signature     Peanut       kg     dates      89682 0   at Costco
              Butter -            17NOV2015            #159
              Creamy              up to and            (Ajax,ON)
                                  including
                                  08JAN2016
Kirkland      Natural      1 kg   Best By    0 96619-  Sold only
Signature     Peanut              dates      89681 3   at Costco
              Butter -            17NOV2015            #159
              Creamy              up to and            (Ajax,ON)
                                  including
                                  08JAN2016


CREE INC: Recalls LED T8 Replacement Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cree Inc., of Durham, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about
700,000 Cree(R) LED T8 replacement lamps in the U.S. (an
additional 11,500 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Electrical arcing may cause the lamp to overheat and melt, posing
a burn hazard.

This recall involves Cree LED T8 lamps used indoors to replace
traditional two pin T8 fluorescent tubes. The white lamps have a
cylindrical shape and measure 48 inches long. The affected units
are marked as "BT848 Series Lamp" with the product part number on
the lamp itself or printed on a white label affixed to the lamp. A
four digit date code is printed on the lamp under a statement that
reads "Compatible with Instant Start, Rapid Start and Dimmable
Electronic Ballasts." Product numbers and UPC codes printed on the
product packaging included in the recall are listed below:

  CONSUMER Product Number      Description        UPC
  -----------------------      -----------        ---
BT848-17027FLW-BDG13-1C100     Linear LED T8      849665002932
                               Replacement Lamp,
                               4 Ft, 1700 Lm,
                               2700K - US
BT848-17040FLW-BDG13-1C100     Linear LED T8      849665002154
                               Replacement Lamp,
                               4 Ft, 1700 Lm,
                               4000K - US

  COMMERCIAL Product Number    Description
  -------------------------    -----------
LEDT8P-48-21L-35K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 2100 Lm, 3500K
LEDT8P-48-21L-40K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 2100 Lm, 4000K
LEDT8P-48-17L-35K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 1700 Lm, 3500K
LEDT8P-48-17L-40K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 1700 Lm, 4000K
LEDT8P-48-17L-30K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 1700 Lm, 3000K
LEDT8P-48-17L-50K              Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp, 4
                               Ft, 1700 Lm, 5000K

Date Codes: Any of the above product numbers with any of the
following date codes are affected: 3314, 3414, 3514, 3614, 3714,
3814, 3914, 4014, 4114, 4214, 4314, 4414, 4514, 4614, 4714, 4814,
4914, 5014, 5114, 5214, 0115, 0215, 0315, 0415, 0515, 0615, 0715,
0815, 0915, 1015, 1115, 1215, 1315, 1415, 1515, 1615.

Cree has received four reports of the lamps overheating and
melting. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/pqpfjvh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot(R) nationwide and to commercial lighting customers
through electrical distributors from August 2014 through April
2015 for about $22 per tube.

Consumers should immediately stop using, disconnect or switch off
the fixture, remove the recalled T8 LED lamp, put it in a safe
place and contact the firm to receive a full refund or replacement
lamp.


CREE CANADA: Recalls 48" LED Replacement Lamps
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 4, 2015
Posting date: June 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53671

This recall involves a 48"   LED replacement lamp for certain 25
watt fixtures which use fluorescent T8 lamps, and is available in
two colours: cool white and soft white.

The affected units have " BT848 Series Lamp"   marked on the lamp
itself or printed on a white label affixed to the lamp, with the
product part number appearing on the tube on the line below. A
four digit date code is printed beneath the statement "Compatible
with Instant Start, Rapid Start and Dimmable Electronic Ballasts".
Products with any of the specified product numbers and date codes
below are affected:

Product Numbers:

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-21L-35K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-21L-40K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-17L-30K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-17L-35K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-17L-40K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-17L-50K

  --- Linear LED T8 Replacement Lamp LEDT8P-48-21L-30K

Date Codes: 3314, 3414, 3514, 3614, 3714, 3814, 3914, 4014, 4114,
4214, 4314, 4414, 4514, 4614, 4714, 4814, 4914, 5014, 5114, 5214,
0115, 0215, 0315, 0415, 0515, 0615, 0715, 0815, 0915, 1015, 1115,
1215, 1315, 1415, 1515, 1615

The UL Certification Authorization Number is E330248.

Electrical arcing may cause the lamp to overheat and melt, posing
a burn hazard.

The issue is limited to batches of lamps produced at one
manufacturing location in a certain time frame.

Neither Health Canada nor Cree Canada Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.

Approximately 11,502 of the recalled products were sold in Canada,
and approximately 36,845 units were sold in the United States.

In Canada, these products were sold to consumers exclusively
through electrical contractors.  They were not sold at retail.

The recalled products were sold between October 2014 and May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Cree, Inc.
              Durham
              UNITED STATES
              Huizhou Light Engine Limited manufactured products
              for Cree, Inc.

Distributor: Cree Canada Corp.
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

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


CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pilon, writing for Fast Company, reports that women truck
drivers who worked with CRST Expedited, Inc., one of the nation's
largest players in transportation, filed suit on May 18 claiming
that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their
sex, creating a "hostile work environment," and retaliating
against them for speaking out against their male abusers.  The
complaint filed in the Central District of California names three
women -- Cathy Sellars, Claudia Lopez, and Leslie Fortune -- as
lead plaintiffs in a class action.  The class, encompassing
presently and formerly employed female truck drivers for CRST, may
involve more than 100 women who have been subjected to what
lawyers describe as "systemic gender discrimination," according to
the filing.

Nearly 70% of all the freight tonnage moved in the U.S. goes on
trucks, according to the American Trucking Association -- some 9.2
billion tons of freight annually, moved by more than 3 million
truck drivers.  While startups like Lyft and Uber have tried to
raise the profile of women car and taxi drivers, female
representation in trucking has remained stubbornly low, amounting
to roughly 5% of the industry in 2012, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

The plaintiffs in the case against CRST allege that while on the
road, male drivers regularly engage in "sexually offensive
conduct," including propositioning female drivers for sex,
requesting sex as a condition of passing driver training, sexually
assaulting female drivers, threatening rape or assault, and
physically touching and intentionally exposing themselves to
women.

In the terminals, where drivers may begin and end their trips or
stay for a limited time period, "male drivers regularly
proposition female drivers for sex, comment on their bodies, and
discuss the appearance of women in the terminal and what they did
sexually with women," the complaint said.  CRST supervisors who
worked in the terminals -- including terminal managers -- would
have had knowledge of the offensive sexual remarks and conduct
because they were made openly, in common areas, the complaint
alleges.

Should the women refuse, according to the complaint, "retaliatory
measures could include, but were not limited to, kidnapping them,
kicking them off shared trucks, making false reports of their
misconduct, threatening them with weapons, threatening physical
harm, spreading rumors that they are prostitutes, preventing them
from contacting CRST for assistance, and refusing to assist them
with work-related tasks."

Paul Mata, an attorney for CRST, says that the company "has a
clear track record of enforcing strict policies against
discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment on the job,"
and calls the claims "frivolous."

The complaint also calls into question the structure of CRST's
new-driver training program.  Typically new drivers are paired
with a truck-driver trainer for on-the-road training, and the two
are often alone together.  The cost of the training program is
forgiven by CRST, the complaint said, if the trainee fulfills an
eight-month contract.

When a woman is sexually assaulted during training, lawyers said,
"Her choice is to remain at CRST and endure the sexual abuse;
report it, continue to endure it due to CRST's indifference to
complaints, and suffer retaliation; or quit, owe CRST thousands of
dollars, and potentially be sued for payment.  When women sue CRST
due to sexual harassment, CRST is known to counterclaim to recover
the cost of training."

The suit charges that trainers who sexually assaulted women were
"virtually never disciplined" and often returned to driving even
after complaints were filed.  Because female trainees depended on
trainers for promotions and raises, CRST's policy "actively
encouraged sexual assault," the complaint said, because "the
trainer controlled virtually every aspect of the trainee's life,
including when she showers, uses the bathroom, eats, and sleeps."
As a result, women truck drivers carry, sleep with, and use
weapons such as tasers, knives, and screwdrivers for personal
protection from their male co-drivers, the complaint said.

This is not the only recent suit filed against a major trucking
entity.  In March, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against United
Parcel Service, finding that Peggy Young, a former UPS driver, had
the right to sue the company for discrimination.  Lawyers for
Ms. Young argued that the company had erred in refusing to give
her a less arduous shift after she was told by a medical
professional not to lift heavy items while pregnant.

Trucking is a unique workplace environment, but Title VII and
other employment laws are applicable in the case, said
Giselle Schuetz, a lawyer for the female truck drivers.

"Just as it protects women who work in offices, Title VII applies
with equal force in traditionally male-dominated fields," she
said.  "Women make many sacrifices to obtain job training in a new
field in hopes of improving their lives and better supporting
their families.  They should not be required to endure sexual
assaults, harassment, and humiliation in order to drive a truck."

CRST began in the 1950s as Cedar Rapids Steel Transport, hauling
iron and steel in the Midwest.  Today, it is one of the nation's
largest transportation companies, with more than 4,500 trucks,
according to the company. Headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the
company has driver terminals in three different states.

Ms. Sellars, who was employed by CRST as a truck driver from
December 2013 to the present, complained to her terminal manager
about the inappropriate conduct of a fellow driver, according to
the complaint, including that she was held at knife point by a
trainer who more than once pressured her to have sex with him on
the road.

Lopez, another CRST driver who worked with the company from
May 2014 to January 2015, said that she woke up in the bunk of her
cabin to find her male co-driver lying naked on top of her.  He
also suggested that he should join her in the shower with him, the
complaint said, and ultimately abandoned Lopez near Miami. Upon
reporting the matter, the company failed to investigate, the
complaint said.

Ms. Fortune, the third plaintiff in the case, worked for CRST from
October 2013 to January 2015 as a truck driver, and said that
during her training in Cedar Rapids, she daily heard offensive
sexual remarks from male trainers and co-drivers.  En route to
Salt Lake City, a male driver became angry when she said she
wouldn't sleep with him.  He kicked her off the truck, and when
she spoke to her fleet manager, according to the complaint, he
"laughed and told her to get back on the truck."

In September 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) filed suit against CRST alleging that women drivers were
subjected to sex discrimination and retaliation, and that the
company failed in handling the matter.  In that case, 72 women
complained to the company about sexual harassment in 2005 alone,
half of whom complained that their male trainer or co-driver had
propositioned them for sex, according to court records.  Sworn
testimony from discovery "revealed a chronic pattern of sexual
harassment and sexual assaults by male co-drivers and trainers
against women drivers," lawyers said.

Mr. Mata, the attorney for CRST, said that the federal court held
then that there was "zero evidence to support the EEOC's claim
that CRST exhibited a pattern and practice of tolerating sexual
harassment in the workplace."

"Instead," he said, "the court found that CRST went to great
lengths to provide a safe workplace for its employees and had
properly responded to any allegations of harassment on the job."

The case was ultimately dismissed when the court found that the
EEOC did not conciliate before filing suit, and the merits of the
women's claims were never decided on.  They are now part of the
current complaint against CRST.


DELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a major computer manufacturer is being
sued over allegedly making false statements about the strength of
its business in overseas markets.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System filed the
lawsuit on May 21, 2014, in U.S. District Court in New York
against Dell Inc., claiming the company's business in the Asia-
Pacific, Japanese and European, Middle Eastern and African regions
was struggling.

According to the lawsuit, Dell announced on Feb. 21, 2012, that
its 2012 fiscal year-end financial results in those markets was
experiencing strong growth.  However, the plaintiffs claim Dell
was facing "weak demand for and severe pressure associated with
its notebook and desktop PC product lines."

The lawsuit said the pressures were so severe that Dell's
management issued directives not to pursue some notebook and
desktop sales in those markets, the lawsuit said.  Dell's 2013
first-quarter numbers were about $500 million lower than expected,
and stock prices fell about 17 percent, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status in the lawsuit for all
stockholders of Dell between Feb. 22, 2012, and May 22, 2012.

They are represented by Samuel H. Rudman and David A. Rosenfeld of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP in Melville, N.Y., and Cynthia J.
Billings of Sullivan, War, Asher & Patton, P.C. of Southfield,
Mich.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number 1:15-cv-00374


DELTA OUTSOURCE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Rivera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Delta Outsource Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIAGEO: Aware of Thalidomide Risk Prior to Pullout, Book Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gay Alcorn, writing for Guardian Australia, reports that the
British company that distributed and sold the drug thalidomide
knew almost six months before it was pulled from the market that
there were credible claims it caused terrible deformities and the
deaths of infants, a new book reveals.

If Distillers had heeded warnings it received in June and July
1961, as many as 1,000 babies would not have been born with severe
injuries such as missing limbs, and another 1,000 would not have
died shortly after birth, the book says.

Silent Shock, by lawyer Michael Magazanik, appears to clear up a
long-running dispute about when the company knew thalidomide --
widely given to women as a cure for morning sickness between 1958
and 1961 -- was exceptionally dangerous.

The company has always claimed it halted the sale of the drug in
November 1961 as soon as it and the drug's manufacturer,
Grunenthal, received information from Australia and Germany that
it was causing serious deformities.

Mr. Magazanik was a lead lawyer in the Australian case of
Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms or legs after her mother
took the drug during pregnancy.  In preparation for that case in
2012, Mr. Magazanik interviewed former workers at Distillers'
headquarters in Australia, including a salesman, Hubert Woodhouse,
known as Woody.

Mr. Woodhouse signed an affidavit and agreed to video his evidence
that revealed that the company's most senior management in
Australia had known there were strong reports of thalidomide's
danger in June 1961.

In that month, the Australian obstetrician William McBride says he
had called Distillers to warn them about three babies in his care
that had been born with catastrophic injuries after their mothers
had taken the drug during pregnancy.  Distillers have claimed they
never received that call or that he may have spoken to a junior
staffer who ignored it. They took no action at the time, later
claiming they were unaware of any concerns.

But Mr. Woodhouse told Mr. Magazanik that senior Distillers staff
in Australia -- including Bill Poole, who ran the business -- were
aware of McBride's warnings through the second half of 1961.
Despite this, they continued to aggressively market the drug as
safe and effective and to lobby the Australian government to
include it on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which subsidizes
drugs.

"I don't know how Bill Poole found out about McBride's concerns
but he definitely knew about them," Mr. Woodhouse told Mr.
Magazanik.  "Bill Poole . . . was aware around the middle of 1961
of what McBride believed."

Mr. Woodhouse said he often joined senior management for a whisky
after work where Mr. McBride's warnings were discussed.

"The conversations were sometimes lengthy and Poole especially
expressed great concern at the possibility McBride was right,"
Mr. Woodhouse said.  "Poole believed, and stated, that the future
of the business hinged on whether McBride was right or wrong."  He
said Poole was aware of how serious the warnings were, telling him
he was not to speak about McBride's report to anyone.

It is not clear whether the Australian arm of the company passed
on Mr. McBride's concerns to the British headquarters at the time,
although Mr. Woodhouse had assumed they had.  Yet Distillers
backed Poole's version of events that it had acted as quickly as
possible as soon as warnings were raised.  In November, McBride
again reported that the drug was connected to deformities, as did
German doctors, and it was pulled from sale.

Mr. Poole, who is dead, lied on an "industrial scale", says
Mr. Magazanik, to cover up Distillers' knowledge of the drug's
dangers.

Lyn Rowe's mother, Wendy, took thalidomide after McBride's June
warnings and Rowe would not have been born deformed had those
reports been acted upon more quickly.  She received a
multimillion-dollar settlement in 2012 from Diageo, the British
drinks group which is the legacy owner of Distillers.

Because the trial did not go ahead, Mr. Woodhouse's critical
evidence was not made public at the time, but made an "enormous
difference" to the claim, Mr. Magazanik told Guardian Australia.
In 2013 Diageo settled a class action for A$89m to pay
compensation to 100 Australian and New Zealand victims.

"When apologists say that the whole thing was an unavoidable
disaster -- that's rubbish.  There were repeated opportunities to
cut the death and injury toll short," said Mr. Magazanik.

"For the first time we now know just how disgracefully the
thalidomide drug companies behaved.  Distillers' top man in
Australia sat on McBride's shocking report for five months,
leading to thousands of avoidable deaths and injuries worldwide."

He said it took courage and compassion for Mr. Woodhouse, who is
in his 80s and is very ill, to come forward and tell what he knew.

Although Distillers had acted disgracefully, it was far from
alone.  "In Germany, Grunenthal and its staff got reports of
malformations possibly linked to thalidomide in 1959, 1960 and
1961.  It did nothing to investigate -- just kept selling more and
more of the drug."

About 10,000 babies worldwide were born without limbs because of
thalidomide.  Half of them died shortly after.


DIAGEO AMERICAS: Falsely Marketed Bourbon Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mamadou M'Baye, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. d/b/a The
Bulleit Distilling Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-01216-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
June 1, 2015), arises from the Defendant's false and misleading
promotion of its bourbon.

The Defendant promotes its red/orange label Bulleit Bourbon
products as being "Distilled, Aged And Bottled By The Bulleit
Distilling Co." and "Distilled By The Bulleit Distilling Co . . .
In Lawrenceburg, Kentucky", when it fact its bourbon products are
distilled and produced by the Kirin Brewing Company, Limited.

Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. is a New York corporation that
operates a distillery in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


DURANGO DINING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margery Reyes, and Angelica Maria Velasco-Hernandez, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Durango
Dining, LLC d/b/a Durango Doughworks, and Karen E. Lavallee, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01116 (D. Colo., May 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
beyond 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bakery located at
2653 Main Ave., Durango, CO 81301.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Hess Turner, Esq.
      BUESCHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
      600 Grant Street, Suite 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 333-7751
      Facsimile: (303) 333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


E.I. DU PONT: Shareholder Derivative Suit Over Monsato Deal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Law.com, reports that simply
disagreeing with a company's rationale in deciding not to file
suit over a failed business and litigation strategy was not enough
to sustain a shareholder derivative action in a suit that involved
a $1.2 billion jury verdict and findings of vexatious conduct by
DuPont, the Delaware Court of Chancery has ruled.

Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, in a detailed 95-page opinion in
Ironworkers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity Retirement
& Pension Plan v. Andreotti, found that E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co.'s board was well informed in deciding not to sue any of its
directors or employees for their roles in potential patent
infringement of a Monsanto product, a resultant $1.2 billion jury
verdict, sanctions against DuPont of Monsanto's attorneys fees for
DuPont's "vexatious" litigation conduct, and a $1.75 billion
settlement that included a new licensing agreement with Monsanto.

The board relied on a detailed special committee report recounting
a months-long investigation into whether anyone at the company
should be held accountable for what Judge Glasscock said was a
"disastrous" outcome for DuPont in litigation stemming from a
licensing agreement with Monsanto in the early 2000s to create
genetically modified seeds.  Because the board was well informed,
the only way for the plaintiff to show a breach of a duty of
loyalty that would transfer the decision to file suit from the
board to the shareholders derivatively was through a showing of
bad faith.

"The plaintiff disagrees with the committee's conclusions . . .
but a disagreement, however vehement, with the conclusion of an
independent and adequately represented committee is not the same
as pleading particularized facts that create a reasonable doubt
that the board acted in what it perceived as the best interests of
the corporation," Judge Glasscock said.

DuPont's board made a business judgment that it was not in the
company's best interest to pursue any litigation, Judge Glasscock
said. And he disagreed with the plaintiff's argument that the
sanctions order against DuPont and the size of the verdict against
the company were so unusual that they were enough of a reason to
doubt the board's decision.

"I note that the pertinent 'reason to doubt' is not doubt about
the propriety of the underlying conduct, nor is it doubt about
whether the board, in rejecting the demand, made a wise decision;
it is doubt whether the board's action, wise or foolish, was taken
in good faith and absent gross negligence," Judge Glasscock said.

The Ironworkers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity
Retirement & Pension Plan filed a demand on DuPont's board after
the company had rejected similar claims by other shareholder
groups.  Based on the rejections of the prior claims, DuPont had
rejected the Ironworkers' demand as raising similar issues.  The
Ironworkers then filed a shareholder derivative suit and DuPont
moved to dismiss it.  Judge Glasscock granted DuPont's request in
his
May 8 decision that was docketed on May 12.

In the early 2000s, DuPont was looking to develop a product to
compete with Monsanto's Roundup Ready product, a genetically
modified seed beneficial to certain crops being treated with
Monsanto's herbicide.  Under a 2002 licensing agreement, DuPont
had access to Monsanto's technology for the seed for corn and
soybeans.

DuPont began creating its own version in an effort to save money
on the licensing agreement.  But the company found its product,
Optimum GAT, was difficult to produce.  So it began creating a
"stacked" version that combined DuPont's technology with
Monsanto's.  There were questions at both companies as to whether
this violated the licensing agreement, but development continued,
Judge Glasscock said.

When negotiations between the companies over the stacked product
and other licensing issues broke down, Monsanto sued for breaches
of the agreement and patent infringement.  DuPont argued the
agreement permitted stacking.  The federal court overseeing the
case found the argument was not only incorrect but a fabrication
that worked a fraud on the court.  It awarded sanctions for
DuPont's "vexatious" conduct in the amount of Monsanto's attorney
fees, Judge Glasscock said.  A jury also awarded Monsanto $1.2
billion in damages, he said.

The case was appealed and the sanctions were upheld while the
finding of fraud on the court was overturned.  In the meantime,
the parties agreed to a settlement in which DuPont would pay
Monsanto $1.75 billion over 10 years under a new licensing
agreement, Judge Glasscock said.

The Ironworkers fund had most strongly condemned the board's
findings that an actionable breach of duty did not exist
surrounding the sanctions order and findings of vexatious conduct
in the Monsanto litigation, Judge Glasscock said.  The plaintiff
had pointed to the court's determination as a clear showing that
someone acted inappropriately, he said.

"While the committee found that the actions of DuPont's counsel
underlying the sanctions order were within the bounds of good-
faith litigation, the plaintiff argues that something akin to
collateral estoppel precludes the committee from reaching that
conclusion, and that the board, had it been acting in good faith,
would have recognized this and accordingly rejected the report,"
Judge Glasscock said.

For that theory to be plausible, Judge Glasscock said, he would
have to determine how a finder of fact would rule in the
theoretical fiduciary duty action the plaintiff's demand sought
and what the damages might be.  He would then have to determine
whether the theoretical damages were so clearly in excess of the
risks and costs of the litigation that the board's refusal to
bring litigation was not in good faith.  But Judge Glasscock said
the plaintiff didn't provide any evidence to specifically answer
those questions.

Judge Glasscock said it wasn't possible to determine the cost of
the verdict to DuPont given it was subsumed by the settlement,
which obviated an appeal, dismissed certain cross-claims and gave
DuPont access to the Monsanto technology.

"The committee found the detriment of the jury verdict, in light
of the appeal and the settlement, to be virtually zero," Judge
Glasscock said.  "One can dissent from that opinion without
doubting the good faith of the board's decision to rely on the
recommendation of the committee that it was not worthwhile to
proceed with fiduciary duty litigation against 'at least some'
employee or board member."

Edward P. Welch -- edward.welch@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom in Wilmington, along with lawyers from
Potter Anderson & Corroon, represented nominal defendant DuPont.
Mr. Welch declined to comment.

The Ironworkers fund was represented by attorneys at Pinckney,
Weidinger, Urban & Joyce in Wilmington, Mazzeo Song & Bradham and
Milberg LLP in New York, and Cohen, Placitella & Roth in
Philadelphia. Calls to Joanne Pinckney and John Bradham were not
immediately returned.

DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman and former general counsel Thomas Sager
were represented in the suit by attorneys at Morris James in
Wilmington and Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York. Attorneys at
those firms were not immediately available.

There were two other groups of directors and employees. One group
was represented by McCarter & English chairman Michael Kelly and
attorneys at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago.
Kelly was not immediately available for comment.

Kevin Abrams of Abrams & Bayliss in Wilmington, along with
attorneys at Williams & Connolly in Washington and O'Melveny &
Myers in New York, represented the other group of defendants.
Abrams declined to comment.


ENERGY RESOURCES: Faces "Almazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Almazo, Anthony Mejia, Bernabe Damian, Carlos Tipaz,
Damian Meyo Varela, David Macario Yat Alvarez, Rufino Joel Yat
Gonzalez, Jose Yat Chic (a.k.a. Edgar Castro), Miguel Luis
Yat Chic (a.k.a. Marcos Miguel Yat) and Edgar Castillo,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Energy
Resources Personnel LLC (d/b/a Dig Inn), Pump 17th Street LLC
(d/b/a Dig Inn), Pump 52nd Street LLC (d/b/a Dig Inn), Pump
Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Dig Inn) and Adam Eskin, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04158 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of health food restaurants
in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Dick" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Dick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02631 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie B. Woodward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Equityexperts.org, LLC and Michael Novak, Case No.
4:15-cv-00082-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


ESPAR INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Johnson and Jim Steger, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Espar Inc. and Espar Products, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03174 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2015), alleges that from
at least October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012, the
Defendants and their co-conspirators inflated the price for air
and coolant parking heaters sold aftermarket for use in commercial
vehicles.

Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc. are sister corporations that
directly and through its affiliates corporations, sold Parking
Heaters in the United States for commercial use in the
aftermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Arnold Gershon, Esq.
      Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
      11 Times Square, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 688-0782
      Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
      E-mail: agershon@barrack.com
              mtoomey@barrack.com

         - and -

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              jmann@audetlaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald R. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      Julie B. Palley, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS BACINE
      Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
              jgittleman@barrack.com
              jpalley@barrack.com


FACEBOOK INC: European Regulators Question Privacy Settings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Scott, writing for The New York Times, reports that one arm
of the European Union is looking into whether Facebook and other
tech companies unfairly favour their own services over those of
rivals.  At least five data protection watchdogs across the region
are questioning Facebook's privacy settings.

