CAR_Public/150619.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 122


                            Headlines


8868 CORP: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AB CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ADECCO USA: Removed "Nazarian" Class Suit to S.D. California
AGRI-FINE: Faces "Hurt" Suit Over Alleged Invasion of Property
AINSWORTH PET: Recalls Rachel Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) Wet Cat Food

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Stay Arbitration in "Krakowski" Denied
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Flanigan" Suit Over Defective CR-V
ARIA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Denial of OT Pay to ER Employees
AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint
AVON PRODUCTS: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in "Poovathur" Case

BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces $10-Mil. Class Suit Over Impact Fee
BESTCARE INC: Faces "Zuparov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BIG EASY: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Company Sale
CALIFORNIA: Class Status Sought in Fire Prevention Fees Case

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Hearing on Class Cert. Appeal Set by Year End
CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker Team in Worker Misclassification Suit
CELGENE CORPORATION: Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Filed
CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit
CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Franco v. Connecticut General

DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: To Defend Against Additional Class Action
DISCOVER BANK: Illegally Collects Credit Card Debts, Suit Claims
ELI LILLY: Takeda to Resolve Actos(R) Product Liability Case
ELI LILLY: Prepared to Defend Class Action Related to Actos

ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Byetta Product Liability Litigation
ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Prozac(R) Product Liability Suit
ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Brazil-Employee Litigation
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Kalamazoo River Oil Spill for $75MM
ENERSIS S.A.: Class Action Filed by Garzon Residents

ETSY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Pursue Class Certification Objections
FEDERAL SIGNAL: NY Firefighter's Case Removed to Federal Court
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Insurer Reimbursed Portion of Defense Costs
FIESTA RESTAURANT: No Material Changes to Status of Daisy Action

FIRST STUDENT: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLEXICOM LLC: "Dayton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Italian Pork Products
G&C NATURAL: Recalls Pyrola Capsules Due to Diclofenac
GARDEN-FRESH: Potato Salad Products Recalled Due to Listeria

GIORGIO ARMANI: Faces "Malnar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GLOBAL POWER: July 13 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Company Merger
GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Yet in Class Action Appeal

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in Russell Case
I & Y SENIOR: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in Two Class Actions
ILLINOIS: IHSA to Intoduce Concussion Prevention Projects
IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Scott Redman Class Action

ISORAY INC: Faces "Greenberg" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
JUST ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Agents
LARRY'S CUSTOM: Recalls Beef Tongue Products with Lingual Tonsils
LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Sued Over Unlawful Installment Loan Policies
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Approved Settlement in "Benner" Case

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Abramson Action
MASTEC INC: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
MERGE HEALTHCARE: No Appeal Filed in Shareholder Class Action
MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Strougo" Sued Over Proposed Company Merger
MOL GLOBAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff

MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL: Expands Recalls on Injectable Products
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeal from Concussion Suit Settlement Filed
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Appeal in Shareholder Litigation Still Open
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBS Group Are Defendants in Novastar Case
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Members of Settlement Class File Appeal

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: ISDAFIX Antitrust Case in Pre-Discovery
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Additional FX Antitrust Litigation Filed
NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Motion to Amend Complaint Again
NAVIENT CORP: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss Suit
NETHERLANDS: Ruling in Climate Change Suit Expected by Month End

NEW YORK: City Transit Sued Over Denial of Services to Disabled
OMNICARE INC: Faces "Elow" Suit Over Proposed Merger with CVS
OMNICELL INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
PALERMO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit vs. DA Over Forfeiture Laws Proceeds
PLATINUM GROUP: Investors' Class Suit Wins Certification
QUALITY LINEALS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUICKSILVER INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v AECOM

RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation
RCF LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
SARAH LEE: Calif. Court Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit
SATANIC TEMPLE: Abortion Battle May Become Class Suit, Atty Says
SERVICE CORPORATION: Facing "Samborsky" Class Action

SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit
SINGING RIVER: Must Turn Over Docs Regarding Failed Pension Plan
SOVEREIGN SILVER: Court Tentatively Junks Consumers' Class Suit
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Seeks to Junk Class Suit on Mental Health Issues
TEREX CORPORATION: Received Complaints Seeking Certification

TFS FACILITY: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TINDER INC: Sued Over Paid Version of Dating App
UNITED SERVICES: Sued Over Denial of Injury Protection Claims
UNUM GROUP: Alabama Class Action Remains Stayed
UNUM GROUP: Parties to Seek Status Conference in 2015 First Half

UNUM GROUP: Answered 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif. Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet in Allergan Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Class Action Filed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Case Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 22 Cert. Hearing in Afexa Case

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Ruling on Appeals Bid
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 630 MoistureLoc Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation Dismissed
VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles "Cramming" Allegations for $158-Mil.
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Additional Macadamia Nuts Products

WALGREEN CO: Recalls Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts
WASHINGTON KENNEL: "Hwang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit Over Deceptive Tactics
WINSTON RETAIL: Removed "Sartore" Class Suit to S.D. California
WORLD FUEL: ME District Court Stayed Transferred Cases

WORLD FUEL: Stay Lifted for Non-Settling Defendants in Train Case
WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Denied Petition for Mandamus

* Class Action Fairness Act Filings Spike


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Savoie" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Junks Inmate's Dismissal Order Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Nuutinen" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Directed to Produce Settlement Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Messier" Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Directs Co. to Supplement Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory Carrier Dropped as Defendant in 4 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Ruling in "Hockler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Exposure Claims in 2 PI Suits Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Childhood Exposure Claims Allowed to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims vs. Weyerhaeuser Partially Junked


                            *********


8868 CORP: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tao Li, Feng Lin Chi and Ying Chai Hong, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. 8868 Corp. d/b/a Vermicelli
Restaurant, and Phuc Chau, Case No. 1:15-cv-04433-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1492 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


AB CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rodriguez and Julio Ogando, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AB Constr. Group Inc. and Anderson
Dos Santos, Case No. MICV2015-03929 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Massachusetts Overtime Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a
principal office in Woburn, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617)338-9400
      E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


ADECCO USA: Removed "Nazarian" Class Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Artin Nazarian, and on behalf of
all person similarly situated v. Adecco USA, Inc. and DOES 1
through 50, Case No. 37-02014-00042950-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01274-W-JMA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Chad Daniel Bernard, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 573-4915
      Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
      E-mail: BernardC@jacksonlewis.com


AGRI-FINE: Faces "Hurt" Suit Over Alleged Invasion of Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Hurt, Karla Forte, James Fuller, Pamela Fuller, & Masah
Renwick v. Agri-Fine, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08872 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 4, 2015), arises from the physical invasion of Plaintiffs'
property by noxious odors, which originated at Defendant's
facility.

