CAR_Public/150617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 120


                            Headlines


99 CENTS: Faces "Stankie" Suit Over Loss Prevention Policies
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
AFFINION GROUP: Parties to Provide Report Over Remaining Claims
AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Not Yet Decided on Plaintiff's Motion

AFFINION GROUP: Objections to Report & Recommendation Pending
AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in N.D. Calif. Class Action
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Surrogate Cheese
ALON BLUE: Court Approved Bid to Withdraw Claim v. Mega Retail
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Name of Cheese

ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over "1+1" Promo
ALON BLUE: Suit v. Mega Retail Prices Recognized as Class Action
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Purchase Vouchers
ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Chilled Drinking Water Facilities
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Suit Over Marking of Expiry Dates

ALON BLUE: Claim Over Weighing Devices Withdrawn
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Special Sales
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Camera Tracking
ALON BLUE: Legal Procedures Continue in Dor Alon Class Action

ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Ice Cream Products
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over UHT Milk Products
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products
ALON BLUE: Court Asked Parties in Dor Alon Case to File Pleadings
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Large Packaging

ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Internet Site
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Advertised Price
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Honey Products
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
AMERICAN EDUCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims

AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Edwards" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
ASIA HONG KONG: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Parties to Mediate Case on June 23
ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation in Pricing Practices Class Suit
BACKROADS: Faces "Alampi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over FX Future Price Manipulation
BAYER: Lawyers of Rice GMO Plaintiff Battle Over Fees
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Sued Over Mishandling of Deceased Bodies
BLAZIN WINGS: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOMBAY CLUB: Faces "Razmyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
CLAIM JUMPER: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Buyout Process "Flawed," Suit Says
CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lepore" Suit Claims
CLUB FIT: "Buck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Brang" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violations
CONSUMER CELLULAR: "Bell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DAVID RANDALL: $22.4MM Verdict Affirmed in Class Action
DELTA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Combest" Suit Claims
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Bouchard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DONA ANA: College Students' Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action
EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger
EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Heydenrych" Suit Over Sale to Vanguard
EBAY INC: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Refund Final Value Fees
EMCOR GROUP: USM Defends Class Action by Employees

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Privacy Class Action in Austria
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
FOAM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
FORD MOTOR: Female Workers File Amended Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

FXCM INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over Shares Sale
GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Lepore" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
GEOTRUST INC: Removed "Zargarian" Class Suit to C.D. California
GOLD COAST PARKING: Faces "Scheer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GREEN TREE: Removed "Wittstadt" Class Suit to Maryland Dist. Ct.

GR OPCO: Faces "Bogran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GRUMA S.A.B.: "Cox" Suit v. Gruma Corp. Dismissed
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Files Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Texas Case Trial Scheduled for Feb. 2016

HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Defendant in Indirect Purchasers Action
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Class Action
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: 2 Stockholder Class Actions Filed
INSULET CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action

JHODANICO LLC: "Valencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JUST ENERGY: Koskie Minsky Files Misclassification Class Action
JW LEE: Faces "Demaria-Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement with Attorneys General
LG DISPLAY: Pursuing Appeal of Cert. Decision in Canadian Case

LG DISPLAY: To Defend Class Action Filed in Israel
LIGHTNING FLUID: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Costs Related to Class Suit Deal
MADISON COUNTY: Prenzler Responds to Class Action Classification
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Seck" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA

MIAMI USED PALLETS: Faces "Barea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MICREL INCORPORATED: Sued in Calif. Over Acquisition by Microchip
MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. En Banc Rehearing in "Baker"
MILLERCOORS LLC: Removed "Parent" Class Suit to S.D. California
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suits Filed in Ill. v. Kraft Foods

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit over Violation of TCPA
NDEAVOR TELECOM: Faces "Whitfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Says
ORORA NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

PAPA MURPHY'S: Faces "Lennartson" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
PATH INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Sterk" Suit Claims
POLYCOM INC: Court Granted Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Class Suit
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

PROGRAM ONE: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RAYONIER ADVANCED: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action

SANDISK CORP: June 22 Trial Date Vacated in Ritz Camera Suit
SANDISK CORP: District Court Stayed Discovery in Antitrust Suit
SANDISK CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend
SANDISK CORP: Faces "Glore" Class Action in N.D. Calif.
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Real Estate Asset Sales

SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Acquisition by Sillerman
SONY: "Ladore" Class Action Over Playstation Game Dismissed
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Faces "Aiton" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
STUDENT AID: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abella" Suit Says
SUNNYVALE IMPORTS: Faces "Anorboev" Suit Over Refund Policies

SUPERIOR MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Grain" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Redman" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
THRASHER LAW: Faces "Van-Pelt" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA

THUNDER DEMOLITION: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TINDER INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Policies
TPUSA INC: Removed "Murat" Suit to S.D. Florida Federal Court
TURNAGE GENERAL: "Sunner" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
UIL HOLDINGS: Five Shareholder Class Actions Filed

UNITED AIRLINES: Woman Sues for $5 Million
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
VANTIV LLC: Removed "Nguyen" Suit to N.D. California
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Rosen Files Class Action Over AlphaSector Fund
WEST ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lynch" Suit Claims

WHOLE FOODS: Snell & Wilmer's Dwyer Discusses FCRA Suits
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court Upheld Ninth Circuit Ruling
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: First Trial for Certain Plaintiffs Begins
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Alaska Refinery Case Pending
WORLD FUEL: Quebec Judge Authorized Lac Megantic Class Action

WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Class Actions Over Tornier Merger
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Expects More Suits Over Hip Replacement Products
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Lawsuits Over PROFEMUR(R)
YAHOO INC: Illegally Discloses User's Email Contents, Suit Claims
ZEOBIT LLC: Suit Over MacKeeper Security Program Being Settled

* Herrick Feinstein Discusses Early Bids to Strike Class Claims
* McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Book on Class Action Euro-Style
* McGuireWoods' Trask Discusses HR 1927
* South African Banks at Risk of Suits Over Home Foreclosures


                            *********


99 CENTS: Faces "Stankie" Suit Over Loss Prevention Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Stankie, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, Case No. BC582920 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendant's loss prevention policies where the Defendant use a
law firm to operate its demand letters mills to extort money from
consumers accused of shoplifting.

99 Cents Only Stores, LLC is a California corporation that
operates retail stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aghavni V. Kasparian, Esq.
      Darrell M. Padgette, Esq.
      KP LAW
      633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 223-2110
      Facsimile: (213) 986-2131
      E-mail: akasparian@kplitigators.com
              dpadgette@kplitigators.com

         - and -

      Michael H. Chen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF CHEN & TRAN
      1633 E. 4th Street, Suite 214
      Santa Ana, CA 92701
      Telephone: (888) 938-5393
      Facsimile: (818) 436-5953
      E-mail: mhchen@chentranlaw.com


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announced that a shareholder class action has been
filed against Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between August 6, 2014 and April 23,
2015, inclusive.

If you purchased Aerie common stock during the Class Period, you
may, no later than June 29, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

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

Aerie is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of patients with glaucoma and other diseases of the eye.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Aerie and
certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information about the future prospects for Rhopressa, a once-daily
eye drop that is designed to lower intraocular pressure ("IOP") in
patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

On April 23, 2015, Aerie issued a press release announcing the
results of its first Phase 3 registration trial for Rhopressa.
According to the press release, "[t]he trial did not meet its
primary efficacy endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority of IOP
lowering for once-daily Rhopressa compared to twice-daily timolol,
the most widely used comparator in registration trials for
glaucoma."  Following this news, shares of Aerie's stock fell
$22.52 per share, or over 63 percent, to close on April 24, 2015
at $12.87 per share.

                      About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.


AFFINION GROUP: Parties to Provide Report Over Remaining Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court set a
deadline of April 30, 2015, for the parties to provide a report to
the court with a proposed joint schedule for resolving the
remaining claims in the lawsuit.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this
lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's
motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their
motion to compel arbitration.

On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of
the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on
appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was
written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a
briefing schedule on class certification that called for the
completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012.
However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing
schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping
class actions in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6,
2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank
of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc.,
Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com,
Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l,
Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide
Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The
second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On
September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on
the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the
motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in
part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims
under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all
defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as
their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations
and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also
dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations
from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of
Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the
Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss
certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment,
as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to
consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases.
On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for
all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014.  Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014.  On March 26, 2015, the court
denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal.  On March 20,
2015, the court set a deadline of April 30, 2015, for the parties
to provide a report to the court with a proposed joint schedule
for resolving the remaining claims in the lawsuit.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On
November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.  The court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The court permitted the
plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed
the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be
completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed
in its dismissal order. All other discovery is currently stayed in
the case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court will set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.  The
plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and the
defendants' reply briefs in response to that opposition are due on
April 24, 2015.  The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.


AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Not Yet Decided on Plaintiff's Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet
decided or scheduled a hearing on the plaintiff's motion in a
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against Webloyalty.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations
that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012,
Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14,
2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment
page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed
his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its
reply submission on January 7, 2013.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013.

The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013,
adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February
6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions
and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument.
On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims
on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The
court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file a motion
demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not
be futile. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended
complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10,
2014. However, the court has not yet decided or scheduled a
hearing on the plaintiff's motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Objections to Report & Recommendation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company does not
know when the Court will rule on its objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation in a class action lawsuit filed
against the Company and one of its clients.

On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.
Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and
billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent
and knowledge.  On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014.

On March 11, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the motion was
referred by the district court judge issued a report and
recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss.  The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss on
the fraud claim, which was dismissed as time-barred, but denied
the remainder of the motion.  On March 25, 2015, the Company filed
objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Briefing on the objections concluded on April 9, 2015.

"We do not know when the court will rule on the objections," the
Company said.


AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in N.D. Calif. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
was filed on May 12, 2014, against the Company and one of its
clients in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California - San Francisco Division. The complaint alleges
plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and charged for an Identity
Theft Protection program.  The defendants moved to compel
individual arbitration of the case or in the alternative to
dismiss the case, and briefing on that motion concluded on
September 26, 2014. On October 31, 2014, the court granted the
Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of the case.
There has been no activity in the matter since that time.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Surrogate Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December 2010, a
claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed
against the Company and Mega Retail Ltd. ("Mega") relating to the
sale of different cheese and butter products in the supermarkets
operated by Mega. According to the claimant, the Company sells
surrogate cheese and butter products as if they were real cheese
and milk products, and in that way misleads the customers. The
claimant quantifies his damage at approximately NIS 700 and
estimates the damage to the group of claimants for the purpose of
the claim at NIS 456 million. In the opinion of the Company, based
on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim
will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make
any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Court Approved Bid to Withdraw Claim v. Mega Retail
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2013, a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was
filed against Mega Retail. The Plaintiff alleges that Mega
overcharged certain dairy products which are subject to price
control regulation. The claim does not state the amount sought if
it is approved as a class action. In December 2014, the court
approved the Plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Name of Cheese
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2013 a claim
and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against
Mega and other supermarket chains, in the sum of NIS 42 million.
The claim alleges that a certain cheese named "Gush Chalav" should
have been sold for the same price as a cheese named "Emek", which
is subject to price control regulation, since practically, as
alleged, they are the same product. In the opinion of the Company,
based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the
claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did
not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over "1+1" Promo
----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2013 a claim
and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against
Mega, Kfar Hash'ashuim Toy Stores Chain and other store chains,
with regard to special sales that offer reduced prices for the
second item bought. It is claimed that when purchasing 4 items
(1+1 and 1+1), the reduction is always made from the lowest prices
of all four. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is
approved as a class action. In the opinion of the Company, based
on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim
will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make
any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Suit v. Mega Retail Prices Recognized as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in September 2013 a
claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed
against Mega, in the sum of NIS 110 million, alleging that Mega
failed to mark prices per measurement unit in its supermarkets.
The claim was recognized as a class action in March 2015. The
Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all
allegations. "However, at this time, given this matter is
preliminary in nature, our financial statements currently do not
provide for any amount. We will continue to assess this matter as
the request for the class action develops," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Purchase Vouchers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2014, a
claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was
filed against the Company and Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 70
million. The claim is with respect to purchase vouchers, which are
exercised in "Mega" supermarkets for 90% of their value, and which
are can not be exercised in "You" supermarkets. In the opinion of
the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly,
the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its
financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Chilled Drinking Water Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2014, a
claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was
filed against Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 29.4 million. The
claim is with respect to the alleged lack of chilled drinking
water facilities in the company's supermarkets, as required by
law. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its
legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed
50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this
claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Suit Over Marking of Expiry Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2014, a
claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed
against Mega and other defendants, in the sum of NIS 124 million.
The claim is with regard to the alleged lack of marking of expiry
date, ingredients and nutritional facts on delicate food products.
In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Claim Over Weighing Devices Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December 2013 a
claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was
filed against Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 161 million. The
claim alleges that Mega failed to comply with regulation
requirements with respect to verifying the accuracy of weighing
instruments in its supermarkets. In January 2015 the court
approved the plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2014, a
claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed
against Mega and other defendants, in the total sum of NIS 657
million, with regard to the alleged breach of price control
regulation in the sale of certain salt products. In the opinion of
the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly,
the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its
financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Special Sales
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in May 2014, a claim
and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed
against Mega and another defendant, in the sum of NIS 30 million
referred to Mega. The claim is with regard to alleged misleading
in the conduction of special sales. In the opinion of the Company,
based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the
claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did
not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Camera Tracking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in June 2014, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega, in the sum of NIS 50 million. The claim is
with regard to the use of camera tracking in supermarket stores,
without proper notification. In the opinion of the Company, based
on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim
will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make
any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Legal Procedures Continue in Dor Alon Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on December 3, 2003
a claim was filed in the amount of NIS 450 against the gas
companies (including a subsidiary of Dor Alon) alleging that the
defendants were parties to a cartel, which they entered into
beginning in 1994 (and even prior thereto) and up to 2003, in the
course of which the Restrictive Practices Authority gave notice of
a recommendation to file charges against the gas companies and
their managers in connection with the existence of a cartel, as
stated. The plaintiff contends that by means of the alleged cartel
the gas companies collected unfair and unreasonable prices.

A request for certification of the claim as a class action
pursuant to the Restrictive Practices Law, the Consumer Protection
Law and Rule 29 of the Rules of Civic Procedure (1984), was filed
together with the claim. The amount of the class action was set by
the requesting party at an amount of at least NIS 1 billion, along
with punitive damages. The subsidiary of Dor Alon has submitted
its response to the request for certification of the claim as a
class action. The parties twice reached a compromise agreement
that was submitted to Court's approval. However, the Court
rejected the two compromise agreements and therefore the legal
procedures continue.