And in a case that could have broad implications for many tech
companies, the region's top court will issue a preliminary
decision this June on whether Facebook can continue transferring
user data between Europe and the United States.

Move over, Google. Facebook is the latest American tech giant that
Europeans love to hate.

For decades, European policymakers have taken aim at America's
giant tech businesses, trying to force them to play by European
rules.  In the past, Microsoft and Intel were found guilty of
abusing their dominant positions to shut out rivals.  Google has
most recently been under the microscope, and it faces accusations
that it unfairly promoted some of its search products over those
of competitors.

In recent months, though, regulators' gazes have turned to
Facebook, raising questions about whether the social network has
learned from the mistakes of companies like Intel, Microsoft and
Google when dealing with Europe's policymakers and its legal
system.  And as Facebook runs into an increasing number of
regulatory hurdles here, the scrutiny could potentially distract
the company from its ambitions of becoming a one-stop-shop for
Internet messaging, online publishing and digital advertising.

"Platforms like Facebook have grown quickly to become global
forces," said Serafino Abate, a director at the Center on
Regulation in Europe, a research organization in Brussels.  "But
with that size comes responsibility."

The scrutiny is mounting as the company's messaging and digital
advertising services continue to spread globally.  More than 1.4
billion people now use the social network, and hundreds of
millions of people also rely on the company's mobile messaging
services, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, and its photo sharing
service, Instagram.

Facebook's core business, its social networking service, is
especially popular in Europe.  The company has almost doubled its
number of European users to the service, to around 260 million,
since 2010.  Facebook also has more users in Europe than in the
United States, according to eMarketer, a research company.

Regulators in Europe, however, are especially focused on how the
company collects and handles those users' data.  The region has
some of the world's toughest data protection rules, and
policymakers from France, Germany and Belgium are investigating
whether the social network broke Europe's laws after the company
announced a new privacy policy this year.

If found to have breached the privacy rules, Facebook may face
fines or demands that it change how the company handles people's
data, though the social network says it complies with the region's
data protection laws.

"Obviously, there are privacy issues," said Mathias Moulin, deputy
director of enforcement at the French data protection regulator,
who is overseeing the watchdog's review of the company's
activities and who will meet other regulators at month's end to
discuss the continuing investigations.  "This is a global company.
Facebook affects millions of people across Europe."

Taking a page from the playbooks of other U.S. tech companies, the
social network has not stood idle as regulators steadily lined up
against it.

The company has hired a number of prominent former lawmakers and
regulators, including Erika Mann, a former German member of the
European Parliament.  In May, the company also chose Kevin Martin,
a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to
champion its cause in Washington, Brussels and beyond.

FACEBOOK'S LOBBYING RISES

Facebook increased spending on lobbying by 25 percent, to roughly
$570,000, in 2013 compared with the previous year, according the
latest figures available from the European Union's voluntary
database of lobbying interests, which may not include all of
Facebook's activities in the region.

"We expect scrutiny.  We're not afraid of it," said Richard Allan,
a former member of Parliament in Britain who has run Facebook's
policy team in Europe for the past six years.  "If you are the new
kid on the block, there's always a reaction to that."

THE STUDENT WHO TOOK ON FACEBOOK

To get a sense of the European backlash against Facebook, you do
not have to look much further than the experiences of Max Schrems,
an Austrian law student who has led a vocal opposition to how the
company collects and uses people's data from around the world.

Mr. Schrems, 27, recently said his concern about online data
traces back at least to 2011 and a college class in California.
In the class, he said, employees of several West Coast tech
companies expressed open disdain for Europe's tough data
protection rules, which enshrine a person's right to privacy as a
fundamental human right.

After returning to Europe, he began a lengthy campaign against the
type of data that Facebook collected on its users, including
information on their physical locations.

To rein in the company's efforts, Mr. Schrems filed multiple
complaints with the Irish data protection watchdog, which is
responsible for policing the social network's activities in its
international headquarters in Dublin. That led to a three-month
audit of how Facebook collected data, and changes to the way the
company obtained and used people's online information.

Unhappy with how Ireland's regulator managed his case, Mr. Schrems
intensified his campaign.

He appealed to the country's highest court, which referred the
case to the European Court of Justice, the region's top court.  A
preliminary decision is expected by the end of June on whether
Facebook and other companies can continue transferring data
between Europe and the United States.

Many U.S. tech giants rely on moving online information between
the regions to feed their business models, like personalized
digital advertising.  If the European court rules in favor of
Mr. Schrems, those practices could be drastically curtailed.

Mr. Schrems also filed a separate Austrian class-action lawsuit
against Facebook after collecting more than 75,000 online
signatures.  He said the company had violated Europe's privacy
rules -- accusations Facebook strongly denies -- and his side
could receive up to $14 million if he wins the case.  A decision
is not expected until at least early 2016.

"This is about limiting what Facebook can do with Europeans'
data," said Mr. Schrems, who remains active on the social network
despite his legal disputes.  "How much should they be allowed to
dig into the souls of their users? That's what we're fighting
for."

CORPORATES WEIGH IN

Big European companies are also pushing for stronger oversight of
Facebook, including the region's well-connected telecom industry.

After Facebook bought WhatsApp, the Internet messaging service,
last year for $19 billion, many of Europe's cellphone carriers
lobbied hard for the region's antitrust regulators to review the
deal.  Carriers say that by combining WhatsApp with Facebook's own
messaging service, the social network has a virtual monopoly over
how people send messages on their smartphones.

Europe's antitrust authorities, however, eventually approved the
takeover, and Facebook contends there are other Internet messaging
services that compete with its offerings.

Yet lawmakers are now looking into whether Facebook's messaging
services should be regulated like those offered by traditional
carriers.  And industry executives say that as the social network
starts to offer other services like phone calls through the
company's many smartphone applications, Facebook should play by
the same rules that apply to traditional mobile operators.

"We can't forever be living in a world where we compete with one
arm tied behind our backs and they don't," Pierre Louette, deputy
chief executive at Orange, the former French telecom monopoly,
said in reference to Facebook.  "Our two worlds are colliding. Now
that the worlds have met, we're all competing for people's
attention."


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loeera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Loera and Alfredo Loer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated  v. Fair Collections and Outsourcing of
New England, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00734-JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., May
7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
              ak@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


FEDERATED COOPERATIVES: Recalls LED Bottles Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 4, 2015
Posting date: June 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53607

This recall involves patio LED bottles. The affected products are
25 centimeter tall glass bottles that light up using five mini LED
bulbs located inside the bottle. The products are powered by 3 AA
batteries and come in various colours.  The recalled LED Bottles
have UPC number 6714267817 and model number 14LG012407.

The batteries and wiring of the product can overheat, posing a
fire hazard.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. has received two reports of the
bottles smoking while in use.  No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 1200 bottles were sold at Co-op stores across
Canada.

The recalled product was sold between February 2015 and May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: CTM International Shanghai
              Shanghai
              CHINA

Importer: Federated Co-operatives Ltd.
          Saskatoon
          Saskatchewan
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to the Co-op store where it was purchased for a refund.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YCG3B4


FITBIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Sleep-Tracking Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a new
lawsuit claims Fitbit Inc.'s wearable fitness tracker falls asleep
on the job as soon as its user turns in for the night.

Plaintiffs lawyers suing the San Francisco company say Fitbit
makes false claims about its devices' ability to judge how well
the wearer is sleeping.

The company's colorful, sporty wristbands are designed to track
fitness metrics such as steps walked, heart rate, and calories
burned.  Newer, more expensive models now claim they also can
track the wearer's sleep quality, calculating how long the wearer
slept, how many times he or she woke up, and the overall
efficiency of the sleep.

"This, plainly, is false," the lawyers wrote.  "The Fitbit sleep-
tracking function simply does not and cannot inform the user how
well they slept with any accuracy whatsoever."

In an emailed statement, a Fitbit spokeswoman denied the
allegations and said the company would vigorously defend the suit.

"Fitbit trackers are not intended to be scientific or medical
devices," she wrote, "but are designed to provide meaningful data
to our users to help them reach their health and fitness goals."

Plaintiffs lawyers with the Law Offices of John A. Kithas in San
Francisco and Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A. in Ohio seek to
represent a class of consumers who bought the higher-end Fitbits,
paying at least $30 more for the sleep-tracker.  Brickman v.
Fitbit, 15-2077, was filed on May 8 in the Northern District of
California.

The lawyers cite a study that found Fitbit devices overestimated
how long wearers slept by 67 minutes a night, as compared to a
more reliable test that used electrodes to measure sleep.  The
devices overestimated sleep by 43 minutes a night compared to
another test that uses a sensor to monitor nighttime tossing and
turning. Fitbit uses a similar, but cheaper and less accurate
sensor, according to the suit.

Fitbit also claims to calculate the user's quality and efficiency
of sleep to an exact percentage.  That's another false claim,
according to the lawyers.

"These misrepresentations implicate serious public health
concerns," the lawyers wrote, "as thinking you are sleeping up to
67 minutes more than you actually are can obviously cause health
consequences, especially over the long term."


FOOD CRAFT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Castillo f/k/a Gineth V. Soto, and Reina Sigaran de
Viliente v. Food Craft, Inc. d/b/a World Fair Marina, Veena
Bhatara, and Swaran Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-03164 (E.D.N.Y., June
1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full service event and banquet
hall and restaurant in Queens County, New York.

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


FURNITURE INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro H. Creamer and all others similarly situated v. Furniture
Installation Solution Inc. and Joel Josephs, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22085-UU (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Soibelmman" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Soibelman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No.
1:15-cv-02661-JG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
      383 Kingston Avenue, #113
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
      E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Airbag Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Sher, writing for The London Free Press, reports that the
London man at the front of class-action lawsuits seeking $3.25
billion isn't afraid to take on the world's biggest automakers or
the supplier who made defective air bags.  After all, he's
confronted a far bigger monster in court: His own father.

For a decade, Donald D'Haene endured sexual abuse his dad
inflicted on him and two siblings, then found the strength to
fight back with criminal charges that ended with convictions.
Mr. D'Haene would document the abuse in his book Father's Touch.

"If I can handle that monster, I can handle GM," Mr. D'Haene said
on May 21.

The 54-year-old Londoner is the named plaintiff in one of five
class-action lawsuits filed by lawyers in London and Windsor
against the maker of defective airbags that sometimes explode,
maim and kill -- Takata Corp. -- and automakers Honda, Toyota,
Chrysler, Nissan, General Motors, Ford, Mazda, Subaru and BMW.

Takata also faces an American criminal probe, more than 20 class
actions there and an investigation by the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

Lawsuits outside Canada are focused on injuries and six deaths
after Takata airbags exploded while deploying and sprayed metal
shards.  While no injuries have been reported so far in Canada,
the lawsuits here are about getting modest sums to a huge number
of people -- and a class action is the perfect vehicle.

"It's not a viable action without having everyone in the (class)
together," said London lawyer Sabrina Lombardi.

Her firm, McKenzie Lake, has teamed with a Windsor law firm.  They
have already heard from hundreds of affected Canadians.

So far, it appears that Honda and BMW have notified owners of the
defect and have made repairs, while General Motors has issued
nothing, and when asked if it will pay to replace the defective
bags, hasn't committed one way or the other, Ms. Lombardi said.
It was the General Motors connection that sparked the London law
firm to probe the air bag issue, Lombardi said, because the firm
suspects the automaker withheld problems with ignition switches on
older models that caused vehicles to suddenly shut down -- the
basis of another lawsuit by the firm.

"It made us take a closer look at the Takata suit," Ms. Lombardi
said.

Honda has recalled more than 7.5 million U.S. vehicles because
defects can cause the inflators in some Takata air bags to
rupture, spraying metal shards into vehicle occupants.

Takata finally admitted some of its airbag inflators are defective
and agreed to double the number of recalled vehicles to nearly 34
million.  It's not clear how many vehicles are affected in Canada
because of the way Transport Canada reports recalls but Lombardi
says it will certainly top a million vehicles.

For Mr. D'Haene, the safety issue in his 2004 Pontiac Vibe has
shaken his confidence in GM -- he once worked for two GM
dealerships and says he's bought nothing else for 36 years.  He
said he phoned GM about a month ago seeking answers, asking if his
air bag would be replaced or repaired, but the auto giant would
commit to nothing.

"They would not discuss it," he said. "I think it's a travesty."

Mr. D'Haene needs a car to care for his mother and for patients
whose needs he tends to as a personal support worker.  He's been
so concerned about the safety of his vehicle that he often asks a
friend to drive him.  He's also disappointed that Canadian
regulators in Transport Canada and legislators in Ottawa have done
little while their American counterparts press Takata and the auto
companies south of the border.

"It would have been better if they had grabbed the bull by the
horns," Mr. D'Haene said.

The class-actions lawsuits allege that Takata and various
automakers knew about safety defects and failed to disclose that
in a timely way -- allegations not yet tested in court.  Before
the cases could go to court, a judge would have to declare all the
plaintiffs are similar enough that their claims be considered
together.


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Transferred "Martin" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned David W. Martin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Global Tel*Link
Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00449, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-03464-BRO-FFM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patric Lester, Esq.
      LESTER AND ASSOCIATES
      5694 Mission Center Road, 358
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 665-3888
      Facsimile: (341) 241-5777
      E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com

         - and -

      Timothy James Sostrin, Esq,
      KEOGH LAW, LTD
      55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 726-1092
      Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
      E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
      Matthew Ryan Gershman, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
      1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
      Telephone: (310) 586-7700
      Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
      E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
              gershmanm@gtlaw.com


GRANT PRODUCTION: Faces "Kreamer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kreamer, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Grant Production Testing Services Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-01075 (M.D. Pa., June 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Grant Production Testing Services Inc. is a company specializing
in oil and gas well production testing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center
      Suite 211, 715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
              mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
              pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


HEALTH COALITION: "Ongay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ongay v. Health Coalition, Inc., Terri Shikany, and
Walter R. Shikany, Case No. 1:15-cv-22084-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 1,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the sales of medical products to
entities such as physician's offices, hospitals, infusion centers,
pharmacies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTHONE OF DENVER: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing in "Stransky"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez entered an order on May 27,
2015, preliminarily approving a settlement in LISA STRANSKY,
NATALIE FIORE, ERIN PEREZ, HELEN GEIST, ANGELA VANLENGEN, BROOKE
THOMPSON, MILDRED HAMILTON, and NICOLE WAGNER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHONE OF
DENVER, INC., Defendant. and MILDRED BROOKS, HAYKE CAPERTON, JASON
CAPERTON, JENNIFER CAYLOR, ANGELA ELLIOTT, CATHY GORDON, MICHELLE
LUGO, and SALLY ANN WARDLE, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHONE OF DENVER,
INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 11-CV-2888-WJM-MJW, 14-CV-0042-
WJM-MJW, (D. Col.).

The Court preliminarily found that (1) the litigation involves a
bona fide dispute, (2) the proposed settlement is fair and
equitable to all parties concerned, and (3) the proposed
settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys' fees.

The Court set the hearing to ascertain the fairness of the
parties' settlement to October 6, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom
A801 of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th
Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589.

Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs may present any objections in
person at the Fairness Hearing, or may send written objections to
CAA in advance of the Fairness Hearing, in accordance with the
terms set forth in the Notice. CAA is DIRECTED to forward all
written objections to Defendant's and Plaintiffs' Counsel within
three business days after receiving them.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1S1LeTnfrom
Leagle.com.


HEMISPHERES CONDOMINIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Franco, and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b) v. The Hemispheres Condominium Association, Inc., Case
No. 0:15-cv-61146-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Hemispheres Condominium Association, Inc. operates condominium
buildings in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


HESS CORP: Appeals Court Upholds $3MM Default Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a New Jersey appeals court has upheld a $3 million default
judgment and $188,000 fee award that were entered as a sanction
against a rental property owner who refused to comply with
discovery after he was sued by Hess Corp. for allegedly failing to
pay for oil and gas the company supplied.  It appears uncertain at
best whether Hess will be able to collect, however.

Mortgage lenders already were owed more than $43 million by
companies owned by defendant, developer and landlord Thomas John,
according to the Appellate Division's May 8 decision in the
matter.

Either way, Hess can now count itself among the creditors, as the
court gave its stamp of approval to a default judgment in the case
based on Mr. John's admission at deposition that he allowed at
least some of his companies' financial records to be destroyed.

The panel called it "ironic that Mr. John argues Hess failed to
produce necessary evidence when the judge found that he either
destroyed or allowed to be destroyed the evidence needed to prove
the case."

Mr. John owned numerous multifamily rental properties in New
Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, at least five or six of which
were supplied with oil and gas by Hess, according to his lawyer,
John Petriello -- john@epgp-law.com -- of Ehrlich, Petriello,
Gudin & Plaza in Newark.

The properties ultimately were foreclosed on, Mr. Petriello said.
Hess obtained judgments against one of John's corporate entities,
American Gardens Management Co., and filed suits -- later
consolidated -- seeking to collect the amounts from John
personally by piercing the corporate veil, according to the
opinion.

In June 2011, Hess served Mr. John with a document request, to
which he responded only by invoking his Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination.  Mr. John was subsequently ordered to
respond to the request, and indicated that he no longer had many
of the documents sought.

In a June 2013 deposition, Mr. John testified that many documents
were placed into a dumpster instead of storage, according to the
opinion.

Hess moved to strike Mr. John's answer and affirmative defenses,
claiming evidence spoliation.  Middlesex County Superior Court
Judge Arthur Bergman found that John did allow destruction of
evidence, and entered default judgment in Hess' favor.

According to the appeals court's opinion, Judge Bergman noted that
John "'doesn't even . . . blame anybody else for doing it, or
inadvertence, or anything like that,'" according to the opinion.
"'You know, out of sight, out of mind, but that's not the way it
works in litigation.'"

A different Middlesex County judge, Vincent LeBlon, held a proof
hearing and found John liable for $2.99 million in unpaid oil and
gas products, and $188,467 in legal fees.

John appealed, arguing, among other points, that he had no duty to
preserve evidence until litigation was underway.

Appellate Division Judges Susan Reisner and Carol Higbee affirmed
in a per curiam decision, noting that "our courts have identified
dismissal of an answer and default judgment as sanctions available
to rectify spoliation."

The court below, they added, "was very familiar with John's prior
attempts to avoid production of documents by asserting the Fifth
Amendment, and when that failed, claiming he was not in possession
of any of the required information."

The panel called "unconvincing" Mr. John's argument that Hess was
not prejudiced by the destruction of the documents since it
already has abundant documentation of American Gardens' finances.

"As the trial court recognized, it would take a detailed analysis
of the paper trail, which is now lost, to prove defendant misused
company funds for his own benefit," the court said.  "We find this
especially true where John claims funds that were shifted from one
account to another were just loans back and forth."

The panel also rejected Mr. John's contention that a lesser
sanction could have been imposed, calling default "appropriate"
and noting the trial court's finding that the destroyed documents
went to the heart of Hess' case.

Mr. Petriello said he hasn't decided whether to appeal the case
further.

"I think the Appellate Division got it wrong," he said.  "The
facts of this matter don't support the conclusion that the
Appellate Division reached."

Judgment was entered against John, Petriello said, "because of two
paragraphs in a deposition" and "without one piece of proof that
he did anything that warrants personal liability."

Hess' counsel, Keith Hovey -- khovey@wilentz.com -- of Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, declined to comment.


HILTON WORLDWIDE: To Get Remaining Cash Collateral During 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in February 2012,
the Company was required to post a bond of $76 million under a
class action lawsuit against Hilton and the Domestic Plan to
support potential future plan contributions from the Company.

"We were required by our insurers to fund a cash account as
collateral for the bond. In November 2014, $57 million of the cash
collateral was released to us based on the requirements of our
insurer, and as of March 31, 2015, $19 million that remained in
the account was classified as restricted cash and cash equivalents
in our condensed consolidated balance sheet. In February 2015, the
bond was ordered to be released, and we expect to receive the
remaining cash collateral during 2015," the Company said.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that HSBC
Holdings Plc won a new trial in a decade-old securities fraud
lawsuit that led to a $2.46 billion judgment against the bank's
Household International unit.

A federal appeals court on May 21 set aside a 2009 verdict that
three Household executives misled investors about its business
practices.  While jurors made that initial determination after a
monthlong trial, it took four and a half more years to determine
the proper amount of damages.

The three-judge appeals panel said the investors hadn't shown the
lenders shares drop wasn't the result of other factors.  The
judges rejected the investors' accounting for what it called
"nonfraud information" that could have affected the stock price.
An expert witness had testified that that such information was
insignificant.

"That's not enough," U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes wrote.
The judges also questioned whether some of the false statements
for which the lender itself remains responsible could be properly
attributed to former Household Chief Executive Officer William
Aldinger and two other executives named as defendants in the suit.

                          Jury Trials

Jury trials are seldom seen in securities class actions as cases
frequently fail to survive initial legal challenges and those that
do are typically settled.

The lead lawyer for investors, Mike Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com --
of San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, said he's
pleased the appeals court rejected almost all the bank's arguments
and ordered only "very limited issues" to be revisited as the case
proceeds.

"We believe that we will prevail and that class members will
finally get the justice they deserve," he said in an e-mail.
Rob Sherman, a spokesman for HSBC, said the lender looks forward
to returning to court.

"We argued on appeal that the verdict in this 12-year class action
based on events that took place prior to HSBC's acquisition of
Household was defective and needed to be reversed, and the court
of appeals has now agreed," he said in an e-mail.

A consumer lending business, Household in 1999 "implemented an
aggressive growth strategy," according to the court's ruling.
"Over the next two years, the stock price rose dramatically, but
the company's growth was driven by predatory lending practices."

                         'The Reality'

While shares had climbed from $40 at the outset to the mid- $60
range by 2001, "the reality of Household's situation eventually
caught up with it's stock price," and the truth came out, Sykes
wrote.  The company paid $484 million to settle several states'
lawsuits.  Its shares fell 54 percent, to $28.20.

Household was acquired by London-based HSBC in March 2003 for
$15.5 billion.  The case was filed in 2002. Household is now known
as HSBC Finance Corp.

The case is Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household International, 13-3532,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago).


ILLINOIS: Corrections Dept. Sued Over Inadequate Prison Care
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a scathing new report by court-
approved researchers paints a bleak picture of medical care in
Illinois prisons, describing extended treatment delays, haphazard
follow-up care, chaotic record keeping and a litany of other
problems.

The 405-page report, based on prison visits over several months
and access to thousands of prison records, suggests that shoddy
care may have shortened the lives of some convicts, including a
former Chicago street gang member who died of lung cancer.

Promptly disputed by the Illinois Department of Corrections, the
report was filed on May 19 in U.S. District Court in Chicago in a
class-action lawsuit against the agency that oversees 49,000
inmates.  The department said in a statement that the report "uses
a broad brush to paint an incomplete picture of the comprehensive
medical system in place."

The report closely scrutinized the cases of 63 prisoners who
became ill and died in recent years.  There were, it said,
"significant lapses" in care in 60 percent of those cases, calling
that rate "unacceptably high."

The report highlights the case of Edward Thomas, a one-time
Gangster Black Disciple convicted of first-degree murder for
throwing a rival head first down a Chicago elevator shaft,
according to filings in his criminal case.

The report doesn't include names of inmates, but it included
Mr. Thomas' prison, age and the date of his death.  A county
coroner who did the autopsy on Thomas confirmed to The Associated
Press that he was the inmate who died of lung cancer on Jan. 30,
2013.

Mr. Thomas knew something was wrong when he began coughing up
blood at Galesburg's Hill Correctional Center in 2012.  Despite
Mr. Thomas' pleas for help, the report says it took doctors six
months to find a softball-size cancerous tumor clinging to his
neck and lung.  It was too late.  He died four months later, at
age 48.

"The blatant disregard for this patient's obvious symptoms . . .
is stunning," the report said.  "Despite the patient's repeated
earnest cries for help, including several instances wherein he was
essentially stating, 'I think I have cancer,' his symptoms were
brushed off . . . until . . . this dying man could no longer be
ignored."

In sentencing him to an 80-year prison term in 1984, a judge said
Mr. Thomas had displayed "exceptionally brutal" behavior by
tossing 20-year-old Kevin Tremble five floors to his death.


ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Faces Football Concussion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Yang, writing for NBC News, reports that concussions in the
National Football League and the NCAA get most of the attention,
but the problem is just as big -- if not bigger -- at the high
school level, where more than 1 million boys a year risk
potentially brain-damaging concussions.

Alex Pierscionek, 19, wants to change that.  Pierscionek, now a
college student, is the lead plaintiff in one of the first class-
action lawsuits over concussions in high school football. For him,
it's personal.

People tell him he ran a few more plays after a head-on collision
during practice two years ago at his Illinois high school.  They
tell him he collapsed.  They tell him he was airlifted off the
field.

"I don't remember that," he told NBC News.

The lawsuit Pierscionek is leading, filed in state circuit court
in Chicago, accuses the Illinois High School Association of a
"systemic failure to manage concussions," which it calls a "battle
for the health and lives" of high school football players.  It
seeks a range of policy changes, including preseason testing of
athletes' brain function and requiring that medical personnel be
on call for practices.