Agri-Fine, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business located at 2701 E. l00th St., Chicago, Cook
County, IL 60617. Agri-Fine manufactured animal feed products
through an acidulation process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William J. Sneckenberg, Esq.
      Chris L. Pryor, Esq.
      SNECKENBERG THOMPSON & BRODY, LLP
      161 N Clark St # 3575
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 782-9320
      E-mail: wjs@stbtrial.com
              clp@stbtrial.com


AINSWORTH PET: Recalls Rachel Ray(TM) Nutrish(R) Wet Cat Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ainsworth Pet Nutrition of Meadville, PA is voluntarily recalling
five varieties of Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R)   wet cat food,
including Ocean Fish-a-licious, Lip Smackin' Sardine & Mackerel,
Ocean Fish & Chicken Catch-iatore, Tuna Purrfection, and certain
lot codes of Paw Lickin' Chicken & Liver due to potentially
elevated levels of vitamin D. Symptoms of excessive vitamin D
consumption usually develop within 12-36 hours after ingestion and
may include vomiting or diarrhea, increased thirst and urination,
and muscle tremors or seizures. Any cat experiencing these
symptoms should be taken to a veterinarian immediately.

Two variety packs that contain some of these recalled products
(the Chicken Lovers Variety Pack, and the Ocean Lovers Variety
Pack) will also be recalled. The recalled products are distributed
nationwide. No other Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R)   products are
affected by this recall.

  Single Pack       Unit      UPC Code       Best By Dates
  -----------       ----      -------        Thru
                                             -------------
PAW LICKIN CHICKEN (2.8 oz)   071190007032   AUG 17 2015
AND LIVER
OCEAN FISH AND     (2.8 oz)   071190007049   DEC 1 2016
CHICKEN CATCH-
IATORIE
OCEAN FISH A       (2.8 oz)   071190007056   DEC 1 2016
LICIOUS
TUNA PURRFECTION   (2.8 oz)   071190007063   DEC 1 2016
LIP SMACKIN        (2.8 oz)   071190007070   DEC 1 2016
SARDINE AND
MACKEREL

  Multi Packs -    Unit       UPC Code       Best By Dates
  12 Count         ----       --------       Thru
  -------------                              -------------
CHICKEN LOVERS    (12 count   071190007773   DEC 1 2016
VARIETY PACK      pack of 2.8
                  oz cups)
OCEAN LOVERS
VARIETY PACK      (12 count   071190007780   DEC 1 2016
                  pack of 2.8
                  oz cups)

The UPC code can be found on the bottom of the cup. The Best By
code can be found on the side of the cup.

To date, there have been 11 reports of illness associated with
these products.

After conducting a number of product tests, Ainsworth confirmed
that the affected products have elevated levels of vitamin D. The
high levels result from the natural levels of vitamin D that are
found in some of the fish ingredients that were used in these
specific formulas.

"At Ainsworth Pet Nutrition and Rachael Ray(TM) Nutrish(R), the
safety and quality of our products is our top priority," says Jeff
Watters, CEO. "For the time being, we recommend disposing of any
of the affected wet cat varieties. Rest assured we have
implemented additional operating procedures to prevent an issue
like this from occurring in the future. We sincerely apologize to
our loyal consumers everywhere."

Ainsworth is working to ensure the removal of all affected
products from store shelves. Retailers with affected products are
asked to contact 888-943-4218 for additional information.

Consumers with questions about the recall are encouraged to
contact Ainsworth's Consumer Care Team at 877-650-3486 or visit
www.nutrishforpets.com/newsdisclaimer icon.

Representatives will be available from 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. ET
Monday thru Friday and 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET Saturday and
Sunday.

Vitamin D is important in regulating calcium and phosphorus in a
cat's body. But, when ingested at very high levels, it can lead to
serious health issues.

Production of the affected varieties has been suspended and will
resume after reformulation.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449843.htm


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Stay Arbitration in "Krakowski" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane denied the plaintiffs' motion to
stay an upcoming arbitration in the case captioned In re: AMR
CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors. JOHN
KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER, and M. ALICIA SIKES, individually, and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC. and ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, OFFICIAL
COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, As Intervenor, CASE NO. 11-15463
(SHL),, ADV. PRO. NO. 13-01283 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs sought to stay an upcoming arbitration, scheduled to
start in June 2015 and conclude by December 2015, to integrate the
seniority of pilots from U.S. Airways and American Airlines, two
airlines that merged in December 2013 as part of the debtors' plan
of reorganization.  The integration arbitration will result in one
seniority list to govern all the pilots who now fly at the merged
entity.  The plaintiffs contended that they will be harmed if the
seniority arbitration proceeds before the merits of their two
adversary proceedings are resolved, both of which allege the
improper loss of seniority and other rights by former Trans World
Airlines' ("TWA") pilots who joined American when American
acquired TWA in 2001.

Judge Lane explained that to obtain a preliminary injunction, a
plaintiff must ordinarily make four showings: (1) the plaintiff is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to
suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted; (3) the balance
of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor; and (4) the public
interest favors the relief.

In denying the motion, Judge Lane held that the plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm
absent a stay of the seniority arbitration.  More specifically,
the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that proceeding with the
seniority arbitration will preclude them from receiving the relief
they seek in their two cases.

Judge Lane further held that an evaluation of the remaining
requirements also does not support the plaintiffs, as they have
not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, there is a
clear benefit to the new American in proceeding with the seniority
arbitration, and the public interest does not appear to favor
either side.