In any case, in the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion
of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Ice Cream Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in August 2014, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega and Shufersal. The claim is with respect to the
alleged lack of price marking on certain ice cream products. The
claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a
class action, and requests quantitative data in order to assess
such amount.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion
of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over UHT Milk Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in November 2014, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega, in the sum of approximately NIS 103 million.
The claim is with regard to certain UHT milk products and the
alleged false coordination of their prices; the sale for a price
exceeding the maximum price imposed by price control regulations;
and the charging of excessive prices. In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega, in the sum of approximately NIS 27.7 million.
The claim is with respect to certain salt products, including low
sodium salt, and it is claimed among others that these products
should be priced in accordance with price control regulations;
that Mega misleads the public to think that low sodium salt can
prevent disease or help people that suffer from high blood
pressure etc., and other claims regarding the violation of product
labeling obligations. In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Court Asked Parties in Dor Alon Case to File Pleadings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in October 2009, Dor
Alon received a statement of claim and an application for approval
of the claim as a class action; the claim was lodged against Dor
Alon and other fuel companies. The claimant claims payment of
damages of NIS 124 million (Dor Alon's share in the said claim
amount as per the statement of claim is NIS 21.9 million).
According to the claimant, the defendants overcharged him for fuel
when filling up his car. According to the claimant, after passing
his credit card but before starting to fill up, the payment meter
started operating without the provision of fuel. The overcharge
has allegedly amounted at times to several Agorot and at times to
several NIS. The parties have reached a compromise that was
rejected by court and the court asked the parties to file their
pleadings before the compromise agreement is filed.

In the event the parties will not reach a compromise agreement,
the Company believes, based on the opinion of its legal advisers,
the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Large Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega, claiming that Mega sells products in large
packaging that does not reflect the amount of contents. The claim
does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class
action. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its
legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed
50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this
claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Internet Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega, claiming that Mega is misleading the public by
not informing buyers at its internet site of the basic qualities
of products, such as ingredients, nutritional information, weight
after filtering, etc. The claim is with respect to certain pickles
and canned sardine fish products. The claim does not state the
amount sought if it is approved as a class action, although it is
mentioned that such sum is above NIS 3 million. The Company is
currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action develops," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Advertised Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015, a
claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were
filed against Mega and Eden Teva Market, claiming that Mega and
Eden mislead the public by not charging the advertised price of
certain products in special sales. The claim does not state the
amount sought if it is approved as a class action. The Company is
currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action develops," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Honey Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in April 2015, a
claim and a request to approve the claim as a class action was
filed against Mega and another defendant, in the total sum of NIS
50 million. The claim is with respect to the alleged lack of
marking of certain honey products with details as required by law.
The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all
allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action develops," the Company said.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Border Crossing Law Firm, P.C., individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Altisource Portfolio
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01994-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 2,
2015), to stop its practice of sending unsolicited fax
advertisements to the fax machines of consumers and businesses
nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc. is a marketplace and
transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage and
consumer debt industries that leverages proprietary business
process, vendor and electronic payment management software to
improve outcomes for marketplace participants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD
      1718 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 660
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 893-9400
      Facsimile: (404) 260-4180
      E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


AMERICAN EDUCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joann S. Werner and Gregory Werner, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. American Education Services, et
al., Case No. 603423/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., May 28, 2015), arises
from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

American Education Services operates a financial services company
that offers student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Facsimile: (631) 824-9328
      Telephone: (631) 335-1107
      E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Edwards" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Gary Edwards, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Family Home
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-15-00039, was removed from the Van
Buren County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00272-JM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred F. Tom Thompson III, Esq.
      Casey P. Castleberry, Esq.
      MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
      Post Office Box 2595
      Batesville, AR 72503-2595
      Telephone: (870) 793-3821
      E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
              caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

         - and -

      D. Matt Keil, Esq.
      John C. Goodson, Esq.
      KEIL & GOODSON, P.A.
      Post Office Box 618
      Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
      Telephone: (870) 772-4113
      E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
              jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

         - and -

      James M. Pratt Jr., Esq.
      JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A.
      Post Office Box 938
      Camden, AR 71711
      Telephone: (870) 836-7328
      E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com

         - and -

      Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
      MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
      13182 North MacArthur Boulevard
      Oklahoma City, OK 73142
      Telephone: (405) 603-2222
      E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
      Richard A. Russo Jr., Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
              rrusso@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Richard E. Norman, Esq.
      Ronald Martin Weber Jr., Esq.
      CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
      Three Riverway, Suite 1775
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 651-1771
      Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
      E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
              mweber@crowleynorman.com

         - and -

      Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
      ENGSTROM LAW FIRM
      Post Office Box 71
      Little Rock, AR 72203-0071
      Telephone: (501) 375-6453
      E-mail: stephen@engstromlaw.com

         - and -

      Stevan E. Vowell, Esq.
      Timothy Joseph Myers, Esq.
      Warner H. Taylor, Esq.
      William Benjamin Putman IV, Esq.
      TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
      Post Office Box 8310
      Fayetteville, AR 72703-8310
      Telephone: (479) 443-5222
      E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
              tmayers@taylorlawpartners.com
              whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com
              wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew E. Samuels, Esq.
      Mark A. Johnson, Esq.
      Robert J. Tucker, Esq.
      Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTELLER LLP
      65 East State Street, Suite 2100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 228-1541
      Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
      E-mail: asamuels@bakerlaw.com
              pjohnson@bakerlaw.com
              rtucker@bakerlaw.com
              reckelberry@bakerlaw.com

        - and -

      Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
      FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
      Regions Center
      400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
      Telephone: (501) 370-1592
      E-mail: crass@fridayfirm.com


ASIA HONG KONG: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
De Huo Wang, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Xin Liu and Asia Hong Kong Inc. d/b/a Asia Sariku Inc.
d/b/a Sariku, Case No. 1:15-cv-04239-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 174
Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren Paul Brian Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway, Suite 960
      New York, NY 10117
      Telephone: (212) 344-9022
      Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
      E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Parties to Mediate Case on June 23
----------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit will mediate the case on June 23, 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011. On October 8, 2013,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging only claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and voluntarily dismissing a
number of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege that
Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect to the
fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance
from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising
and social media, which caused the clients to delay marketing and
negatively impacted the timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue
growth. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the court
may deem just and proper.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint," the Company said.  On June 4, 2014, the court issued
an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint.

On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in
the first amended complaint.

"On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint," the Company said.

"On October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a
third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion
to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint
on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February
1, 2011, and August 9, 2011.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13,
2015," the Company said.

On April 8, 2015, the court approved the parties' stipulation,
which noted that the parties will mediate the case on June 23,
2015. The court set a date to answer the third amended complaint
on April 27, 2015, but delayed further deadlines until after the
date of the mediation.

"We deny the allegations in the third amended complaint and will
contest the claims vigorously," the Company said.


ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation in Pricing Practices Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company has filed its opposition to a recommendation with the
judge in the Pricing Practices class action.

The Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a
number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the
United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices
of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers that have now been
centralized for pretrial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants,
including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price
for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the
use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and
European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and
injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to July 28, 2004, the date on which the Company and Old
Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented
to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court
entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company
claims arising prior to July 28, 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted for discovery purposes on April
13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and
document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A
court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class
action was held in October 2013, and oral arguments and an
evidentiary hearing were held in November 2013. On October 15,
2014, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that the
court enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the
claims.

"We filed our opposition to that recommendation with the judge on
December 1, 2014 and also intend to vigorously pursue a number of
defenses," the Company said. "We are unable to reasonably predict
the court's ruling on our opposition to class certification and
our defenses, or the ultimate outcome of the litigation."


BACKROADS: Faces "Alampi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Alampi and Matthew Mcdonald, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. BackRoads, BackRoads Utah, Inc.,
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15772255 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are providers of tourism services in California and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
      THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
      19360 Rinaldi St., Box 647
      Porter Ranch, CA 91326
      Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
      Telephone: (818) 360-2529
      E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over FX Future Price Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nasser Bakizada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04230-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
manipulate prices for foreign exchange ("FX") futures and options
on FX futures.

FX futures are agreements to buy or sell a foreign currency at a
set price and date in the future, and are traded on centralized
exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") and ICE
Futures U.S. Exchanges ("ICE").

Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
      Michael Elsenkraft, Esq.
      George Farah, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
              meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
              gfarah@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Manuel John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 833-6575
      E-mail: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      H. Silverman, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com


BAYER: Lawyers of Rice GMO Plaintiff Battle Over Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Southeast Texas Record reports that high profile lawyer Mikal
Watts of San Antonio and his colleagues in litigation against
Bayer chemical company face a federal suit claiming they reaped
millions in fees that didn't belong to them.

Lawyers who led national litigation against Bayer at federal court
in St. Louis allege that the Watts group improperly retained fees
from similar cases in state courts.  Their complaint argues that
the Watts group should pay for advantages they gained in state
courts through membership on the legal team in federal court.  The
complaint seeks restitution of 11 percent for all recoveries that
the Watts group obtained in state courts.  The complaint does not
specify an amount for those recoveries, but it asserts that the
claim exceeds $5 million.

In March, the leaders of the federal litigation team asked
District Judge Catherine Perry to certify a class action against
the Watts group.  Perry had dismissed the suit in 2013, but Eighth
Circuit appellate judges reversed her last year and the U.S.
Supreme Court denied a petition for review in March.

Litigation started in 2006, after the U. S. Department of
Agriculture announced contamination of rice by a strain that Bayer
had genetically modified.  As prices for rice fell, growers sued
Bayer in federal and state courts of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Missouri.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation consolidated
all federal suits and transferred them to Perry.  Perry chose Don
Downing of St. Louis and Adam Levitt of Chicago as lead plaintiff
counsel, and she picked six others for an executive committee.
She held three bellwether trials, for the purpose of setting a
range of values for possible settlement, and plaintiffs won all
three.

Plaintiffs in state courts also prevailed at trial.

In 2010, Perry ordered Bayer to create a common benefit trust fund
holding eight percent of any grower's recovery, plus three percent
for expenses.  She urged state court judges to require
participation in the trust fund, but admitted she lacked
jurisdiction over them.

As an example of a lawyer gaining advantage in state court from
the work of the leaders she singled out Martin Phipps, a San
Antonio lawyer in the Watts group.

"Although Phipps has used his own expert witnesses, he has also
used the depositions taken by the leadership team, and he has used
the documents and other discovery from Bayer obtained by the
leadership group," Perry wrote.  She wrote that members of his
firm attended the leadership team's depositions and obtained large
portions of transcripts from two trials she conducted.

"The lawyers and plaintiffs who have not agreed to join in the
trust will have been unjustly enriched if they are not required to
contribute to the fees of the leadership group," she wrote.

"The leadership group shares the products of its labor with all of
the plaintiffs."

In 2011, Bayer and the leadership team agreed on a $750 million
settlement of all claims, state and federal.

The agreement created a settlement fund, with an administrator in
Nueces County, Texas, to distribute recoveries and fees from state
court actions.

In September 2012, Perry's leadership group moved for an order
allocating $72 million from the common fund among six firms.

In November 2012, Phipps, Watts, and Stephen Murray of New Orleans
filed an action for declaratory judgment at Nueces County
courthouse in Corpus Christi.  They asked Court at Law Judge
Leeanne Galvan to rule that they owed nothing to the common fund.

According to Downing and Leavitt, they did not serve notice of the
action.

In December 2012, Perry entered a $72 million allocation order.

"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Phipps group has been
unjustly enriched by the work of the common benefit attorneys,"
Perry wrote.

In January 2013, Downing and Leavitt filed a class action
complaint in St. Louis against Watts, Phipps, their firms, and the
firm of Keller Stolarczyk in Boerne, Texas.

Downing and Leavitt filed it as their own lawyers, along with 13
others.

According to Downing and Levitt, the Watts group then served
notice of the action in Nueces County.  Next, Downing and Levitt
amended the complaint to add Murray as defendant.

The court assigned District Judge Carol Jackson to the case, but
Perry granted a motion from Downing and Levitt to consolidate it
with the ongoing Bayer litigation.

The Watts group called on Perry to recuse herself, arguing that
she demonstrated bias or prejudice in Bayer rulings and in
granting consolidation.  Watts filed an affidavit swearing that he
first met Downing at a settlement conference in St. Louis, in
2009.

"After I told him I was unwilling to agree to pay him a common
benefit fee for state court cases, he warned me that I needed to
reach an agreement with him, threatening that 'Judge Perry is
going to give me whatever common benefit fee I ask for,'" Watts
wrote.

He wrote that in 2011, Downing flew to Texas and pressed him again
about paying a common benefit fee. He told Downing 8 percent was
too high and would yield an exorbitant fee.

"When I pointed out that the fee percentage being sought was well
above what could be justified with the number of hours he claimed
had been worked, he then kept adjusting the total amount of common
benefit award he needed upward, and kept changing the total amount
of time his group had worked," Watts wrote.

"When I asked him how he did that, he said, 'If we need to, we'll
get the records in to support it,' and, 'she won't care that the
records are not there yet; she's going to give me what I ask for."

Watts wrote that he asked Downing how he knew what the judge would
do, and Downing said he was allowed to have "ex parte"
communications with her.  He wrote that he said Perry couldn't
tell Arkansas and Texas state court judges what to do.

"He warned that Judge Perry would exert influence over those
judges, and she would make sure they knew that she thought they
should order us to pay him," Watts wrote.

He wrote that Downing pressed him again in 2012, after intervening
in multiple Arkansas state court cases. One judge denied
intervention and Downing dismissed an intervention.  He wrote that
he said his group was entitled to some of the common benefit
assessment, since it provided some of the work.

"At that meeting, before the common benefit rulings were even
issued by Judge Perry, Downing told me point blank: 'Judge Perry
is going to f --  Martin; she hates him; he will never get a
dime,'" Watts wrote.

Perry's next decision showed no bias for Downing and Levitt,
however, for she dismissed the complaint.  She ruled that neither
Missouri's long arm statute nor due process permitted the exercise
of jurisdiction over the Watts group.

Downing and Levitt appealed to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis,
where judges reversed her last August.

"Each defendant traveled to Missouri to negotiate settlement of
their state court cases with Bayer," the judges wrote.

"The fact that the location of the negotiations was not selected
by the defendants does not mean that their decision to travel to
Missouri was involuntary," they wrote.

Meanwhile, in Corpus Christi, Judge Galvan denied a motion from
Downing and Levitt to enter special appearances in opposition to
declaratory judgment.

Downing and Levitt petitioned for review at the 13th District
appellate court in Corpus Christi, and judges there stayed the
proceedings before Galvan.  They heard arguments in December, and
had not reached a decision as of May 4.

In January, in St. Louis, Downing and Levitt amended their
complaint to install their firms as plaintiffs rather than
themselves.  They added Charles Banks of Little Rock as a
defendant, along with his firm.

In February, the Watts group moved to split the federal case into
two or three cases and transfer them to other courts.  They
proposed to send claims against Watts, Phipps and the Keller
Stolarczyk firm to eastern Arkansas or western Texas.  They
proposed to send the claim against Banks to eastern Arkansas and
the claim against Murray to eastern Louisiana.

Downing and Levitt opposed transfers in March, arguing that
Perry's special knowledge of the underlying case suited her to
bring the claims to resolution.  They moved for class
certification on March 27, claiming defendants injured more than
1,000 persons by refusing to contribute.

"The three percent cost portion of the common benefit assessment
was either absorbed by the lawyers or passed on to rice
producers," they wrote.

If plaintiffs prevail, they wrote, all who paid three percent
would benefit.

Michael Vitale of St. Louis opposed class certification for the
Watts group on April 23, arguing that no contractual relationship
existed between them and plaintiffs.  He wrote that if anyone
received a benefit from the federal litigation, the farmer clients
of the Watts group did.