Physicians say teenagers are especially vulnerable to brain
trauma, pointing to a study published in May in the Journal of the
American Medical Association  --  Pediatrics.  It found that the
concussion rate among high school players is 11 percent higher
than it is for college players.  And at both levels, 58 percent of
concussions are suffered in practice.

"A trauma to the brain can disrupt that very fragile, already
fragile foundation that is just starting to be formed," said
Dr. Cynthia R. LaBella, medical director of the Institute for
Sports Medicine at Children's Hospital of Chicago, whose previous
research the lawsuit cites.

But the Illinois High School Association says it already has
strong rules in place.  It argues that the lawsuit would make
football too expensive for some schools and that the rules should
be made by school boards, not by the courts.

Since a new state law required it in 2011, the association has had
a formal concussion management policy that includes concussion and
head injury information in the agreements parent and guardians
must sign before their children can play any sport, including
football.  It says any athlete removed from a game for a possible
concussion or head injury can't return without a physician's
clearance.

"What we've done is provided a concussion education for 27,000
coaches over the last year," Marty Hickman, the association's
executive director, told NBC News.  "What we've done is modify
football practices.  What we've done is study all of our rules in
all of our sports.  "But the lawsuit says that's not enough.  It
also wants the association to create and pay for a formal medical
monitoring program for athletes and systematic specialist training
for team physicians.

"I just want to make it safer.  I want people to be safe,"
Pierscionek said.  "I know it's a violent sport, but you can take
precautions."

A similar suit was filed in December 2013 in U.S. District Court
in Mississippi, seeking not only many of the same protections for
all high school football players in the country, but also
insurance coverage for concussed players who require medical
treatment but aren't adequately insured.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zalman Levy and Rivkah Levy, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02653 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Filed in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on March 27, 2015, in a
securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation"). On July 25, 2013, the court
consolidated the Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation under the
following caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation (the "New York Securities Litigation"), and named the
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs.
On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the New York
Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended
complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation. The
second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

* our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA and
PEAKS Program;

* employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

* making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;

* making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

* engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

* deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and
the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

* causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate. On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of
our motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted.

"On August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended
complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties
are currently engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion
for class certification on March 27, 2015. All of the defendants
have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended
complaint," the Company said.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Court Appointed Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the case ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of
our current executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption:
David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On
October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal
Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara
Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal
Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et
al. (the "Hennen Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara
Litigation and the Jindal Litigation were consolidated into the
Banes Litigation. On January 21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was
consolidated into that consolidated action (the "Indiana
Securities Litigation").

"The complaints in the Indiana Securities Litigation allege, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. In particular, the
complaints allege that:

* our financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

* we misled investors regarding the integrity of our financial
reporting, including the reporting of the PEAKS Trust;

* we improperly failed to consolidate the PEAKS Trust in our
consolidated financial statements;

* we lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting;

* our financial statements were overstated;

* our financial statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times;

* we engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of
business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the plaintiff
and the purported class;

* we employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock; and

* we artificially inflated and maintained the market price of our
common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase our common stock at artificially inflated
prices."

The putative class period in the Banes Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation is from April 26, 2013 through September 19, 2014. The
putative class period in the Tarapara Litigation and the Hennen
Litigation is from February 26, 2013 through September 18, 2014.
The plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among
other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other relief as the
court deems proper. On December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the
Indiana Securities Litigation for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana). All of the
defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the Indiana
Securities Litigation.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend La Sondra Gallien Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
has defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself against
the allegations made in the amended complaint in the case filed by
La Sondra Gallien.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

* failed to pay wages owed;

* failed to pay overtime compensation;

* failed to provide meal and rest periods;

* failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

* engaged in unlawful business practices; and

* are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act."

"The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

* compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses;

* general damages;

* pay for missed meal and rest periods;

* restitution;

* liquidated damages;

* statutory penalties;

* interest;

* attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

* civil and statutory penalties;

* injunctive relief; and

* such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable
and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint,"
the Company said.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Two Executives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12 brought
fraud charges against for-profit college chain ITT Educational
Services Inc. and its top executives, alleging they hid the
"extraordinary failure" of two student-loan programs from
investors.

According to the SEC complaint filed in Indiana federal court, the
company financially guaranteed the two private loan programs for
ITT students.  After an "extremely high" number of students
defaulted, ITT found itself on the hook for more than $100 million
in payments.

Rather than admit this to shareholders and company auditors, ITT,
according to the SEC, "engaged in a series of deceptive acts to
hide the poor performance of the student loan programs and their
financial impact on ITT."

ITT and the executives have picked a trio of prominent Washington
lawyers to fight the charges.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Brian Lane -- blane@gibsondunn.com
-- former director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance,
represents ITT.  The company's chief executive, Kevin Modany,
turned to Jones Day partner Joan McKown -- jemckown@jonesday.com
-- previously chief counsel of the SEC Enforcement Division.
Daniel Fitzpatrick, the chief financial officer, hired Fredric
Firestone, head of McDermott Will & Emery's securities defense
group and a former SEC Enforcement Division associate director.

Firestone said Mr. Fitzpatrick is "an honest and decent man, a man
of integrity.  We do not think he did anything wrong and look
forward to our day in court."

Mr. Lane and Ms. McKown were not immediately reached for comment.
The SEC is seeking disgorgement and civil penalties.  The agency
also wants the executives barred from serving as directors of any
public company, and to return their bonuses and stock sale
profits.

Indiana-based ITT has more than 55,000 students enrolled in online
classes or at one of its 130 campuses.

The company is "highly dependent on a steady flow of students
capable of paying its fees," SEC Enforcement Division director
Andrew Ceresney said in a conference call with reporters on
May 12.  ITT executives, Mr. Ceresney said, created "a
sophisticated scheme designed to mislead investors," including
making minimum payments on behalf of student borrowers who were
behind on what they owed.

ITT also faces a suit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
which accused the company of predatory student lending in February
2014.  Mr. Ceresney said the SEC suit focuses on harm to
investors; the CFPB case focuses on harm to consumers.  "We've
generally been in touch with the CFPB, but this investigation was
conducted primarily by the SEC," he said.

The SEC investigation team included Zachary Carlyle, Jason Casey
and Anne Romero, with assistance from Judy Bizu.

The litigation will be led by Mr. Carlyle, Nicholas Heinke and
Polly Atkinson.


JAMES HARDIE: Harbour Litigation to Fund Defective Cladding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adina Thorn of Adina Thorn Lawyers on May 25 said that the
dedicated investment funds advised by Harbour Litigation Funding
Limited has agreed in principle to provide funding to progress the
claim against various manufacturers of defective plaster cladding
installed in thousands of buildings across New Zealand. The
damages to be claimed in the proposed class action are likely to
exceed NZ$100M.

Adina Thorn says Harbour's agreement to fund the proposed action
means that there will be no out-of-pocket cost to participants in
the action.  "Harbour only invests in cases it believes have
strong prospects of success so we are encouraged that they have
decided to fund this class action."

Over 1,200 building owners have already registered for the
proposed class action via the website www.goodcladding.co.nz

Registrations have been received from around the world including
New Zealand, Australia and the UK.  Adina said she has been
surprised by the number of registrations; "We have had an
overwhelming response from 'leaky building' owners across New
Zealand. Many have lost everything -- some have 100% mortgages or
cannot increase their lending -- most can't afford to fix the
problem.  Thousands of people and families have been left with no
choice but to live in leaky, mouldy homes that can pose a
significant health hazard."

Further registrations are still sought.  Adina encourages other
owners of plaster clad buildings to register via the website
www.goodcladding.co.nz

Adina explains broadly that the next phase will involve detailed
evaluations of claims.  Adina has noted that registrations for
single apartments or houses managed by a Body Corporate are
difficult to consider.  In these cases it is important that the
Body Corporate Manager register the entire building.


JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Pricing Strategies
-----------------------------------------------------
Sleek Money reports that after many years of accusations of
artificially inflating prices just to mark them back down to
create the appearance of a "sale" price, J.C. Penney is facing a
lawsuit over the practice.  J.C. Penney has been hit with a class-
action lawsuit in California federal court over its pricing
strategies.  The lawsuit calls the company's pricing strategy
tantamount to deceptive and fraudulent advertising.

A report in Reuters detailed the lawsuit, saying that the lead
plaintiff in the case initiated the lawsuit after purchasing three
blouses at J.C. Penney.  The plaintiff paid $17.99 for each of the
blouses, marked with an "original" price of $30 on the tag.
However, the plaintiff later found that the blouses purchased had
never been priced higher than $17.99 in the three months before to
her purchase.

When Ron Johnson became CEO of J.C. Penney in 2012, he pointed out
that less than 1 percent of store sales were for items at the full
original price.  He steered the company to a more transparent,
less promotion-driven sales model, which proved to be a monumental
failure for the company.  J.C. Penney quickly went back to its
previous pricing scheme to attract back customers turned off by
Johnson's experiment.

This isn't the first time a retailer has gotten sued for never
actually selling items at non-discounted prices.  Men's apparel
retailer Jos. A. Bank was hit with a class-action lawsuit in New
Jersey in 2012 for using "misleading, inaccurate and deceptive
marketing."  According to the New Jersey federal judge hearing the
case, the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to
quantify "the difference between what the regular price actually
was and what the discount price should have been."  The company
has since moved away from that pricing strategy.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Escapes $6.2MM London Whale Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that JPMorgan
Chase & Co. directors don't have to face an investor lawsuit
claiming their miscues left the bank with $6.2 billion in losses
from a trader known as the London Whale.

Disgruntled JPMorgan shareholders accusing the bank's board,
including Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, of being asleep at
the switch can't re-litigate their claims over losses from botched
bets on derivatives, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Sam Glasscock
ruled on May 21.  The judge said two New York courts already have
found directors properly supervised traders.

Investors who filed the Delaware case raised "identical issues" to
those decided by the New York courts and that required the suit to
be thrown out, Judge Glasscock said.

JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, has paid more than $1
billion and admitted violating U.S. securities laws to resolve
probes into the London Whale trading debacle.  The bank faces at
least one other investor class action, a case in federal court in
New York that seeks direct compensation for shareholders.  The
Delaware case and the two others rejected in New York were filed
against board members and executives on behalf of the company.

                    'Embarrassing Situation'

Bank executives acknowledged in the settlements that they failed
to implement adequate controls over traders and provided
incomplete information about the losses to regulators and
directors.

Joe Evangelisti, a spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan, declined
to comment on Judge Glasscock's ruling.

Bruno Iksil, the trader nicknamed the London Whale because of the
size of his positions, accumulated the $6.2 billion loss by making
market-distorting bets on derivatives.  Mr. Dimon later
characterized the handling of the losses as "the stupidest and
most embarrassing situation I have ever been a part of."

Last year, Mr. Dimon folded the chief investment office back into
the bank's treasury unit.  He also pushed out senior executives
who oversaw the investment office's trades and pushed to claw back
more than $100 million in pay from employees who were involved in
the transactions.

Mr. Iksil has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the
U.S. and is cooperating with the government as part of the deal.

                         Two Charged

Two former JPMorgan bankers face federal charges over allegations
they concealed Mr. Iksil's losses.  If convicted, Julien Grout and
Javier Martin-Artajo face as long as 20 years in prison.  Neither
has come to New York to face charges.

Grout has been living in France since July 2013 and has no plans
to travel to the U.S., his lawyer, Richard Lissack, has said.  A
French citizen in France can't be extradited under the country's
law, he said.

A Spanish court this year rejected a U.S. request to extradite
Mr. Martin-Artajo because he is a citizen of Spain and the events
occurred outside the U.S.  The court said it wouldn't block the
U.S. from pursuing Mr. Martin-Artajo in Spain's high court.

Shareholders in the pending lawsuit in federal court in New York
are urging a judge to grant their case class-action status to
allow hundreds of thousands of shareholders to band together.

                    Investor Claims

The investors accuse JPMorgan executives of violating federal
securities laws by making misleading statements about the
riskiness of the bank's derivatives trading, which prompted a fall
in the company's shares when the losses were made public.  A judge
last year rejected JPMorgan's bid to have the case thrown out.
In the Delaware case, Judge Glasscock cited rulings by the New
York judges who rejected shareholders' allegations that Mr. Dimon
and other executives disregarded red flags about the bank's
trading operations.

Those decisions examined the same issues raised by the Delaware
investors and there was no reason to cover that ground in a
separate case, the judge said.

The Delaware case is Asbestos Workers Local 42 Pension Fund v.
Bammann, CA NO. 9772-VCG, Delaware Chancery Court (Dover).  The
pending New York case is In Re. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities
Litigation, 12-cv-03852, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).


JULIANG HEALTHY: Recalls Goji Berry Products Due to Sulphites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Juliang Healthy Food Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9867

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
Juliang Goji   Berry         150 g   20160117     6 944922 80096


JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Remain in Preliminary Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jumei International Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class
actions remain at their preliminary stages.

"Beginning on December 11, 2014, several putative shareholder
class action lawsuits, were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of New York against our company, certain current and
former officers and directors of our company, and underwriters in
our initial public offering, captioned Lu v. Jumei International
Holding Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 9826 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed on December 11, 2014); Yim v. Jumei International Holding
Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 7269 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed on
December 12, 2014, voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on March 9,
2015); Yin v. Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil
Action No. 14 CV 9957 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 17, 2014); and
Brock v. Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil Action
No. 14 CV 9993 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 18, 2014)," the
Company said. "The complaints in the above-mentioned putative
shareholder class action lawsuits allege that our company's
registration statement for our initial public offering and/or
certain subsequent press releases, financial statements, and other
disclosures made by our company contained material misstatements
or omissions in violation of the federal securities laws."

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


KBR INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument on the motion to
dismiss was held on March 5, 2015 in the litigation related to the
Company's restatement of its 2013 annual financial statements.

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual
financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company, its former chief executive officer, its current and
former chief financial officers. Two of those complaints were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and four parties moved to
be appointed lead plaintiff.

In September 2014, the court appointed Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and
ordered any new cases arising from the same matters to be
consolidated together as In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 14-cv-01287.

"Lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on
October 20, 2014, adding our former chief accounting officer as a
defendant," the Company said. "The amended complaint seeks class
action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial
statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants intend to
vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead
particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on
the part of the individual defendants. Oral argument on the motion
to dismiss was held on March 5, 2015. At this early stage, we are
not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising
from this matter."


KILLER SHRIMP: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Slattery" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Slattery, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Killer Shrimp, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-04116 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Los Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR
      23277 Ventura Blvd
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


KRAPF'S COACHES: Drivers Can't Collect OT Wages, 3rd Cir. Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that professional bus drivers can't collect overtime wages from
their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act because they
make interstate trips, the Third Circuit has ruled.

The appeals court held the collective action brought by drivers
for West Chester-based Krapf's Coaches Inc., called KCI for short,
would be governed by the Motor Carrier Act, not the FLSA, and
their claims under the federal labor standards act would fall into
a Motor Carrier Act exemption.

The Motor Carrier Act was passed in 1935 in response to problems
in the "motor carrier industry," Judge Patty Shwartz explained in
the opinion she wrote on behalf of the unanimous three-judge
panel.  The act gives the Department of Transportation the power
to set requirements for driver qualifications and maximum hours to
be worked as well as other safety regulations.

"The MCA's requirements in this area are 'intended to prevent
accidents due to fatigue, without regard to consideration of
adequacy of compensation,'" Judge Shwartz said, quoting from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's 1968 opinion in
Starrett v. Bruce.

By creating the MCA exemption to the FLSA, which was passed a few
years after the MCA, Congress did away with any overlap in
jurisdiction between the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Labor, Judge Shwartz said.

"Two considerations dictate whether the MCA exemption applies: the
class of the employer and the class of work the employees
perform," Judge Shwartz said.  "Specifically, the MCA exemption
applies if the employer is a carrier subject to the DOT's
jurisdiction and the employee is a member of a class of employees
that 'engage[s] in activities of a character directly affecting
the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on
the public highways of passengers or property in interstate or
foreign commerce within the meaning of the'" MCA.

Both sides in this case agreed that KCI is a "motor carrier" that
would be subject to the DOT's jurisdiction, which satisfies the
first requirement for the exemption.

"We must therefore examine whether plaintiffs -- many of whom
rarely or never crossed state lines -- satisfy the second
requirement by being a member of a class of employees engaging 'in
activities of a character directly affecting the safety of
operation of motor vehicles in the transportation . . . of
passengers or property' in interstate commerce," Judge Shwartz
said.

The district court held the amount of time the drivers spent
crossing state lines -- almost 7 percent of all the trips that the
drivers made were across state lines and almost 10 percent of the
company's annual transit revenues came from interstate routes --
would qualify them for the exemption because it is not necessarily
the volume of interstate trips a driver makes, but rather the type
of work that could be expected from a driver that matters.

The Third Circuit agreed.

"Put simply, it is 'the character of the activities rather than
the proportion of either the employee's time or of his activities'
that controls," Judge Shwartz said, quoting from the U.S. Supreme
Court's 1947 opinion in Levinson v. Spector Motor Service.

"The relevant inquiry here is whether plaintiffs reasonably could
have expected to drive interstate, which we answer by 'look[ing]
at,' among other things, 'whether the carrier (employer) does any
interstate work,' 'assigns drivers randomly to that driving,' and
maintains a 'company policy and activity' of interstate driving,"
Judge Shwartz said, quoting from a DOT notice that cited to the
U.S. Supreme Court's 1947 opinion in Morris v. McComb.

Both the percentages of interstate trips at KCI and the company's
policy of training its dozens of drivers on as many of its routes
as possible pointed the court toward a finding that the MCA
exemption would apply.

R. Andrew Santillo of Winebrake & Santillo in Dresher represented
the plaintiffs and said that, while he's disappointed with the
result, the Third Circuit issued a well-reasoned opinion.

"It was an excellent panel," he said -- with Judge Shwartz were
Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Thomas I. Vanaskie.

The plaintiffs are not planning an appeal, Mr. Santillo said.
Randall Schauer -- rschauer@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild
in Exton represented KCI and said he appreciated the Third
Circuit's clarification of issues that don't have a lot of
precedent, in the circuit or elsewhere.


KVS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Patino" Suit Over Violation of FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Patino, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated
v. KVS Transportation, Inc. and Nabors Drilling USA, L.P., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00713-SMS (E.D. Cal., May 8, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: tuvia@setarehlaw.com

         - and -

      Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


LINN ENERGY: Briefing on Class Certification Issues in Late 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims
from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and
royalty valuations. With respect to a certain statewide class
action case, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the
Court, and the parties have agreed on a scheduling order, which
provides for briefing on the class certification issues in late
2015 and the first part of 2016.

The Company has denied that it has liability on the claims
asserted in the case and has denied that class certification is
proper. If the Court accepts the Company's arguments, there will
be no liability to the Company in the case.

For another statewide class action royalty payment dispute,
briefing on class certification issues is expected to be completed
during the summer of 2015. The Company has denied that it has any
liability on the claims and has denied that class certification is
proper. If the Court accepts the Company's arguments, there will
be no liability to the Company in the case.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any, in these cases.


LOGMEIN INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on August 28, 2014, a
putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an individual on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, or
collectively, the Plaintiffs. After the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on January 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on February 17, 2015.

The amended complaint includes claims made under California's
False Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Law and relates to
the Company's sale of its Ignition for iOS application, or the
App, and the Plaintiffs' continued use of the App. The Plaintiffs'
complaint seeks restitution, damages in an unspecified amount,
attorney's fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the inherent
unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation
is still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss
or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bolling-Owen" Suit to SC Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Kristina Bolling-Owen and others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc. and Lumber
Liquidators Holdings Inc., Case No. 2015-CP-18-00576, was removed
from the Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S.
District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01971-RBH to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Algernon Gibson Solomons III, Esq.
      Andrew Spencer Platte, Esq.
      Charles Alan Runyan, Esq.
      SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN
      200 Jackson Ave East
      Hampton, SC 29924
      Telephone: (803) 943-4444
      Facsimile: (803) 943-4599
      E-mail: gsolomons@speightsrunyan.com
              aplatte@speightsrunyan.com
              arunyan@speightsrunyan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jay R. Lee, Esq.
      AIKEN BRIDGES
      PO Drawer 1931
      Florence, SC 29503
      Telephone: (843) 669-8787
      Facsimile: (843) 664-0097
      E-mail: jrl@aikenbridges.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 22, 2015.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder,
Chief Executive Officer and President, Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken
Defendants"). On or about September 17, 2014, the City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action
lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and President and its Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the
Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants").

On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with
the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action
as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants
made material false and/or misleading statements that caused
losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege
that that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions
related to the Company's compliance with the federal Lacey Act,
the chemical content of certain of its wood products, and the
Company's supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs
do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary
stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, class certification and success on the merits,
the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Loss in RWA Lawsuit Pegged at $300,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that based
upon the terms of the proposed settlement in the RWA lawsuit, the
Company's best estimate of the probable loss that may result from
this action is approximately $300,000.

On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA")
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own behalf as well
as other similarly situated parties that received unsolicited
facsimile advertisements from the Company. The TCPA provides for
recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars for each
violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a
defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the
amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the
amount provided above.

Although the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims
asserted, the Company has agreed to a proposed settlement of the
claims in the RWA Lawsuit, which the court has preliminary
approved. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company
would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, a sum to RWA and a cash
sum to members of the putative class. Based upon the terms of the
proposed settlement, the Company's best estimate of the probable
loss that may result from this action is approximately $300,000,
which the Company accrued in 2014. In the event the court does not
grant final approval of the proposed settlement, the Company
intends to continue to defend this case vigorously but given the
current status of the case, legal standards and pending motions,
it would not be possible at this time for the Company to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Appeal Court's Ruling in Prop 65 Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company currently intends to appeal the court's ruling in the Prop
65 Matter.

On or about July 23, 2014, Global Community Monitor and Sunshine
Park LLC (together, the "Prop 65 Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit,
which was subsequently amended, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda, against the Company. In the
complaint, the Prop 65 Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, et seq.
("Proposition 65"). In particular, the Prop 65 Plaintiffs allege
that the Company failed to warn consumers in California that
certain of the Company's products (collectively, the "Products")
emit formaldehyde in excess of the applicable safe harbor limits.
The Prop 65 Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in
their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
Prop 65 Plaintiffs seek (i) equitable relief involving the
reformulation of the Products, additional warnings related to the
Products, the issuance of notices to certain of the purchasers of
the Products (the "Customers") and the waiver of restocking fees
for Customers who return the Products and (ii) civil penalties in
the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars per day for each
violation of Proposition 65.

The Company disputes the claims of the Prop 65 Plaintiffs and
intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company
filed a counterclaim against the Prop 65 Plaintiffs for trade
libel, unfair business practices, intentional interference with a
prospective business advantage, negligent interference with
economic relations, and declaratory relief.

The Prop 65 Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the Company's
counterclaim, which was granted by the court on April 15, 2015.
Among other things, the order calls for the Company to pay the
Prop 65 Plaintiffs' fees and costs incurred in filing and arguing
their motion to dismiss.

The Company currently intends to appeal the court's ruling. Given
the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case,
and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things,
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Lawsuit at Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Gold
class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is
defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint,
which added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold,
"Gold Plaintiffs"). Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company has
engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by
falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo
Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature.

Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of two separate classes:
(i) individuals in the United States who own homes or other
structures where the Bamboo Product has been installed or where
Bamboo Product has been removed and replaced; and (ii) the same
description but for owners of California homes or structures only.
Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company is financially
responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii)
injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair
all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the
purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company
must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or
part of its profits received from the sale of the defective Bamboo
Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the
purported class members.

The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Balero Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company disputes the claims of the Balero Plaintiffs and intends
to defend the matter vigorously.

On or about December 11, 2014, Joseph Michael Balero, Michael
Ballerini and Lisa Miller (collectively, the "Balero Plaintiffs")
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda alleging that
the Company engaged in unlawful and fraudulent business practices
by selling certain products in California that do not comply with
California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde
Emissions from Composite Wood Products (the "CARB Standards") and
by falsely advertising and representing that such products meet
the CARB Standards. The purported class consists of all California
consumers that purchased the subject products since 2011.

The Balero Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in
their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
Balero Plaintiffs seek (i) declarations that the Company's
policies and practices of labeling, advertising, distributing and
selling certain products it sells in California violate the CARB
Standards, (ii) injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from
continuing to distribute and/or sell laminate flooring products
that violate the CARB Standards, (iii) restitution of all money
and/or property that the Balero Plaintiffs and other purported
class members provided to the Company for the purchase and
installation of certain products sold by the Company that
allegedly violate the CARB Standards, and (iv) damages, including
actual, compensatory and consequential, incurred by the Balero
Plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the Company's alleged breach of warranty.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint; however, the judge has issued a stay until
after the multidistrict litigation hearing (the "MDL Hearing") in
connection with the Products Liability Cases, which was scheduled
to be held on May 28, 2015, as the Company believes that this case
will be consolidated with the Products Liability Cases.