A copy of the May 19, 2015 memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/8meWFafrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
     Allen P. Press, Esq.
     168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
     Clayton, MO 63105
     E-mail: press@archcitylawyers.com

Counsel for Allied Pilots Association:

     JAMES & HOFFMAN
     Edgar N. James, Esq.
     Steven K. Hoffman, Esq.
     Darin M. Dalmat, Esq.
     1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950
     Washington, DC 20036
     E-mail: ejames@jamhoff.com
             skhoffman@jamhoff.com
             dmdalmat@jamhoff.com

Counsel for Allied Pilots Association:

     STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
     Filiberto Agusti, Esq.
     Joshua R. Taylor, Esq.
     1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20036
     E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com
             jrtaylor@steptoe.com

Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.:

     WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
     Stephen Karotkin, Esq.
     Alfredo R. Perez, Esq.
     Lawrence Baer, Esq.
     767 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10153
     E-mail: stephen.karotkin@weil.com
             alfredo.perez@weil.com
             lawrence.baer@weil.com

Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.:

     MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     Jonathan C. Fritts, Esq.
     1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20004
     E-mail: jfritts@morganlewis.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Flanigan" Suit Over Defective CR-V
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Flanigan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-05390 (W.D. Wash., June 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the purchasers and lessees of the 2015 Honda CR-V who were
injured because of the defects in the Defendant's vehicles, which
causes the vehicles to excessively rattle and vibrate.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation
with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. Honda is
one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cliff Cantor, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
      627 208th Ave. SE
      Sammamish, WA 98074
      Telephone: (425) 868-7813
      Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
      E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com


ARIA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Denial of OT Pay to ER Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a Philadelphia-based
hospital chain was slapped with a class action in state court on
alleging that emergency room workers were denied overtime pay
after being forced to work through their meal breaks.

A complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
claims that night-shift workers in the emergency room of Aria
Health's Torresdale campus had their pay automatically docked for
meal breaks that they consistently were required to work through.

"Defendant utilizes an electronic timekeeping system that is
programmed to automatically deduct 30 minutes per shift to account
for a purported meal break," the complaint said. "Defendant
utilizes this system even though plaintiff and other ER employees
consistently and openly work through their meal breaks."

The suit was filed on behalf of Jamal Mullins, an hourly ER
employee who worked the night shift at the hospital approximately
from October 2014 through January.

During his roughly three-month stint at the hospital, Mullins
claims that he always ended up working through his meal break
despite the time being automatically docked from his pay.  He
claims that the work performed during the automatically deducted
meal breaks meant that he regularly ended up with uncompensated
overtime hours.

"Because plaintiff and other ER employees' . . . hours often
exceeded 40 hours per week, the work they performed during the
meal breaks, if credited, would constitute overtime work and would
be compensable at the overtime premium rate of 150 percent of the
regular pay rate," the complaint said.

While the complaint said that Aria employed at least 30 people for
the night shift at Aria Torresdale's emergency room, it said that
a class in the case would include more than 50 members.  The suit,
which alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
hopes to capture any hourly night-shift employees who worked at
Aria Torresdale during the past three years.

Aria Health said in a statement that it was aware of the
complaint, but declined to comment on the substance of the
allegations.

"Aria Health is aware of the recent filing and will be responding
through the courts accordingly," the company said in a statement.
"Given the fact that there is pending litigation, Aria is not at
liberty to provide detailed commentary at this time."

Mullins is represented by Peter Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo and
Mark Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo LLC.

Counsel information for Aria Health was not immediately available.

The case is Jamal Mullins v. Aria Health, case number 150500883,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.


AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 Defendants have moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case City of
Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., on
November 21, 2014.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset
Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and
including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as
defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to,
among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA,
including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive,
and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it
is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with
this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or
range of such reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


AVON PRODUCTS: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in "Poovathur" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 appointed
interim co-lead counsel and ordered plaintiffs to file their
consolidated complaint by May 8, 2015.

On December 23, 2014, a purported class action, Poovathur v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-10083, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain present or former Company
employees pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132. The Poovathur complaint, which was
amended on January 28, 2015, asserts claims under ERISA for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor on behalf
of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the
Avon Personal Savings Account Plan (the "Plan") who invested in
and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31,
2006 and January 1, 2015. On March 12, 2015, another purported
class action, McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 15-
CV-01828, was filed in the same court and designated as related to
Poovathur. The McCoy complaint asserts similar causes of action
under ERISA, and a claim for co-fiduciary liability, on behalf of
participants in the Plan and on behalf of the Plan itself, from
February 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs in both actions seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation; the Court also appointed interim co-lead
counsel and ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint by May 8, 2015.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it
is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with
this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or
range of such reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Faces $10-Mil. Class Suit Over Impact Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Behre, writing for The Post and Courier, reported Some
Berkeley County homeowners and business owners could reap a
windfall, pending the success of a lawsuit filed against the
county over a controversial impact fee.  The lawsuit, filed by
four residents and three businesses, seeks class action status and
the return of at least $10 million in the fees collected over the
past decade.  Their complaint says the fee must be refunded
because the money -- which was to go toward a new Interstate 26
exit called the Sheep Island Interchange and a spine road between
the Dorchester County line and U.S. Highway 17-A -- was not spent
in a timely way.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Clay McCullough, Ross
Appel and James Ward.

Berkeley County Council passed the impact fees in 2006, and the
lawsuit contends the money needed to be spent by June 30, 2014.
Only $1.9 million was spent by then.

Both current Supervisor Bill Peagler and former Supervisor Dan
Davis criticized the fee during their recent campaign. Last
November, voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase for
infrastructure projects, and County Council repealed the impact
fee program a month later.

It's unclear how vigorously the county will contest the lawsuit.
County spokesman Michael Mule released a statement saying,
"Berkeley County was just served paperwork on this claim. Since
the county has not had adequate time to study the claim, the
county will not issue comment on it at this time."

The plaintiffs' attorneys said they tried to work with the county
to find a solution before going to court.

"We were optimistic the county was prepared to do the right thing
and refund the impact fees to thousands of Berkeley County
residents and businesses," McCullough said. "Unfortunately, we are
left with no other option but to ask the court to force the
current administration to do what Berkeley County officials should
have done a long time ago."

The firm may be reached at:

         Clay McCullough, Esq.
         Ross Appel, Esq.
         James Ward, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Tel: (843) 937-0400
         Fax: (843) 937-0706
         Email: clay@mklawsc.com
                ross@mklawsc.com


BESTCARE INC: Faces "Zuparov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bakhtiyor Zuparov,, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bestcare, Inc., Case No. 506914/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law.

Bestcare, Inc. provides home health care to frail elderly
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Coney Island Ave.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (718) 228-4034
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


BIG EASY: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine, Inc., a Lake Charles, La.
establishment, is recalling approximately 93,006 pounds of both
raw and cooked stuffed chicken product due to misbranding and an
undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product
contains wheat, a known allergen which is not declared on the
product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 3 pound chipboard cartons of BIG EASY FOODS of LA "Boneless
      Stuffed Chicken with Pork Sausage and Potato Stuffing" with
      sell by dates of June 9, 2015 through June 8, 2017.