"Defendants themselves were not parties to the underlying cases
and therefore could not have enjoyed and appreciated the benefit
plaintiffs have alleged," Vitale wrote.

Perry has set trial next Feb. 29.

Watts attracted national attention in 2010, by filing more than
40,000 individual claims in litigation of the BP oil spill.  In
2011, the New York Times reported that some of his clients did not
exist and others said they had not retained him.  Federal agents
raided his office and seized records in 2013.  No arrest or
indictment has occurred.

BP sued Watts at federal court in New Orleans last year, seeking
to halt distribution of funds to a group that included his
clients.  He moved to stay the suit pending the criminal
investigation, invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-
incrimination.

District Judge Carl Barbier denied an injunction in February 2014,
and asked for a report on the status of the criminal investigation
in 120 days.


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Sued Over Mishandling of Deceased Bodies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pequeena Dixon as the named class representative plaintiff, with
Deborah McClain, Deveda Perkins, Diana Owens, William Perkins and
all others similarly situated v. Biological Resource Center of
Illinois, LLC, et al., Case No. 2015-CH-08513 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May
28, 2015), arising from the Defendants' mishandling, abuse, and
desecration of the Plaintiffs' deceased loved one's body, issuing
a false certification of cremation and incomplete return of
remains, and making false statements and promises concerning how
and where donated bodies will be used.

Biological Resource Center of Illinois, LLC is a non-transplant
anatomical donation organization located at 9501 W. Devon Ave,
Suite 605, Rosemont, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
      KRISLOV ASSOCIATES LTD
      20 N Wacker 1300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 606-0500


BLAZIN WINGS: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alisha Robbins and Amber Grandstaff, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, known and unknown v. Blazin Wings,
Inc. d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 6:15-cv-06340 (W.D.N.Y.,
June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Blazin Wings, Inc. owns and operates hundreds of Buffalo Wild
Wings restaurants throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
      E-mail: jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com


BOMBAY CLUB: Faces "Razmyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nasser Razmyar v. The Bombay Club, Inc., Prentice-Hall Corp. Sys.,
Inc., Knightsbridge Management, Inc., and Ashok Bajaj, Ashok
Bajaj, Case No. 1:15-cv-00807 (D.D.C., June 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Washington, DC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan James Klaproth, Esq.
      KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
      406 5th Street, NW, Suite 350
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 618-2344
      Facsimile: (202) 618-4636
      E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. ("CBMG" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:CBMG) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 15-cv-01795, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased CBMG
securities between June 18, 2014 and April 7, 2015 inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you are a shareholder who purchased CBMG securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 22, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc., is a biomedicine company that
develops treatments for cancerous and degenerative diseases in
Greater China.  It focuses on developing and marketing cell-based
therapies to treat serious chronic and degenerative diseases, such
as cancer, osteoarthritis, tissue damage, various inflammatory
diseases, and metabolic diseases.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company achieved an
unsustainable $500m valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet
failed to disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory
filings pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 ;
(ii) the Company's "Car-T" technology had experienced patient
deaths and lacked any meaningful valuation; and (iv) as a result
of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 7, 2015, a report was published on Seekingalpha.com,
alleging that the Company was engaged in a massive fraudulent
scheme to mislead investors and that the Company lacked any
meaningful financial value.

On this news, CBMG securities declined $7.00 per share, or over
21.7%, to close at $25.22 per share on April 7, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions.  More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.


CLAIM JUMPER: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farah Jordan, Ortega Alina, and Cononico Christian, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Claim Jumper
Restaurants, Inc., Claim Jumper Acquisition Company, and Does 1
through 25, Case No. BC583679 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Valencia, Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
      GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
      801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2170
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 542-2135
      Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
      E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Buyout Process "Flawed," Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sol Scharf, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790241
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks enjoinment of the proposed
acquisition of ClickSoftware by Optimizer Topco S.A.R.L through a
flawed process that deprives ClickSoftware's public stockholders
of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term
prospects.

ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. is a business software, field
service management and workforce management company that offers
automated mobile workforce management and service optimization
solutions for enterprises and small business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lepore" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02707 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLUB FIT: "Buck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buck, Michael Marchena, Mario De Armas, Jacob De Armas,
Glenn Gavic, Justin Kowalsky, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Club Fit FT Lauderdale, Inc. d/b/a The Zoo Health
Club of Fort Lauderdale, Gil Khron, and Dennis Okunyade, Case No.
0:15-cv-61162 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Brang" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brang, Mariana L. Brang, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Does 1
through 10, Inclusive, and Each of Them, Case No. 2:15-cv-03562-
FMO-PJW (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arvin Ratanavongse, Esq.
      Lee Paul Mankin IV, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: aratanavongse@toddflaw.com
              pmankin@paulmankin.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


CONSUMER CELLULAR: "Bell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawna Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Consumer Cellular, Incorporated, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00941-SI (D. Or., May 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Consumer Cellular, Incorporated is an Oregon-based provider of
cellular telephone products and services with its principal place
of business in Portland, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
      Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
      LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
      44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
      Eugene, OR 97440
      Telephone: (541) 345-2376
      Facsimile: (541) 345-2377
      E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com
              drew@leimanlaw.com


DAVID RANDALL: $22.4MM Verdict Affirmed in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reports that a federal judge in New Jersey
affirmed a $22.4 million statutory damage award to class members
for the defendant's violation of the fax advertisement law under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Business owners can be held directly liable for unsolicited fax
advertisements sent by third party agencies promoting the
business's goods or services under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act or TCPA.

The TCPA nor the court distinguished between phone calls and
faxes.  With this recent decision it is possible more companies
may face claims for blast-fax campaigns.

City Select Auto Sales and other businesses sought relief after
the defendant, David Randall Associates, a roofing company,
authorized a third party -- Business to Business -- to transmit
unsolicited advertisements 44,832 times to 29,113 different fax
numbers.

Several other businesses complained about the faxes and stated the
'opt out' 800 number was unavailable.  A number customers also
threatened to file action against Randall.  Despite the
complaints, the defendant continued to have fax blast campaigns
sent.

                    Sent Ads Without Permission

The class action complaint alleged the defendant sent
advertisements to thousands of fax numbers without prior
permission or invitation.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, stating the plaintiff
class failed to state a claim under TCPA because the defendant was
not physically sending the faxes.  The motion was denied.

The TPCA prohibits unsolicited advertisements without the prior
consent of the recipient.  It is the plaintiffs' burden to
sufficiently establish:

     1. The defendant utilized a "telephone facsimile machine" to
send one or more faxes."

     2. that the transmissions constituted "advertisements."

     3. that the defendant sent he transmissions without the
recipient's consent, absent application of a statutory exception.

            Defendant Liable for Third Party Advertiser

Addressing each element, first the court determined the
advertisement focused on David Randall's roofing services and were
approved for transmission by the owner.

Second, fax advertisements are not prohibited if the sender is a
business with an existing relationship with the recipient and the
sender obtained the fax number through a website.

According to the FCC, this alone does not permit someone to pull
the fax number from an existing website and begin blast-fax
campaigns.  The advertiser must obtain consent from the recipient
to legally solicit business through fax.

This leads to the third element where there must be evidence that
the class action members sufficiently publicized their numbers or
had a relationship with the defendant.  Sufficiently publishing
means either directly providing the information or providing
express permission.

In sum, to advertise via fax legitimately, the sender must have a
record that the recipient gave permission or directly provided the
information to the sender.  Without the recipients consent the
business advertising the goods or services can be held liable for
the actions of third party entities.

In the court's recent decision in Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca, Inc
v. Sarris, it found the defendant liable for his connection to a
third party advertiser, which faxed unsolicited dental
advertisements to the golf center.  771 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir.
2014).  Relying on this decision, the court re-emphasized the
entity can be held strictly liable for unsolicited advertisements
despite not physically sending the fax under the TPCA.

City Select Auto Sales Inc v. David Randall Associates, Inc, et
al., No 11-2658, 2015 WL 1421539 (D.N.J. March 27, 2015)


DELTA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Combest" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Combest, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Delta Liquid Energy
Holdings, LLC, Case No. BC583156 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Delta Liquid Energy Holdings, LLC operates a propane services
company that does business throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Bouchard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Bouchard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08615
(Ill. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
operates approximately 23 retail stores in the State of Illinois,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346.2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346.0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com


DONA ANA: College Students' Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
KOB4 reports that a state district court judge has ruled that a
lawsuit filed by eight former Dona Ana Community College students
against the school will become a class-action proceeding.

Las Cruces Sun-News reports that the initial lawsuit was filed
after the students claimed they suffered turmoil and financial
loss after the community college's nursing school lost its
national accreditation in 2012.  Students are saying that loss was
a breach of contract.

According to court documents, 100 students were enrolled at that
time and will now be included in the case.  Some students remained
at the school after it lost accreditation, while the majority
chose to transfer to New Mexico State University's nursing
program.

An attorney for the students says any of the students can choose
to opt out of the lawsuit.


EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irving and Judith Braun, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP, et al., Case
No. 201530441 (Tex. Dist. Ct., May 28, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the partnership to
Vanguard LLC for inadequate and unfair consideration and to the
detriment of the public unit holders.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP is
a growth-oriented master limited partnership engaged in the
upstream business, which includes exploiting, developing, and
producing hydrocarbons in oil and gas properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
      EDISON McDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
      Phoenix Tower
      3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2100
      Houston, Texas 77027
      Telephone: (713) 337-5581
      Facsimile: (713) 337-8841
      E-mail: andrew.edison@emhllp.com


EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Heydenrych" Suit Over Sale to Vanguard
---------------------------------------------------------
Pieter Heydenrych, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01470 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2015), arises out of
the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the partnership to
Vanguard LLC for inadequate and unfair consideration and to the
detriment of the public unit holders.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP is
a growth-oriented master limited partnership engaged in the
upstream business, which includes exploiting, developing, and
producing hydrocarbons in oil and gas properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EBAY INC: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Refund Final Value Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theo Chen, Edgar Amirkhanyan, Eugene Cobb, Gary George, Nazar
Pailevanian, Nicolepitteloud, Filip Novac, Richard Dame, Kim
Bunch, Francis Jancik, John Hamisch, Brent Farris, Nicole Jones,
and Patrick Hyndman, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
persons in similarly situated v. EBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc., Case
No. RG15772122 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all eBay sellers in California who suffered damages as a
result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to credit back the
Final Value Fees that were associated with the sales that were
rescinded at the insistence of eBay.

EBay, Inc. is the world's largest online marketplace.

PayPal, Inc. provides online payment solutions for individuals and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. David Franklin, Esq.
      FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN, APLC
      402 West Broadway, Suite 1140
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (858) 229-4441

         - and -

      Anthony A Ferrigno, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A FERRIGNO
      1116 Ingleside Avenue
      Athens, TN 37303
      Telephone: (423) 744-4041
      Facsimile: (925) 945-8792

         - and -

      Pamela E. Havird, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA E. HA VIRD
      PO Box 375
      La Jolla, CA 92038
      Telephone (619) 888- 8090
      Facsimile (858) 815-7778


EMCOR GROUP: USM Defends Class Action by Employees
--------------------------------------------------
Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that USM, Inc. is defending
a class action filed by employees of USM's California janitorial
subcontractors.

The Company said, "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"),
doing business in California provides, among other things,
janitorial services to its customers by having those services
performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its
customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-
defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by five
employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors. The
action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of
California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other
things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began
before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that
prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial
subcontractor when it knows or should know that the contract does
not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to
comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations
governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have
asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial
subcontractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial
subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other
things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum
wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek
to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals
who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in
California during the relevant four year time period."

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with
whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek
a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California
statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon,
restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs."


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Privacy Class Action in Austria
---------------------------------------------------
Alan Meneghetti, writing for Locke Lord LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that a class action against Facebook has been
filed in Vienna by privacy campaigner and Austrian law graduate
Max Schrems, along with 25,000 other users of the social network
site.  The lawsuit alleges breaches of EU privacy law and mass
surveillance.

The case was filed on April 9, 2015, against Facebook's European
HQ in Dublin, which handles accounts outside the U.S. and Canada,
accounting for approximately 80% of Facebook's 1.35 billion users.
The alleged breach of European privacy laws relates to the way
that Facebook monitors its users' activation of its "Like"
buttons.

Currently, the 25,000 users are claiming EUR500 (GBP392) each in
damages for the "illegal" tracking of their data under EU law,
amounting to over EUR10 million if the charges against Facebook
are proved in this case.  A further 55,000 users have registered
to join the procedures at a later stage.

Schrems is reported in the Guardian as commenting: "Basically we
are asking Facebook to stop mass surveillance, to (have) a proper
privacy policy that people can understand, but also to stop
collecting data of people that are not even Facebook users."

Facebook has raised procedural objections, asking for the case to
be dismissed.  The Vienna court will rule in several weeks or so
whether it has jurisdiction to hear the class action in Austria.


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Loera and Alfredo Loera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fair Collections and Outsourcing
of New England, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03454 (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


FOAM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Perez, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Foam Distributors, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. RG15772012 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Foam Distributors, Inc. owns and operates an industry, business
and establishment throughout California and is headquartered in
the County of Alameda.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Un Kei Wu, Esq.
      LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2760 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 941110
      Telephone: (415) 695-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 695-1006
      E-mail: Info@LiberationLawGroup.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of ForceField Energy, Inc. FNRG, -16.67% between
September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired ForceField Energy, Inc. ("ForceField") securities between
September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015, your rights may be affected
by this action.  To get more information go to:

             http://zlk.9nl.com/forcefield-energy

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that
articles issued by independent authors touting the Company were in
fact paid promotions.

On April 19, 2015 the Company's founder and majority shareholder
voluntarily resigned as Executive Chairman of the Board following
his April 17, 2015 arrest.  Shares of ForceField were down more
than 21% on intraday trading on April 20, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in ForceField you have until June 16, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.  Attorney advertising.  Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

                       Brower Piven on Board

The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announced that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ForceField Energy
Inc. during the period between October 16, 2013 and April 15,
2015, inclusive.  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until June 16, 2015 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in ForceField
securities purchased on or after October 16, 2013 and held through
the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of
the Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead
plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period.  Brower
Pivenalso encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that reports issued by
promoters paid by the Company did not disclose their compensation
despite having been reviewed by ForceField's management prior to
publication and that members of the Company's management have
unscrupulous backgrounds.

Following a March 20, 2014 article published through Fortune.com
revealing the promoter compensation issues and an April 15, 2015
article published through SeekingAlpha.com disclosing the promoter
compensation issues and the unscrupulous backgrounds of members of
the Company's management, the value of ForceField shares declined
significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

The firm can be reached at:

         Charles J. Piven
         Brower Piven
         Tel No: 410-415-6616
         E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com


FORD MOTOR: Female Workers File Amended Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pete, writing for NWI Times, reports that an amended sexual
harassment lawsuit was filed by female workers at Ford Motor Co.'s
Chicago assembly plant on May 1 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  A full text copy of the lawsuit is
available free at:

                       http://is.gd/n9JCus

The Plaintiffs are Christie Van, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price,
Helen Allen, Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell,
Keturah Carter, Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner,
Arlene Goforth, Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan,
Danielle Kudirka, Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani
Miller, Miyoshi Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose
Thomas, Toni Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Martha Corbin, Angela
Glenn, LaDwyna Hoover, Ogery Ledbetter, Latricia Shanklin,
Antoinette Sullivan, Derricka Thomas, and Nichea Walls.