The Company disputes the claims of the Balero Plaintiffs and
intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 103 Pending Product Liability Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that through
April 27, 2015, the Company is aware of 103 pending purported
class action cases that have been filed against it since March 3,
2015 in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts
relating to its laminate flooring manufactured in China
(collectively, the "Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs
seek recovery under a variety of theories, which although not
identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of
warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair
competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act
violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar
claims. The purported classes consist either or both of all U.S.
consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products
in certain time periods. The plaintiffs seek various forms of
declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including
restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain
cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in
connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the
actions as class actions. Plaintiffs have not quantified damages
sought from the Company in these class actions. However, in one
proceeding, the plaintiff sent a demand letter requesting $12,000
for his individual claim.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Filed Oppositions to Motion in "Silverthorn"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in
Silverthorn v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et. al., filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 27, 2015 (the "Silverthorn Litigation"), the
plaintiff filed a motion for an order (i) requiring the Company to
notify consumers of the Silverthorn Litigation, (ii) to provide
plaintiff's counsel's contact information, and (iii) expedited
discovery. In another of these cases, Washington v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to enjoin the Company from
continuing with its air quality testing program. On April 22,
2015, the Company filed oppositions to each of these motions and
is currently waiting for the applicable courts to issue a decision
with respect to these motions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Steele Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on or
about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of
Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act. The Company disputes Steele's claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Lyznick Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on or
about April 16, 2015, Craig Lyznick, Shari Collins and Patricia
Cottington (collectively, the "Lyznick Plaintiffs") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company,
Building Health Check, LLC and Pure Air Control Services, Inc.
(collectively, the "Lyznick Defendants") alleging that the Lyznick
Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices and deceptive
and fraudulent activities in connection with the Company's efforts
to provide in-home air quality test kits to certain of its
customers. The purported class consists of all consumers that
purchased certain laminated flooring products from the Company,
requested a test kit from the Company and were provided a testing
kit by the Lyznick Defendants. The Lyznick Plaintiffs did not
quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek (i) injunctive relief
prohibiting the Lyznick Defendants from offering the test kit for
formaldehyde testing or conducting such testing, (ii) restitution
to the Lyznick Plaintiffs for sums paid to have their own testing
performed, (iii) damages, including actual, compensatory and
consequential, incurred by the Lyznick Plaintiffs, (iv) a
declaration that the Lyznick Defendants' actions constitute fraud
and recovery any resulting damages, and (v) treble damages. The
Company disputes the claims of the Lyznick Plaintiffs and intends
to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: CEO Steps Down Amid Flooring Safety Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Wahba, writing for Fortune, reports that the discount
hardwood floor retailer found itself in even more turmoil as its
CEO abruptly resigned amid a federal probe into product safety and
dozens of lawsuits.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings Chief Executive Bob Lynch has abruptly
resigned, creating even more turmoil at the discount hardwood
flooring retailer as it faces a federal probe into the safety of
its products and dozens of lawsuits.

The company's founder Thomas Sullivan will serve as CEO while
Lumber Liquidators searches for a permanent replacement, Lumber
Liquidators said in a statement on May 21y, noting that the
resignation had come "unexpectedly."  Mr. Lynch's departure comes
as another top executive, Chief Financial Officer Dan Terrell, is
set to leave June 1.

Lumber Liquidators has been reeling since a report in March by
television news program "60 Minutes" alleged the company sold
Chinese-made laminate flooring with higher levels of formaldehyde
than permitted under California's health and safety standards.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is probing the matter.
The controversy has taken a serious toll on Lumber Liquidators'
business: comparable sales fell 6.5% in March, and 7.2% in the
first four weeks of April.

Its shares fell 15% on May 21, 2015, adding to losses of 62% so
far this year.

Earlier in May, Lumber Liquidators said it was dropping its
controversial Chinese laminate flooring, a change in tack after it
had previously stood by the flooring and assured customers the
product was safe to install.  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has said that in addition to being a carcinogen,
formaldehyde can cause irritation to the skin, eyes, nose and
throat.

Adding to the drama swirling around the company, Lumber
Liquidators is facing more than 100 class action lawsuits over the
product, with allegations ranging from breach warranty to false
advertising.  What's more, the Justice Department is considering
criminal charges for illegal importation of oak flooring from
protected Russian forests home to Siberian tigers.  Lumber
Liquidators has brought on a consultant firm headed by former FBI
Director Louis J Freeh to review its compliance policies.


MAZDA: Recalls 2004 B Series Models Due to Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:  June 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 7368
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015246TC
ID number: 2015246

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

  Make      Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----         ----------------------
  MAZDA     B SERIES      2004


MAZDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 57861
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015247TC
ID number: 2015247

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

  Make      Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----         ----------------------
  MAZDA     MAZDA6        2003
  MAZDA     RX-8          2004
  MAZDA     MAZDASPEED6   2006


MCDONALDS CORP: Low-Wage Workers Demand Minimum Wage Hike
---------------------------------------------------------
Chicagoist reports that thousands of low-wage workers and their
allies delivered more than a million petitions to McDonald's
corporate headquarters demanding a $15 an hour minimum wage for
its workers and the right to unionize at the company's annual
shareholders meeting.

The petition delivery was the culmination of two days of protests
at McDonald's Oak Brook headquarters -- the largest that has taken
place there.

"It's impossible to provide any stability for my son on the $7.50
an hour McDonald's pays me," said Safiyyah Cotton, a 22-year-old
employee from Philadelphia.  "I often get sent home in the middle
of my shift if the store isn't busy enough.  That makes it
impossible to budget or plan childcare."

Though the fast food giant recently raised wages by $1.00 for
employees at locations owned directly by the company,
demonstrators have called that move a publicity stunt.

Additionally, McDonald's has come under fire for its labor
practices.  Ten former employees filed a civil rights lawsuit in
Virginia alleging racial discrimination and sexual harassment, and
workers in three other states have filed class action lawsuits
alleging wage theft.  Additionally, the chain faces more than two
dozen complaints in 19 cities over potential OSHA violations
stemming from workers being burned on the job.

The movement to raise minimum wages to $15 an hour has gained
significant victories in the past few years.  Los Angeles recently
became the largest city yet to raise its wage to $15 an hour.  And
while one of the most usual criticisms of raising the minimum wage
significantly is that companies couldn't afford it, workers say
that behemoths like McDonald's can.  "We're here to tell
McDonald's and its shareholders to invest in the company and its
workers instead of wealthy hedge fund managers and executives,"
said Kwanza Brooks, a member of the Fight for 15 National
Organizing Committee.

Much like the nation's largest private employer Walmart,
McDonald's spends billions on stock buybacks.  According to a
recent paper from the Harvard Business Review, stock buybacks,
where a company repurchases its own stock to increase its value,
are "a major contributor to income inequality."  From 2005-2014,
McDonald's spent nearly $30 billion on buybacks and plans to
increase the practice as part of its "turnaround" plan.  It will
"return $8 [billion] to $9 billion to shareholders in 2015 to
reach the top end of its three-year target of returning $18
billion to $20 billion to them by the end of 2016."

So while executives and shareholders -- along with the banks and
investment management firms on Wall Street that broker the deals
-- will benefit greatly, next to nothing will go to the average
worker.

"We may not have a seat in the room, but we're sure that
McDonald's will hear us when we say that its turnaround needs to
include investment in and respect for its employees," said
Adriana Alvarez, a five-year McDonald's employee who was arrested
during a sit-in at last year's shareholder meeting.


MCLOONE'S ASBURY: Deal Resolving Ex-Employees' Suit Wins Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini approved an unopposed joint
motion to approve a settlement agreement in the case captioned
TARA CASTALDO AND NICOL ZAMPELLA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. McLOONE'S ASBURY PARK,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:14-CV-05741 (WJM), (D. N.J.).

Plaintiffs Tara Castaldo and Nicol Zampella were both formerly
employed as bartenders at McLoone's Bayonne, a bar and restaurant
located in Bayonne, New Jersey. In addition to its Bayonne
location, McLoone's owns and operates additional restaurants in
other parts of New Jersey. In September 2014, Plaintiffs filed
their putative class action complaint against a number of
McLoone's locations, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL"). Specifically, the complaint alleges that McLoone's
required Plaintiffs to share tips with non-service employees,
which resulted in Plaintiffs receiving a sub-minimum wage amount
for some or all hours worked. McLoone's denies Plaintiffs'
allegations and contends that it took a lawful "tip credit"
against the full minimum wage.

Judge Martini, in her May 26, 2015 opinion & order, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1IC9ZEffrom Leagle.com,
concluded that the Settlement Agreement resolves a bona fide
dispute. In particular, he said, there a number of contested
factual issues, including whether McLoone's operated an illegal
tip pool and whether Plaintiffs received sub-minimum wage amounts.
Moreover, the parties contest the applicable statute of
limitations on Plaintiffs' claims.  Consequently, both parties
face uncertainties heading into the litigation, and have a valid
reason for deciding to settle their dispute, he added.

The Court further concluded that the Settlement Agreement is fair
and reasonable because it allows Plaintiffs to redeem a portion of
the wages they demand in their complaint; and in exchange,
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their complaint with prejudice.

"Given the variety of contested issues in this case, the
consideration provided by both parties is fair and reasonable,"
ruled Judge Martini. Accordingly, the parties' joint motion to
approve the Settlement Agreement was grantedthe case is dismissed
with prejudice.

TARA CASTALDO, Plaintiff, represented by JACK JAY WIND --
jjw@mwhlawfirm.com -- MARGULIES WIND.

NICOL ZAMPELLA, Plaintiff, represented by JACK JAY WIND, MARGULIES
WIND.

MCLOONE'S ASBURY PARK, LLC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH C.
DEBLASIO -- Joseph.DeBlasio@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
& SARANNE ELIZABETH WEIMER -- Saranne.Weimer@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

MCLOONE'S BAYONNE, LLC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH C.
DEBLASIO, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & SARANNE ELIZABETH WEIMER, JACKSON
LEWIS P.C.

MCLOONE'S TINTON FALLS, LLC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH C.
DEBLASIO, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & SARANNE ELIZABETH WEIMER, JACKSON
LEWIS P.C.

MCLOONE'S WEST ORANGE, LLC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH C.
DEBLASIO, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & SARANNE ELIZABETH WEIMER, JACKSON
LEWIS P.C.

TIM MCLOONE, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH C. DEBLASIO, JACKSON
LEWIS P.C. & SARANNE ELIZABETH WEIMER, JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


MECOX LANE: Says Unfavorable Outcome in Class Action "Remote"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mecox Lane Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of the date of this
annual report, the Company believes that an ultimate outcome
unfavorable to the Company as a result of a class action is
"remote."

"On December 3, 2010, a class action complaint captioned Arfa v.
Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 10-CV-9053, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, on behalf of purchasers
of our ordinary shares issued pursuant to our initial public
offering," the Company said.  "The named defendants are our
company, certain individual defendants by virtue of their
positions as officers and directors of our company, namely Neil
Nanpeng Shen, John J. Ying, Paul Bang Zhang, Alfred Beichun Gu,
Kelvin Kenling Yu, Anthony Yai Yiu Lo and David Jian Sun, or the
Individual Defendants, and two underwriters involved in the
initial public offering, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and
UBS AG. The plaintiff in the Arfa action alleges that the
defendants included or allowed to be included materially false and
misleading statements in the registration statement and annual
report issued in connection with the initial public offering in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and against
the Individual Defendants under Section 15 of the Securities Act.
Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the our registration
statement and annual report for our initial public offering were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose at
the time of the initial public offering that: (i) it already was
foreseeable that we would not be able to achieve results for the
third quarter of 2010 that were in line with either historical
growth trends or defendants' guidance; (ii) we already had
experienced disappointing results for the third quarter of 2010,
prior to the initial public offering -- including a significant
decline in gross margins that were adversely impacted by increased
costs and expenses; (iii) defendants had not conducted an adequate
due diligence investigation into our company; and (iv) we lacked
adequate internal financial controls."

"On January 4, 2011, a virtually identical class action complaint
captioned Brady v. Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 11-CIV-0034 was
filed by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP,
also in the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased our American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to our October 2010 registration statement and
annual report. The Brady complaint added Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.
and Roth Capital Partners LLC as additional underwriter
defendants, and added a claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act.

"On March 31, 2011, the actions were consolidated by order of
Judge Robert Sweet. The Court appointed the Westend Group as lead
plaintiff, and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and Pomerantz Haudek
Grossman & Gross LLP as co-lead counsel. The Westend Group filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint on May 31, 2011, which
asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act, along with
the derivative claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act. We
and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint,
and oral argument on the motion was held on January 18, 2012.

"On March 1, 2012, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
without prejudice the plaintiff's claims. On April 5, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

"On November 29, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the
plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act and
derivative claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act.
Plaintiff did not seek an en banc review of the decision, and
failed to file a petition to the United States Supreme Court to
review the decision before the expiration of the deadline.


MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Truck Owners Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ongkgopotse JJ Tabane, writing for Business Day, reports that the
amended codes of good practice, which came into effect on May 1,
will significantly change the black economic empowerment (BEE)
landscape.  The codes introduce more stringent requirements to
qualify and to minimize widespread fraud, especially fronting,
which has bedevilled the implementation of broad-based BEE
(BBBEE).

BBBEE is not a choice or "nice to have". It is an essential tool
to democratize SA's economy in an orderly, constitutional way.  It
is also an investment by firms in growing their businesses and the
economy.

The government is obliged to introduce policies and measures to
effect economic change. It can do this through policies such as
BEE and employment equity.  The government is one of the biggest
spenders in the economy and so has a responsibility to set an
example in the implementation of these policies through government
departments and state-owned entities (SOEs).

Much has been achieved in this regard but many challenges remain.
One such challenge is the extent to which SOEs, especially
development-funding institutions, lack policies and practices to
curb wrongdoing in the implementation of BEE, especially
wrongdoing done in their name.  These institutions, whose mandate
is development, have a bigger responsibility than other financial
institutions in making sure that BEE not only happens but does not
get frustrated through fraud, negligence or fronting.

Where development-funding institutions are meant to take a stake
in the business being empowered or provide funding for a BEE
transaction to happen, one would expect additional vigilance to
ensure taxpayers' money does not go to waste.

In our experience, the opposite appears to be the case. In a case
involving the Industrial Development Corporation, which has funded
quite a number of BEE transactions, the parastatal stood surety in
an amount of R300m, enabling Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA
(MBFSSA) to implement a BEE transport finance scheme involving
more than 30 truck owners.  This was in 2007.

MBFSSA presented the scheme to the Industrial Development
Corporation and National Empowerment Fund as a scheme that would
assist emerging entrepreneurs to enter the transport industry.
MBFSSA would provide finance for the purchase of Mercedes-Benz
commercial trucks.  The Industrial Development Corporation stood
as guarantor and the National Empowerment Fund provided working
capital for some of the truck owners.  It was undertaken that a
transport contract would be secured that would assist the truck
owners to run their own businesses but to also make a profit.
Individuals were promised these benefits by either dealerships
that were part of the scheme or management companies that punted
the scheme on behalf of MBFSSA.  They were also promised a
handsome monthly profit -- in Cape Town R60,000 a month. About 30
people in Johannesburg and Cape Town fell victim to this scheme.

All the finance applications were successful, despite the fact
that none of the owners would have passed an affordability test
and almost all the close corporations had no business track
record. (For example, one couple, who jointly earned R32,403.97 a
month, was sold a truck and trailer with monthly repayments of
R24,904.68 leaving them with R7,499.29 for their monthly
expenditure.)

Contrary to the undertakings to the Industrial Development
Corporation and National Empowerment Fund, MBFSSA and management
companies appointed by it, failed to secure a sustainable
transport contract for the truck owners.

In Cape Town, only a subcontract that paid below market rates was
obtained, and in Johannesburg contracts were obtained but in the
name of the management company and the truck owners had no direct
knowledge of the actual rates paid or any say in the negotiations
with the customer.  The scheme collapsed within four months.

The truck owners were left financially destitute.  MBFSSA
repossessed their trucks, went after them to recover shortfalls
and cashed in the guarantees by the Industrial Development
Corporation.  Most of the truck owners believed they could rescue
businesses by injecting their own cash and used life policies,
retirement policies and even in one case their children's
education policies.  All to no avail.

None of the truck owners made a cent in profit or broke even.
Instead, even those who had led a middle-class life were
impoverished and some lost their homes.  Some struggled to get
employment because they now had bad credit records.  Yet MBFSSA is
still going after them with summonses.

The only beneficiaries of the scheme were MBFSSA and the
management companies it appointed, all of them white. The
Industrial Development Corporation and the National Empowerment
Fund were informed of the problems but mid-level officials chose
to treat them as individual cases of default and failed to
investigate the reasons for the collapse of the whole scheme and
MBFSSA's role in the collapse.

After struggling for many years, some of the truck owners finally
organized themselves into a nonprofit association and launched an
application to be certified as a class in the North Gauteng High
Court in Pretoria last year.

Once such certification is obtained, they will launch a class
action against MBFSSA, the Industrial Development Corporation and
the National Empowerment Fund.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Removed "Bey" Suit to Maryland District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Malik Bey and Best Dawud, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC, Case No. CAL-15-
04278, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for PG
County to the U.S. District Court District of Maryland
(Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
01329-GJH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff Malik Bey is represented by:

      Malik Bey
      PRO SE
      6801 McCormick Road
      Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

The Plaintiff Best Dawud is represented by:

      Best Dawud
      PRO SE
      5800 Carlyle Street
      Cheverly, MD 20785

The Defendant is represented by:

      Amy Estelle Askew, Esq.
      James P. Ulwick, Esq.
      Steven Andrew Book, Esq.
      KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA
      One South St 26th Fl
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 752-6030
      Facsimile: (410) 361-8219
      E-mail: aaskew@kg-law.com
              julwick@kg-law.com
              sbook@kg-law.com


MLS ACQUISITIONS: Faces "Abu-Taha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feras Abu-Taha v. MLS Acquisitions, Inc. d/b/a El Pueblo Dry
Cleaners, also d/b/a Tiffany's Cleaners, Martin L. Swainston and
Jane Doe Swainston, Case No. 2:15-cv-00984 (D. Ariz., May 29,
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 dry cleaning business with
multiple locations in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A.R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


NABORS COMPLETION: Removed "Ridgeway" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Brandyn Ridgeway and Smith Tim,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the
general public v. Nabors Completion and Production Services Co.,
City of Long Beach, Tidelands Oil Production Company and Does 1
through 200, Case No. BC577460, was removed from the Superior
Court of CA County of Los Angeles, California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
03436-DDP-VBK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah Louise Kokonas, Esq.
      DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES
      440 West First Street Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      E-mail: jcamilleri@donahoo.com
              rdonahoo@donahoo.com
              skokonas@donahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kimberly Ann Chase, Esq.
      HAYNES AND BONNE LLP
      600 Anton Blvd Suite 700
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 202-3058
      Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
      E-mail: kimberly.chase@haynesboone.com

         - and -

      Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
      Tamara I. Devitt, Esq.
      HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
      600 Anton Boulevard Suite 700
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 202-3040
      Facsimile: (949) 202-3140
      E-mail: matthew.costello@haynesboone.com
              tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: $50-Mil. Publicity Rights Settlement Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has
upheld a judge's approval of a $50 million settlement in a lawsuit
over publicity rights for retired NFL players.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 21 rejected arguments
by several retirees -- including Jim Marshall, Joe Senser and
Dan Pastorini -- that the class-action settlement on behalf of
around 25,000 players was unfair.

A key objection was that the settlement didn't call for direct
payments to former players.  Instead, it set up a $42 million fund
to help retired players with issues like medical expenses, housing
and career transition.  The settlement also established a
licensing agency for retirees to ensure compensation for the use
of their identities.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled in 2013 that the
settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate.


NAT'L RAILROAD: Amtrak Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Williams, Esq. of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that in a class action brought against
Amtrak, two plaintiffs, Guerra and Whitesides, both of whom had
submitted declarations in support of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, failed to appear at their scheduled depositions.
Defendants sought an award of costs and fees and, in addition, the
dismissal with prejudice of the legal claims of Guerra and
Whitesides, arguing that only a dismissal would remedy the
misconduct and prevent plaintiffs' counsel from picking and
choosing which declarants should be deposed depending on the
veracity of their claims.

The court declined to dismiss the claims under Rule 37: the
prejudice to Amtrak, the court said, lay in the costs it incurred
preparing for the depositions and its inability to examine Guerra
and Whitesides. But this prejudice was remediable with the lesser
sanction of striking the Guerra and Whitesides declarations, as
well as awarding partial expenses. The failure to appear at
deposition, said the court, did not "irrevocably damage [Amtrak's]
ability to prove its case." The court also saw no need to dismiss
the claims as a deterrent, since there was no proof that Guerra
and Whitesides' failure to appear at deposition was strategic.

Campbell v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 99-2979 (D.D.C.
May 4, 2015).


NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Plaintiff Gets Massive Pension
---------------------------------------------------------
Selim Algar and Susan Edelman, writing for New York Post, report
that twelve-year FDNY firefighter Kevin Simpkins -- the public
face for a racial-discrimination class action by minority
firefighters the city of New York settled for $98 million -- has
won another jackpot from the de Blasio administration.

Under a settlement finalized with the city and filed in Brooklyn
federal court on May 20, the litigious firefighter will retire at
a 75 percent disability pension.  The city ultimately buckled and
agreed to give Simpkins his pension, in return for his agreeing to
drop a related federal suit, his lawyer explained.  The settlement
works out to about $73,500 a year tax-free for Mr. Simpkins, a 47-
year-old dad of three from Jamaica, Queens.

"I'm good.  There's no story here," was all Mr. Simpkins said when
asked on May 21 about the windfall.

Mr. Simpkins gets to retire and pocket the plump pension even
though the FDNY wanted to fire him because he flunked a drug test,
testing positive for pot -- and despite an administrative judge
saying the city was in the right.  Turns out Mr. Simpkins had an
ace up his sleeve -- a suit he filed in Brooklyn federal court
accusing his battalion chief of leaking the results of the drug
test.  The leaked information gave Simpkins bargaining power, said
his lawyer, Peter Gleason.

"The scoundrels who released his private information in the long
run did him a huge favor."

Mr. Simpkins' disability status arises from a torn rotator cuff he
suffered in 2014, during an on-duty car accident.  Had he been
fired instead of allowed to retire, Mr. Simpkins only would have
been entitled to a 50 percent pension that wouldn't have kicked in
until 2023.

In return for Mr. Simpkins dropping the federal suit, the city has
also agreed to modify departmental policy, requiring a warning to
all FDNY members against any retaliation against colleagues who
complain about civil-rights violations.

Mr. Simpkins' pension adds to the tens of thousands he gets as one
of the 1,500 minority Bravest who are dividing up the $98 million.
Those payouts average to around $65,000 apiece.  Mr. Simpkins'
lawyer on the settlement, Ghita Schwarz, said she was satisfied.

A spokesman for the city Law Department said, "Reaching a mutually
agreeable resolution was in the city's best interest."


NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Island Sued Over Inmate Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------
David Shortell, writing for CNN, reports that two women are suing
a corrections officer at Rikers Island and the city of New York,
claiming that they were raped repeatedly by the officer with the
complacency and consent of the city.

The explosive class action filed on May 19 in federal court
details reports of serial rape and sexual abuse by eight
corrections officers at the all-female Rose M. Singer Center in
the New York City jail complex, including a case where an inmate
was dragged into a janitor's closet and another where the inmate
became pregnant.

One of the plaintiffs, identified in the complaint as only
Jane Doe 2, reported the rapes to a mental health clinician and
later to a doctor with the City Department of Investigation, the
suit says, but was told nothing could be done.

"This abuse is only possible because, in the face of repeated
warnings, the City of New York has enabled a culture of
complacency to perpetuate at Rikers Island and thereby consented
to the abuse of women in its custody," the suit says.

The suit names the corrections officer, Benny Santiago, as the
alleged rapist of the two unnamed women.

According to the suit, Mr. Santiago's actions were "open and
notorious," though other officers in the center failed to report
him.

When one of his alleged victims was believed to have reported her
rape, Mr. Santiago released other inmates from their cells who
then crowded the victim's cell, yelling at her for "snitching,"
court papers say.

Mr. Santiago allegedly told his other victim that he had "observed
her family from his parked car," implicitly threatening her family
in order to coerce her into submitting to the abuse, the suit
says.

A spokesman for the Department of Corrections said the office does
not comment on pending litigation but added that "DOC has a zero
tolerance policy with regard to sexual abuse and assault, and
there is no place at DOC for the mistreatment of any inmate."

CNN could not locate Mr. Santiago for comment and questions left
with the city's corrections officer union were unanswered.  He is
currently on modified duty, a position where he does not interact
with inmates, according to the Department of Corrections.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Legal Aid Society, seek damages
from Santiago as well as an overhaul of Department of Corrections
policy in order to break what they call a "culture of systemic
rape."

Mr. Santiago abused the two women in unrestricted areas that were
not monitored by security cameras and would wait until after
center captains had made their supervisory rounds, which were made
at the same time every day, the complaint says.

A 2012 Department of Justice survey named the Rose M. Singer
Center among the 12 high-rate facilities nationally for cases of
sexual misconduct against inmates by staff.  According to the
survey, which was cited in the May 19 suit, 5.9% of inmates at the
center said they were sexually victimized by facility staff.

"Sexual violence is at record proportions in DOC, and rape and
other sexual abuse of women are endemic at the Rose M. Singer
Center," said Seymour W. James, the attorney-in-chief of The Legal
Aid Society.

In a statement, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department
said "the allegations would be reviewed once we are served with
the lawsuit."

The suit filed on May 19 comes months after federal prosecutors in
New York joined a civil rights lawsuit against the city for the
use of excessive force on inmates by corrections officers at
Rikers.

Announcing the suit in December, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said
"much more needs to be done to safeguard the Constitutional rights
of inmates at Rikers and to ensure that it is a safe and secure
environment not just for the inmates but for the staff also."