  --- 3 pound chipboard cartons of BIG EASY FOODS of LA "Fully
      Cooked Boneless Stuffed Chicken with Pork Sausage and
      Potato Stuffing" with sell by dates of July 21, 2013
      through April 11, 2015.

The products were produced on various dates from June 9, 2013,
through June 9, 2015. The products bear the establishment number
"13251" inside the USDA mark of inspection and have the sell by
date printed on the product label. The products were shipped to
retail outlets in Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Arkansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida, and Tennessee.

The problem was discovered on June 8, 2015 when FSIS personnel
observed that the chicken stuffing was formulated with an
ingredient that contained wheat gluten.

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

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

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mitzie
Midkiff at Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine Customer Service at 1-
337-477-9296 ext 1133. Media with questions about the recall can
contact Brittany Prejean at Big Easy Foods Louisiana Cuisine Media
Relations hotline at 1-337-477-9296 ext 1123.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Company Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broadcom
Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791484 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 4, 2015), is brought on behalf all stockholders of Broadcom
Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company's
outstanding shares of stock in a cash and stock transaction by
Avago Technologies Limited, for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation provides
integrated silicon solutions that enable broadband digital data
transmission of voice, data and video content to the home and
within the business enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
              manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com


CALIFORNIA: Class Status Sought in Fire Prevention Fees Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Shea Johnson, writing for Daily Press, reported that a motion has
been filed seeking to certify a lawsuit over the controversial
fire prevention fee as "class action," a step that would
significantly broaden the number of "plaintiffs" in the suit
should a judge ever rule the fee unconstitutional.

In response to budget cuts during the downturn of the economy,
lawmakers enacted the fee in 2011 to support state fire services.
The fee affects homeowners in so-called State Responsibility
Areas, including in parts of Pinion Hills, Phelan, Wrightwood, Oak
Hills, Apple Valley and Lucerne Valley.

Speaking during a conference call with reporters and interested
parties, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal
said the suit will move forward either way, but the scope of
potential beneficiaries is now at the case's forefront.

"Instead of having tens of thousands people, we'd be representing
about five," said Coupal, talking of the implications of a judge
denying the certification request.

As a class action suit, anyone who had completed and submitted a
petition for determination, disputing the fee, would be a member
of the filing class, overriding the need for them to be officially
named as plaintiffs.

HJTA filed the lawsuit in October 2012, challenging the validity
of the fee and saying it was really a tax in disguise. As a tax,
it would have required a two-thirds legislative approval, but the
fee was instead passed by a majority.

The fee currently requires homeowners pay $152.33 yearly for each
habitable structure they own. The fee drops to $117.33 for those
who simultaneously reside within local fire protection boundaries.
Bills finished mailing out to residents in San Bernardino County.
A four-member panel, including Coupal, updated participants on the
state of the fire fee during teleconference hosted by Diane
Harkey, 4th District representative with the Board of
Equalization.

State Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said lawmakers
against the fee have tried two different methods in recent years
to push back against it: "One is just try to repeal the law. (The
other) is try to make it a little more reasonable."

Morrell's second attempt to repeal the fee was shot down 7-2 in a
Democratic-led state Senate committee in March. Meanwhile, 33rd
District Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, has introduced a
bill that would extend the time that homeowners have to either pay
or dispute the fee from 30 days to 60.

Obernolte will join Board of Equalization Vice Chair George Runner
and his wife, 21st District state Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster,
at a town hallvto update residents on the status of the fee.

Coupal said he expected a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit
"within a year."

"This is not a well-meaning bill gone wrong," Morrell said. "This
is just a way to collect extra cash and put it in the state's
coffers."


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Hearing on Class Cert. Appeal Set by Year End
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Korstrom, writing for Business Vancouver, reported that a
certified class-action lawsuit that alleges that the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) had "vague" wording and
"inappropriate" penalties in its mortgage contracts continues to
wind its way through the courts, the lawyer working for the
representative plaintiff told Business in Vancouver May 13.

CIBC is appealing the case, saying that it should not be certified
as a class action. That appeal is expected to be heard by the end
of 2015 or in early 2016, said Kieran Bridge, who is a principal
at Kieran A.G. Bridge Law Corp.

Recent developments, since Business in Vancouver first covered the
lawsuit in August 2014 , include B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jeanne
Watchuk's March 31 ruling that accepts Bridge's definition of who
is eligible to be included as part of the class and Bridge's
contention that punitive damages are appropriate.

"That does not mean that punitive damages will be awarded at this
stage," Bridge told BIV. "We're still in the early days of this.
Her ruling was that punitive damages are appropriate for a class
action."

At least 52,200 British Columbians will be entitled to refund
cheques from CIBC if Bridge's class-action lawsuit succeeds, he
said.  The representative plaintiff in the case is Victoria
resident Erin Sherry, who wanted out of a CIBC mortgage when her
marriage dissolved.  The bank hit her with $47,869 in fees because
she was only two years into a 10-year mortgage and interest rates
had fallen between the time Sherry had committed to the mortgage
and when she wanted to break it.  Her argument to get out of
paying those fees is twofold, Bridge told BIV.

Sherry's first argument is that the language in the mortgage
document from CIBC's CIBC Mortgage Inc. subsidiary was so vague
that it rendered the contract legally unenforceable.
Her other argument is that the mathematical formula that the bank
used is improper, Bridge said.

"If an appropriate formula was used then the penalty would have
been less."


CAVIAR INC: Taps Keker Team in Worker Misclassification Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that
restaurant-delivery app Caviar Inc. has tapped Keker & Van Nest to
fend off claims it misclassified workers as independent
contractors.

Partners R. James Slaughter, Esq. -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- Ashok
Ramani, Esq. -- aramani@kvn.com -- and Simona Agnolucci, Esq. --
sagnolucci@kvn.com -- entered their appearances on behalf of the
company.

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

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

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


CELGENE CORPORATION: Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Celgene 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 a supplemental motion
to dismiss Providence's state law claims was filed in a class
action lawsuit on April 20, 2015.

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
("Barr" who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID(R)) allegedly
could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active
pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples
of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing
needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic
versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified
patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited
in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining
approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of
third party payors, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. On
February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint. On
March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a
similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB
and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
third party payors, are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint as well. The Court has not yet issued a decision. A
supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was
filed on April 20, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend against
IUB's claims."


CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna 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 the Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position in the Amara cash
balance pension plan litigation.

In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the
Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.
The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including, that
the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period
(when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained
inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.  In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed
the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to
the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially
the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the
Company's motion to decertify the class.  The parties again
appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's
denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit
plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District
Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class.

In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court
ruling.  In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-
hearing with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in
March 2015.  The Company will continue to vigorously defend its
position.


CIGNA CORP: Defends Against Franco v. Connecticut General
---------------------------------------------------------
Cigna 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 the Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position in the case, Franco v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.  In
January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.  In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied
the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July
2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's
decisions in favor of the Company, including the class
certification decision, to the Third Circuit.  The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position.


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015,
that on January 7, 2015, Andrew Speese, through his attorney,
filed a purported shareholder class action and derivative action
relating to the Merger on behalf of himself and Legacy Dawson's
other shareholders in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against
Legacy Dawson, Legacy Dawson's directors prior to the Merger,
Legacy TGC and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the members of Legacy Dawson's Board of Directors at
the time the action was initiated (the "Legacy Dawson Board")
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the strategic
business combination with Legacy TGC, and that Legacy Dawson's
registration statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently
amended, and prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain
material omissions and materially misleading statements. The
complaint sought to enjoin Legacy Dawson, Legacy TGC and Merger
Sub from taking any actions that would allow the consummation of
the proposed strategic business combination contemplated by the
merger agreement or, now that the strategic business combination
has been consummated, a judgment for damages.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: To Defend Against Additional Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Automotive PLC 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 Delphi intends to
vigorously defend against an additional class action related to GM
Ignition Switch Recall.

In the first quarter of 2014, GM, Delphi's largest customer,
initiated a product recall related to ignition switches. Delphi
received requests for information from, and cooperated with,
various government agencies related to this ignition switch
recall. In addition, Delphi was initially named as a co-defendant
along with GM (and in certain cases other parties) in class action
and product liability lawsuits related to this matter. During the
second quarter of 2014, all of the class action cases were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. Two consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed in the District Court during the fourth
quarter of 2014. Delphi was not named as a defendant in either
complaint.

An additional class action complaint, brought outside of the
consolidated class actions mentioned, named Delphi as a defendant.
Delphi believes the allegations contained in this additional class
action are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against
them. Although no assurances can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of these or any other future claims, Delphi does not
believe a loss is probable and, accordingly, no reserve has been
made as of March 31, 2015.


DISCOVER BANK: Illegally Collects Credit Card Debts, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizette Diresta, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Discover Bank, Case No. 155611/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's illegal and
deceptive business practices in attempting to collect credit card
debt from individuals using false information and documentation.

Discover Bank operates an online-only banking service that a
checking account, savings accounts, money market accounts, and
retirement products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy DiResta, Esq.
      DIRESTA LAW GROUP, PC
      30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301
      Long Beach, New York 11561
      Telephone: (516) 432-0102
      Facsimile: (516) 345-1678
      E-mail: timothydiresta@optimum.net


ELI LILLY: Takeda to Resolve Actos(R) Product Liability Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 April 2015, Takeda
Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates announced they
will pay approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority
of the product liability lawsuits involving Actos, including
Allen, and the other cases involving Eli Lilly. The settlement
will become effective if at least 95 percent of current litigants
opt into the settlement, and will release Eli Lilly and Takeda of
all remaining liability for these cases.

Eli Lilly said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as
a defendant in approximately 5,700 product liability cases in the
U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-
promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or
contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are
without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."

"In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found
in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Allen, et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September 2014,
judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory damages
to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to
us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00
billion against us. In October 2014, the judge issued an order
substantially reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to
approximately $28 million against Takeda and approximately $9
million against us. We continue to believe the evidence did not
support plaintiffs' claims and strongly disagree with the verdict.
We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through
all available legal means. We and Takeda have appealed this
judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal objecting to the
reduction in punitive damages.

"Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the
U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of
Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of
the agreement. After the jury reached its verdict in Allen, Takeda
notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its
obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen
case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our
losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however,
there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in
obtaining full indemnification."


ELI LILLY: Prepared to Defend Class Action Related to Actos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 is named
along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly
et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).  "We
promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously,"
the Company said.


ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Byetta Product Liability Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 is
prepared to defend against Byetta Product Liability Litigation.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately
450 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 980
plaintiffs. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about
580 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and
coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 340
lawsuits, covering about 380 plaintiffs, are filed in federal
court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining
approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 25 plaintiffs, are
in various state courts. Approximately 390 of the lawsuits,
involving approximately 610 plaintiffs, contain allegations that
Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of
approximately 225 additional claimants who have not yet filed
suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for
pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without
merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Prozac(R) Product Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 is
prepared to defend against Prozac(R) Product Liability Litigation.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 10
U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the
antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in
the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We
are aware of approximately 560 additional claims related to birth
defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits
and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Brazil-Employee Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 is
prepared to defend against Brazil-Employee Litigation.

The Company said, "Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil
(Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor
Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of
Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former
employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly
manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the
company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some
employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy
metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged
contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the
labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling
orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified
financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for
the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis
facility more than six months during the affected years and their
children born during and after this period. While we cannot
currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial
losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail
in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial
impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian
real (approximately $310 million as of March 31, 2015) plus
interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an
appeal in May 2014. We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits
filed in the same court by individual former employees making
similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and
are prepared to defend against them vigorously."


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Kalamazoo River Oil Spill for $75MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Lewis, writing for Aljazeera America, reported that oil
giant Enbridge Energy will pay Michigan $75 million to restore a
waterway contaminated in 2010 by 800,000 gallons of oil -- one of
the largest inland spills in U.S. history -- state officials said.

The settlement comes a week after the company settled in a
separate class action lawsuit over damages to local residents as a
result of the spill, with compensation including pre-paid gift
cards and additional payments for some living near the
contaminated area.

An Enbridge pipeline ruptured on July 26, 2010, near Battle Creek,
Michigan, contaminating a 40-mile stretch of the nearby Kalamazoo
River.

Residual oil has remained in the river despite Enbridge's $1
billion cleanup. In some areas, if the riverbed is disturbed,
pockets of oil still float to the surface, according to local
residents.