They allege that male workers:

     -- refer to new female employees as "fresh meat";

     -- talk and gesture about the size of their penis;

     -- comment on women's buttocks with statements that
women had a "big booty", "loose booty", "nice ass" and "fat
ass."

     -- make bets with each other about which male would be the
first to have sex with new female employees;

     -- assign the women to work areas requiring them to
constantly bend over in front of the male supervisor with their
buttocks in the air; and

     -- constantly stare at women's breasts and buttocks.

They are represented by:

     Timothy S. Millman, Esq.
     Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq.
     Berkowitz Oliver Williams, Esq.
     SHAW & EISENBRANDT LLP
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel.: (816) 561-7007

          - and -

     Eugene Scalia, Esq.
     Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Tel.: (202) 955-8500

          - and -

     Mark H. Boyle, Esq.
     Karen Kies DeGrand, Esq.
     DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC
     143 South Dearborn Street, Suite 800
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel.: (312) 422-0900


FXCM INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over Shares Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of FXCM Inc.'s common stock
between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015, inclusive.  The action
seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

FXCM provides online foreign exchange trading and related services
to retail and institutional customers worldwide.  The Company acts
as an agent between retail customers and a collection of global
banks and financial institutions by making foreign currency
markets for customers trading in foreign exchange spot markets.
FXCM provides its customers access to over-the-counter FX markets
through its proprietary technology platform.

The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false
and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business
operations and the strength of its financial prospects, while
concealing significant weaknesses concerning its core business.
According to the complaint, the truth was that: (1) the Company's
agency model did not insulate the Company from financial risk from
its heavily leveraged clients; (2) the Company did not disclose
the true potential risk posed by market volatility; (3) the
Company did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital reserves;
and (4) the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and growth lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased FXCM stock during this time period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than July 7, 2015.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

The firm can be reached as:

         Michael Burnett
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Tel: (800) 404-7770
         Fax: (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Lepore" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Genpact Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02706 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEOTRUST INC: Removed "Zargarian" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jonathan Zargarian,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GeoTrust, Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. BC575965, was
removed from the Los Angeles County 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-03520 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara Rezvanpour, Esq.
      Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
      RKR LEGAL
      17530 Ventura Boulevard Suite 102
      Encino, CA 91316
      Telephone: (866) 502-0787
      Facsimile: (866) 502-5065
      E-mail: sara@rkrlegal.com
              sr@rkrlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ciara Nicole Mittan, Esq.
      Molly R. Melcher, Esq.
      Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
      Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
      FENWICK AND WEST LLP
      555 California Street 12th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 875-2300
      Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
      E-mail: cmittan@fenwick.com
              mmelcher@fenwick.com
              tnewby@fenwick.com
              lpulgram@fenwick.com


GOLD COAST PARKING: Faces "Scheer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Rogerio Scheer and all others similarly situated v. Gold
Coast Parking Systems, Inc. and Peter Sorrentino, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22110-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a valet parking services company that
transacts business within 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


GREEN TREE: Removed "Wittstadt" Class Suit to Maryland Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mark Wittstadt v. Green Tree
Servicing, LLC and Rosa Maria Reyes, Case No. 40255IV, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County to the
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01263-DKC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Hill Wittstadt, Esq.
      MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, LLC
      9409 Philadelphia Road
      Baltimore, MD 21237
      Telephone: (410) 284-9600
      Facsimile: (410) 282-1677
      E-mail: mwittstadt@closingsource.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
      Suite 307, 8737 Colesville Road
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 637-6270
      E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com


GR OPCO: Faces "Bogran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Bogran, Silda Chavez, Claudia Cruz, Jose Estrada, Ricardo
Valdes and all persons similarly situated v. GR Opco, LLC, d/b/a
E11even Miami, and Elevated Eateries of Miami, LLC, CJS Global,
LLC, Dennis Degori, Kenneth Ratner, and Frances Martin, Case No.
1:15-cv-22100-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment venue and
night club in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard Randolph Tanner, Esq.
      HOWARD TANNER PA
      100 S. Pointe Drive, #1909
      Miami Beach, FL 33139
      Telephone: (305) 458-2913
      E-mail: h@howard-tanner.com


GRUMA S.A.B.: "Cox" Suit v. Gruma Corp. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
GRUMA, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on or about December 21,
2012, a consumer filed a putative class action against Gruma
Corporation, claiming that Mission tortilla chips should not be
labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain non-natural
ingredients. The plaintiff sought restitution or other actual
damages including attorneys' fees.  On July 2014, this matter was
dismissed with prejudice.


HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lolita Lopez, writing for NBC Los Angeles, reports that under a
new class action settlement, several dozen apartment complexes
across Southern California must repay hundreds of dollars in fees
they kept from tenants when they moved out.

Up to $288 is up for grabs for renters from Burbank to Long Beach,
tenants who lived in one of 31 apartment buildings dating back to
2008.  The money, according to the lawsuit settlement, involves
fees landlords took from renters when they moved, for paint and
carpet or vinyl replacement.

California law is specific with regard to what can be deducted
from a tenant's security deposit.  Normal wear and tear expenses
cannot be deducted.

"As students, we didn't know how that worked, so we would just
give whatever we had to," renter Diana Aguiler said.

While not part of the lawsuit, two out of three students and
renters who spoke with NBC4 say they have been taken for their
security deposits.  Several of the complexes named in the lawsuit
are near USC.

"There's not many resources on who to go to for that," Bryanna
Tapia said.  "Especially when you are no longer a tenant and
you've moved out."

"It's important for renters to know both their obligations and
their rights," said Elena Popp of the Eviction Defense Network.

Giving out this information is part of Popp's work at the Eviction
Defense Network.  She said 60 percent of LA County residents are
renters.

"You should document anything that's already broken or wrong,"
Popp said, adding that renters should take photos close-up and
wide of the property before moving in.

"I have a case right now where the tenant is being charged $6,000
to replace tiles, that they say were broken 15 years ago (2010)
when they moved in," Popp said.

She said repainting and changing carpets after their life
expectancy -- what's called normal wear and tear -- is the
responsibility of the landlord, the crux of the lawsuit.
Defendants in the case have agreed to settle but are not admitting
liability.

More advice for renters:  "You need to request that pre-move out
inspection," Popp said.  "You need to make sure you gave 30 days
written notice that you were moving."

If no written notice is given, a landlord can take the deposit.
Some 10,000 notices have been mailed to people who moved out of
the complexes in the lawsuit and could be victims.

The cases are:

Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P.
Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles
Case No. BC452024 (Lead Case)

Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.
Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles
Case No. BC476270 (Related Case)

CPT Group serves as class action administrator in both cases.

Important Dates:

     Opt-Out Deadline for Hager v.
     The Heights Apartments, L.P.:            June 5, 2015

     Objection Deadline for Hager v.
     The Heights Apartments, L.P.:            June 5, 2015

     Claim Form Deadline for Seltzer v.
     R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.:                  June 25, 2015

     Opt Out Deadline for Seltzer v.
     R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.:                  June 25, 2015

     Objection Deadline for Seltzer v.
     R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.:                  July 6, 2015

     Final Approval Hearing:                  August 10, 2015
                                              at 10:00 a.m.

  For questions, please contact CPT Group at the following:

Telephone: 1-866-997-4997 for the Hager v. The Heights Apartments,
L.P. case

Telephone: 1-877-433-4862 for the Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co.,
Inc. case
Fax: (949) 419-3446
Email: securitydepositsettlement@cptgroup.com


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed this notice:

TO:   All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. ("Hemispherx") common stock trading
under ticker symbol HEB from March 14, 2012 through and including
December 20, 2012, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

"You Are Hereby Notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a hearing
will be held on July 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable
William H. Yohn Jr. United States District Judge, at the
courthouse for the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106, to determine, among other things, whether: (1) a Settlement
Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement and
whether Lead Plaintiff and its counsel have adequately represented
the Class Members; (2) the proposed Settlement of the Class's
claims against the Defendants for $2,750,000.00 should be approved
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) the Court
should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise
from or relate to the subject matter of the above-captioned class
action ("the Action"); (5) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) the application by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved; and (7) an application for reimbursement of reasonable
costs and expenses of Lead Plaintiff Member Marc Verheyen should
be granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hemispherx common stock
trading under ticker symbol HEB during the Class Period, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims
Administrator, by mail at: Hemispherx Securities Settlement
Administrator, PO Box 30172 College Station, TX 77842-3172; by
telephone at 866-374-7219; by e-mail at
Info@HemispherxSettlement.com; or by visiting the website at:
www.HemispherxSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
August 21, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no
later than July 8, 2015.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 8, 2015.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class: Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, 10
South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, Telephone:
312-377-1181

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.  More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. "

The firm can be reached at:

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Texas Case Trial Scheduled for Feb. 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that trial is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in a case filed in
Texas.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated
class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12,
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
alleging that we and our co-defendants and other alleged co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other
defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a
class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium
dioxide directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers")
since February 1, 2003. We and all other defendants settled the
Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement
on December 13, 2013. We paid the settlement in an amount
immaterial to our condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited)."

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. Trial is
scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional
claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of
the class litigation."


HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Defendant in Indirect Purchasers Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that, "We were named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing titanium dioxide. Plaintiffs have raised state
antitrust claims under the laws of 16 states, consumer protection
claims under the laws of 10 states, as well as unjust enrichment
claims under the laws of 20 states. The Opt-Out Litigation and
Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief,
treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs
of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal
conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have
incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional
costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us.
Because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated
with these claims and we have made no accruals with respect to
these claims."


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased iDreamSky
Technology Limited American Depositary Shares between August 8,
2014 and March 13, 2015, including investors who purchased ADSs
pursuant to the Initial Public Offering on or about August 7,
2014.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
concealed from the investing public that: (a) the Company had
overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively
integrate its distribution channels; (b) as a result, the Company
had to lower its earnings guidance; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in iDreamSky you have until June 1, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/DSKY-Info-
Request-Form-706.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.  Attorney advertising.  Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

        Vincent Wong, Esq.
        39 East Broadway
        Suite 304
        New York, NY 10002
        Tel. 212.425.1140
        Fax. 866.699.3880
        E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action was filed by WeissLaw LLP in the
Southern District of New York, Jeremias et al. v. iDreamSky
Technology Ltd. et al., 15-cv-03484, seeking damages and
rescission of the IPO of iDreamSky American Depository Shares
("ADSs") on August 7, 2014, and for purchasers of DSKY's ADSs on
the open market through March 23,  2015.

On March 23, 2015, iDreamSky disclosed, contrary to the
representations made in its IPO Registration Statement and
Prospectus, that it experienced complicated financial record
reconciliation and reduced monetization due to billing code
issues, significant embedded operational and financial
difficulties from unpredictable and delayed source code receipt
for the launch of games, and reduced monetization due to
distribution platform competition.  Following its announcement,
the Company's target price was downgraded from $24.00 to $9.00 per
ADS, representing a reduction of more than sixty percent (60%).
Furthermore, only a mere two reporting periods post-IPO, DSKY's
ADSs are trading well below their $15.00 offering price.

The deadline for investors having significant realized or
unrealized losses to serve as lead plaintiff is June 1, 2015.
These investors are encouraged to contact WeissLaw LLP for more
information about their rights or to share information.  Please
contact Mark Smilow by telephone at (212) 682-3025, (888) 593-4771
or by email at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: 2 Stockholder Class Actions Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 16, 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of
the Company's stockholders: Luciano Scotto v. Sohaib Abbasi et
al., Case No. 10913 (filed April 16, 2015) and Janice Ridgeway v.
Informatica Corporation et al., Case No. 10917 (filed April 16,
2015).   The complaints generally allege that, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of the Company by Newco, the Informatica
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders by agreeing to sell the company for purportedly
inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, and
agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection
devices.  The complaints further allege that Italics Inc.
("Newco") and Italics Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Newco ("Merger Sub"), the Permira Funds, the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board ("CPPIB"), and the Company aided and abetted
the Board of Directors in the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaints seek, among other things, an order
enjoining the close of the proposed transaction or, in the event
that the proposed transaction is consummated, an award of
rescission and/or rescissory damages.


INSULET CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, representing investors of Insulet
Corp. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of Insulet securities between February 27,
2013 and April 30, 2015, inclusive.

Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire or Lesley Portnoy, Esquire at
(310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.  If you inquire by email, please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
was experiencing slower demand for its products; (2) that the
Company was facing issues with its sales and marketing efforts;
(3) that, as a result, the Company experienced unevenness in its
financial performance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.  As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities after
disclosing the decline in its revenues, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you inquire via email,
please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number
of shares purchased.


JHODANICO LLC: "Valencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Valencia, Luis Enrique Hernandez, Paulo Rodriguez, Dalmy
Del Carmen Mijango, Jeison Balmore Blanco Hernandez, Erik Lopez,
Eliazar de Jesus Solano, and Josue Argueta, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly-situated v. Jhodanico LLC, d/b/a
Vry Auto Detail, Omar Carranza and Karen L. Anazgo Quintanilla,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00685-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., June 1, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate car wash and automobile detailing
services company doing business within the State of Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Francis Hennessy, Esq.
      THOMAS F. HENNESSY
      4015 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 6
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 865-8836
      Facsimile: (703) 865-7633
      E-mail: th@virginiawage.com


JUST ENERGY: Koskie Minsky Files Misclassification Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP has initiated a class action against Just Energy
Group Inc., Just Energy Corp., and Just Energy Ontario L.P. for
its artificial misclassification of its door-to-door Sales Agents
as "independent contractors" instead of employees, and thereby its
failure to provide such employees with the minimum protections of
the Employment Standards Act, 2000, including minimum wage,
overtime pay, vacation pay, and public holiday and premium pay --
compensation to which the employees were entitled and earned.

The Statement of Claim issued May 4 alleges, among other things,
that Just Energy breached its statutory and contractual duties to
the Sales Agents by requiring them to work well beyond permitted
weekly work hours and failing to appropriately provide them with
minimum wage, overtime pay, vacation pay and public holiday and
premium pay, in accordance with the ESA.  The allegations have not
yet been proven in court.

Generally, the class to be represented is comprised of all Ontario
current and former Sales Agents of Just Energy since 2012.  Class
Counsel believes that the estimated class size could be in the
thousands.

Kia Kordestani, a former Sales Agent with Just Energy, is the
proposed representative plaintiff seeking to pursue the action on
the class members' behalves. Mr. Kordestani worked as a Sales
Agent at Just Energy from June 2012 until June 2013.

As stated by David Rosenfeld, a partner in Koskie Minksy LLP's
class actions group, "For too long, Just Energy has been
artificially misrepresenting to their employees the status of
their employment relationship and abusing its position of power by
failing to recognize basic minimum employment standards.  This
case seeks to provide access to justice for thousands of Just
Energy Sales Agents so that they can seek the basic minimum
employment standards and obtain compensation to which they are
entitled and for which they worked so hard."

Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiff in this action.