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in April a plan to
tackle city court delays and in turn reduce the population at the
jail, the city's main point of incarceration.

Despite efforts to clean up the facility, the lawsuit is only the
latest in a string of recent scandals to underscore the
dysfunction.

In January, a New York City Department of Investigation report
found that more than a third of corrections officers at Rikers
were hired despite glaring past demerits, "including multiple
prior arrests and convictions, prior associations with gang
members, or relationships with inmates."

An employee with the facility's contracted health care provider,
was arrested after allegedly trying to smuggle synthetic marijuana
and other contraband into Rikers, according to NYPD Sgt. Lee
Jones.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Torres" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gerardo Torres, Angela Matlin and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., and Doe 1 through
and including Doe 10, Case No. BC577204, was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03251-RGK-FFM to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Centurey Park East Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
              robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      James L. Nelson, Esq.
      Natassia Kwan, Esq.
      Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      801 South Figueroa Street 18th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
      Telephone: (213) 426-6900
      Facsimile: (213) 426-6921
      E-mail: james.nelson@sedgwicklaw.com
              natassia.kwan@sedgwicklaw.com
              paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com


NUCOR: Race Discrimination Class Action Divides Fourth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that in a sign that
even four years later, courts are still grappling with the impact
of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a
bitterly divided federal appeals court ordered the certification
of a class of black steelworkers at Nucor Corp.

Ruling 2-1, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit concluded on May 11 that a South Carolina federal judge
misread Wal-Mart when he decertified a class accusing Nucor of
providing black employees with fewer promotions than their white
counterparts.

Arnold & Porter's Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- argued
the appeal for Nucor, while Robert Wiggins Jr. --
rwiggins@wigginschilds.com -- of the Birmingham, Alabama-based
Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis argued for the employees.

The decision marks the second time the Fourth Circuit has sided
with the employees on class certification issues in the case,
which dates back to 2004.  In 2009, in another 2-1 opinion, the
appeals court reversed a ruling that had denied class status to
the employees on both their promotion claims and a separate claim
that Nucor maintained a racially hostile work environment. (Among
other things, the plaintiffs allege that supervisors broadcast
monkey noises and racist epithets like "bologna lips" and "yard
ape" over a plantwide radio system.)

Following the first trip to the appeals court, U.S. District Judge
C. Weston Houck in Charleston, South Carolina, revisited the class
claims in light of the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Wal-Mart,
which decertified a massive, nationwide class of female employees
making gender bias claims against the retailer.  Judge Houck
concluded in September 2012 that under Wal-Mart, the Nucor workers
could continue pursuing hostile work environment claims as a
class, but not their promotion bias claims.

On May 11, the Fourth Circuit majority acknowledged that while
Wal-Mart reshaped the landscape of class action litigation, it
shouldn't have led to decertification in this case.  In a 63-page
opinion that explores the bounds of the Supreme Court's decision,
the panel noted that there was both statistical and substantial
anecdotal evidence that promotion decisions at Nucor's plant
depended at least in part on an employee's race.

"The district court fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-
Mart and its application to the workers' promotions class," U.S.
Circuit Judge Roger Gregory wrote for the panel.

As with the Fourth Circuit's 2009 class certification ruling, the
panel that ruled on May 11 was divided, with U.S. Circuit Judge G.
Steven Agee issuing a 90-page dissent that criticized the majority
for undermining "well-established judicial processes," causing a
rift with other circuit courts and draining Wal-Mart of its
meaning.

"Perhaps the Supreme Court will act to rectify the problems that
are sure to follow from the May 12 opinion.  One can only hope
that it will do so soon," wrote Agee.

Judge Gregory responded to the dissent at the close of his
majority opinion, writing that Agee "rightly observes" that the
majority conducted its analysis with the goal of reaching a
desired result.

"And that result is simple justice," Judge Gregory continued.  "At
bottom, the workers seek nothing more than the chance to speak
with one voice about the promotions discrimination they allegedly
suffered as one class on account of one uniting feature: the color
of their skin.  The dissent would deny them that chance."

One of Nucor's lawyers, Cary Farris of Alaniz Schraeder Linker
Farris Mayes, declined to comment on May 12.   Schraeder cited an
order from the district judge that, she said, bars the parties
from discussing the case publicly without permission.
McGuireWoods is also representing Nucor in the case, alongside
Alaniz Schraeder and Arnold & Porter.

Mr. Wiggins, the employees' lead lawyer on appeal, didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment.  Wiggins Childs is
joined on the plaintiffs side by Derfner, Altman & Wilborn.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Motion Filed Seeking Final Approval of Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, that on
April 27, 2015, a motion seeking final approval of a proposed
settlement Ocwen Financial Corporation (the "Company") reached in
2014, related to a class action lawsuit concerning Lender Placed
Insurance ("LPI"), was filed with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. Under the proposed
settlement, a claims administration process will be set up whereby
borrowers who were charged for LPI and either paid all or a
portion of the charge or still owe the charge can submit a claim
for settlement benefits. The Company established a reserve for its
portion of the settlement during the third quarter of 2014, and
believes that it is adequately reserved.

The Company 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 believes
the settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its
borrowers, employees and shareholders. The Company remains
committed to full compliance with all legal and regulatory
requirements and helping homeowners.


OMNICARE INC: Supreme Court Vacated Court of Appeals Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States
Supreme Court has vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the class action case
to the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in the Company's public
offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i)
artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-
compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic
drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation
of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its
contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to
timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made
other allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court
dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On
October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally
affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23,
2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and
remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014,
the United States Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for
writ of certiorari. Oral argument at the United States Supreme
Court was held on November 3, 2014. On March 24, 2015, the United
States Supreme Court vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case to the
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.


ORTHOFIX INT'L: Milinazzo Dismissed From Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Alan W. Milinazzo and
denied it with respect to the Company and the other Individual
Defendants.

The Company said, "On August 14, 2013, a securities class action
complaint against the Company, currently styled Tejinder Singh v.
Orthofix International N.V., et al. (No.:1:13-cv-05696-JGK), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York arising out of the then anticipated
restatement of our prior financial statements and the matters
described above. Since the date of original filing, the complaint
has been amended."

"The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring
claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint
asserts that the Company and four of its former executive
officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and
Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"),
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading
statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements.
The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory
damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2015, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it
with respect to the Company and the other Individual Defendants.

"This matter remains at an early stage and, as of the date of this
Form 10-K, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or
range of loss, in connection with it," the Company said.


ORTHOFIX INT'L: Appeal of Adverse California Jury Verdict Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeal of an
adverse July 2012 California jury verdict and a post-close cold
therapy claim pending in California state court.

The Company said, "At the time of its divestiture by us, Breg was
currently and had been engaged in the manufacturing and sales of
motorized cold therapy units used to reduce pain and swelling.
Several domestic product liability cases have been filed in recent
years, mostly in California state court, alleging the use of cold
therapy causes skin and/or nerve injury and seeking damages on
behalf of individual plaintiffs who were allegedly injured by such
units or who would not have purchased the units had they known
they could be injured. In September 2014, the Company entered into
a master settlement agreement resolving all pending pre-close
claims. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company paid approximately $1.3 million, and additional amounts
owed under the settlement were paid directly by the Company's
insurance providers. These amounts paid by the Company were
recorded as an expense in discontinued operations during the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014. Remaining cold therapy claims
include a putative consumer class of individuals who did not
suffer physical harm following use of the devices, and an appeal
of an adverse July 2012 California jury verdict and a post-close
cold therapy claim pending in California state court. We have
established an accrual of $5.7 million for the July 2012 verdict
and post-close cold therapy liabilities, however, actual liability
could be higher or lower than the amount accrued. The putative
class action is at an early stage and the Company currently cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss."


PACKERLAND WHEY: Faces "Drevenchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pavel Drevenchuk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Packerland Whey Products, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00664-WCG (E.D. Wis., June 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Based in Luxemburg, Wisconsin, Packerland Whey Products, Inc. is a
manufacturer of high protein and high energy dairy & beef feed
ingredients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414)281-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 281-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


PANERA BREAD: Prepared to Defend Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend a class action lawsuit.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes its subsidiary has meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in the lawsuit and is prepared to vigorously
defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company's subsidiary will be successful, and an adverse resolution
of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. The
Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate potential
losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Class Actions in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that class action lawsuits
related to Eltroxin are in early stages.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists
and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed
to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the
new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the
appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they
incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that
otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware
of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients
resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have
been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of
informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered the remaining eight applications be consolidated into one
application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. Several hearings on whether
or not to certify the consolidated application took place in
December 2013 and January 2014. The court has not yet made a
decision regarding whether or not to approve the consolidated
application as a class action. As this matter is in its early
stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the
outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company and
collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability
lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal
Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and
serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in
patients taking Tysabri(R). The Company and Biogen will each be
responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any
Tysabri(R) product liability claims. While these lawsuits will be
vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases
will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits
could result in substantial judgments against the Company.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiff's Lawyers Appeal Class Action Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers hoping
to resurrect a decade-old securities class action against Pfizer
Inc. was set to make their case to a federal appeals court on
May 26.  To prevail, they'll need to overcome not only the
exclusion of a key expert on the eve of trial, but also Pfizer's
arguments that the plaintiffs' own tactics doomed the litigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was set to hear
arguments in the case, which alleges that Pfizer Inc. misled
investors about cardiovascular risks associated with the
painkillers Celebrex and Bextra.  The hearing would pit Gregory
Joseph of Joseph Hage Aaronson against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's
Miguel Estrada -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- who's expected to
argue for Pfizer.  Grant & Eisenhofer has led the plaintiffs' case
at the district court and was also expected to participate in the
appeal.  Mr. Estrada is joined on the defense team by Beth
Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, Lynn Neuner -- lneuner@stblaw.com -- of
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and John Wellschlager --
john.wellschlager@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper.

At the center of the appeal are a series of rulings by U.S.
District Judge Laura Swain in Manhattan.  After refusing to
dismiss the case and then certifying an investor class spanning
five years in 2012, last year Judge Swain blocked the plaintiffs'
damages expert, Daniel Fischel, from testifying.  In July 2014 --
just weeks before the class action was set to go to trial -- Judge
Swain determined that without Mr. Fischel's testimony, the
plaintiffs didn't have a case.  That decision spelled an end to
litigation that dated back to 2004.

Mr. Fischel is a law professor at the University of Chicago and a
seasoned expert in securities fraud cases, and his initial damages
report loomed large in Judge Swain's decision to certify the
class.  But a subsequent ruling forced Mr. Fischel to revisit his
findings, and Judge Swain held in May 2014 that the plaintiffs
hadn't met their burden to show that Mr. Fischel's adjusted
testimony was methodologically sound and properly applied.

On appeal, the plaintiffs lawyers have maintained that the effect
of Swain's rulings is extraordinary when compared with the
magnitude of Mr. Fischel's adjustment.

"The prejudice to plaintiffs in this 10-year-old certified class
action is catastrophic," Mr. Joseph and other plaintiffs lawyers
wrote in a Nov. 24 Second Circuit brief.  "Barring Professor
Fischel's testimony in its entirety left plaintiffs without any
remedy for what the district court has concluded are actionable
and serious misrepresentations that a jury could conclude caused
considerable damage to the class."

Not surprisingly, Pfizer's appellate lawyers, led by Gibson Dunn's
Estrada, have a different take.

They argue that the exclusion of Mr. Fischel's testimony was
warranted, partly because his adjustments were the result of a
conscious decision to "invent a new methodology" in order to
maximize damages.  While Mr. Fischel and the plaintiffs' legal
team were within their rights to make such a decision, they should
have to live with the consequences, according to Pfizer.

"Sophisticated parties represented by experienced counsel are
permitted to make strategic choices on behalf of themselves and
those they have been found adequate to represent," Pfizer's
lawyers wrote in a Feb. 20 appellate brief.  "But they are not
entitled to a do-over when their tactics do not work out as
planned."


PLAINS ALL: Sued Over Economic Losses Caused by Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
Stace Cheverez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04113-CBM-JEM (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2015), is an action to recover
significant economic losses the Plaintiff and class members have
incurred and will continue to incur because of Defendant's oil
spill on the morning of May 19, 2015, in Santa Barbara,
California.

Plains All American Pipeline, LP owns and operates the All
American pipeline system, a common carrier crude oil pipeline
system that transports crude oil produced from two outer
continental shelf fields off the California coast via connecting
pipelines to refinery markets in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juli Farris, Esq.
      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
              mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Robert Lawrence Lieff, Esq.
      Robert Nelson, Esq.
      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1000
      E-mail: rlieff@lchb.com
              rnelson@lchb.com
              ecabraser@lchb.com


PPG ARCHITECTURAL: Recalls CIL(R) Scrub Free Deck Cleaner
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 5, 2015
Posting date: June 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Improper Safety Mechanisms
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53667

This recall involves the CIL(R) Scrub Free Deck Cleaner. The deck
cleaner was sold in 3.78 L containers with Product Code 850004 and
UPC 56198658707. This recall only applies to the following batch
codes:

  --- CF5D116778
  --- CF5D116779
  --- CF5D116878
  --- CF5D116879
  --- CF5D116902

This consumer product may have improperly sealed caps possibly
allowing liquid in the bottle to leak out. The released liquid
could result in unintentional exposure to the product and lead to
serious illnesses, injuries and deaths.

Neither Health Canada nor PPG Architectural Coatings Canada, Inc.
has received consumer incident reports related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 146 of the recalled cleaners were sold at various
Walmart and The Home Depot locations in Canada.

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

Manufactured in Canada.

Distributor: PPG Architectural Coatings Canada, Inc.
             Longueuil
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
call 1-800-DURABLE for safe handling and disposal instructions, as
well as a full refund.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5x6HGK


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Provided Additional Disclosures in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as part of the
proposed settlement of a class action, Regado provided additional
disclosures to the Company's shareholders.

On February 2, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado
Biosciences, Inc., Case No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware (the "Court"), challenging the proposed
stock-for-stock Merger of the Company with Tobira ("Proposed
Merger"). On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class
action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., Case No.
10720-CB) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the
Proposed Merger. The complaints name as defendants: (i) each
member of the Company's Board of Directors, (ii) the Company,
(iii) Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs allege
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
merge the Company with Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b)
implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of
interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement that are alleged to favor Tobira and deter alternative
bids. Plaintiffs also generally allege that the entity defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors. On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two
actions and assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs. On March 27,
2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a
motion for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties
agreed in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval
by the Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting
forth the terms of the proposed settlement. On April 23, 2015, as
part of the proposed settlement, Regado provided additional
disclosures to the Company's shareholders.


RIGHT CHOICE: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quentisha White v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, Vascor Ltd.,
Autoline Transportation, Inc. and Timothy Schultz, Case No. 2:15-
cv-11944-DPH-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of moving automobiles, for
Chrysler Group LLC, from one location to another within the State
of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Randolph III, Esq.
      THE RANDOLPH LAW GROUP
      32255 Northwestern Highway, Suite 251
      Farmington Hills, MI 48334
      Telephone: (734) 425-1200
      Facsimile: (734) 425-1211
      E-mail: thomasrandolph@mac.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Engle Progeny Tobacco Litigation Drags On
------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that on
Feb. 25, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Philip Morris released an
unusual trio of press releases: They were announcing a settlement
with plaintiffs lawyers -- to the tune of $100 million.  For
decades the tobacco giants have steadfastly refused to settle with
individuals suing the industry over medical conditions allegedly
caused by smoking, fearing that they would create a precedent.
But this rare departure from standard practice came in a highly
unusual matter: a piece of the so-called Engle litigation in
Florida, a sprawling case that has followed an unusual course.
The settlement announced in February is the result of a lawsuit
first filed in 1994 by Howard Engle, a Miami Beach pediatrician
who suffered from emphysema and filed a lawsuit in Dade County
circuit court against the major tobacco companies, alleging that
cigarettes caused a litany of health problems.  At the time it was
filed, Engle was following a new wave of anti-tobacco sentiment.
From the 1950s to the early 1990s, the tobacco companies did not
pay a single dollar to smokers who sued over claims they'd been
harmed by smoking.  But in the 1990s, smokers began to gain ground
against the companies.  A number of state attorneys general began
to pursue the tobacco companies.  And in 1995, a federal trial
court certified a nationwide class action estimated to include at
least 30 million people, individual smokers suing tobacco
companies for their health complications.  That case, Castano v.
American Tobacco Co., was seen as the great hope of plaintiffs
lawyers to challenge Big Tobacco.

Then, in 1996, Castano collapsed when the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit decertified the class.  Engle's case
collapsed, too, 10 years later.  Engle himself died in 2009. His
lawyers are no longer involved in the litigation. But their legacy
lives on -- in the form of about 3,100 cases that are slowly
making their way through courtrooms across Florida, from
Tallahassee to Tampa, from Miami to Pensacola, that grew from the
ashes of Engle's loss.  To date, plaintiffs in Florida in the so-
called Engle progeny litigation have scored well over $500 million
in verdicts from the four tobacco defendants, Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds, Liggett and Lorillard.  Of the 160 or so trials that
have taken place, plaintiffs have won about 60 percent of the
time, according to research provided by Morgan Stanley, which
tracks the litigation.

Representatives from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds
American Inc.; Philip Morris USA Inc., a unit of Altria; Lorillard
Inc. (which Reynolds has announced plans to acquire) and Liggett
Group LLC, and their respective law firms, Jones Day, Shook Hardy
& Bacon, Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman, either declined to comment for this story or didn't
return phone calls.

Howard Erichson, a professor at Fordham University School of Law
who specializes in complex litigation, calls the Engle progeny
litigation "an accident of history.
"Castano was supposed to be a big deal," Mr. Erichson says.
"Castano lawyers had put together a team of the greatest
plaintiffs around the country; it was a dream team."  By contrast,
he says, the Engle litigation was Florida-focused, the product of
two attorneys, Susan and Stanley Rosenblatt, a husband-and-wife
team in Miami.  "But it was the little engine that could; all
these years later, it's still breathing, and providing real
payoffs for plaintiffs."

The story of the Engle litigation is a story of wins and losses
for both sides, spread out over decades, with no ready conclusion
in sight.  When Howard Engle filed his lawsuit, along with six
other lead plaintiffs, in May 1994, he sought $200 billion in
damages from the marquee tobacco companies of the day. (Engle had
been a pediatrician to the Rosenblatts' nine children; the
Rosenblatts had already taken on Big Tobacco previously, having
sued the cigarette companies on behalf of flight attendants over
secondhand smoke exposure.) Later that year, a judge in Dade
County circuit court certified the case as a nationwide class
action; it was later whittled down to a class of Florida smokers,
about 700,000 plaintiffs.

Two big wins followed: In 1999, a jury found for the smokers in a
liability phase, finding, among other things, that nicotine was
addictive and that the cigarette companies were negligent and had
concealed a defective product.  Then, in July 2000, a separate
jury levied a whopping $145 billion in punitive damages against
Brown & Williamson, Liggett, Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J.
Reynolds -- at the time, the largest punitive damages verdict
ever.

Three years later, in a stunning reversal, an appeals court threw
out the verdict and ordered the class decertified.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the decertification and
dismissal of the punitive damages award, calling it "clearly
excessive because it would bankrupt some of the defendants."
Nevertheless, the high court's ruling gave the litigation a new
life.

The court ruled that individual plaintiffs could still pursue
their cases on their own and, more importantly, that the original
liability findings against the tobacco companies were subject to a
binding res judicata effect.  In order to pursue their cases
individually, plaintiffs had to come forward by January 2008, had
to be Florida residents and had to demonstrate that as of November
1996 they had an illness caused by smoking.

And the findings of the jury that were subject to the binding, res
judicata effect were significant: That cigarettes are harmful and
cause illnesses such as coronary heart disease, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer; that nicotine is
addictive; that the tobacco companies sold a defective product;
that the defendants were negligent; that the tobacco companies
concealed the addictive nature of nicotine; and that their conduct
rose to a level that could trigger punitive damages.
In other words, as long as plaintiffs could prove that they
belonged to the class, and that they were addicted to cigarettes,
they could walk into a courtroom with a finding of liability.
"It basically meant for the Florida plaintiffs that they were able
to start their cases four steps ahead," says Mr. Erichson.

All along, the tobacco companies had argued that a class action
mechanism was unjust and unmanageable, and that they were better
off defending cases individually.  Now, they were being tested on
that belief: Would it be better to fight thousands of cases one at
a time -- or address them in one fell swoop? Time would tell.  In
fact, it still is telling.

Immediately after the ruling from the Florida Supreme Court, the
plaintiffs bar mobilized. A group of plaintiffs lawyers from
around the state met with Rosenblatt in his office in Miami to
discuss litigation strategy. (The Rosenblatts, who are not
actively litigating any Engle progeny cases, did not return
messages seeking comment.)

"We formed a small little group," says Keith Mitnik, an attorney
at Morgan & Morgan in Orlando.  "We pull for one another, and
share information.  It has made us stronger; it has given us a
network."

By the 2008 deadline imposed by the Florida Supreme Court, about
8,000 cases were filed on behalf of purportedly injured smokers,
their widows or heirs.  The number was just slightly more than 1
percent of the estimated class of 700,000 smokers that had once
been certified, but there were enough cases to create some
shockwaves in courthouses around the state, which was already in
the thick of the foreclosure crisis.

The estate of a former smoker won the very first Engle progeny
trial, in February 2009, and almost immediately the game was
dominated by the plaintiffs.  About a year into the litigation,
they had won 13 of 15 trials.  Today, the ledger is less lopsided,
with plaintiffs winning about 60 percent of the time, according to
Morgan Stanley. Plaintiffs have done slightly better in Florida
state courts, where the majority of the litigation is playing out,
than they have in federal court in Jacksonville, where a parallel
litigation has unfolded.

Courtrooms in nearly every county in Florida have hosted some form
of Engle progeny litigation. There have been more than 170 trials
across the state, and countless others are teed up for months to
come.  Engle progeny cases are taken on by some of the biggest
plaintiffs law firms in Florida as well as small, one-man shops.
The trials have centered around estates of people who began
smoking at age 11, of blind widows who lost their husbands, of
three-pack-a-day smokers, middle-class workers and even upper-
class smokers.

These stories have prompted jurors to routinely levy punitive
damages of well over $10 million or $20 million.  While the
average plaintiff's verdict is about $4.5 million, according to
Morgan Stanley, jurors have issued compensatory and punitive
damages of less than $100,000, and as high as $23 billion. (The
latter award, to the wife of a deceased longshoreman who had
smoked multiple packs a day since he was 13, was quickly reduced
by a judge.)

As the Engle progeny cases wound their way through the courts,
state and federal court judges grappled with how broadly to apply
the Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling, and trial and appellate
courts throughout the state issued different and sometimes
conflicting rulings on evidentiary and procedural issues.  The
tobacco companies fought trial judges' efforts to apply the res
judicata ruling, calling it a violation of their due process
rights.  Finally, in 2013, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in
a case involving the widower of Charlotte Douglas, who had died
from lung cancer, that the binding res judicata ruling did not
violate the tobacco companies' due process rights.

"We decline to revisit or render meaningless our decision in Engle
and hold that the defendants' due process rights in Engle are not
being violated," the court wrote.

Represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement of the
Bancroft firm, Gregory Katsas of Jones Day and Miguel Estrada of
Gibson Dunn, Liggett, Philip Morris and Reynolds petitioned the
U.S. Supreme Court to review the Florida Supreme Court's decision,
calling the Engle progeny structure established by the Florida
courts "unprecedented and fundamentally unfair." In October 2013
the high court declined to take the case, effectively legitimizing
the proceedings in Florida.

Meanwhile, in October 2013, Liggett, a subsidiary of the Vector
Group, announced a $110 million settlement with thousands of post-
Engle plaintiffs. (Liggett was also the first defendant to settle
with the state AGs back in the 1990s.)

Still, the tobacco defendants have plenty to crow about.  They
have scored countless mistrials and defense wins in Florida courts
-- an uphill battle, given the damning findings established
against them -- such as the jury in January that sided with Philip
Morris in a case in which a plaintiff sought nearly $22 million in
compensatory damages for his laryngeal cancer.  The defendants
routinely ask judges for reductions in punitive and compensatory
damages, and appeal every adverse verdict, sometimes with great
success.

While plaintiffs lawyers often try their cases individually, or
with two or three lawyers in the courtroom, the tobacco companies
are typically well-armored with upward of a dozen lawyers from Big
Law firms (many of whom have passed the Florida bar specifically
to try Engle progeny cases).  According to Morgan Stanley, the
tobacco companies pay about a combined $500 million in defense
costs annually.  Each company has its chosen stable of firms:
Reynolds typically relies on teams of lawyers from Jones Day,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, King & Spalding and Womble Carlyle;
Philip Morris is defended by Shook Hardy & Bacon and Arnold &
Porter; and Lorillard uses Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

"The companies bring in an army of lawyers," says James Gustafson
Jr. -- JWG@searcylaw.com -- a plaintiffs attorney at Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in Tallahassee.  "They are smart, they
are well-trained, they do a really good job and they have a lot of
them."

Trials often last around three weeks.  Plaintiffs lawyers say
they've been able to leverage some fairly good results, not just
because of the res judicata ruling but also thanks to Florida's
jury selection rules, which allow for lawyers to conduct brief
interviews of potential jurors during the voir dire process and
then make extensive challenges of jurors for cause.  Mr. Mitnik
says that, for example, through direct questioning, he's been able
to snuff out potential jurors who may harbor doubts about holding
the tobacco industry responsible for the actions of individual
smokers.