As part of a settlement filed in Calhoun County, Enbridge will be
required to continue monitoring the impacts of the spill. It will
also spend $75 million on projects including improved access to
boating and fishing on the river, and rehabilitating 300 acres of
wetlands.

Currently, residents caution against fishing on the river in the
area of the spill.

"Every time I see someone fishing here in Kalamazoo I warn them
and bring up the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
website that says what fish you can eat -- which is basically none
of them," said Chris Wahmhoff, a local resident.

He said while the water is not as contaminated as it was in the
months after the spill, there were still pockets of oil sheen in
almost any stretch of the river in the contaminated zone.

"Anybody that's aware there was an oil spill doesn't go in the
river. I would say 80 percent of the community is very aware that
the water isn't safe," Wahmhoff said.

The settlement requires Enbridge to file monthly progress reports
on its cleanup efforts, and to pay Michigan $12 million for legal
costs and for overseeing the company's restoration efforts.

"Enbridge is pleased to have reached this settlement with the
State of Michigan and it underscores our commitment to restoring
the affected river system and working with people who use this
natural resource," Enbridge spokesman Michael Barnes said in an
emailed statement. "For more than 60 years, Enbridge has been a
good neighbor in Michigan."

The 2010 spill not only damaged the Kalamazoo River and nearby
waterways and wetlands, but also affected the health of nearby
residents who have complained of illnesses they blame on Enbridge.

"A lot of the folks in the region have long-term health
consequences," said Andy Pearson, a coordinator for MN350, a
Minnesota affiliate of the national environmental group 350.org.
The toxic fumes that emanated from oil, which was diluted with
bitumen to make it easier to transport through Enbridge's
pipeline, reportedly smelled like nail polish and gas, according
to residents who complained of severe headaches and nausea in the
immediate aftermath of the spill.

Later, residents said they experienced memory problems, asthma,
rashes, heart attacks, cancer and kidney illnesses that they
blamed on exposure to the oil spill.

A final order approving a class action settlement on behalf of
affected residents was given on May 8, according to civil rights
attorney Denise Heberle in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Enbridge will make a $2.2 million payment to residents living
within 1,000 feet of the river in the defined spill impact zone,
according to the settlement. Of that, $250,000 will be divided
among those who lived within 200 feet of the river and were worst
affected by the spill, and $750 will be given to each resident
located within 200 to 400 feet of the river.

Other residents living within 400 to 1000 feet of the river will
receive pre-paid gift cards in amounts varying from $300 to $600
that can be used in local businesses, according to the settlement.

In addition to that compensation package, Enbridge will make
additional payments from a $1.5 million fund for residents or
businesses within 1,000 feet of the river who can demonstrate an
out-of-pocket loss as a result of the spill. Those costs include
meals, accommodation, relocation costs, home cleaning, fishing
permits and other expenses, the document said.

Individual victims of the spill, including whistleblower John
Bolenbaugh -- who accused Enbridge of covering up the full extent
of the damage during the initial cleanup efforts on the Kalamazoo
River -- had filed and settled separate lawsuits against Enbridge.
Finally, as part of the class action lawsuit on behalf of local
residents, Enbridge would complete a one-time well sampling in
various places in the spill impact zone, the settlement said.

Not everyone was pleased with the compensation package, according
to activists working with affected residents.

"Certainly out of the people I've spoken to it's the same feeling
-- that this is kind of an insultingly low figure," Wahmhoff said.
For the people who lived near the river during the spill who
received a gift card in compensation, Wahmhoff said, "to those
people, it's a slap in the face."

Pearson, the MN350 coordinator, agreed. He said for the people who
have long-term health consequences, or simply had their lives
disrupted in a significant way, "to see it reduced to such a token
as a gift card" was disturbing.

The settlements came ahead of the fifth anniversary of the spill
in July.

Local residents and activists from across the Midwest said they
would gather for a "healing walk" along the affected area of the
Kalamazoo River as part of a series of events to mark the
anniversary from July 24 to 26.

"For anyone who wants to see the river, we're working with Energy
Action Coalition, MN350 and a bunch of other groups for the five-
year anniversary," Wahmhoff said. "We're doing that with a lot of
the impacted community to support them and let the people talk
about their view of the river and what their lives have been like
since the spill."


ENERSIS S.A.: Class Action Filed by Garzon Residents
----------------------------------------------------
Enersis S.A. 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 a class action lawsuit
has been filed by residents of the Colombian Municipality of
Garzon, alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project has caused the plaintiffs' income from
handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an
average of 30%. The lawsuit claims the decrease was not considered
when the project's social-economic impact report was drafted.
Emgesa has denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the
social-economic impact report complied with all methodological
criteria, including giving all interested parties the opportunity
to be registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not
residents and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those
whose revenues are, in their majority, coming from of their
activity in the direct area of influence of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project and (iii) compensation must not go beyond
the "first link" of the production chain and must be based on the
status of the income indicators of each affected person.

A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the
Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being
affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were
not included in the social-economic impact report. A mandatory
settlement hearing was unsuccessful. The court ordered a test,
which is currently in the preliminary phase. In the parallel
proceeding, an exception previous of pending lawsuit was filed,
based on the existence of the principal proceeding. The proposed
exception is pending ruling. The amount involved in this
proceeding is estimated to be approximately CPs 94 billion
(approximately ThCh$ 23,500,000).


ETSY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Etsy, Inc., (Nasdaq:ETSY) and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-02785, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Etsy securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 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").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Etsy securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 13, 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.

Etsy operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and sell
handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies. Its platform
connects sellers and buyers to sell or buy products for art, home
and living, mobile accessories, jewelry, wedding, and others. The
company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Brooklyn, New
York. It has additional offices in Berlin, Germany; Dublin,
Ireland; Hudson, New York; London, United Kingdom; Melbourne,
Australia; Paris, France; San Francisco, California; and Toronto,
Canada.

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: (1) more than 5% of all
merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or
constituted trademark or copyright infringement; (2) Brands are
increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or
copyright infringement,  jeopardizing the Company's  listing fees
and commissions; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Etsy's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 11, 2015, before the market opened for trading, numerous
news outlets, including Bloomberg and theAssociated Press,
reported that Gil Luria, an equity analyst at Wedbush Securities,
issued a note downgrading Etsy to "Underperform."  In the note,
Luria alleged that more than 5% of merchandise sold on Etsy's
platform were either counterfeit or violated trademark
protections.