JW LEE: Faces "Demaria-Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Demaria-Dominguez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. JW Lee, Inc. d/b/a Scarlett's Cabaret, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61173-PDG (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JW Lee, Inc. is a Florida corporation that operates an adult
entertainment club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad Evan Levy, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
      915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
      Telephone: (954) 763-5722
      Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
      E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement with Attorneys General
-----------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that after the commencement
of the U.S. Department of Justice investigation, a number of class
action complaints were filed against LG Display, LG Display
America and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the United States
and Canada alleging violation of respective antitrust laws and
related laws. In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class
action lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the
Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings, which
the Company refers to as the MDL Proceedings.

In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class
certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
and granted in part and denied in part the class certification
motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. In January 2011,
78 entities (including groups of affiliated entities) submitted
requests for exclusion from the direct purchaser class. In April
2012, ten entities (including groups of affiliated companies)
submitted requests for exclusion from the indirect purchaser
class.

In addition, since 2010, the attorneys general of Arkansas,
California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against LG Display,
alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in the MDL
Proceedings.

In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct
purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in
December 2011. In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with
the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state
attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was
approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the
case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective
state governments. As of April 29, 2015, LG Display has reached
settlement with each of the attorneys general that has filed
action.

In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS
Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and
its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and
Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate
claims in the United States, and all of the actions were
subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings. In 2010,
TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates,
Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc.,
Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale
Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation
Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation
Trust filed claims in the United States. In 2011, the AASI
Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor
Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America,
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son
Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC
Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of
Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech
Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims in the
United States.

In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, Rockwell Automation
LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its affiliates filed similar
claims. In November 2013, Acer America Corporation and its
affiliates filed similar claims in the United States. The cases
were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial proceedings.
In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its affiliate filed
similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom.
As of April 29, 2015, LG Display has reached settlement with each
of the plaintiffs mentioned, except as to Motorola and Costco
Wholesale Corp.

In January 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted defendants' motion to dismiss nearly
all of Motorola's claims. Motorola appealed the decision to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's
decision in an order dated January 2015. In March 2015, Motorola
filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court. As of April 29, 2015, the United States Supreme
Court has not issued a decision regarding Motorola's petition for
review.

In October 2014, a jury in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington rendered a verdict of
approximately US$36.7 million for Costco Wholesale Corporation
against LG Display and AU Optronics. As of April 29, 2015 the
court has not entered judgment.


LG DISPLAY: Pursuing Appeal of Cert. Decision in Canadian Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in 2007, class action
complaints were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD
manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
class in May 2011.

"We are pursuing an appeal of the class certification decision.
The actions in Quebec and British Columbia have been held in
abeyance," the Company said.


LG DISPLAY: To Defend Class Action Filed in Israel
--------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in December 2013, a
class action complaint was filed in the Central District in
Israel. "We plan to vigorously defend against any claims asserted
by the class," the Company said.


LIGHTNING FLUID: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lightning Fluid Services, Inc., and William Starns,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00239 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide chemical blending services and technical
expertise to leading oil and gas operators throughout Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Todd Slobin, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net


LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Costs Related to Class Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31,
2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of
the probable costs associated with the settlement in the Ticketing
Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part
and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a
revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court
in April 2014. In February 2015, the Court granted the parties'
motion for final approval of the settlement. Ticketmaster and its
parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law
or liability in connection with the matter.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. The calculation of this liability is based in part
upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the
Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate
it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however,
the Company does not expect this difference to be material.


MADISON COUNTY: Prenzler Responds to Class Action Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegraph reports that Madison County Treasurer Kurt Prenzler,
CPA, said he's pleased with a recent court decision involving tax
sales under a former county treasurer.  The Third Judicial Circuit
Court handed down a decision to certify a lawsuit seeking
restitution for victims of rigged tax sales under former Madison
County Treasurer Fred Bathon as a class action suit.

Prenzler said he was satisfied with the decision of Judge William
Becker, an associate circuit judge from Clinton County, who
granted the motion to certify the class action.

"It only makes sense," Prenzler said in a release. "The former
treasurer, Fred Bathon, and three tax buyers are in prison for
this crime."

Bathon, who served as treasurer from 1998 until his resignation in
2009, pleaded guilty in 2013 to violating the Sherman Antitrust
Act in relation to rigged tax sales.  He was sentenced to 30
months in federal prison.  The tax buyers also pleaded guilty in
connection with the scheme.

Multiple lawsuits were filed against the county in February 2013
by taxpayers claiming they paid excessive penalty interest on the
sale of delinquent taxes.  Becker heard testimony in January on
the cases.

Prenzler said that from the beginning he believed the victims
should receive restitution.

"This lawsuit is the last chance for these taxpayers who were
harmed to be made whole," Prenzler said.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Seck" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdou Seck, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02704 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIAMI USED PALLETS: Faces "Barea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medardo Kauffman Barea and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b v. Miami Used Pallets, Corp. and Roberto Rodriguez
Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-22087-RNS (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.

The Defendants own and operate a pallet company that regularly
transacts business within 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


MICREL INCORPORATED: Sued in Calif. Over Acquisition by Microchip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Gallegos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Micrel, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281242
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks enjoinment of the proposed
acquisition of Micrel by Microchip Technology Incorporated
through a flawed process that deprives Micrel's public
stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-
term prospects.

Micrel, Incorporated together with its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and markets analog, mixed-signal and
digital semiconductor devices primarily in North America, Asia,
and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Louis N. Boyarsky, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGA Y & MURRAY LLP
      3 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              lboyarsky@glancylaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. En Banc Rehearing in "Baker"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Suwatanapongched at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in
an article for National Law Review, reports that it recently
reported on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing a
district court's decision to strike class action allegations in a
putative class action against Microsoft.  Baker v. Microsoft
Corp., No. 12-35946, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (9th Cir. Mar. 18,
2015).  In Baker v. Microsoft Corporation, the Ninth Circuit panel
of judges held that proof that individual class members were
damaged by an alleged defect (here, a defect in Xbox 360 video
game consoles resulting in scratched game discs) was not necessary
for a class action to be certified.

Microsoft has now petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en
banc, putting a spotlight on a strategy class action plaintiffs
have employed to "end-run" the appeals process once they have been
denied class certification.  Namely, instead of pursuing
individual claims to final judgment and then filing an appeal on
the denial of class certification, plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss
the action so that they can immediately appeal the order denying
class certification.

This strategy short cuts the appeals process because class
certification orders (granting or denying class certification) are
not immediately appealable as a matter of right; the Court of
Appeals only has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments.
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.  Ordinarily, a party can either (1) seek an
interlocutory appeal under the discretionary Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) and/or (2) litigate the claims until a final
judgment is entered, and then appeal the class certification
order.  However, at least some class action plaintiffs are
skipping this process by filing dismissals either before or after
seeking a Rule 23(f) appeal.

In Baker, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after
the district court ordered the class action allegations stricken
and the plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved for a Rule 23(f)
interlocutory appeal of that order.  2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 at
*11-12.  The Ninth Circuit held there was appellate jurisdiction
following a voluntary dismissal, citing Berger v. Home Depot USA,
Inc., 741 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).  Id.

In its petition, Microsoft argues that the Ninth Circuit should
rehear the issue of appellate jurisdiction because the panel
decision conflicts with (1) Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S.
463 (1978), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in line
with the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals, the fact
an interlocutory order may induce a party to abandon its claim
before final judgment is not sufficient to consider the order a
"final decision" under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; (2) Huey v. Teledyne,
Inc., 608 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1979), a Ninth Circuit opinion
finding appellate jurisdiction lacking under similar procedural
facts as Baker; and (3) decisions rejecting appellate jurisdiction
over class certification denials in the Third, Fourth, Eighth, and
Tenth Circuits.  See Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729
F.3d 239, 245-46 (3d Cir. 2013); Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir. 2011); Telco Grp., Inc. v.
AmeriTrade, Inc., 552 F.3d 893, 893-94 (8th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam); Bowe v. First of Denver Mortg. Investors, 613 F.2d 798,
800-02 (10th Cir. 1980).

Whether the Ninth Circuit grants Microsoft's petition for
rehearing en banc, and how it handles the shortcut strategy to
appellate jurisdiction, could significantly affect how class
actions are litigated in the Ninth Circuit because a class
certification order often decides whether the case is settled or
dismissed.  Stay tuned along with us to see how it all pans out.


MILLERCOORS LLC: Removed "Parent" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Evan Parent, an individual on
behalf of himself, a class of persons similarly situated, and the
general public v. MillerCoors LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 37-02015-00013913-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01204-GPC-WVG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of all consumers who
purchased Blue Moon beer from a retailer within the state of
California for personal, family, or household purposes, and not
for resale purposes. The Plaintiff seeks "damages, restitution and
injunctive relief" on behalf of the putative class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Craig Clark, Esq.
      CLARK & TREGLIO
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-1321
      Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
      E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David T. Biderman, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
      Telephone: (310) 788-9900
      Facsimile: (310) 843-1284
      E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

         - and -

      Julie L. Hussey, Bar No. 237711
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
      San Diego, CA 92130-2594
      Telephone: (858) 720-5700
      Facsimile: (858) 720-5799
      E-mail: JHussey@perkinscoie.com

          - and -

      Julie E. Schwartz, Esq.
      Lauren B. Cohen, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      3150 Porter Drive
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
      Telephone: (650) 838-4300
      Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
      E-mail: JSchwartz@perkinscoie.com
              LCohen@perkinscoie.com


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suits Filed in Ill. v. Kraft Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that class action
complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading
of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to
the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in
its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint
against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft
Foods Group and we (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the
wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit
levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades
by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of
Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of
either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million for each
violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and
$140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-
judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting
Kraft Foods Group and us from violating specified provisions of
the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees."

"In addition, class action complaints were filed against Kraft
Foods Group and us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. These were filed on April 2, 2015 by Harry
Ploss, as trustee for the Harry Ploss Trust dated 8/16/1993, on
April 9, 2015 by Richard Dennis, on April 16, 2015 by Henrik
Christensen, on April 22, 2015 by White Oak Fund, LP and on April
24, 2015 by Budicak Inc., in each case on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated. The complaints make the same
allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action
certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and
unjust enrichment; and costs and fees. It is not possible to
predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our
Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated
as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any
monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC
action."


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NationStar Mortgage Holdings Inc., Jesse K. Bray, and Robert D.
Stiles, Case No. 0:15-cv-61170-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. engages in the servicing and
origination of mortgage loans in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: 750-3364
      E-mail: eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
              jreise@rgrdlaw.com
              pgeller@rgrdlaw.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit over Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Docket No. 1:15-cv-00716 (S.D. Ind.,
May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Scott Lee, Esq.
      KROHN & MOSS LTD.
      10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (323) 988-2400
      Facsimile: (866) 861-1390
      E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Navient Solutions, Inc.
      PRO SE


NDEAVOR TELECOM: Faces "Whitfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Whitfield, Fred Backman, Edwin Blaine, Leon Brown, Mark
Frazier, Errol Hart, David Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Jason Mills,
Dexter Rowland, Devon Thompson, Lolita Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ndeavor Telecom,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01959-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ndeavor Telecom, Inc. is engaged in providing wholesale field
services to customers in many states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin B. Kandy, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN B. KANDY LLC
      534 Medlock Road, Suite 109
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (678) 824-2251
      Facsimile: (678) 401-0398
      E-mail: ben@bkandylaw.com

         - and -

      Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
      DeLONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3157
      E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya Felberbaum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02705-CBA-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORORA NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
Eufroncino Pablo Carrillo, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Orora North America and Does 1 Through 10,
Case No. RG15771975 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate and
complete wage statements.

Orora North America is a California corporation, which
manufactures and distributes packaging products throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 413-4629
      Facsimile: (866) 937-4109
      E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


PAPA MURPHY'S: Faces "Lennartson" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Lennartson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Papa Murphy's International LLC and Papa Murphy's
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05307-RBL (W.D. Wash., May 7,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karin Bornstein Swope, Esq.
      Mark Adam Griffin, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK
      1201 3rd Ave, Ste 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: kswope@kellerrohrback.com
              mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com


PATH INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Sterk" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sterk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Path, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08609 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May
29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unauthorized text message calls to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.

Path, Inc. operates one of the largest social networks in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      John C. Ochoa, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com
              jochoa@edelson.com


POLYCOM INC: Court Granted Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave
to amend in a class action lawsuit.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On
December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint
alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose information regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its
former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the
Company's internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed
all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action.


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Cummings, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-
RSM (W.D. Wash., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information from data breach.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      IDE LAW OFFICE
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Telephone: (206) 625-1326
      E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

         - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (877) 247-4292
      E-mail: dbower@faruquilaw.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Andra Flint, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, 2:15-cv-00877-RSM (W.D. Wash.,
June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-
identifiable information and personal health information from data
breach.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      IDE LAW OFFICE
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Telephone: (206) 625-1326
      E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com
         - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (877) 247-4292
      E-mail: dbower@faruquilaw.com


PROGRAM ONE: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Misael Cabrera, Jose Barrera, Ricardo Almaraz, Luis Garcia, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
known and unknown v. Program One Professional Building Services,
Inc., Program One Professional Services, Inc., and Clinton
Coronado, Case No. 2015-CH-08635 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Defendants operate one or more commercial window washing
companies from a location at or near 960 Rand Road, Des Plaines,
Illinois, 60016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Luka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 971-7309
      E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until July 6, 2015 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Rayonier
Advanced Materials Inc. RYAM, -3.97% if they purchased the
Company's securities between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Rayonier Advanced and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 6, 2015.

                         About the Lawsuit

On June 30, 2014, Rayonier, Inc. spun-off its Performance Fibers
Division, resulting in two independent, publicly-traded companies
(the "Separation").  Rayonier Advanced and certain of its
executives are charged with failing to disclose material
information during the Class Period and at the time of the
Separation, violating federal securities laws.

Rayonier Advanced allegedly improperly recorded and/or failed to
record on its publicly issued financial statements material
liabilities for environmental remediation and related obligations
in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and failed to disclose the true demand for its products.
Additionally, in connected with the Separation, Rayonier Advanced
incurred approximately $950 million of new debt, $906 million of
which was distributed to the Company's former parent company.


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Rubicon Technology, Inc. common stock in the Company's public
offering on or about March 19, 2014.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Rubicon Technology investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Rubicon Technology class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-609.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material trends, events and
uncertainties known to management, which were reasonably expected
to materially impact Rubicon Technology's income from continuing
operations, including: (1) the reversal of its trend of shrinking
losses; (2) higher-than-expected development costs; and (3)
inventory write-offs due to Rubicon Technology's inability to sell
certain of its wafers during the first quarter of 2014 at prices
above their manufacturing cost, which led to an impairment under
applicable accounting rules and regulations.  When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 29, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-609.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Rubicon Technology, Inc. on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock in the Company's public
offering on or about March 19, 2014 (the "Offering").

If you purchased Rubicon securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than June 29, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

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

Rubicon and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information in connection with the Offering,
violating federal securities laws.

On May 1, 2014, Rubicon reported disappointing financial results
and revealed, among other things, that the trend of shrinking
gross losses, operating losses, and losses per share from the
prior quarters had dramatically reversed in the first quarter of
2014.   Rubicon further states that it had gross losses of $7.5
million, losses from operations of $10.9 million, and losses per
share of $0.43.  Following this news, the price of Rubicon's
shares fell by more than 16%, to close at $8.51 on May 2, 2014.