At trial, plaintiffs lawyers must prove that their client (or the
deceased spouse of a client) was addicted to the brand or brands
of cigarettes they sued -- an addiction that typically began
decades before.  They must prove that the smoker tried to stop,
but was thwarted by the addictive nature of nicotine. Florida law
embraces the tenet of "comparative fault" that different parties
may hold differing levels of responsibility for an addiction.

"It allows the jury to find both parties bear some responsibility
rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove that the tobacco
company is 100 percent at fault," explains Howard Acosta, a
plaintiffs attorney based in St. Petersburg, Florida.  The
comparative fault doctrine allows plaintiffs lawyers to present
evidence of how tobacco companies demonstrated alleged negligence,
Mr. Acosta says.  Of course, it allows tobacco companies, too, to
turn the tables and say that a smoker never tried to quit -- an
argument some juries have been sympathetic to.

Despite the winning record, plaintiffs lawyers are facing a race
against time. B y definition, their clients were sick starting at
least 20 years ago.  Clients are dying, and widows and heirs are
losing interest in the litigation.

"We started out with 600 clients; now we are down to 300," says
Mr. Acosta.  "People get old and die.  The litigation began in
2007.  It's eight years later -- and they were old to begin with,"
he says.

Money is an issue, too.  The plaintiffs may point to the more than
half-billion in damages they've won, but how much have they
gotten? Philip Morris has paid out only about $17 million in
compensatory and punitive damages, according to its most recent
annual report in February, and R.J. Reynolds has paid out about
$162 million.

"Financially, it's not easy, but it's worth it in many ways,"
Mr. Gustafson says.

Most plaintiffs lawyers fund these cases through the verdicts
they've gotten paid on in other types of litigation, typically
medical malpractice or product liability.  Some have also sought
help from litigation financing groups such as Law Finance Group,
which began funding lawyers -- to the tune of tens of millions of
dollars -- and plaintiffs last year, shortly after the Supreme
Court denied cert to the tobacco companies.

If the Engle progeny state cases havewound laggardly through the
courts, the process that has played out in federal court has been
much more efficient, which has produced a very different result.
In 2007, Jacksonville-based attorney Woody Wilner filed hundreds
of Engle progeny cases as multiplaintiff cases in state court,
triggering the tobacco defendants to plead for removal to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act.  The cases moved to
federal court in Jacksonville, and Wilner called in lawyers from
Lieff Cabraser Hiemann & Bernstein and Motley Rice for help.
(Those two firms essentially took over the litigation.) The
federal judges in Jacksonville worked diligently to streamline the
cases for scheduling purposes and pretrial evidentiary rulings.
They disposed of hundreds of cases deemed to be invalid, and the
plaintiffs dismissed others, until about 1,300 cases remained.
(Others were subsequently disposed of, too.) In July 2013, the
chief judge in Jacksonville, citing the "massive" case management
challenge the cases presented to the court, appointed U.S.
District Judge William Young of Boston to oversee Engle progeny
trials. Young set an aggressive trial schedule, forcing cases to
be tried week after week, sometimes with multiple trials occurring
simultaneously. Eventually, the unthinkable happened.

"Through a combination of this incredibly tight trial schedule
where we were trying cases literally every day, alongside the fact
that we started to win more than 50 percent of cases, and win big,
the cigarette companies blinked," says Robert Nelson, a partner at
Lieff Cabraser, whose firm won a $27 million verdict last
September.

The $100 million proposed to be laid out in the settlement --
Philip Morris and Reynolds will each pay $42.5 million and
Lorillard the remaining $15 million -- amounts to about $250,000
per plaintiff, a modest sum considering the average $4.5 million
award in state court.  The settlement covers only the
approximately 400 federal Engle plaintiffs who were awaiting
trial, and in order for it to be finalized, all of these
plaintiffs must agree to participate, a provision that some
experts find ethically troubling.

The proposed federal settlement question has sparked the question:
Are the state cases next?

Not at all, according to the nearly identical statements
Philip Morris, Reynolds and Lorillard made on the day the proposed
settlement was announced, vowing to defend themselves "vigorously"
in the active state litigation.  Even plaintiffs lawyers, ever
wanting to make a deal, recognize that the fragmented nature of
the state Engle progeny litigation is not as conducive to a
settlement.

"Symbolically, it's an interesting crack in the dam," says Scott
Schlesinger, a plaintiffs lawyer at the Schlesinger Law Firm in
Fort Lauderdale, speaking of the federal deal.  "But what does it
provoke on the state side? It's too soon to tell; we are operating
under the assumption that it won't mean anything for a while.
State courts are different, there are different rulings in
different counties, different appellate decisions.  We have plenty
of people to try cases; we have bigger verdicts, more verdicts.
It's a much bigger undertaking for tobacco to come to us and
settle.  The state system is more individualized."

Still, says Mr. Erichson, the Fordham professor, the history of
product liability litigation is filled with settlements from
companies that said they'd never settle, from Merck & Co. Inc.
(Vioxx) to Bayer AG (Baycol).

"There are lots of ways to resolves claims by settlement," says
Mr. Erichson.  "Just because it will be harder to do a single
massive settlement of post-Engle state cases doesn't mean there
aren't ways for tobacco companies to settle," he says, noting that
Bayer, for example, settled with plaintiffs individually, and that
other companies such as BP plc have relied on a settlement fund
process when reaching deals with plaintiffs.

Even if the Engle litigation drags on for several more years, both
sides will -- and already can -- declare victory.  Big Tobacco has
certainly fared better than the $145 billion verdict it once
faced.  And while the industry may be paying out hundreds of
millions of dollars each year in defense costs in Engle, the
Florida litigation is still self-contained.  No other plaintiffs
in other states have succeeded in replicating what has been done
in Engle.

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, remarkably, salvaged a series of gains
from a devastating loss, becoming some of the only individuals in
America ever to reap awards from Big Tobacco.

Or, as Mr. Schlesinger, the plaintiffs lawyer, puts it: "Fewer
people have beaten Big Tobacco in court than have climbed Mount
Everest."


SALLY HANSEN: Judge Approves Plaintiff's Expert in Hot-Wax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge in Scranton was apparently less than
impressed with the expert reports submitted on either side of a
products liability case over a home waxing kit, but he let the
plaintiff's expert withstand a challenge from the defense.

Sally Hansen, the maker of the waxing kit that allegedly gave
Kelsey Ouelette third-degree burns, had moved to have the
plaintiff's expert excluded under the Daubert standard.

Ms. Ouelette started to use a "lavender spa body wax" kit made by
Sally Hansen in January 2012, heating it in her microwave for 30
seconds and then for another 10 seconds, as instructed on the
package.  After letting it sit on the counter, she picked it up
and it started to sizzle and, within seconds, exploded, according
to U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy of the Middle District
of Pennsylvania's opinion on the Daubert issue.

The wax allegedly landed on her right arm, both hands, countertop,
floor, trash can and curtains.  She was rushed to the Community
Medical Center in Scranton and, from there, "life-flighted" to
Lehigh Valley Hospital's burn unit, where she was treated for
third-degree burns, according to Judge Conaboy's decision.

Her proposed expert in the case, J. Pablo Ross, did tests with the
kind of wax that Ms. Ouelette had used, as well as the company's
new formula, in the microwave that Ms. Ouelette had used in 2012,
according to the opinion.  The highest temperature that Ross
reached with the wax like Ms. Ouelette used was 122.5 degrees
Fahrenheit and, with the new formula, 122.9 degrees.

"Mr. Ross opines that 'the subject incident occurred as a result
of hot wax overheating, resulting in the wax melting and moisture
vaporizing.  This condition resulted in hot wax bursting out of
the wax jar, injuring Ms. Ouelette and causing her injuries,'"
Judge Conaboy said.  "In explanation of this opinion, Mr. Ross
theorized that the wax mixture (which consists of a mixture of
different oils, compounds and moisture), as a result of microwave
heating, is heated unevenly."

The experts retained by the defense, however, faulted Mr. Ross'
conclusions.  Referring to Sally Hansen's experts, Thomas Eagar
and Richard Taylor, Judge Conaboy said, "Eagar and Taylor
criticize Mr. Ross' report on several bases, including the fact
that his test results invalidate his main conclusion because the
highest temperature he reached was 122.9 degrees, well below the
700-degree boiling point for wax and approximately 90 degrees
below the boiling point for water, and the product contains 99
percent esters, oils and inorganics, none of which will boil or
present any significant quantity of vapor at the temperatures
reached in Mr. Ross' experiments."

But Judge Conaboy wasn't convinced by Sally Hansen's criticism of
Ms. Ouelette's expert.

"We conclude that both expert reports are lacking in certain
respects and defendants have not shown that Mr. Ross' report
should be stricken and he should not be allowed to testify at
trial," the judge said.  "Although defendants assert that their
experts indicate the violent eruption described by plaintiff was
not scientifically possible, photos and testimony indicate wax
ended up on the counter, floor and curtains, as well as
plaintiff's hands and arm. Testimony and photos also show the
container was almost completely destroyed, allegedly after
plaintiff removed it from the microwave."

So, Judge Conaboy held, experts for both sides will be able to
testify in front of the jury, which will be able to weigh the
merits of each side.

"The judge did exactly what any reasonable trial judge would do,"
said Joseph R. Rydzewski of Spall, Rydzewski, Anderson, Lalley &
Tunis in Hawley -- he put the expert testimony in the hands of the
jury.  Mr. Rydzewski represented Ouelette.

Patrick Heffron -- pheffron@chartwelllaw.com -- of The Chartwell
Law Offices in Scranton, represented Sally Hansen and couldn't be
reached for comment.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on
February 17, 2015, the purported class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

Each lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company
seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities pursuant and/or traceable to
SCUSA's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the initial public offering. Each complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus contained misleading
statements concerning the Company's auto lending business and
underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages
and other relief.


SELECTION: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV.com reports that thousands are now suing management Systems
in a class-action lawsuit, saying Selection included criminal
charges that it shouldn't have included and might have cost them
jobs between Jan. 27, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2014.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe that close to 30,000 job
seekers were affected, and both sides are close to settling for
$750,000.  Plaintiffs who want to be included in any payout should
have gotten a letter about the lawsuit.  They had until May 29 to
file a claim.

Plaintiff and Charlotte resident Tiffany Lilly wishes she knew
which job and what charge appeared on her background check.  She
can't recall being charged with any crime.

"I really want to know," she said.  "They messed up my
credibility, so I would like to see what it was."

She might never know, because Selection has cleaned up its records
so old charges no longer appear.

Applicants are always entitled to a copy of their background
checks.


SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE: More Funding Pursued to Support Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Meadows, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that investors
who lost millions in South Canterbury Finance (SCF) are stumping
up more cash to pursue the possibility of a class action.  About
40 people attended a meeting in Auckland on May 25, the seventh
and final held across the country by financial adviser Chris Lee.

SCF was placed in receivership in August 2010.  While depositors
were covered by the $1.7 billion taxpayer bailout, those holding
$120 million worth of preferential shares were not.

A legal team led by Queens Counsel Chris Gudsell is investigating
whether there is a case that a claim against SCF should be filed
on their behalf.

One of the matters Mr. Lee raised was the failure to provide
investors with continual disclosure of SCF's position.  SCF
directors did not make a single release on the financial woes it
was experiencing and even paid out a dividend on the preferential
shares.

"We were robbed of our rights to accurate and timely information
about the company," Mr. Lee said.

Investors have been asked to contribute a minimum of 0.5 per cent,
or $5 from every $1000 invested, to fund the legal team's
investigation.  If any claim arises, Lee said it would be covered
by litigation funders, with no further contributions required.
The initial target of $100,000 has already been surpassed, and the
new target is $150,000.

Mr. Lee, who is from the Kapiti Coast, sold SCF shares to 110 of
his clients.  He said that though he would "dearly love" to be
compensated for some of the $270,000 he had personally lost, there
was also a moral component.  Mr. Lee has been pursuing his
grievances for five years through the New Zealand Stock Exchange
and the now defunct Securities Commission.

The commission's successor, the Financial Markets Authority, did
not bring a claim of its own but has supported Lee's actions and
provided access to documents.

Mr. Lee remained coy on the exact nature of the claim or who the
defendants might be.  "There are some things I haven't said this
morning that I'm not allowed to say," he said.

Contributors so far had put in an average of about $200 each.

One investor present at the meeting, with 75,000 preference
shares, said he was prepared to chip in much more than that.  He
was hopeful of matching a 10-to-1 return he received after being
involved in a similar action against Babcock and Brown in
Australia.

"I put my money in.  I put in $400, and after a couple of years I
got $4400 back."

Now in his eighties, the investor's only concern was that he might
not be around to reap the rewards of any payout.

Lawyers will make a decision on whether a claim is viable by the
end of June.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: 2 Class Actions in Discovery Process
-----------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is early
in the discovery process in two class action cases.

In August 2014, two cases (entitled Rosen v. Spirit Airlines and
Legg v. Spirit Airlines) were filed against the Company in federal
court in Illinois and Florida, respectively. The cases, which
contain identical claims, allege violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) based on incidents of
unlawfully including more information on the electronically
printed credit card receipts provided to customers from our
airport kiosk machines than FACTA permits. Both cases are styled
as class actions, although neither has been certified as such. The
plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs.

The Company believes it has valid arguments in its defense and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However, an
adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business and its financial position. At this time the
Company is early in the discovery process and the ultimate outcome
of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the
amount of any loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Chrysler Airbag Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the latest in a series of proposed
Canadian class-action suits over potentially deadly airbags was
launched on May 21, this one over those installed in Chrysler
vehicles.

The lead plaintiff, Gary Coles, of Tecumseh, Ont., bought a
Chrysler 300 in 2006.  In March, he contacted Chrysler Canada to
find out if the vehicle contained a Takata airbag requiring
replacement and the company confirmed it did.

"To the date of the filing of this claim, he has not received an
official recall notice from the Chrysler defendants," the
statement asserts.

Alex Constantin said his law firm launched its first action last
fall and has added further ones as the scope of the problem became
evident and may start new actions or amend the existing suits as
more information emerges.

Previous suits targeted other large vehicle makers such as Toyota,
Honda, Nissan, BMW and Ford.

The lawsuits claim Japan-based Takata Corp. and its U.S.
subsidiary negligently designed and manufactured "life-threatening
and dangerous" bag inflators that were installed in millions of
vehicles.

In the latest statement of claim filed with Ontario Superior
Court, the plaintiff alleges more than 36-million vehicles
worldwide containing Takata-made airbags have been recalled. The
suit alleges the company knew about the problem for more than a
decade but failed to provide timely warnings.

"Our clients and the vehicle owners deserve an answer as to why it
took so long for Takata and these manufacturers took so long to
issue these recalls and why these defendants exposed these vehicle
owners to a risk to their well being, their lives and safety for
so long," Mr. Constantin said in an interview from Windsor, Ont.

Chrysler Canada, which reported a voluntary recall of more than
258,000 vehicles in January, refused a request for comment.

None of the claims has been certified as a class action or proven
in any court.

Airbags are designed to inflate at high speed in the event of a
crash, cushioning the occupants of a vehicle.  The defective
devices, however, can propel shrapnel into the vehicle, maiming or
killing the driver, according to the suit.

The faulty design stems from a decision by Takata executives in
1999 to come up with a cheaper propellant for use in their
airbags.  The company began using ammonium nitrate despite knowing
it to be a "risky compound," according to the claim.

"Multiple deaths and dozens of injuries have been linked to over-
explosive airbag-inflator propellant causing metal components
within the device to break and project through the airbag cushion
material at vehicle occupants," the claim states.

Takata's CEO has acknowledged the problem and apologized,
according to the filing.

In December, Takata rejected American regulator demand for a
nationwide recall, saying there was "not enough scientific
evidence" to justify one.

The company recently agreed to declare 34 million airbags in the
U.S. defective, triggering the largest auto recall in history.


TAKATA CORP: Class Action Plaintiff Speaks Out on Faulty Airbag
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that none of several people suing airbag maker
Takata Corp. spoke in Windsor, Ont., on May 21.

John MacIntosh, represented by Sutts Strosberg LLP, says he rarely
drives his 2003 Toyota Corolla because he's scared it is equipped
with a faulty airbag made by Takata.

"I have no interest in being in a situation where it might deploy
so I refuse to drive it on a highway," he said.

Mr. MacIntosh is seeking damages on behalf of owners of vehicles
equipped with Takata-made airbags, which can malfunction and harm
drivers and passengers.

"As an individual, I can't do much about it.  I can't do anything
about it in fact.  I could complain but nobody would listen.
So this opportunity for people like me to make [myself] heard."

All told, Sutts Strosberg is representing seven people in five
class action suits seeking a combined total of $3.25 billion CND.

Takata and one of its North American subsidiaries are common
defendants in all of the five actions.  Takata faces multiple
class actions in the United States and Canada as well as a U.S.
criminal investigation and a regulatory probe.

The number of Canadian recalls isn't easily accessible on
Transport Canada's database, which is searchable by company (not
component maker) and doesn't necessarily list what specific
component was a factor in any given recall.

According to lawyer Harvey Strosberg, the five class actions cover
1.6 million vehicles, a number he believes could grow to three
million.  As of last year, Honda said it had recalled more than
700,000 vehicles in Canada because of the issue.

"Honda is currently reviewing the information released on May 21
to determine what new actions may be required to further ensure
the safety of our customers in North America," a spokesperson with
the company told CBC News on May 20.

"To date, Honda is not aware of any reported claims of injuries or
deaths in Canada relating to a ruptured airbag inflator of any
Takata produced airbag in a Honda or Acura vehicle."

A recall notice on the database from December says that Toyota
Canada has recalled 14,570 RAV4 SUVs for faulty airbags.  But the
notice has no mention they are Takata components.  A subsequent
news release from Toyota Canada, however, confirms that the recall
is in fact related to Takata components.

For a full list of the Takata recalls Toyota has undertaken in
Canada, the carmaker urged people to visit www.media.toyota.ca

"I would urge consumers to stay in touch with their manufacturers
and their dealers in order to determine if their car is
susceptible," said Jason Stein, the editor and publisher of
Automotive News, an auto industry magazine.

Based on a CBC analysis of recall notices on the regulator's
database, there are at least 1.3 million Canadian cars affected.
That includes:

90,245 Nissan vehicles.
18,979 Toyotas.
47,000 Mazdas.
873,738 Hondas.
259,600 Chryslers.
11,131 BMWs.
27,523 Fords.
1,112 Subarus.


TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg Plans to Expand Airbag Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AFFP reports that a Canadian law firm said it planned to expand
its class actions against embattled Japanese auto parts giant
Takata and car manufacturers over defective airbags.  The
plaintiffs are seeking more than 3.0 billion Canadian dollars from
Takata and auto manufacturers Chrysler, Honda, Nissan and Toyota
for the loss of value of their vehicles caused by the recall,
according to Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

The original suit estimated the number of cars recalled in Canada
at 1.8 million.  That number is now expected to rise after Takata
recently agreed to double a US recall to a record nearly 34
million vehicles.

Once revised Canadian figures are released, Sutts, Strosberg LLP
will amend its lawsuit to reflect the increased number of cars
affected by the recall, a spokesman for the firm told AFP.  The
defect -- thought to be linked to a chemical propellant that helps
inflate the airbags -- can cause them to deploy with explosive
force, sending metal shrapnel hurtling toward drivers and
passengers.

John McIntosh, who is represented by Sutts, Strosberg, told a
Canadian nationally-televised press conference that he rarely
drives his 2003 Toyota Corolla because he fears the airbag is
faulty.

Another Canadian class action against Takata announced in March by
Merchant Law Group LLP is seeking 2.4 billion Canadian dollars for
personal injuries, car repairs and an expected loss in value of
their vehicles included in a massive global safety recall.

Two other Canadian law firms have also launched suits.  If they
are certified by a judge, they would likely be lumped into a
single class action lawsuit in the coming months.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Marc Stanley Files Car Hacking Risk Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Jonston, writing for Auto Connected Car News, reports that
Attorney Marc R. Stanley filed a class action lawsuit against
Toyota, Ford and General Motors for failing to protect cars from
being hacked.  The suit contends that car manufacturers long have
known about the risks posed by this hazard. It also states that
the automakers failed to ensure the basic electronic security of
their vehicles.

Mr. Stanley explained, "Toyota, Ford and GM have deliberately
hidden the dangers associated with car computer systems,
misleading consumers."

If hackers break into the center controller the CAN Bus, it is
possible to take control of car functions such as braking,
steering and acceleration. Such a demonstration was given on "60
Minutes", earlier this year.

A 2013 study by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) found researchers could make vehicles "suddenly
accelerate, turn, [and] kill the brakes."  DARPA reported the
defect represents a "real threat to the physical well being of
drivers and passengers."  Before releasing its study, DARPA shared
its finding with car manufacturers to address the vulnerabilities,
but they did nothing.

The lawsuit alleges Toyota, Ford and GM concealed or suppressed
material facts concerning the safety, quality and functionality of
vehicles equipped with these systems.  It charges the companies
with fraud, false advertising and violation of consumer
protections statutes.

Toyota owner and named plaintiff Helene Cahen said, "It's scary to
know you could be driving down the highway and a hacker could
seize control of your car.  Toyota never mentions this risk when
extolling its technology to sell you the car."

Mr. Stanley continued, "We shouldn't need to wait for a hacker or
terrorist to prove exactly . . . Ford and GM should be required to
recall cars with these dangerous electronic systems."

Mr. Stanley is a founder of the Stanley Law Group, which focuses
on complex litigation.  He previously served as president of the
Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  So far, there have been few hack
demonstrated without direct hardwired contact with CAN bus.

Eric Evenchick is selling a device that hack into the CAN bus.
There have been a spate of car hacking umysterious devices.

Mission Secure Inc. and Perrone Robotics Inc. announced that track
testing proves that their solution can stop cyber attacks in cars
through a key fob hack.

Argus Cbyer Security claims that it could have stopped the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA's) car-takeover
demonstration on 60 Minutes that showed Lesley Stahl unable to
control a masked car that looked a lot like a Chevy Impala.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Multiple Law Firms Filed Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 28, 2015, Trinity Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice through
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena
requests documents from 1999 through the present relating to the
ET 2000 and ET Plus guardrail end-terminal products. The Company
intends to cooperate with this request.

Trinity said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, that the Company is aware
that multiple law firms have recently filed purported class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws related to its
disclosures regarding the ET Plus guardrail end-terminal. The
Company believes each of these lawsuits is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against all allegations. Additional
lawsuits making similar or related allegations may be filed
against the Company and/or its officers and directors.


TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Guy" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Guy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01622
(N.D. Ga., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODARD, LLC
      Suite 660, 1718 Peachtree Street
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 893-9400
      Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
      E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com


UNITED PARCEL: Settles Overcharging Allegations for $25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau reports that the Department
of Justice declared that United Parcel Services (UPS), the world's
largest package shipping company, agreed to pay $25 million to
resolve allegations of overcharging.  UPS was accused of
submitting false claims to the federal government in connection
with its delivery of Next Day Air overnight packages.

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed under the
whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits
private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for
false claims and obtain a portion of the government's recovery.
The civil complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia
by Robert K. Fulk, a former employee of UPS, who will receive
$3.75 million.

"Protecting the federal procurement process from false claims is
central to the mission of the Department of Justice," said
Benjamin C. Mizer, DOJ's principal deputy assistant attorney
general.  He declared, "We will continue to ensure that when
federal monies are used to purchase commercial services the
government receives the prices and services to which it is
entitled."

The resolution of the litigation, United States ex rel. Fulk v.
United Parcel Services, Inc., et al., filed on February 24, 2015,
was the result of efforts brought by several government agencies.
They include the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of
Virginia, the General Services Administration's Office of
Inspector General, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration and the Department of Treasury OIG,
with assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Acting Inspector General Robert C. Erickson of GSA responded to
UPS's settlement on claims of overcharging government by saying,
"The United States should get what it pays for, nothing less."

As required in settlements, DOJ disclosed in its press release,
"the claims resolved by the UPS settlement are allegations only,
and there has been no determination of liability."

A UPS spokesperson said the company still disputes the
government's claim, but settled the case to avoid long and
expensive litigation.

UPS's long pattern of alleged deception
Blue MauMau first reported on allegations of UPS overcharging
customers when UPS Store franchisees complained in 2007.  Some
store owners had filed state complaints regarding the inaccuracies
of UPS's weight equipment and flawed laser technology.  Because
UPS was installing the weighing equipment itself in retail and
shipping outlets, some state officials said they questioned the
accuracy.  By law, states were required to set and calibrate the
devices to assure consumers were not being overcharged.

A franchisee in Colorado told how his complaint prompted the state
to test equipment at UPS shipping facilities.  After the testing
was completed, the store owner said he was told that in the test
of five packages, all the same weight and dimension, all came up
with different measurements and weights.  UPS Corporation in
Atlanta observed those tests, but did not answer questions as to
how they would handle the back charges to customers.

When franchisees discovered that a class action lawsuit was filed
in California on behalf of anyone who ships packages under
contract with UPS, some decided to join the suit.  When the
proposed class action complaint was filed, UPS corporate sent out
the lawsuit to the entire UPS network.  The UPS Store president at
the time, Stuart Mathis, shared with the chain's franchise
advisory council members that after his experience with the laser
measuring devices he concluded they were generally accurate. But
he stated there were mistakes.