As a result of this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86, or over 8%,
on unusually heavy volume, to close at $20.85 on May 11, 2015.
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 has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.

          Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Ave. New York NY 10016
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


FEDERAL SIGNAL: To Pursue Class Certification Objections
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal 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 the Company intends to
continue its objections to any attempt at certification in the
Hearing Loss Litigation.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review
by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme
Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this
case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered
for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of
these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases. On April 24, 2015,
the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court, which
will decide all class certification issues. The Company intends to
continue its objections to any attempt at certification. The
Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases involving
firefighters located outside of Cook County based on improper
venue.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: NY Firefighter's Case Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal 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 the lawsuit involving
one New York City firefighter plaintiff has been removed to
federal court in the Southern District of New York.

The Company has been sued related to hearing loss outside of the
Cook County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved
lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71
plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were
dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company.
Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four
cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included
reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a
Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the
law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants,
on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the
"Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the
Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had
lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.
The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these new Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.
In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, has been removed to federal court in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 41 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. During
March 2014, an action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of
Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case
likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company.
After the Company filed pretrial motions, 32 Erie County
firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving
one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. Plaintiff named
the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That
case has been removed to federal court in the Southern District of
New York.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Insurer Reimbursed Portion of Defense Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal 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 from 2007 through
2009, firefighters brought hearing loss claims against the Company
in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New York. All
of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including
four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York that
were dismissed upon the Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the
New York appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of
these cases. Plaintiffs' attorneys have threatened to file
additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all
of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company
recorded $0.1 million and less than $0.1 million of reimbursements
from CNA related to legal costs, respectively.


FIESTA RESTAURANT: No Material Changes to Status of Daisy Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant 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 29, 2015, that there were no
material changes to the status of the class action suit filed by
Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida,
against Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. during the three months
ended March 29, 2015. The amount of any loss related to this
matter cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The Company
does not have insurance coverage for this claim.


FIRST STUDENT: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Hensley, et al., v. First Student Management LLC, and First
Student Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03811-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June 8,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, costs of suit, and counsel fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate out of approximately 24 separate bus yards
in the state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq.
      BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES, PC
      10000 Lincoln Drive East, Suite 202
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 751-1860
      E-mail: sberkowitz@contractorlawoffices.com


FLEXICOM LLC: "Dayton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Dayton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Flexicom, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00342-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla., June
8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Flexicom, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is
engaged in the business of providing cell phone services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Italian Pork Products
--------------------------------------------
Fresca Italia Inc., a Brisbane, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 36 pounds of pork products produced in
Italy that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for
inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full
inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The prosciutto items were produced on April 30, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "MAESTRI AUTHENTIC ITALIAN SALUMI
      prosciutto italiano."
  --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "Prosciutto di San Daniele."
  --- 3-oz. sealed trays of "MAESTRI AUTHENTIC ITALIAN SALUMI
      speck."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "CEIT
649L" inside the Italian mark of inspection. These products were
shipped to retail locations throughout the San Francisco (Bay
Area), California.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance
activities of imported products conducted by the Recall Management
and Technical Analysis Staff (RMTAS).

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Andy Lax, General Manager, at 415-468-9800.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


G&C NATURAL: Recalls Pyrola Capsules Due to Diclofenac
------------------------------------------------------
G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Pyrola, 430mg/capsule. Advanced Joint Formula capsules may contain
undeclared diclofenac and chlorpheniramine.

Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (commonly
referred to as NSAIDs). NSAIDs may cause increased risk of
cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, as well as
serious gastrointestinal damage, including bleeding, ulceration,
and fatal perforation of the stomach and intestines.
Chlorpheniramine is an over-the-counter (OTC) antihistamine used
for allergies. Antihistamines may cause drowsiness and affect
mental alertness.

The product is packaged in a white bottle in capsule form, with
all lots being recalled. The product was sold to distributors and
consumers nationwide through phone orders and online from April,
2013 through June, 2015.

To date the company has received no reports of illnesses or
adverse events associated with the consumption of the recalled
product. G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. will be contacting all
distributors regarding this matter by phone calls and/or mail, and
encourage them to stop distribution and return the product to the
company for refund. Consumers who may have purchased this product
directly from G&C Natural Nutrition, Inc. should dispose it or
return it to our office location by mail.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact G&C
Natural Nutrition, Inc. by 800-970-8198 or by email at
contact@gcnatural.com during the hours of 9AM to 5PM Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at:
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm2. Mail to address on the pre-
addressed
form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm451160.htm


GARDEN-FRESH: Potato Salad Products Recalled Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin firm is voluntarily recalling its potato salad, due to
the possibility of Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

The product was distributed to Jewel stores in the Chicago area
and may have been sold at delicatessen counters between May 30 and
June 9 under the brand name Garden Fresh Steakhouse Potato Salad.
Jewel was notified by Garden-Fresh Foods of the possibility of
Listeria monocytogenes contamination and, in an abundance of
caution, voluntarily removed and destroyed any possibly affected
product. The problem was identified through internal testing at
Garden-Fresh as part of its robust testing protocols. No other
Garden-Fresh products and no other Potato Salad sold in the delis
at Jewel are involved in this recall.

There are no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of
the recalled product.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The organism
can also cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Consumers who have purchased Garden Fresh Steakhouse Potato Salad
at Jewel are urged to dispose of the product immediately or return
to their local store for a refund. Consumers with questions may
contact Garden-Fresh Foods via email at information@garden-
freshfoods.com or call 1-414-204-4611 MON-FRI from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. central time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450863.htm


GIORGIO ARMANI: Faces "Malnar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Malnar, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Giorgio Armani Corporation, Case No.
154399/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for failure to New
York Labor Law.

Giorgio Armani Corporation is a New York corporation that designs,
manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle
products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches,
jewelry, home interiors, fragrances and cosmetics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad St, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, New York 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


GLOBAL POWER: July 13 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Global Power Equipment Group
Inc. (NYSE:GLPW) securities from March 9, 2015 through May 6, 2015
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Global Power Equipment Group investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Global Power Equipment Group class action, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-603.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 is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's cost
of sales in its financial statements for the annual period ended
December 31, 2014 were understated; (2) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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
July 13, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-603.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.


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Company Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11096-
VCL (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015),  is brought on behalf of all other
public stockholders of Graftech International Ltd., to enjoin the
proposed acquisition off the Company by Brookfield Asset
Management Inc., in an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Graftech International Ltd. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and sells graphite and carbon material science-based
solutions.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a Canadian asset management
company that manages a global portfolio of total assets under
management of more than $200 billion.