                       About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, disclosed that a complaint
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased the common stock of Rubicon Technology, Inc.
pursuant or traceable to its public offering commenced on or about
March 19, 2014  alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933
against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Rubicon in the March 19, 2014 offering,
or during the period February 19, 2014 and May 1, 2014, inclusive,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-
4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://is.gd/qPLGdD

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants' public statements and filings, including the
Registration Statement issued in connection with March 19, 2014
offering, contained materially false and misleading statements,
and/or failed to disclose known material trends, events and/or
uncertainties known to management that were reasonably expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating income.
As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on May 1, 2014, the Company issued a
press release and hosted a conference call to review its first
quarter 2014 results.  In the release, the Company reported
disappointing financial results and revealed previously
undisclosed and materially adverse information regarding: (i) the
reversal of positive trend of shrinking losses; (ii) higher than
expected development costs; (iii) inventory write-off; and (iv)
its risky PSS business.

On this news, shares in Rubicon plummeted more than 16%, closing
at $8.51 per share on May 2, 2014, on extremely high trading
volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 29, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative
and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.


SANDISK CORP: June 22 Trial Date Vacated in Ritz Camera Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that a trial date of June
22, 2015, as previously set by the District Court, has since been
vacated in the Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7
Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this
case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM
Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company has filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims. Both
motions are fully briefed and have been taken under submission by
the District Court. A trial date of June 22, 2015, as previously
set by the District Court, has since been vacated.


SANDISK CORP: District Court Stayed Discovery in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the District Court has
stayed discovery until after completion of the pleading stage in
the Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC described. On May 21,
2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued
a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal on statute of
limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court
for further proceedings. The appeals court denied the defendants'
petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case
back to the District Court. On December 1, 2014, the defendants
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. On
February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in the District Court. On February 27, 2015, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and is set for hearing
on May 8, 2015. The District Court has stayed discovery until
after completion of the pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the Court has granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, in the
federal securities class action against Fusion-io et al.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police
Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v.
Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-io's common
stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between
January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally
allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the
alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a
lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Fusion-io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23,
2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On
February 12, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.


SANDISK CORP: Faces "Glore" Class Action in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on March 30, 2015, the
Company and certain of its officers were named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al.).
The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between October 16, 2014
and March 25, 2015, and alleges violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class period. The complaint seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative class.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Real Estate Asset Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 11081 (Del. Ch.,
May 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders
of Sears to prevent the Defendants from siphoning off one of
Sears' last remaining valuable assets, its real estate portfolio,
through an unfair process.

Sears Holdings Corporation operates a national network of stores
with 1,725 full-line and specialty retail stores in the United
States operating through Kmart and Sears Roebuck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Acquisition by Sillerman
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Borchardt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
11082 (Del. Ch., May 29, 2015), arises from the proposed
acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for inadequate
consideration in negotiation and structure, price, and process.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates live entertainment venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdr@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


SONY: "Ladore" Class Action Over Playstation Game Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rhiannon Nee, writing for Geek Snack, reports that last year,
somebody decided to sue Sony for allegedly misrepresenting the
details of its Playstation 4 game Killzone: Shadowfall.  The
plaintiff was a California resident named Douglas Ladore, and he
was claiming that Sony had falsely advertised Killzone:
Shadowfall's resolution.  In May 2015, a US federal court
dismissed the case.

Ladore's case was filed after the Playstation 4 launch game's
multiplayer mode had been found by Eurogamer's Digital Foundry to
run at 960 x 1080, as opposed to 1920 x 1080, which is the
resolution commonly known as 1080p.  Ladore claimed Killzone
developer Guerilla Games, which is a subsidiary of Sony, had
advertised in videos, social media, and the Killzone website, that
the game would run in native 1080p.  In multiplayer mode, however,
the game ran with what Guerilla Games called "temporal
reprojection," which is a sort of technological shortcut to
getting games to run at something similar to 1080p.  Killzone's
website says, "the temporal reprojection technique gave
subjectively similar results and it makes certain parts of the
rendering process faster."  Guerilla claims that most of the time
the effect is "identical to a normal 1080p image."

Ladore's original complaint charged Sony with, among other things,
negligent misrepresentation, false advertisement, unfair
competition and fraud and inducement.  He sought damages of more
than $5 million USD.  The case was a class action lawsuit, which
meant any damages he won would also have been won on behalf of
everybody who had bought Killzone: Shadowfall.  Typically, those
sorts of cases lead to game owners being refunded a small amount
of their purchase.

When the case first went to court, Sony tried to have it thrown
out right away.  But Judge Edward Chen of U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California allowed the case to proceed,
saying Sony's argument for the case to be thrown out was "premised
on an unduly narrow reading of [the] plaintiff's complaint."  But
according to a court filing, Judge Chen dismissed the case this
week, signing "a joint stipulation that dismisses lead plaintiff
Douglas Ladore's lawsuit with prejudice."  Prejudice is a legal
phrase that means the plaintiff cannot file another lawsuit
against Sony over this issue again in the future.  Both parties
have also been ordered to pay their own legal fees.


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Faces "Aiton" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Aiton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03296-
FLW-DEA (D.N.J., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STUDENT AID: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abella" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Abella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Student Aid Center, Inc. and Mozeo, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03067-SD (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2015), seeks to put
an end on the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones nationwide using an
automatic telephone dialing system, without prior express consent.

Student Aid Center, Inc. is a Florida corporation that offers
student loan consolidation services.

Mozeo, LLC is a New York corporation that operates an online
platform designed to facilitate bulk SMS text blasting and allow a
business to easily reach all of its mobile contact.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & COLEMAN
      1845 Walnut Street, 15th FL
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 609-1350
      Facsimile: (215) 609-1351
      E-mail: cmcnally@cbmclaw.com


SUNNYVALE IMPORTS: Faces "Anorboev" Suit Over Refund Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marufjon Anorboev and on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. Sunnyvale Imports d/b/a Stevens Creek
Hyundai, Hyundai Capital America, d/b/a Hyundai Motor Finance,
and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-281256 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants'
practice of improperly rescinding contracts after the contractual
10-day period and misrepresenting consumers' rights to refunding
of down payments.

Sunnyvale Imports is a California corporation engaged in the
business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the
general public and, taking vehicles in trade.

Hyundai Capital America is a financial institution engaged in the
business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting
payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 341-0302


SUPERIOR MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Superior Maintenance of Westchester, Inc., RYB, Inc.,
SCS Outsourced Services Inc., and Richard Bross, Case No.
705607/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing a variety
of cleaning services within the New York Tri-State Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schwarz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Synergetic Communication Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00060-
DPM (E.D. Ark., May 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 East Southern Avenue, D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (888) 595-9111
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2764
      E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Grain" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
------------------------------------------------------------
Matawan Grain and Feed, Inc. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
27-CV-15-9474 (Minn. Dist. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Sieben, Esq.
      SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN, P.A.
      5120 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246
      Telephone: (612) 377-7777
      E-mail: bsieben@schwebel.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              ashlea@paulmcinnes.com


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Redman" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas A. Redman v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-15-9471
(Minn. Dist. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Sieben, Esq.
      SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN, P.A.
      5120 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246
      Telephone: (612) 377-7777
      E-mail: bsieben@schwebel.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              ashlea@paulmcinnes.com


THRASHER LAW: Faces "Van-Pelt" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Van-Pelt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Thrasher Law Firm, Case No. 3:15-cv-0329-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


THUNDER DEMOLITION: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Burce and other similarly situated individuals v. Thunder
Demolition, Inc. and Ronny F. Herrera, Case No. 1:15-cv-22086-JLK
(S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company, having its
main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TINDER INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Allan Candelore, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tinder, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. BC583162 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant charges consumers who are 30 years of age more than
consumers who are less than 30 years old.

Tinder, Inc. owns and operates an online dating application named
"Tinder".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
      Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
      Chad A. Sauders, Esq.
      THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 546-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
      E-mail: kkralwec@kraloweclaw.com
              krogers@kraloweclaw.com
              csaunders@kraloweclaw.com

         - and -

     Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
     RAVA LAW FIRM
     3667 Voltaire Street
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Telephone: (619) 238-1998
     Facsimile: (619) 374-7288
     E-mail: alrava@cox.net


TPUSA INC: Removed "Murat" Suit to S.D. Florida Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jean Murat and other similarly
situated individuals v. TPUSA, Inc. f/k/a The Answer Group, Inc.,
Case No. CACE-15-009058, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florid to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61171-JIC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Melissa Segarra Zinkil, Esq.
      Sarah Jane Lis, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      222 Lakeview Avenue
      4th Floor Esperante Building
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6147
      Telephone: (561) 671-3675
      Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
      E-mail: Melissa.Zinkil@akerman.com
              sarah.lis@akerman.com

         - and -

      Eric Andrew Gordon, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      777 So. Flagler Drive
      Suite 1100 West Tower
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 671-3651
      Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
      E-mail: eric.gordon@akerman.com


TURNAGE GENERAL: "Sunner" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sunner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Kenneth R. Turnage II General Contractor, Inc., d/b/a K2GC,
Inc., Kenneth R. Turnage II, and Does 1-10, Case No. RG15772244
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, restitution, penalties, and other damages pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a general contracting firm that
provides East Bay homeowners with home remodeling services,
repairs, maintenance programs, kitchen and bathroom design, water
and fire damage restoration, and emergency repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Liu, Esq.
      THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
      324 Day Street
      San Francisco, CA 94131
      Telephone: (415) 896-4260
      Facsimile: (415) 231-0011
      E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com


UIL HOLDINGS: Five Shareholder Class Actions Filed
--------------------------------------------------
UIL Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that following the February
25, 2015 announcement that UIL Holdings had entered into a
definitive agreement to combine with a subsidiary of Iberdrola
USA, five shareholder putative class action lawsuits were filed in
Connecticut Superior Court, beginning on February 27, 2015,
against UIL Holdings, its directors, Iberdrola USA and merger sub,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction.  The complaints generally and collectively
assert that defendants failed to maximize the value of UIL
Holdings, and seek to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as
unspecified damages, costs and fees.  Service has been accepted by
UIL Holdings and its directors in all pending cases.

"Insofar as the allegations in these lawsuits can be analyzed by
us at this early stage, we believe the claims are without merit
and intend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said.


UNITED AIRLINES: Woman Sues for $5 Million
------------------------------------------
Jenn Gidman, writing for Newser.com, reports that on Feb. 21, Cary
David paid $7.99, settled back into her seat on a four-hour United
Airlines flight from Puerto Rico to Newark, NJ, and got ready to
watch some DirecTV programming to pass the time.  Except that
DirecTV and WiFi services don't work outside the continental US or
when the plane is flying above water--a fact the airline neglected
to tell her, David alleges in a $5 million federal class-action
lawsuit she filed against United, the Record reports.  "This
information [that the services do not work] is not disclosed to
those who purchase DirecTV or WiFi on-board.  It is not until
after the purchase that the consumer learns he or she will not
receive some or all of the service that has been paid for,"
David's complaint states, per the Asbury Park Press.  But United
has a completely different take on things, issuing a statement
that says her suit doesn't fly.

"On our DirecTV-equipped planes, we clearly inform our passengers
in writing on the screen before they confirm their purchase that
'Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft is
outside of the continental United States' and that 'Wi-Fi service
is available over the continental US,'" the statement reads, per
the Road Warrior Voices website.  In the meantime, why--as Andrew
Bender writing for Forbes queries--is David "creating a federal
case" out of her encounter rather than simply asking for her eight
bucks back? Because she thinks other people may have been scammed
out of their money, too, her lawyer says, prompting her to file
the complaint class-action style, per the New York Post.
"Defendants have earned millions of dollars, or more, from
providing or purporting to . . . . provide in-flight DirecTV and
WiFi service," attorney Jennifer Sarnelli writes in the complaint.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied a motion to
dismiss filed by Urban Outfitters, Inc. and its senior executives
in a securities fraud class action.  The court found that the
plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently particularized under the
heightened pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that in 2013, the defendants
made a series of statements to the market suggesting that the
company's sales growth in its retail stores was steady, and that
it was reducing its use of price markdowns.  According to the
plaintiffs, in contrast to Urban Outfitters' representations,
sales growth was declining, the company was experiencing excess
inventory and stores were marking down their prices on
merchandise.

The plaintiffs relied on a number of "confidential witnesses" who
are or were purportedly employees at Urban Outfitters' retail
stores.  The complaint alleged that these employees were able to
observe declining sales figures and increasing markdowns because
Urban Outfitters tracked this information in an internal Intranet
available to all employees.

The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficiently
particularized to survive a motion to dismiss.  The court held
that, while plaintiffs did not provide details such as the dates
on which their confidential witnesses learned of their
information, they did provide sufficient details regarding their
access to such information through the company's Intranet.
Additionally, the court noted that, according to the complaint,
one senior executive sold $50 million of stock during the class
period, while another officer sold 99 percent of his holdings
shortly before the company announced negative results.

Cara Salvatore at Law360.com reports that Lead plaintiff David
Schwartz alleges the retailer misled investors about its financial
performance, failing to disclose its declining sales in the months
before a stock drop.  U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo found
that the plaintiff identified specific company and executive
statements that were allegedly false or misleading, including
statements by CEO Richard Hayne.


VANTIV LLC: Removed "Nguyen" Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tuan Nguyen, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Vantiv LLC,
Vantiv Inc., and Vantiv Holding LLC, Case No. RG15765753, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
02436-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-7861
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ivy A. Okoniewski, Esq.
      ULMER BERNE, LLP
      500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3600
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 658-6500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-6501
      E-mail: iokoniewski@ulmer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ivy A. Okoniewski, Esq.
      ULMER BERNE, LLP
      500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3600
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 658-6500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-6501
      E-mail: iokoniewski@ulmer.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Rosen Files Class Action Over AlphaSector Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Virtus Allocator Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A,
C, and I shares, Virtus AlphaSector Rotation Fund Class A, C, and
I shares, Virtus Dynamic AlphaSector Fund Class A, B, C, and I
shares, Virtus Global Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I
shares, and Virtus Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I
shares between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AlphaSector Fund investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the AlphaSector Fund class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-610.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Jonathan Stern, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

According to the lawsuit, Virtus Investment Partners, Inc,
F-Squared Investments, Inc., and certain of their officers,
directors and affiliates issued materially false and misleading
statements about the AlphaSector Funds true financial condition
and prospects.  Specifically, on October 1, 2009, January 28,
2010, January 27, 2011, January 27, 2012 and January 25, 2013,
Virtus Opportunity Trust issued registration statements that
falsely claimed that F-Squared's AlphaSector strategy had a
track record dating back to 2003, when in reality F-Squared did
not begin managing money until 2009.  Virtus also failed to
correct this information in a registration statement issued
January 28, 2014.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 7, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-610.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Stern, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or --
jstern@rosenlegal.com


WEST ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lynch" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. West Asset Management, Inc. and Pendrick Capital
Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00756-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., May 11,
2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS AND PHLIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              davephilipps@aol.com

         - and -

      John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
      JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
      5218 S. East Street, Suite E1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Telephone: (317) 780-8300
      Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
      E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com

The Defendant West Asset Management, Inc. is represented by:

      West Asset Management, Inc.
      PRO SE

The Defendant Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC is represented by:

      Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC
      PRO SE


WHOLE FOODS: Snell & Wilmer's Dwyer Discusses FCRA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Anne Dwyer at Snell & Wilmer, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that does your company run background checks on its employees? Do
you pay a third-party to run the reports and trust them to get it
right? You may not be as safe as you think you are.