Unable to rectify the problems, Mathis sent out a letter to all
franchisees, region coordinators and district consultants,
urgently explaining the process they should take in disputing back
charges.  While the franchisor tried to work with the franchisees
in fixing the problem, store owners questioned what the company
was doing to rectify problems with account holders who were being
overcharged.

Investigations into UPS overcharging allegations
Earlier in May the New York Post conducted an investigation on
whether or not customers were being overcharged.  The probe was
triggered by news reports of litigation between franchisees in
Manhattan and The UPS Store. Going into different stores
undercover, the Post found that for the same size and weight
packages customers were paying different prices.  Some consumers
were charged as much as $20 more for the same type package.

In the Manhattan litigation, franchisees Robert and Thomas Hagan,
owners of 11 The UPS Store outlets had themselves hire a private
investigator to look into pricing policies in various stores.  The
results revealed that more than 40 The UPS Store franchises were
promoting the alleged practices of up-charging customers on air
shipping packages.  When the franchisor looked into the matter, it
put the Hagans on notice that they were out of compliance with
their franchise agreements.  The Hagans met with the company to
try and resolve the issues, but their 11 stores were then
terminated.

After The UPS Store filed a complaint against them, the Hagans
filed 12 counterclaims.  The district judge in New York has
allowed the Hagans to go forward on one claim, stating the
franchisees had standing under New York General Business Law,
Section 349.  The claim is defined as making it unlawful to engage
in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,
trade or commence or in the furnishing of any service in New York.
They are represented by Stephen J. Savva.

Consumers file lawsuit for overcharging

On May 5, 2015, yet another lawsuit was filed against UPS shipping
giant and the San Diego-based chain, The UPS Store, along with
certain franchisees and other retailers.  The complaint, like the
Hagan suit, was also filed in federal court in the Southern
district of New York.  This one is filed on behalf of consumers
who allege they have been overcharged by the shipping companies
from 2011 to present. The lawsuit is seeking class action status.
David Andrew Stampley of KamberLaw, is representing the consumers
in the case.

Lead plaintiff Lynn W. Tucker claims that consumers are misled
about and overcharged for UPS services.  The complaint states that
both UPS and its franchise system are aware of and retain records
showing consumers' overpayments.  Because franchised locations are
required to keep records through their point-of-sales system
(POS), as well as the credit card billing details showing the
amounts customers pay, UPS and TUPSS know of the overcharges.
They also keep records of Counter Manifest System information used
to initiate and track shipments of consumer packages, showing
rates and costs for UPS Air and ground services, according to the
lawsuit.

Store representatives frequently do not give customers receipts
from the POS systems.  When they do, POS system receipts often do
not contain package dimensions or charge details.  Because of
that, UPS and The UPS Store chain allegedly retain the benefits of
hidden overpayments by customers.

The complaint asserts that UPS and franchisor TUPSS also violated
Section 349 of New York General Business Law, which makes it
illegal to engage in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any
service in the State of New York.  It also claims unjust
enrichment on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs and national class
members. UPS and TUPSS are accused of wrongful retention of the
benefits to which consumers are entitled.

New York Attorney General legal action against UPS
Although New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has not
looked into the legal matters of UPS overcharging consumers, the
AG has taken another action.

Earlier this year, Mr. Schneiderman filed a $180 million lawsuit
against the package shipping giant for delivering nearly 700,000
cartons of cigarettes into New York that were allegedly untaxed.
He claims that fueled a contraband market that cheated state and
local tax coffers and threatened the public's health.


UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Settles Damaged Sperm Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Kovacs Norell on May 22 disclosed that it took twelve years
of class action litigation but men whose sperm samples were
irreversibly damaged by a power outage in May 2002 at a laboratory
operated by the University of British Columbia may finally receive
some compensation for their loss.  Counsel for the class, Sandy
Kovacs, recently advised Justice Bruce Butler of the British
Columbia Supreme Court that the plaintiffs and UBC, as well as a
number of other parties (Arpel Security, Caltech Tech Services,
Moore Security, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Mallinckrodt,
Inc., and Sanyo Electric Co.), had reached a settlement.  Most of
the class plaintiffs were survivors of cancer or other such
conditions and who had been rendered infertile by treatment or the
disease.  "These men had their sperm samples frozen before they
lost their fertility so they could have their own children in the
future.  They lost that chance.  We are hopeful that this
settlement will provide some compensation for their loss of their
chance to reproduce" said Kovacs.  The settlement is for $6.2
million and the Court will be determining whether to approve the
settlement or not on June 10, 2015.  More information about the
settlement can be obtained from www.gkn.ca or at
www.ubcspermbankclaim.ca


US AIRWAYS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Airline Ticket Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schuyler Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. US Airways, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01214-L-
JMA (S.D. Cal., June 1, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair
and fraudulent business practice of inducing consumers to attempt
to purchase its airline tickets online at a price it does not
intend to sell, causing an incomplete transaction, indicating that
the consumer has not been charged for the attempted purchase,
while charging and placing the Plaintiff's funds on hold, making
the funds unavailable to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers.

US Airways, Inc. operates an airline holding company incorporated
under the laws of the State of Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


VECTOR GROUP: 21 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that judgments have been
entered against Liggett and other industry defendants in Engle
progeny cases. A number of the judgments have been affirmed on
appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of March 31, 2015, 21
Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a defendant at trial
resulted in verdicts. Fourteen verdicts were returned in favor of
the plaintiffs and seven in favor of Liggett. Excluding the Lukacs
case, which was tried in 2002, seven years before the trials of
Engle progeny cases commenced, the compensatory verdicts against
Liggett have ranged from $1,000 to $3,600,000. In certain cases,
the judgments entered have been joint and several with other
defendants. In four of the cases, punitive damages were awarded
against Liggett. Except regarding the cases where an adverse
verdict was entered against Liggett and that remain on appeal,
management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss from the remaining Engle progeny cases as there are currently
multiple defendants in each case and, in most cases, discovery has
not occurred or is limited. As a result, the Company lacks
information about whether plaintiffs are in fact Engle class
members (non-class members' claims are generally time-barred), the
relevant smoking history, the nature of the alleged injury and the
availability of various defenses, among other things. Further,
plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand for damages.

Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing
litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant
challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle
progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past
litigation experience will be representative of future results.
Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in
Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those
judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is
possible that the consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any
of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the
litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal
of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be,
vigorously defended. Liggett may, however, enter into settlement
discussions in particular cases if it believes it is in its best
interest to do so, including the remaining Engle progeny cases.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Settled 161 Engle Progeny Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual
basis, settled 161 Engle progeny cases for approximately
$2,205,000 in the aggregate. Six of those settlements occurred in
the first quarter of 2015. In October 2013, Liggett announced a
settlement of the claims of over 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs.


VECTOR GROUP: 48 Individual Actions Pending Against Liggett
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
there were 48 Individual Actions pending against Liggett and, in
certain cases, the Company, where one or more individual
plaintiffs allege injury resulting from cigarette smoking,
addiction to cigarette smoking or exposure to secondary smoke and
seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. These
cases do not include Engle progeny cases or the approximately 100
individual cases pending in West Virginia state court as part of a
consolidated action. The following table lists the number of
Individual Actions by state:

State                    Number of Cases

Florida                        27
New York                        8
Maryland                        7
Louisiana                       2
West Virginia                   2
Missouri                        1
Ohio                            1

The plaintiffs' allegations of liability in cases in which
individuals seek recovery for injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking are based on various theories of recovery,
including negligence, gross negligence, breach of special duty,
strict liability, fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, common law public nuisance, property damage, invasion
of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress, disability, shock,
indemnity, violations of deceptive trade practice laws, the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), state RICO statutes and antitrust statutes. In many of
these cases, in addition to compensatory damages, plaintiffs also
seek other forms of relief including treble/multiple damages,
medical monitoring, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages.
Although alleged damages often are not determinable from a
complaint, and the law governing the pleading and calculation of
damages varies from state to state and jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, compensatory and punitive damages have been
specifically pleaded in a number of cases, sometimes in amounts
ranging into the hundreds of millions and even billions of
dollars.

Defenses raised in Individual Actions include lack of proximate
cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or
contributory negligence, lack of design defect, statute of
limitations, equitable defenses such as "unclean hands" and lack
of benefit, failure to state a claim and federal preemption.


VECTOR GROUP: 310 Engle Progeny Plaintiff Claims Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that notwithstanding the
comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny Settlement,
approximately 310 plaintiffs' claims remain outstanding.

In October 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with
approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a
total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately
$61,600,000 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in
installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015. In
exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs were dismissed with
prejudice against the Company and Liggett. Due to the settlement,
in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of $86,213,000, of which
$25,213,000 is related to certain payments discounted to their
present value. The present value of the installment payments was
computed using an 11% annual discount rate. The Company recorded
an additional charge of $643,000 in the first quarter of 2015 for
additional cases joining the settlement and the restructuring of
certain payments related to several previously settled cases. The
installment payments total approximately $48,000,000 on an
undiscounted basis. The Company's future payments will be
approximately $3,426,000 per annum through 2028, with a cost of
living increase beginning in 2021.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 310 plaintiffs' claims remain
outstanding. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


VECTOR GROUP: Hearing Held on Remaining Tobacco Litigation Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing was
scheduled for June 8, 2015 to address the remaining disputed
issues in the case, In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury
Cases).

As of March 31, 2015, there were four actions pending for which
either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class
certification where Liggett is a named defendant, including one
alleged price fixing case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also
named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case. The defendants did not oppose and the
stay was entered by the court.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was commenced
on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke
and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the
defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, a class was commenced against cigarette manufacturers
alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in
November 2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral
argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March
2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the lower court's decision. On August 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the
jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for
the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes sold
between 1964 and 1969 should have included instructions on how to
use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further
proceedings that have not yet been scheduled. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. A hearing is
scheduled for June 8, 2015 to address the remaining disputed
issues. If the case were to proceed against Liggett as is, it is
estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25 of the
remaining individual cases. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court.

Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against
cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use of
the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the United States
Supreme Court, in Altria Group v. Good, ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state
law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed
with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The
Good decision resulted in the filing of additional "lights" class
action cases in other states against other cigarette
manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the Good
case, and is not currently a defendant in any other "lights" class
actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional "lights"
related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


VECTOR GROUP: 12 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through March 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
there were 12 Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial through
March 31, 2016, where Liggett (and/or the Company) is a named
defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject to change.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Two Agencies Impose Penalty Over Cramming
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Verizon Wireless and Sprint Corp. will pay a combined $158 million
for illegally billing mobile phone customers for unauthorized
third-party charges, federal and state authorities announced on
May 12.

The settlement is much like the $112.5 million penalty T-Mobile
USA Inc. paid in December for "cramming" and the $105 million hit
against AT&T Mobility in October.  In each instance, the phone
companies allegedly included unauthorized charges on customer
bills, often for items such as ringtones or text messages about
horoscopes or trivia.

But there's one big difference in the enforcement actions: the
agency that brought the suit.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought the cases against
Verizon and Sprint, working with the Federal Communications
Commission and attorneys general from 50 states and the District
of Columbia.

The T-Mobile and AT&T suits, however, were brought by the Federal
Trade Commission, which also teamed up with the FCC and state AGs.

Why the split jurisdiction?

A CFPB spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for
comment, and an FTC spokesman declined to comment.

With a shared mandate of consumer protection, the agencies are
equally equipped to bring consumer charges.  The FTC follows the
FTC Act, which bars "unfair or deceptive acts or practices."  The
CFPB gets its authority from the Consumer Financial Protection
Act, which forbids "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or
practices."

The agencies seem to coexist uneasily.  Former FTC Chairman
Timothy Muris last year warned that the 101-year old commission
faces a "mortal threat" from the new bureau. "I fear for the FTC,"
Mr. Muris, now of counsel to Kirkland & Ellis and a professor at
George Mason University School of Law, said at a panel discussion.

In March, the two agencies reauthorized their memorandum of
understanding "to coordinate efforts to protect consumers and
avoid duplication of federal law enforcement and regulatory
efforts."

Still, some legal scholars see ongoing rivalry. "Despite these
coordination initiatives, the Dodd-Frank allocation of authority
seems to have created tensions between the CFPB and the FTC,"
wrote George Washington University Law School professor William
Kovacic and University of Illinois College of Law professor David
Hyman in a 2014 article.  "The existence of the CFPB will likely
undermine the effectiveness of the FTC."

In the cramming cases, the trade commission and consumer bureau
divided up the wireless carriers for prosecution.  The FTC took on
the first and fourth largest carriers, AT&T and T-Mobile,
respectively, for a total of 178.6 million subscribers, according
to 2015 first-quarter reports from the companies.

The CFPB took action against the second and third largest, Verizon
and Sprint, respectively, which have a combined 165.7 million
wireless customers.

The FTC extracted a total of $217.5 million in penalties, or $1.22
per subscriber.  The CFPB got $158 million, or 95 cents per
subscriber.

Verizon was represented by BuckleySandler name partner Andrew
Sandler -- asandler@buckleysandler.com -- and partner Michelle
Rogers -- mrogers@buckleysandler.com

Sprint turned to McGuireWoods partner Jeffrey Chapman --
jchapman@mcguirewoods.com

Sandler declined to comment, and Chapman declined to comment.


VISIONAMICS INC: Faces "Reeder" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Reeder v. Visionamics, Inc., d/b/a Prospectpro, Case No.
9:15-cv-80778-WJZ (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Visionamics, Inc. owns and operates a telemarketing and sales
business and maintains its principal place of business in Boca
Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 683-2300
      Facsimile: (561) 697-3852
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


VOLARIS AVIATION: Cohen Milstein Named Class Action Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore and Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, report that
a New York federal judge on May 20 approved Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC as lead counsel in a securities class action against
Mexican airline Volaris Aviation Holding Co. over information that
investors say was withheld from them before the company's initial
public offering.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III
approved the law firm and also approved Pavers and Road Builders
Fund as the lead plaintiff.

"The court hereby determines that Pavers and Road Builders Fund is
the most adequate plaintiff and satisfies the requirements of the
[Private Securities Litigation Reform Act]," Judge Pauley said.

Volaris didn't disclose important revenue information ahead of the
company's September 2013 IPO, leading investors to scoop up more
than $2 billion worth of American Depositary Shares, according to
the plaintiffs, which also include Gary Weber and DeKalb County
Employees Retirement System.  All three had applied to serve as
lead plaintiff.

Pavers and Road Builders, which alleged losses of approximately
$173,000, had argued that it should represent the class since its
losses are nearly $100,000 more than those of the DeKalb pension
fund, the complaint's initial filer.  DeKalb says it lost more
than $44,000; Weber, who had purchased shares in Volaris during
the class period, claimed the largest financial interest in the
case but losses of only $14,000.

According to the complaint, Volaris failed to disclose in its June
2013 registration statement the economic realities that factors
such as a change in its airline reservation system and an
expansion of competition in certain markets were likely to lead to
decreased revenues.

The complaint alleged that Volaris, witn a revenue model that
allegedly depends on "nonticket" activities such as baggage fees,
knew that increased competition in the Mexican cities of Tijuana
and Guadalajara was most likely going to hurt business, but still
inaccurately projected continued success.

DeKalb County Employees Retirement System is represented by David
A. Rosenfeld, Willow E. Radcliffe and Sabrina E. Tirabassi of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Pavers and Road Builders Fund is
represented by Christopher Lometti, Kenneth M. Rehns, Steven J.
Toll and Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Gary Weber is represented by Lesley F. Portnoy, Thomas Kennedy,
Lionel Z. Glancy, Robert V. Prongay and Casey E. Sadler of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Howard G. Smith of the Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith.

Volaris and individual defendants are represented by Robert Joseph
Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alain Peller and
David Maxwell Rein -- reind@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP.

The case is Dekalb County Employees Retirement System v.
Controladora Vuela Compania De Aviacion SAB de CV et al., case
number 1:15-cv-01337, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


WALGREEN CO: Finest Nutrition Class Action Goes to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that Walgreen Co. has removed to federal court a
class action alleging it sold Walgreen-brand dietary supplements
that don't contain the materials they should, and instead contain
materials that should not be in the supplements.

Walgreen Co. filed its notice of removal to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on April 2 through
attorney Nicole E. Wrigley of Winston & Strawn LLP in Chicago.
The defendant argues that the district court has jurisdiction over
the class action based on the Class Action Fairness Act, making
removal proper.  Jurisdiction is appropriate because the class
consists of more than 100 members and the amount in controversy is
greater than $5 million, the notice states.

Plaintiff Donald Weeks filed the class action on Feb. 17, claiming
Walgreens sells dietary supplements including Gingko Biloba, St.
John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic and Echinacea under the private house
name "Finest Nutrition."

Weeks claims that he purchased Gingko Biloba, which is said to
have an ability to improve memory, from a store in Edwardsville
several times within the last three years.  He alleges the
Walgreens-brand Gingko Biloba does not contain gingko biloba.
Instead, it contains oryza, commonly known as rice, the suit
states.

The class action was filed after a recent investigation by the
New York Attorney General revealed that the Walgreens dietary
supplements did not contain "DNA matching the product label."  The
supplements were found to contain botanical material other than
what was on the label or no plant DNA at all, the suit states.

"Using established DNA barcoding technology, analytic testing
disclosed that five of the six tested dietary supplement products
(all but the Saw Palmetto) were either unrecognizable or a
substance other than what they claimed to be," the complaint
states.

The suit says that only 18 percent of the tests yielded DNA
matching the product label; 45 percent tested for botanical
material other than what was on the label; and 37 percent yielded
no plant DNA at all.

The global market for herbal dietary supplements is estimated at
$100 billion, according to the complaint.

"Herbal supplements are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration, but not to the same extent as prescription
pharmaceuticals," the suit says.  "They have not been subjected to
the same scientific scrutiny as prescription drugs."

The World Health Organization states that the adulteration of
herbal products is a threat to consumer safety, the complaint
states.

The New York State Attorney General issued a cease and desist
letter on Feb. 2, resulting in numerous class action lawsuits
against Walgreens and other retailers across the country, the
defendant claims in its removal notice.

"To date, at least 22 putative class action lawsuits have been
filed on this issue that name Walgreens as a defendant," the
notice states.

The St. Clair County class action lists claims for violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and for unjust enrichment on behalf of Weeks.  He defines the
putative class as "all Illinois consumers who, within the three
years preceding the filing of this complaint purchased Walgreens
Finest Nutrition herbal dietary supplements in the State of
Illinois."

Mr. Weeks is represented by Thomas Rosenfeld of the Goldenberg
firm in Edwardsville.

The suit seeks class certification, an order enjoining Walgreens
from selling the products that don't contain the ingredients as
stated, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-203


WARRIOR ENERGY: Court Tosses MCA Exemption Arguments in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that defense
lawyers hope to reverse a recent rise in the numbers of workers
suing energy industry employers for unpaid overtime.

In multiple courts, the defense lawyers have cited an exemption
from federal overtime laws allowed for interstate truckers who
drive vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds.  That exemption
also should apply to many energy industry workers, particularly
those driving those big trucks for fracking operations, the
defense lawyers argue.

The defense lawyers refer specifically to the Motor Carrier Act
Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The FLSA requires
that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the national
minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time-
and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  But the MCA
exemption allows interstate truckers driving vehicles weighing
more than 10,000 pounds to follow U.S. Department of
Transportation's rules for weekly work-hour maximums, rather than
the FLSA's.  The MCA exemption should apply to workers who drive
such heavy vehicles to, from and around fracking operations, the
defense lawyers argue.

"Your fracking crew is the usual suspect for a Motor Carrier Act
defense," said Alan Bush, a principal of the Bush Law Firm in The
Woodlands, who represents employers.

In two FLSA lawsuits pending in Houston federal court, Warrior
Energy Services filed motions for summary judgment, basing their
arguments on the MCA exemption.  In one of those, Aikens v.
Warrior Energy Services, Fifth Circuit Judge Gregg Costa, who
previously served as a federal trial judge and still presides
there on some cases that were on his docket before he left, denied
Warrior's motion.  In the other case, Warrior's motion is pending.

In Judge Costa's March ruling in Aikens, he noted that the
plaintiffs alleged that they drove not only big trucks but also
smaller ones like Ford F-250s.  Judge Costa concluded that the
entire dispute between Warrior and the plaintiffs hinged on that
small-truck driving and a single statutory provision of the
Technical Corrections Act of 2008.  The TCA modified the MCA
exemption and identified drivers of big trucks who also perform
significant work duties on motor vehicles weighing less than
10,000 pounds, not covered by the MCA exemption.

"Plaintiffs do not dispute Warrior's contention that absent the
TCA, the MCA exemption would apply to them and they thus would not
be entitled to overtime wages," Judge Costa wrote.

The plaintiffs and defendants, however, disagree about how often,
and for what reasons, a worker must drive a small truck before
that driving nixes the MCA exemption's applicability.  If a worker
drives the small truck simply to get to job sites and then
switches to a big truck, should the MCA exemption still apply? The
employer might say yes, the employee, no.

Judge Costa denied Warrior's motion, leaving the big and small
truck questions for a trial, which is scheduled in Aikens for
August 17.

Both Clark Woodson of Angleton, who represents the Aiken
plaintiffs, and William "Bill" Bux -- bbux@lockelord.com -- a
partner in Locke Lord in Houston, who represents Warrior, declined
to comment.

But other lawyers expect that as Aiken and other FLSA lawsuits
against energy-industry employers wind through trial and appeals
courts, clarity will emerge on the MCA exemption questions.

"As cases proceed to trial and ultimately to appeal, we are going
to get definitive authority on some of the more hotly contested
issues," predicted William Stukenberg, a shareholder in Houston's
Jackson Lewis, who represents employers.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Settle Florida and Alabama Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. has agreed on settlement terms for both the
pending Florida and Alabama class action cases, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

"In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in
a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County,
Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama,
respectively," the Company said. "These cases primarily pertain to
our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.
We have agreed on settlement terms for both the pending Florida
and Alabama cases, and we are currently in the process of seeking
court approvals. The anticipated settlements will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Kansas Court Certified Class of Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas Court certified a class of plaintiffs with respect to
the fuel surcharge only and this ruling is currently on appeal,
Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh. In May 2012
and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in
purported class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. These cases also pertain to fuel,
environmental and base rate charges included on invoices. In
February 2015, the Kansas Court certified a class of plaintiffs
with respect to the fuel surcharge only. This ruling is currently
on appeal and is not a final adjudication.

"We do not anticipate that the outcome of these cases will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said.


WESTERN WINDOW: Recalls Venetian Blinds Due to Strangulation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 5, 2015
Posting date: June 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53689

This recall involves Horizontal/Venetian Blinds with a slat size
of 5.0 centimetres (two inches). The products are custom made to
order in various sizes and colours.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by not having
an inner cord stop.  Inner cord stops are devices that prevent an
inner cord from being pulled and forming a loop in which young
children may pull around their neck, posing a risk of
strangulation.

Neither Health Canada nor Western Window Coverings has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these blinds.

For more information on the hazard, see Blind Cord Safety.

Up to 130 blinds have been sold in Canada.

The recalled blinds were sold in Canada between October 2014 and
May 2015.

Manufactured in Canada

Manufacturer: Western Window Coverings Ltd.
              Calgary
              Alberta
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blinds and
contact Western Window Coverings Ltd. for instructions.

For additional information, consumers may contact the manufacturer
by email or by telephone at (403) 285-6697.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4stvsR


WORLD WRESTLING: LoGrasso Urges Wrestlers to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Paglino, writing for Wrestle Zone, reports that as noted,
former WWE and WCW star Big Vito LoGrasso has filed a class action
lawsuit, along with Adam Mercer, against WWE.

Mr. LoGrasso has posted the following on Facebook, urging other
wrestlers to join the class action suit:

ATTENTION TO ALL FORMER WWF, ECW, WCW, WWE WRESTLERS.

"I know all have there view points on this lawsuit.  But, if you
never stick up for your self, you never know what can be and what
cant.  If you were in DEEP SOUTH and OVW as a developmental
talent, you also have rights.  If you have problems and think you
need help, Please join the lawsuit I am in litigation in.  If you
have medical records, you are positively ahead of the game.  IF
YOU WERE A ENHANCEMENT TALENT IN THE WWF, you also qualify.  If
you think you are irritating the WWE and think if you join, you
will ruin your chances, the bussiness has changed guys, if they
have not called you in 5 years, they are not calling you.  This is
a chance for benefits, the same as in the NFL lawsuit.  No one
knew, but a Billion dollars divided up for the guys who put there
time in and have some issues, now have relief. I am standing up
for myself, and all of you.  I was never a follower always a
leader.  So follow me guys and join.  I hope the internet guys
post this to there sites, TMZ.  The WWE will definitely see this
and to know that I will be going on TV soon in a tell all, is just
proof that you gotta believe in you and the sacrafices you made in
life.  As you know, you had to be tuff, never say your hurt, if
you were , you lost your spot.  There are some good people and
some WWE HOFers involved and signed on as well.  I hope this post
makes it back to the right people. I will be heard and know one
thing, I dont bulls-t and I speak the truth, when the truth comes
out, it isnt a very nice place.  Here is the name of the lawyer,
his name is Bill Kyros, his number is 1 617 833 3727. Call him and
tell him I sent you.   Good luck guys and join the fight for
rights you deserve.  This is a brotherhood that we all seem to
have forgotten about."


ZIMMER: Jury Tosses Bellwether Durom Cup Hip Implant MDL
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the first federal bellwether trial in the Zimmer Durom Cup hip
implant multidistrict litigation ended May 12 with a jury in
Newark finding that plaintiff Christine Brady's suit was time-
barred by a one-year statute of limitations from her home state of
Louisiana.