Just ask Whole Foods, Paramount Pictures and Michaels. Each of
those companies has been hit with a huge national class action
regarding background checks in the past few months.  Here's the
issue: employee background checks are governed by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).  Its requirements are specific and rigorous.
In addition, if the employer is located in California, state law
imposes additional technical requirements for employee background
check forms.  If those forms do not comply with the FCRA or
California law, it is nearly impossible to defend class action
claims on the merits.  The plaintiffs' class action bar has
figured out that these might be some of the easiest and most
lucrative class action lawsuits around.

The best way employers can limit their liability, and avoid
joining the ranks of employers facing FCRA class actions, is to
invest on the front end and make sure their forms and procedures
are compliant.

Both the FCRA and California law proscribe specific procedures for
employers who run consumer reports and investigative consumer
reports on applicants or employees.  Under the FCRA, a consumer
report is broadly defined and includes any report obtained from a
consumer reporting agency that bears on a person's credit,
character, reputation or personal characteristics.  Investigative
consumer reports are similar but involve a more intensive
investigation with personal interviews.  Under California law,
however, investigative consumer reports are defined as a consumer
report containing information on a person's character, general
reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living (but not
credit) obtained through any means.

Before obtaining what the FCRA defines as a "consumer report" and
what California law defines as an "investigative consumer report,"
the employer must notify the applicant or employee of its intent
and obtain their written consent.  This disclosure must be a
separate and conspicuous writing.  California law further requires
that the disclosure inform the applicant or employee that a report
will be made about the person's character, general reputation,
personal characteristics and/or mode of living.  It must state the
report's permissible purpose and the nature and scope of the
investigation.  It must also provide the third-party agency's
name, address, telephone number and Internet address.
Additionally, the disclosure must provide specific information
about the person's rights to obtain information regarding the
investigative report, including that they can view the file
maintained by the consumer reporting agency, obtain a copy of the
file by mail or in person, or obtain a summary of the report over
the telephone.  Finally, under California law the disclosure form
must contain a check box where the applicant or employee can
request a copy of any report that is prepared on them.

All of these disclosures must be made to the applicant or employee
before the employer requests a third-party agency run a background
check.  The employer must then certify to the third-party agency
that it has made all the applicable disclosures.  Afterwards, if
an employer decides to take adverse action against the person as a
result of the report, the FCRA and California law impose
additional requirements, including providing additional
disclosures and a copy of the report to the applicant or employee,
before any adverse action is taken.

These hyper-technical disclosure requirements are easy to
misinterpret and employers should not assume that third-party
agencies hired to provide the forms will get them right.
Moreover, other states have enacted their own fair credit
reporting laws with separate and distinct disclosure requirements.
Unless you have an indemnification from the third-party agency
that you use, and hint, most companies do not, the employer is
typically responsible for any violations, even if the violation is
caused by the forms given to you by the agency.  To avoid facing
costly class action lawsuits alleging violations of either the
FCRA or state law, employers should take it upon themselves now to
ensure the forms they use are compliant.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court Upheld Ninth Circuit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived state law claims
in multi-district litigation against Energy, Inc. (WPX) and
others.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX, and others alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded
the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue
their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not
subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit
ruling that revived state law claims in multi-district litigation
against WPX and others, rejecting arguments that the claims are
preempted by the Natural Gas Act. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded
the cases to the Nevada district court for further proceedings.

"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time," the Company
said. "However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these items and our related indemnification
obligation could result in future charges that may be material to
our results of operations. In connection with this
indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated
with this matter, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to
future developments in this matter."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: First Trial for Certain Plaintiffs Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that multiple lawsuits,
including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property
damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed
against the Company.  The Company said, "The first trial for
certain plaintiffs claiming approximately $45 million in personal
injury damages is set to begin on June 15, 2015 in Iberville
Parish, Louisiana. For these and all other unsettled lawsuits, in
the event of an adverse ruling, we intend to appeal and we expect
any ultimate losses to be covered by our general liability
insurance policy, which has an aggregate annual limit of $610
million and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence."

"For these matters, we believe it is reasonably possible that
losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation
concerning defenses to liability, the number of individual
plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all
plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we
are unable to reliably estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss at this time. We believe that it is probable that any
ultimate losses incurred will be covered by insurance."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Alaska Refinery Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal in the
Alaska refinery contamination litigation is pending.

The Company said, "In 2010, James West filed a class action
lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of
individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane
contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil
Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary,
Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources
Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as
defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we
sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution
liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of
the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims
against each other seeking, among other things, contractual
indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane
contamination."

"In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and
entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the
court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

"We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure
in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32
million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our
exposure to exceed that amount."


WORLD FUEL: Quebec Judge Authorized Lac Megantic Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Rakobowchuk, writing for Montreal New, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court justice has authorized a class-action lawsuit
almost two years after a train derailment and explosion killed 47
people in Lac-Megantic, Que.  But in his 30-page ruling, Justice
Martin Bureau has given the plaintiffs permission to go after only
two companies -- World Fuel Services and Canadian Pacific Railway
Ltd.

The lawsuit alleges that CPR was negligent and there was a lack of
prudence in all circumstances leading up to the tragedy.  The
exact amount being sought will be determined at a later date.

Initially, the legal action targeted 37 different parties,
including Irving Oil Ltd., the now-bankrupt Montreal Maine and
Atlantic Railway and its former president, Edward Burkhardt.

But in the weeks following the tragedy in July 2013, some of the
parties sought protection from creditors and also filed a request
to have the lawsuit suspended.  That suspension is still in effect
and means they couldn't take part in the lawsuit hearings.

Bureau noted that the parties are also working out arrangements
with creditors and the victims.  In authorizing the class-action
lawsuit, the judge listed 12 issues that will be dealt with when
it is finally heard, including whether World Fuel and CPR knew
that the fuel being transported was poorly identified.  The
lawsuit was filed by three-Lac Megantic residents -- Guy Ouellet,
Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent -- on behalf of all the
victims.

In January, victims of the rail disaster reached a major financial
settlement with Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada Co.

A U.S. lawyer who worked on the wrongful-death lawsuits said $200
million will be distributed in settlement funds to families of
those who died as well as other parties involved in the legal
battle.

The settlement involves Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co.,
its insurance carrier, rail-car manufacturers and some oil
producers.

A runaway train hauling tanker cars loaded with volatile crude oil
broke loose and barrelled into the town of 6,000 in the early
morning hours of July 6, 2013, before derailing and exploding.  It
set off several massive blasts and wiped out a big part of the
downtown core.  Three railway employees have each been charged
with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death.

Their trial date is to be set Sept. 8.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Class Actions Over Tornier Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on November 25, 2014,
two purported Wright shareholders, Anthony Marks (as Trustee for
Marks Clan Super) and Paul Parshall, filed class action complaints
challenging the proposed merger with Tornier N.V. (Tornier) in the
Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth
Judicial District, at Memphis and the Court of Chancery of the
state of Delaware, respectively. On November 26, 2014, a third
purported Wright shareholder, City of Warwick Retirement System,
filed a class action complaint challenging the proposed merger in
the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial
District, at Memphis. On December 2, 2014, a fourth purported
Wright shareholder, Paulette Jacques, filed a class action
complaint challenging the proposed merger in the Chancery Court of
Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at
Memphis.

The four complaints name as defendants, among others, Wright,
Tornier, and the members of the board of directors of Wright. The
complaints seek, among other relief, an order enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on
the grounds that the Wright board or directors breached their
fiduciary duty in connection with entering into the merger
agreement and approving the merger. The complaints further allege
that Wright, Tornier, and certain of their respective subsidiaries
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Wright board of directors. It is possible that these complaints
will be amended to make additional claims and/or that additional
lawsuits making similar or additional claims relating to the
merger will be brought.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Expects More Suits Over Hip Replacement Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Wright Medical
Technology, Inc. (WMT) has been named as a defendant, in some
cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is
alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture
or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products
rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally employ
similar allegations that use of the products resulted in excessive
metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the devices
were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision surgery.

"We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating to metal on metal
hip replacement products may be brought," the Company said.

Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several
plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion
of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred
certain actions pending in the federal court system related to
metal on metal hip replacement products to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for
consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single
United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.

Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state
courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have
named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective
products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal
corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, Wright Medical
has agreed to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions.
Similar to the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the
lawsuits generally employ similar allegations, certain of those
pending lawsuits in California were consolidated for pretrial
handling on May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California
state Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings. The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial
Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710.

There are other individual lawsuits related to metal on metal hip
products pending in various state courts.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Lawsuits Over PROFEMUR(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of February 15,
2015, the Company is a defendant in 34 lawsuits in various state
and federal courts involving claims for damages for personal
injury associated with fractures of the Company's PROFEMUR(R) long
titanium modular neck product.


YAHOO INC: Illegally Discloses User's Email Contents, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylynn Rehberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yahoo, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00609 (S.D.
Ill., June 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's interception
and scanning of electronic mail communications sent between its
Yahoo Mail users and non-Yahoo Mail users, and disclosure of the
intercepted content without the consent of all parties to the
communication.

Yahoo, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a free
electronic mail service known as "Yahoo Mail."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Kevin P. Green, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C
      2227 South State Route 157
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 656-5150
      E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
              kevin@ghalaw.com


ZEOBIT LLC: Suit Over MacKeeper Security Program Being Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for PC World, reports that MacKeeper, a
utility and security program for Apple computers, celebrated its
fifth birthday in April.  But its gift to U.S. consumers who
bought the application may be a slice of a $2 million class-action
settlement.

Released in 2010, MacKeeper has been dogged by accusations that it
exaggerates security threats in order to convince customers to
buy.  Its aggressive marketing has splashed MacKeeper pop-up ads
all over the web.

The program was originally created by a company called ZeoBIT in
Kiev, Ukraine.  The country -- full of young, smart programmers --
has long been a hub for lower-cost software development and
outsourcing.

The class-action suit, filed in May 2014 on behalf of Pennsylvania
resident Holly Yencha, contends that MacKeeper falsely flagged
security and performance problems in order to coax consumers into
paying $39.95 for the full version.  The suit sought $5 million in
damages.

It is close to being settled, according to recent documents filed
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Under the settlement terms, ZeoBIT would put $2 million into a
fund for those who want a refund, but admit no fault, which is
customary in such settlements.  It has yet to be approved by a
judge.

MacKeeper was wildly lucrative for ZeoBIT.  As many as 650,000
consumers bought it in the U.S., according to documents filed in
the suit.  At $39.95 per copy, ZeoBIT would have made $26 million
in revenue in the U.S. alone.

New Owners, Same problems?

In April 2013, ZeoBIT, which now lists its headquarters as
Sunnyvale, California, sold MacKeeper to a company called Kromtech
Alliance Corp.  Kromtech was closely affiliated with ZeoBIT in
Ukraine, and many employees of ZeoBIT transferred to the company,
which lists its headquarters as Cologne, Germany.

Jeremiah Fowler, MacKeeper's U.S.-based spokesman, said that
Kromtech has toned down its warnings, but defended the program's
evaluations.

"Sure, it may not be this massive amount of data, but these are
things that you'll never use," Fowler said.  "You'll probably
never activate Chinese."

Fowler pointed out that there is a pop-up window with more
information on one of the warning screens.  That message justified
the warnings and said MacKeeper found "a relatively large amount
of unneeded files" that could eventually affect a computer's
performance or security.

Ad Behavior

MacKeeper has also taken heat for aggressive and pervasive
advertising.  Fowler said the company buys upwards of 60 million
ad impressions a month, making it one of the largest buyers of web
traffic aimed at Mac users.  MacKeeper has even posted a statement
on its website to answer why people see its ads so often.  It has
also had issues with some affiliate advertisers, who were
attracted by the 50 percent commissions Kromtech pays for sales of
MacKeeper.

Some affiliates have wrapped MacKeeper ads into advertising
software programs, or adware.  It's a category of much-loathed
tools that offer some functionality such as search but are
primarily designed to deliver ads.

Thomas Reed, who writes The Safe Mac blog, discovered the reach of
MacKeeper affiliates.  Reed developed a program called
AdwareMedic, which removes adware from Macs.  The program is free.

Reed wrote in November that he found an adware program called
Downlite that, if installed on a Mac, would redirect someone to
MacKeeper's website site if they tried to download AdwareMedic.

Kromtech has taken steps to reign in unethical affiliates, Fowler
said.  More than 80 percent of ZeoBIT's affiliate agreements have
since been suspended, and the company's new compliance department
closely vets new ones.

Still, the bad practices of former affiliates caused damage to
MacKeeper's reputation, Fowler said.

These days, MacKeeper has gone to a subscription-based pricing
model rather than a $39.95 one-off payment.  It costs $7.95 a
month in the U.S. for the premium, year-long plan.  Its latest
feature is offering phone support from Apple-certified
technicians, which it calls Human Inside.

On its website, MacKeeper assigns a value to each of its tools,
contending the bundle would be worth $510 if bought individually.

"Save up to 97 percent," it says.

But many of the tools in the software bundle, which includes an
antivirus (AV) scanner and 15 other utilities, are already in OS X
or available for free.  For example, MacKeeper licenses technology
in its AV scanner from Germany-based Avira, which offers its Mac
security product for free.  On its pricing page, MacKeeper
estimates the value of an AV scanner at $79.

Curiously, MacKeeper doesn't offer updates or what's called real-
time protection -- where files that are downloaded or opened are
scanned for malware -- unless the customer buys its "premium"
version, according to Dennis Technology Labs, which also tested
MacKeeper for IDG News Service.  Avira's free Mac AV product
"includes updates and real-time protection," the labs noted.

Other MacKeeper tools already have an equivalent in OS X.
MacKeeper's file shredder tool, listed as a $10 value, replicates
"secure empty trash," built into OS X. The "default apps" tool is
similar to Apple's Finder.

When asked about the duplication, Fowler contended that MacKeeper
is designed to provide one interface for utilities for less
technical people who aren't familiar with Apple computers. For
what it's worth, Macworld has two how-tos on uninstalling
MacKeeper from your Mac and squashing its popups too.

Kromtech continues to market the program aggressively and
participated at the Macworld conference last year and the Consumer
Electronics Show in January in Las Vegas.  Over five years, 20
million copies of MacKeeper have been sold, Kromtech claims.

But ZeoBIT's proposed settlement over MacKeeper doesn't include
Kromtech as a released party, which means it could be targeted by
future lawsuits.

Edelson PC, a technology focused law firm that filed the suit,
said it could not comment.


* Herrick Feinstein Discusses Early Bids to Strike Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Levine, David R. King and Leah Kelman, at Herrick,
Feinstein LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in recent
years, federal courts around the country have shifted their view
on early motions to dismiss or strike class allegations.  The
courts are not wedded to the long-standing view that preemptive,
pre-discovery motions to strike class allegations are premature.
Often accompanying defendants' Rule 12 motions to dismiss, an
early motion to strike class allegations can be, if successful,
case determinative, saving substantial time, money and defendant
resources.  While many courts still fall back to the traditional
rule, other courts have permitted proactive motions attacking
class allegations at the beginning of a case to allow swift
resolution of dubious class claims.  A review of recent New Jersey
federal court decisions considering early motions to strike class
allegations shows that the law is clearly in flux and remains an
area to monitor in the short term.

The federal rules offer several procedural avenues for attacking
class allegations.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A) provides that the
court must -- "[a]t an early practicable time" -- determine by
order whether to certify the action as a class action.  Further,
Rule 12(f) permits a motion to strike "an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."
The federal rules also allow that a "court may issue orders that
. . . require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate
allegations about representation of absent persons and that the
action proceed accordingly."  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D).

Movants inevitably face the defense that "[i]n most cases, some
level of discovery is essential to [the class certification]
evaluation."  Landsman & Funk v. Skinder-Strauss Assocs., 640 F.3d
72, 93 n.30 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that it is premature for a
district court to decide class certification issues prior to
discovery unless the "complaint itself demonstrates that the
requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met").  The
need for precertification discovery, however, can give way when
the insufficiency of class allegations is clearly apparent from
the face of the complaint.  Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., 789 F.2d
181, 188 (3d Cir. 1986) ("a court should not grant a motion to
strike . . . unless the insufficiency . . . is clearly apparent."
(internal quotes omitted)); Advanced Acupuncture Clinic v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4056244, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2008)
("A defendant may move to strike class allegations prior to
discovery in rare cases where the complaint itself demonstrates
that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be
met").

Recent decisions in New Jersey have come down on both sides of
this issue, with several adhering to the convention that courts
should reject early motions to strike as premature:

   -- Jones v. SCO, Silver Care Operations, 2014 WL 5410627
      (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2014) (denying defendants motion to
      preemptively strike class claims and finding that any
      challenge defendants have to the certification of collective
      and class-action claims may be advanced once that issue is
      presented to the court);

   -- Naider v. A-1 Limousine, 2014 WL 5025921, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct.
      8, 2014) (denying the defendant's preemptive request to
      strike collective and class-action claims at the motion to
      dismiss stage, finding that the plaintiff's collective
      action allegations were "enough to raise a right to relief
      above the speculative level" that would lead to the
      discovery of other similarly situated employees);

   -- Dobkin v. Enter. Fin. Grp., 2014 WL 4354070 (D.N.J. Sept. 3,
      2014) (finding defendant's challenge to plaintiff's class
      action allegations, which preceded a motion for
      certification as well as any pre-certification discovery,
      premature);

   -- In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases, 2014 WL 1371712, at *6
      (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2014) (finding defendant's motion to strike
      premature; class certification decision is more appropriate
      on a "full record");

   -- Weske v. Samsung Elecs., Am., 934 F. Supp. 2d 698, 706-07
      (D.N.J. 2013) ("[N]umerous cases . . . have emphatically
      denied requests to strike class allegations at the motion to
      dismiss stage as procedurally premature");

Other courts have rejected the convention and considered attacks
on certification at the earliest stages of a case:

   -- Piemonte v. Viking Range, 2015 WL 519144 (D.N.J. Feb. 9,
      2015) (dismissing class-action allegations with respect to
      the Product Liability Act when plaintiff failed to
      adequately allege predominance);

   -- Donachy v. Intrawest U.S. Holdings, 2012 WL 869007, at *10
      (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2012) (while not reaching defendant's
      motion to dismiss the class allegations because the court
      dismissed each of plaintiffs' individual claims, noting in
      the interest of judicial economy that "it is highly
      skeptical of the suitability of plaintiffs' claims for class
      treatment" because the court found it unlikely that
      plaintiffs would satisfy the predominance and superiority
      requirements to certify a class);

   -- Green v. Green Mtn. Coffee Roasters, 279 F.R.D. 275 (D.N.J.
      2011) (concluding on a motion to strike, even though
      plaintiff had yet to move for class certification, that
      plaintiff could not represent the class because he did not
      meet the predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a));

   -- Smith v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuius, 2008 WL 2885887, at *5-
      6 (D.N.J. July 23, 2008) ("[i]t appears from the face of the
      complaint that this class cannot satisfy the predominance
      requirement");

   -- Innovative Physical Therapy v. Metlife Auto & Home, 2008 WL
      4067316 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2008) (preemptively striking the
      class when Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement and Rule
      23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements not
      satisfied).

McPeak v. S-L Distribution Co., 2014 WL 4388562, at *7 (D.N.J.
Sept. 5, 2014), provides a good example of a well-reasoned
approach to the issue. In McPeak, the court rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that a motion to strike had to be rejected as
premature.  Instead, the court analyzed each of Rule 23's
requirements for a class action.  Only after conducting that
analysis did the court find that the plaintiff was entitled to
discovery and deny the motion to strike.

Likewise, in Forst v. Live Nation Entertainment, 2015 WL 858314
(D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2015), the plaintiffs claimed that as a result of
the defendant event promoter's unlawful conduct in withholding
blocks of ticket sales from the general public, they were forced
to pay substantially higher prices than face value for their
tickets on the secondary market.  The suit was brought as a class
action and included "all persons who . . . could not afford to
purchase tickets to the concerts at a ticket price that is higher
than the face value of the ticket."  The defendants moved to
dismiss and also sought to strike the class allegations.

The court recognized that while plaintiffs are typically entitled
to discovery relating to Rule 23's class-certification
requirements, there are rare cases in which no amount of discovery
can correct deficiencies.  In such cases, courts may grant
prediscovery motions to strike or dismiss class allegations.  In
Forst, the court concluded that nonpurchasers of tickets had to be
stricken from the class because such persons were not
ascertainable.  Citing Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 303-
04 (3d Cir. 2013), the court noted that a class is not
ascertainable if "class members are impossible to identify without
extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials."  Id. at
*5. The plaintiffs trumpeted that discovery was needed, but the
court disagreed -- "no amount of discovery would make non-
purchasers ascertainable under Rule 23."  Id. at *6. The court
struck, with prejudice, the nonpurchasers from the plaintiffs'
proposed class.

With the claimed need for discovery often touted by plaintiffs as
a basis to deny certification or attack a denial on appeal, some
courts have been creative in harmonizing plaintiffs' demands for
certification discovery in cases in which class allegations appear
weak on their face.  In Smith v. Merial Limited, for example, a
case involving putative class claims alleging that plaintiffs'
pets were harmed by chemicals in flea and tick prevention
products, on defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the class
allegations, the court aired its "serious concerns that plaintiffs
can ever meet the certification requirements of R. 23(b)" even
though a motion to certify the class was not yet pending. 2012 WL
2020361, at *4 (D.N.J. June 5, 2012).

The court was concerned that the variances in the applicable
states' laws would create manageability issues rendering class
certification inappropriate.  Recognizing that it had the
authority to strike class claims out of the gate, the court
weighed its "responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize whether the
requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied."  The court accelerated
briefing on specific class issues and requested presentation of
the limited discovery, which was already produced in a related
case, and reserved ruling on the dispositive motions to bring the
class allegations to the fore.  This approach allowed the court to
address the class allegations at the outset, and would have
negated an argument by the plaintiff on appeal that it was
prejudiced on the certification motion by a lack of discovery.

In the wake of appellate decisions such as Carrera v. Bayer Corp.;
Marcus v. BMW of North America; Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores; and
Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, which enhance the stringency of
class-action requirements, and with courts affording serious
consideration to preemptive motions to strike, defendants facing
class claims in the Third Circuit should evaluate moving to defeat
class certification as early as practicable.


* McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Book on Class Action Euro-Style
-------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Brown and Brandon Kain at McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that in 2012 the British Institute of
International and Comparative Law was awarded a grant by the
European Commission to conduct a study on class action mechanisms
in different European Union Member States (which are referred to
as collective redress regimes in Europe).  In March 2015 BIICL
published its long awaited work Collective Redress in Europe --
Why and How?  This text is a comprehensive review of class action
regimes and issues in Europe.

One of the chapters -- Cross-Border Actions for Collective Redress
-- Some Lessons from Canada -- provides a distinctly Canadian
perspective on these issues.  The co-authors John P. Brown and
Brandon Kain consider the European Commission's policy paper on
collective redress regimes, which was published in June 2013 after
a lengthy, contentious, controversial and tortuous political
process.  The policy paper contains proposals for addressing the
violation of rights granted under European Union law including a
non-binding Recommendation "on common principles for injunctive
and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in Member States."
As is the case with many political compromises, the Recommendation
satisfied almost no one.  The Recommendation does not require
Member States to implement class action regimes or otherwise
reform their existing legal systems, it only urges them to do so.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the Recommendation is the
adoption of an opt-in rather than an opt-out model for class
action regimes.

The focus of the chapter is on how the European Commission's
preference for an opt-in model will affect issues such as (a)
jurisdiction and the enforceability of class action judgments in
other countries, (b) the need for similar class action regimes in
the Member States, and (c) the need for cooperation and
coordination between courts in Member States in cross-border
proceedings.

These issues are examined through the lens of Canadian class
action experience with a view to offering insights into the
challenges Member States will likely face when they begin
implementing opt-in class action regimes.  Canadian lawyers,
judges and lawmakers have been dealing with cross-border ?class
actions for over twenty years.  In the process they have
identified many of the key problems that such actions can create
and they continue to struggle, mostly on an ad hoc basis, to find
solutions for the issues of jurisdiction and enforceability as
they arise.  Some viable solutions have been identified which are
largely dependent on the existence of similar class action or
collective redress regimes between countries.  These solutions
also require cooperation and coordination between courts in the
different countries in order to address competing and/or
overlapping class actions.  Canada's experience in this area can
therefore be quite relevant to the European Union and its
independent Member States.


* McGuireWoods' Trask Discusses HR 1927
---------------------------------------
Andrew Trask at McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that since HR 1927 was introduced, there has been an
outcry that it will "kill the class action."  In fact, opponents
(among them Professors Alexandra Lahav, Samuel Issacharoff
(Issacharoff HR1927 Letter), and Arthur Miller (Miller HR1927
Letter)) have complained that it was specifically designed to do
so.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, the bill
was specifically designed to have a minimal impact on Rule 23.  So
how did the disconnect between the intent and the reaction occur?
I thought it would be worth walking through the criticisms of the
bill so far, and what is actually going on.

No more civil rights class actions.  Critics have misread the
bill's provision to ban any injury that is not to person or
property.

The criticism is that this would ban any injury that doesn't fall
into these narrow categories.  If this criticism were accurate,
I'd oppose the bill myself.  But it's not.  It's based on a
misreading.  The definition of "injury" in this case is only for
the purposes of determining when a court must make the inquiry and
whether proof is required.  If a type of injury was not specified,
the bill doesn't affect it.  So civil rights class actions (like
Brown v. Board of Education), or statutory damages class actions
(like those arising under FCRA) are not affected by the bill.
(Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.)  It is possible that the
current language is more ambiguous than I think, in which case
Congress can fix it.  And if they don't, it is also within a
court's powers to give the statute its intended, more restrictive
meaning.

The bill requires identical injuries.  According to the critics,
if one class member is injured in the amount of $2, and another
for $3, then one cannot certify a class.  This is an overly
restrictive reading of "type and extent."

Extent does not mean "exact quantity."  It means "general amount."
If I'm wrong, and this is a genuine issue, this is another place
where a simple language change would solve the problem the critics
have identified.  Perhaps to "scope" or "scale."

It will require full-blown trials before certification.  The
language in the bill is "proof by admissible evidence."  This was
drafted to track the language of various recent Supreme Court
cases.  So HR 1927 no more requires a full-blown trial on the
merits than the Supreme Court has.  Even if this were new, it's
aimed at a narrow issue: whether the injury suffered by the named
plaintiffs matches the injury suffered by the class.  "Admissible
evidence" includes documents produced by the defendant,
affidavits, deposition testimony, and expert testimony -- all
evidence already offered in a rigorous certification inquiry.

It's a class-action killer.  I've been over this criticism many,
many times.  The PSLRA did not kill the securities class action.
CAFA did not kill the class action.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes didn't kill it.  Nor did Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.  (In
fact, Comcast inspired judicial retrenchment.)
I know Congress is polarized.  And I know that means any bill
generated by one side will inspire knee-jerk suspicion from the
other side.  But it is still possible to have an honest, rigorous
debate about these issues.  H.R. 1927 was designed to take care of
the kind of situation found in Whirlpool and Pella.  If
plaintiffs' lawyers find those cases acceptable, they can defend
then.  But the same old rhetoric about how any proposed reform
will kill the class action is tired and inaccurate.

We're all better than that, aren't we?


* South African Banks at Risk of Suits Over Home Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanti Aboobaker, writing for iOL News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit to force banks to stop repossessing the homes of
South Africans and then selling them off at a fraction of their
value is expected to be heard in the high court.

Fifty people, represented by Housing Class Action, are taking the
country's four major banks, Nedbank, Absa, Standard Bank and FNB,
to court.  They want either their repossessed property returned or
substantial monetary compensation.  While banks often reject
allegations that they care little for ordinary South Africans, the
human rights group says it has records of houses being sold for
R200 or R300, with the worst case being a house sold for R10.

"In most cases, properties are sold for 30 percent below market
value," the organization said.

It has taken on the services of advocate Duncan Shaw, a specialist
in banking law from Scotland.

"This matter may become a class action whereby the banks might
have to pay back everyone in the country in the same position,"
said the organisation, which is linked to the Financial Services
Sector Campaign.

It said Shaw had studied the practices in other countries and
found that most -- if not all -- the other countries require banks
to sell repossessed homes at market value.  It said that despite
the constitution and the country's laws, the judiciary, sheriffs
and the police acted contrary to the law in most cases.

"Whatever the law and the constitution say in defence of the
people, in real, practical terms, working-class black people do
not have the right to own property in certain areas in South
Africa in 2015," the organization said.

It also plans on hauling other institutions to court which it
believes have acted negligently in allowing the repossession to
take place and the homes to be sold for less than their market
value.

The group's spokesman, Ian Beddowes, said they had put together a
200-page submission, but a court date had not been set.

"We've been up against syndicates which involve the courts, the
police -- people don't want to deal with the issue of evictions.
Most evictions are illegal and against the laws of South Africa,"
Beddowes said.

"In South Africa, we have one of the most predatory banking
systems in the world.  The banks consistently do not comply with
the provisions of the act that deals with repossessions."

Absa rejected the allegation that it was selling repossessed homes
far below market value.

"As we have said previously, Absa does its utmost to ensure that
our customers remain in their homes.  With regard to sale in
execution, auctions are a last resort after the bank has exhausted
all possible rehabilitation solutions and resources available to
the bank to recover the bad debt," the bank said.

It said it had established a program in 2011 to assist financially
distressed home-owners to sell their properties privately before
having the bank get involved.

"This programme is aimed at ensuring the highest possible price
for the property is reached, as it is clearly in our and our
customer's best interest."

FNB Home Loans head of operations Calvin Ndlovu said that if a
property was purchased at a public auction, it was auctioned by
the sheriff on behalf of the court.

"The bank has no authority over the auction process and therefore
refers you to the sheriff's department involved in the particular
claim(s) made," Ndlovu said.


                            *********

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  * * *