Lawyers for Zimmer had argued that Brady had notice of her claim
no later than December 2008, when her doctor attributed her hip
pain to a defect in the company's hip implant.  Lawyers for Brady
had argued that her claim did not accrue until March 2009, when an
operation to remove the Zimmer Durom Cup allowed her to rule out
other issues such as infection.

The jury of four men and four women rendered its unanimous verdict
following a three-day trial before U.S. District Judge Susan
Wigenton of the District of New Jersey and an hour and 10 minutes
of deliberation.

The trial had been bifurcated, with the initial phase focusing on
timeliness.  A separate jury would have been brought in for a
liability trial had the first jury sided with Brady on the statute
of limitations issue.  Judge Wigenton ordered a bifurcated trial
after lawyers for Zimmer argued that such an arrangement would
eliminate the chance of its suffering prejudice from jurors being
told of the unsubstantiated, nonexpert opinion of Brady's
physician that the Durom Cup was defective and that the company
held settlement negotiations with Brady before the statute of
limitations had run, according to court documents.

The case, one of about 400 consolidated Zimmer Durom Cup implant
suits pending before Judge Wigenton, was the first to be tried in
federal court.  The second MDL trial, in a case filed by
Maryann Ruttenbur, 71, of Salt Lake City, is scheduled for
September.

Another non-MDL case on behalf of plaintiff Gary Kline is set for
trial May 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Zimmer had asked for Ms. Ruttenbur's case to be heard first, but
counsel for the plaintiffs argued that her case was less
representative of the litigation as a whole because her surgery to
remove the Durom Cup came after a car accident.  Judge Wigenton
chose Brady, who was the plaintiffs' pick for the first MDL case
to be heard.

Brady, a 65-year-old retired database programmer from Homer,
Louisiana, had the Zimmer product implanted in her right hip in
2006 and began suffering pain a year later.  At an August 2008
check-up, the orthopedic surgeon that implanted the Durom Cup,
Cambize Shahrdar, told her there was a gap between her bone and
the implant and that she might need surgery to replace it.  He
told her the cup failed to adhere to her bone due to a problem
with its coating and that he had ruled out infection, Zimmer's
lawyers said in court papers.

During another visit in December 2008, the doctor confirmed his
earlier analysis and advised Brady to call Zimmer to discuss
financial terms for it to pay for a replacement surgery, Zimmer's
lawyers said.

The Durom Cup implant was taken off the market in 2008.  It was
designed to fuse to the hip socket without screws or cement by
encouraging bone to grow into the cup and hold it in place, but
patients began to complain that the implant was coming loose,
causing pain and other complications.  Plaintiffs counsel in the
Brady case contended that the Durom Cup sold in the U.S. had a
different spray coating than the version sold in Europe, and that
the spray coating used on the U.S. Durom Cup was not tested on
animals or in clinical trials, according to court documents.
Lawyers for the company dispute those claims, according to court
documents.

The Brady case is the second victory for Zimmer in Durom Cup
litigation and the first in federal court.  In November 2014,
Zimmer won the first Durom Cup non-MDL trial in the country in a
case brought in St. Clair County, Illinois, Circuit Court on
behalf of John Pugliese, who had the device implanted in him in
2008 but removed later.  Mr. Pugliese claimed the Durom Cup was
defective and that Zimmer failed to warn of its risks but the jury
rendered a complete defense verdict.

Two plaintiff-side lawyers in the Brady case, Derek Braslow  --
dbraslow@PBMattorneys.com -- of Pogust, Braslow & Millrood in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and George Tankard III of Waters,
Kraus & Paul in Baltimore, declined to comment on the case after
the jury verdict was rendered.  The plaintiffs' lead counsel, Kyla
Cole of Waters Kraus in Dallas, did not return a call for comment.

Edward Fanning Jr. of McCarter & English in Newark, and J. Joseph
Tanner of Faegre Baker Daniels in Indianapolis, representing
Zimmer, also did not return calls about the verdict.

"We are pleased with the verdict that the jury reached in the
first Durom multidistrict litigation trial pending in New Jersey
District Court, and we stand ready to defend the Durom Cup as
needed going forward," Zimmer spokeswoman Monica Kendrick said in
an email.


* Asbestos Case Filings Rise in Philadelphia, Court Records Show
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
judicial districts covering the state's two largest cities have
shown differing trends in asbestos case filings over the past five
years, according to court statistics.  Filings have remained
steady in Pittsburgh and have generally risen in Philadelphia.

While traditionally asbestos actions were brought against
shipyards and certain industries, practitioners said there has
been a shift toward suits involving building materials and
manufacturers of asbestos-containing products.  In addition, those
same lawyers have cited more other-cancer-related filings rather
than just mesothelioma.

For the most part, the Philadelphia-based First Judicial District
has experienced a steady rise in filings while the Fifth Judicial
District in Pittsburgh and the surrounding Allegheny County has
seen consistent filings in that time.

With the exception of a drop-off in filings in 2014, asbestos
cases in Philadelphia were on the rise.  Court statistics provided
by Complex Litigation Center director Stanley Thompson showed that
280 cases were filed in 2010, 308 in 2011, 327 in 2012, 330 in
2013, and 268 in 2014.

The asbestos mass tort in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
currently has 631 cases pending.  Asbestos is the third largest
mass tort in Philadelphia, trailing the Reglan litigation with
2,293 filings and Risperdal with 1,330 filings.

In the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, new asbestos case
filings have held steady for the past five years, according to
Fifth Judicial District court administrator Claire Capristo.  In
2010, there were 120 asbestos cases filed, 68 in 2011, 66 in 2012,
65 in 2013, and 67 in 2014.

Laurence Brown -- lbrown@brbs.com -- of Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown
& Sandler in Philadelphia said he has seen asbestos cases decrease
slightly.  The largest percentage of those cases, according to
Brown, are still mesothelioma cases.  Mr. Brown also noted there
has been a shift in defendants in mesothelioma cases.

"When we started doing them, they were obviously out of the
shipyard and industrial settings," Mr. Brown said.  "Over the
years, most of those companies have filed for bankruptcy.  The
litigation has moved to other products like building materials and
freight lining."

But while mesothelioma claims have dominated the asbestos mass
tort, there had been a spike in asbestos-related lung cancer cases
for a time, said Mr. Brown, who represents plaintiffs in asbestos
cases.

Proving that the plaintiff's lung cancer was a result of asbestos
exposure tends to be more difficult because the plaintiffs in
those cases are usually smokers, Mr. Brown said.

"With mesothelioma, we usually don't dispute what caused it,"
Mr. Brown said.  "It's usually agreed in a high percentage of the
cases that the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos, it's just a
question of which company's product caused it.  In lung cancer,
there is more debate."

How long a plaintiff worked in a particular place, how often that
person was exposed to asbestos, and the scarring of that
individual's lungs -- indicative of asbestos exposure -- are all
factors to be considered, Mr. Brown said.

Additionally, Mr. Brown noted there were fewer out-of-state firms
filing in Philadelphia.

"In Philly, we had a lot of out-of-town attorneys, but now there
are more local firms handling cases," Mr. Brown said.

Sharon Caffrey -- SLCaffrey@duanemorris.com -- chairwoman of the
products liability and toxic torts division at Duane Morris, also
noticed the change in who is filing cases.

"There are not a lot of out-of-state filers," she said.
Additionally, Ms. Caffrey observed that lung cancer cases are a
runner-up in numerosity to mesothelioma cases.  Lung cancer cases,
according to Ms. Caffrey, tend to have lighter exposure to
asbestos and heavier smoking histories.

"We're also seeing some cancers that may or may not be asbestos-
related.  Things like colon cancer, esophageal, laryngeal cancer,"
and even kidney cancer, Ms. Caffrey said.

Secondary exposure cases are also becoming more intricate,
according to Ms. Caffrey.

"We're seeing people where the secondhand exposures . . . are more
attenuated, like a nephew who lived with someone for a few years
or a child whose father really didn't have heavy exposure,"
Ms. Caffrey said.

As for the status of asbestos litigation in the western portion of
the state, a defense attorney handling asbestos cases in
Pittsburgh who declined to be named said mesothelioma claims in
Allegheny County courts have plateaued, although they are still
the most numerous of the asbestos cases in that region, typically
brought against industrial defendants such as steel mills and
manufacturers.

However, the attorney added the number of other-cancer-related
asbestos cases has been creeping up in that region.

Edwin H. Beachler of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Coleman in
Pittsburgh also said the majority of the claims filed in Allegheny
County, related to mesothelioma and lung cancer, have remained
steady.

"The cases that are really being filed are the mesothelioma and
lung cancer cases.  There was a time when asbestosis claims were
being filed and for a number of reasons they just aren't being
filed now," Mr. Beachler said.

In addition, settlement in an asbestosis claim can be a double-
edged sword, according to Mr. Beachler.

"The difficulty with filing an asbestosis claim -- assuming it's a
retired man or woman who doesn't have an economic loss -- is such
that if the asbestosis claims are filed and you try to get the
cases settled, the defendants are going to include a release for
future claims of cancer and mesothelioma."


* Disclosure of Medical Records Contentious Issue in Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Mardon and Stephen A. Iannacone, writing for Law.com,
report that disclosure of medical records has always been a
contentious issue for both plaintiff attorneys and defense
attorneys alike.  This is often the case when the parties are at
odds over records that may reveal privileged or unrelated medical
information such as mental health treatment records, drug and
alcohol treatment records and HIV information.  Frequently,
defense counsel is unable to obtain any of plaintiff's medical
records unless the plaintiff/patient puts his or her initials in
box 9(a) of the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act) authorization, permitting release of
alcohol/drug treatment information, mental health information, and
HIV-related information.  By law, these records are medically
privileged and usually beyond the scope of discovery in a personal
injury case.

When a plaintiff's attorney receives his own client's records he
is able to sift through the unrelated and potentially prejudicial
privileged material.  However, this causes a problem for the
defense attorney who will not be able to obtain the records
without the plaintiff's permission, especially when the
plaintiff's attorney refuses to allow his client to initial the
box authorizing disclosure of unrelated and privileged
information.  The courts are now at a crossroads as to how to deal
with this situation -- either protect the plaintiff's medically
privileged information and prevent defendants from accessing
potentially necessary records, or strip the plaintiff of his or
her right to medical privacy and give the defense potentially
unrelated, yet damaging information.  This article discusses this
issue.

Waiver and Disclosure

Medical records are one of the most recognized forms of privileged
information, as communications between a patient and physician are
confidential.  While the plaintiff waives the physician-patient
privilege on the mental or physical injuries and conditions at
issue in his or her lawsuit, they do not waive that privilege with
respect to unrelated illnesses or treatments.  Once the defendant
demonstrates that the records being sought relate to claims in the
lawsuit, they must still obtain a written waiver of the privilege.
Only the patient or authorized representative may waive the
privilege to permit disclosure, as it is personal to the patient.2
This information cannot be waived by another party or an attorney.

Since the principle of "full disclosure" does not give the
defendant a right to unfettered and uncontrolled disclosure, the
question arises: Does the plaintiff have to initial box 9(a) of
the HIPAA authorization allowing the disclosure of alcohol/drug
treatment, mental health information, and HIV-related information
when these potential medical conditions are not at issue in the
lawsuit?

The developing body of case law in this area holds that the
plaintiff does not have to initial box 9(a) to disclose this
information.  In Budano v. Gurdon, the plaintiff executed a HIPAA
authorization form, but declined to check the boxes on the form
permitting inspection of records relating to alcohol and drug
treatment, mental health and HIV-related information.  The lower
court ruled, and the First Department unanimously affirmed, that
plaintiff could not be compelled to check the boxes on the HIPAA
form as the defendant was not entitled to the records.

The court also stated that where a defendant cannot show that
these types of records are relevant to plaintiff's accident-
related injuries, then the defendant is in no way entitled to
receive these medical records.  Even if alcohol/drug treatment
information, mental health information, and HIV-related
information records exist, they are, absent extraordinary
circumstances, unrelated to plaintiff's injuries and are thus
privileged and confidential.

Even in those circumstances where a plaintiff suffered from an
addiction, HIV and/or a mental illness, if there is no evidence
establishing a direct connection between those conditions and the
cause of the accident or plaintiff's ability to recover from the
injuries related to his or her lawsuit, the court will not allow
these privileged records to be produced during discovery.  The
courts have steadfastly refused to consider unsubstantiated claims
that plaintiff's chemical dependency or mental illness caused the
accident as grounds for vitiating privilege, even though such
claims are often asserted during discovery.

Defense Challenge

Occasionally, defendants have made the vague and overbroad
argument that the plaintiff has put his or her mental condition in
controversy by claiming loss of enjoyment of life or that an
addiction and HIV information is necessary to calculate
plaintiff's life expectancy and, thus, should avail defendants
entitlement to these records.  However, courts have been very firm
in rejecting this line of argument where the plaintiff does not
affirmatively put his or her mental condition into issue with
claimed injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder.  This is
particularly so where plaintiff's claim of loss of enjoyment of
life is limited to his or her physical injuries resulting from the
accident.

During the past year, the First Department ruled in Alford v. City
of New York, that claims for "loss of enjoyment of life," relating
solely to his claimed physical injuries, did not warrant
disclosure of substance abuse and mental health treatment
information, since its relevance had not been shown.  Courts have
even gone a step further by limiting any negative inference by
plaintiff's refusal to allow discovery of these types of records.
It is evident that New York courts still defer to the underlying
privacy rights of plaintiffs.  Without proof of a connection with
the types of records sought and the accident-related injuries, the
court will not allow a fishing expedition of these records if
defendant cannot show plaintiff's condition somehow related to the
accident.  However, this does not resolve every issue that arises.

The question remains, what can a defense attorney do to represent
his client's best interest in challenging the plaintiff's injury
claims? Some courts have allowed defendants to provide evidence,
such as medical affidavits, demonstrating that the desired
alcohol/drug treatment records, mental health records, and HIV-
related records relate to plaintiff's ability to recover from his
or her accident-related injuries or prognosis of future enjoyment
of life.  There are still certain courts that have been receptive
to the claim that a plaintiff places his or her entire medical
condition at issue if they make "broad allegations of physical
injury and mental anguish" as contained in the complaint, but
there appears to be a growing reluctance to indulge fishing
expeditions predicated on this claim.16

In Camera Inspections

Some judges have become more sympathetic to a defense attorney's
struggles in getting medical records related to pertinent injuries
when medical facilities are reluctant to release any records
without having box 9(a) of the HIPAA authorization initialed by
plaintiff.  In an attempt to ease the burden on defendants and
prevent release of possibly prejudicial and non-discoverable
records, we are now seeing more judges require an in camera
inspection of the records when there appears to be some basis for
the defendant's discovery demands.  In these cases, the court will
compel the production of such records by making the plaintiff
initial box 9(a) and having the records released directly to the
court where there will be an in camera inspection to determine if
defendants are entitled to these records.

The problem with this result is that the plaintiff is ultimately
being forced to give up his privacy right to privileged medical
records that may not have anything to do with the alleged
injuries, either physically or emotionally.  Furthermore, these in
camera inspections can be a tremendous burden on the court and
counsel, requiring large expenditures of time and money.
Particularly vexing can be when the records are sent to court in a
digital format that the court lacks the facility to view or print.

In the future, it is likely that the court will only make limited
use of in camera inspections, confining their use to cases where
the defendant has shown a likely entitlement to records that are
not cumulative or duplicative.  A more commonplace remedy may be a
court directive to the plaintiff's counsel to provide redacted
copies of the records in their possession.  The only certainty is
that the ongoing struggle between liberal disclosure and
protection of privacy rights will continue to cause new and
unusual problems for the personal injury litigator into the
foreseeable future.


* Judicial Court Amends Class Action Rules on Residuals
-------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that the Supreme Judicial
Court has amended the rule governing class-action lawsuits to
require plaintiffs to notify the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee
before a judgment is entered or a compromise approved regarding
the disposition of class-action residuals.


* Maurice Blackburn Mulls Class Action Against Coal Industry
------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran Banks, writing for Quest Newspapers, reports that a class
action lawsuit to force the coal industry into covering coal
trains could proceed, according to a legal expert.

A renewed call for action comes after a study by environmental
group, Clean Air Queensland, found a 900 per cent spike in dust
particles coming from coal trains.  The study analyzed air samples
taken from passenger, freight and coal trains at a site on the
Wynnum train line at Sandy Camp Rd and at Coorparoo and Fairfield.

Maurice and Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said a class
action against the coal industry could be possible on the basis
coal dust was a nuisance and that it polluted Brisbane suburbs.

"We would probably do it on the basis . . . we want them to stop
polluting and clean up the pollution they caused," he said.

Clean Air Queensland spokesman Michael Kane said the findings
questioned the effectiveness of veneering, a spray-on cover
applied to coal wagons.

"Our findings do show significant elevations in particulate
pollution from coal trains in southeast Queensland, which
demonstrate that if veneering is universal, as the Queensland
Resources Council claims, it may not be an effective dust
suppression technique," he said.

Coorparoo resident Dr Barbara Reynolds-Hutchinson said her Rowland
St house backed on to the train line and was covered by black dust
every day.  Dr Reynolds-Hutchinson said the coal trains needed to
be covered.

"Really in the end it's all stopgap until they cover the trains.
You can't drive around a street with your load uncovered and let
stuff fall out," she said.

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche said
the study was flawed and wouldn't stand up under peer review.  He
said veneering was used on all Queensland coal trains to minimize
dust emissions.  He maintained it was a world-leading practice.


* Tobacco Cos. Get Favorable Ruling Deceptive Ads Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
tobacco companies will not have to publicly advertise a judge's
conclusion that they "deliberately deceived" consumers about the
health risks of smoking, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit ruled on May 22.

The D.C. Circuit said the tobacco companies, prosecuted under
federal racketeering laws, will have to make certain disclosures
about the addictiveness of their products.  But the court held
that the "deliberately deceived" language ordered by a U.S.
district judge addressed the cigarette producers' general conduct
and, as a result, ran afoul of previous rulings in the case.

Racketeering law "empowers district courts to issue injunctions
for one purpose and one purpose only: to prevent and restrain
future RICO violations," Judge David Tatel wrote for the appeals
court.  "Correcting consumer misinformation, which 'focuse[s] on
remedying the effects of past conduct,' is thus an impermissible
objective under RICO."

Miguel Estrada of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher argued for Altria Group
Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.  Mr. Estrada referred a request for comment
to his clients.  A spokesman for Altria said in an email that the
company is "gratified that the appellate court struck down the
preamble to each proposed communication, which was the critical
part of the appeal.  The court correctly found that the preamble
violated federal law by focusing on past conduct, instead of the
health consequences of cigarettes."

U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman Nicole Navas said in a
statement that the May 22 decision "is the latest step in the
Department of Justice's long-standing racketeering case against
the tobacco companies, in which a federal court found that the
tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public about
the health consequences of smoking."

Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one
of several public health groups that intervened in the case, said
that although he was disappointed with the court's decision to
strike the preamble, "the decision is a resounding victory for
public health because it rejects every other claim of the tobacco
industry." Howard Crystal of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal argued
for the public health organizations.

The federal government sued a group of the largest U.S. tobacco
companies in 1999, accusing them of conspiring to deceive
Americans about the dangers of smoking.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in 2006 found the tobacco
companies liable for defrauding the public about the addictiveness
and health risks of their products.  She ordered them to make
"corrective" statements in print, television and radio advertising
spots.

The preamble to the ads would state: "A Federal Court has ruled
that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris
USA deliberately deceived the American public about the health
effects of smoking, and has ordered those companies to make this
statement.  Here is the truth:"

During arguments before the D.C. Circuit in February, Mr. Estrada
said that while his clients were prepared to make certain fact-
based representations about their products, Kessler's proposed
language was designed to humiliate the tobacco companies.

Melissa Patterson of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division
argued that Kessler determined the preamble was necessary to make
sure tobacco companies could not undermine the rest of the
information in the ads.

Judge Tatel, citing a 2009 ruling from the D.C. Circuit in this
case, said Kessler could require the companies to make statements
that "reveal the previously hidden truth about their products." He
wrote that the preamble statements, on the other hand, "reveal
nothing about cigarettes; instead, they disclose defendants' prior
deceptive conduct. Accordingly, they cannot be justified on the
basis of our 2009 opinion."

Judge Tatel wrote:

"Reading the extensive briefs the parties and their amici have
submitted, one might think this case presents thorny, unresolved
questions under both RICO and the First Amendment.  As we explain
below, however, the heavy lifting has already been done.  Given
our earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers' objection
to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to
ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the
case.  Those decisions make equally clear that the district court,
in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived
the public, exceeded its authority under RICO to craft remedies
that 'prevent and restrain' future violations."

Judges Harry Edwards and A. Raymond Randolph also heard the case.


* Workers' Defamation Claims Against Employers on the Rise
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a former
PayPal Inc. executive kicked off a Twitter rant against the
company last May with a picture of himself giving the camera the
middle finger.

A few hours later, Rakesh "Rocky" Agrawal reportedly called
PayPal's global brand and communications officer a "piece of shit"
and a "useless middle manager."  Some of the tweets, sent after 1
a.m. from Jazz Fest in New Orleans, were so full of typos that
they were incoherent.

It's no surprise the episode sparked a defamation suit.  But in a
man-bites-dog twist, Agrawal is the one suing PayPal.

His May 1 complaint takes issue with a tweet sent by PayPal in
response to his tirade: "Rakesh Agrawal is no longer with the
company.  Treat everyone with respect.  No excuses.  PayPal has
zero tolerance."  Mr. Agrawal says he resigned and PayPal's post
wrongly implied he was fired.

The case is an extreme example, but defamation suits by workers
against employers are on the rise, according to employment
lawyers.  The claims often crop up in wrongful-termination and
discrimination suits, where plaintiffs say their bosses gave false
reasons for firing them.  While adding a defamation claim
generally won't increase the value of an employment lawsuit, it
opens one more avenue to recovery.

David Lowe of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, who recently won a $4
million judgment in a wrongful termination and defamation trial,
said employment and defamation claims make a good pairing.

"Lawyers are becoming more savvy about recognizing that there
could be defamation claims that previously had been overlooked,"
he said.

Lawyers who represent employers complain plaintiffs counsel are
stretching defamation law too far, and tacking on claims where
they aren't supported.  Reed Smith partner L. Julius Turman says
60 to 70 percent of his wrongful termination and harassment cases
include a defamation claim, "whether or not they're appropriate."

The claims are more of an annoyance than a serious problem, he
said.  The court often throws out the claims quickly, he added,
but not before they've cost his client time and defense costs.

A defamation claim made a big difference last year in a Sacramento
Superior Court trial against Kemper Independence Insurance Co.
Robert Sallustio accused the company of firing him after he
repeatedly complained about the company's treatment of another
employee, his ex-wife, who suffered from a stress-related
disability.  In response to his complaints, Mr. Sallustio said an
executive trumped up a false excuse to fire him -- wrongly
reporting he wasn't coming to work in the mornings.  Five days
before trial, the court knocked out Mr. Sallustio's retaliation
and wrongful-termination claims in summary adjudication.  All
attorney Christopher Whelan had left was a defamation claim, but
that was enough to secure a nearly $5.7 million judgment.
Mr. Whelan, described as a guru in the field, has specialized in
employment defamation claims for 30 years. "I look for that in
cases," he said.

Increasingly, other plaintiffs lawyers are following his lead.
"The cause of action always existed," said Kelly Armstrong of the
Armstrong Law Firm, "but I would say within the employment
community there is definitely more of a focus on it right now."

Defamation claims are increasing across the board, not just in the
employment context, fueled by online posts and social media.
San Francisco Internet law attorney Karl Kronenberger said his
defamation practice has exploded as a result of comments on blogs,
social media and consumer review sites like Yelp and Ripoff
Report.  The number of defamation claims his firm fields has
doubled over the past 18 months.  "I'm shocked at how many people
are contacting our firm," Mr. Kronenberger said.

Of course, not every defamation claim is a winner, Mr. Whelan
pointed out, using the PayPal case as an example.  Mr. Whelan said
Mr. Agrawal could struggle proving his case because PayPal's tweet
didn't say he was fired -- it said he's no longer with PayPal,
which was true.  There's not much difference between resigning
under pressure and being fired anyway, he added.

"In that type of situation, the defense of truth would probably be
pretty effective," Mr. Whelan said.

Proving up a defamation claim is "not an easy road for
plaintiffs," Mr. Whelan said.  An employer can quickly deflate a
plaintiff's defamation claim by showing the alleged defamatory
statement was true.  The employer also can argue a statement is
privileged workplace communication -- internal discussions about
an employee's performance generally are protected.

In Lowe's recent $4 million case, he claimed St. Patrick-St.
Vincent High School in Vallejo made false claims about his client
to the local TV news station, among others.  Lowe's client,
Christopher Cerbone, said he was fired from his position as gym
teacher and varsity football coach after reporting sexual
misconduct by students in the locker room.  Several boys told him
the junior-varsity coach allowed older players to stick their
naked buttocks in the freshmen's faces, or slap the freshmen with
their penises, according to Cerbone's complaint. The school
responded to Cerbone's report by firing him for failing to
supervise the football players, prompting Cerbone to sue for
defamation, wrongful termination and retaliation.

A jury in Sacramento Superior Court came down in Cerbone's favor
in March.

"Defamation claims can come up in a lot of different contexts,"
Lowe said.  "And they can lead to very big awards."


                            *********

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  * * *