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
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290


GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04298 (C.D.
Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone automatic
telephone dialing system.

Green Tree Servicing LLC is in the business of consumer debt
buying, recovery, and collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Yet in Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated 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 Lead Plaintiff in the Harman International Industries,
Inc. Securities Litigation has filed a notice of appeal and the
matter has been fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re
Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the matter has
been fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set."


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in Russell Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated 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 of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District
Court in the case, Patrick Russell v. Harman International
Industries, Incorporated, et al.

The Company said, "Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed
a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported
putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and
certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA
and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings
Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive
trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended
complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings
Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in our
common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no
longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement
savings." The amended complaint further claimed that, during the
Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings Plan's
fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan's fiduciaries
with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan's participants, adverse
facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The
Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with
undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary
breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had
"suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants.""

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.
The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on
September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22,
2013, the District Court converted the motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor
of Harman. The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral
arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on
September 30, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the ruling of the District Court."


I & Y SENIOR: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klara Barnard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. I & Y Senior Care, Inc., Case No. 506903/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

I & Y Senior Care, Inc. provides home health care to frail elderly
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2727 Coney Island Ave.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (718) 228-4034
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in Two Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
iDreamSky Technology Limited 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 starting from April
2, 2015, "we, along with certain of our officers and directors and
underwriters of our initial public offering, were named as a
defendant in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and one putative securities class action lawsuit filed in New York
state court: Hung v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Civil
Action No. 1:15-cv-02514 (S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 2, 2015);
Griffith v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-02944 (S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 15, 2015); and Mansour v.
iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., No. 651340/2015 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. County; filed on April 22, 2015). The complaints in the
above-mentioned putative securities class action lawsuits allege
that various public statements made by our company during the
respective alleged class periods, including our registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with our initial
public offering, contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of the federal securities laws and artificially inflated
the value of our ADSs."


ILLINOIS: IHSA to Intoduce Concussion Prevention Projects
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tarm, writing for Huffington Post, reported that with a
potentially costly lawsuit looming over it, the governing body of
prep sports in Illinois rolled out a series of concussion-
prevention projects, including a new advisory council that has the
son of a former Chicago Bear as a member.

The moves by the Illinois High School Association, or IHSA, come
in the wake a class-action suit accusing it and its 800 member
schools of doing too little to protect some 50,000 football
players and other young athletes. The lawsuit, filed in November,
was the first of its kind against a high school government body.
The package of new IHSA programs -- dubbed "Play Smart. Play
Hard." -- will provide athletes more information on reducing risks
of concussions and other injuries. The player-safety council is
intended to review head-injury policies.

The lawsuit didn't prompt the IHSA to do more, director Marty
Hickman said, but it did lead the group to conclude it's not
getting the word out about its efforts over previous years to
adopt best practices on concussions.

"This is a broader education initiative that is not directly
related to the lawsuit," he said.

The Chicago attorney who filed the lawsuit, Joseph Siprut, said
the litigation was clearly "lighting a fire under the IHSA" and
that the new programs are clearly a response to the legal
scrutiny. And he had guarded praise for them.

"The IHSA's initiatives are steps in the right direction, though
still far from the more exhaustive and expansive remedies sought"
in the suit, Siprut said.

Among other mandates, the suit seeks requirements that medical
personnel be present at all football games and practices.
Hickman has said that such court-imposed mandates would be too
costly for poorer schools and would force them to shut down their
football programs.

Former Bears defensive back Dave Duerson's son, Tregg Duerson, who
played football in high school and college, will be one of eight
members on the new player-safety council. His father fatally shot
himself in the chest in 2011 and left behind notes asking that his
brain be tested.

"That allows him to bring a very unique perspective to this,"
Hickman said.

Others on the council include Illinois state Sen. Napoleon Harris,
himself a former NFL football player; Tory Lindley, an associate
athletic director at Northwestern University; and two high school
athletes.


IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Scott Redman Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action filed by Scott Redman.

In November 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX
Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff,
Scott Redman, alleges that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain
credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were
purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation
requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The
plaintiff seeks statutory damages individually and on behalf of a
putative class. On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January
23, 2015.

Discovery is ongoing in this matter. IMAX Chicago Theatre believes
that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously. However, given the early stage of the proceedings,
IMAX Chicago Theatre is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to assess the potential impact, if any, of
the lawsuit at this time.


ISORAY INC: Faces "Greenberg" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Greenberg, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Isoray, Inc., Dwight Babcock and Brien
Ragle, Case No. 4:15-cv-05047 (E.D. Wash., June 8, 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.

Isoray, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells isotope-based
medical products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other
malignant diseases in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Karl P. Barth, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              karlb@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 490-9550
      Facsimile: (212) 986-0158


JUST ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Agents
------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reported that a
class action against the Just Energy group of companies claims it
unlawfully withheld the minimum protection of the Employment
Standards Act from its door-to-door sales agents.

"This is one of the first 'independent contractor' employment
class actions in Ontario, and will likely impact several thousand
people," says Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky, which represents the
plaintiffs.

Just Energy is a major natural gas and electricity provider in the
U.S. and Canada, serving some 1.7 million consumers.  According to
the Statement of Claim, Just Energy ought to have treated its
sales agents as employees and not as independent contractors.
Employees, unlike independent contractors, are protected by the
ESA's provisions relating to minimum wages, overtime pay, vacation
pay, and public holiday and premium pay.

"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," said David Rosenfeld, a partner in
Koskie Minsky' s class action group, in a press release. "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. None of the
allegations against Just Energy have been proven in court.


LARRY'S CUSTOM: Recalls Beef Tongue Products with Lingual Tonsils
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry's Custom Meats Inc., a Hartwick, N.Y. establishment, is
recalling approximately 529 pounds of beef tongue products that
may have been shipped with lingual tonsils still attached, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The beef tongue items were produced on various dates between
October 23, 2014 and June 12, 2015. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 1 1/2 lb. packages of "Larry's Custom Meats Inc. Beef
      Tongue."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
40359" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced
were shipped to retail locations in New York and Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered during in-plant verification
activities. Lingual tonsil, located at the back of the base of the
tongue, is a small mound of lymphatic tissue which is considered
specified risk materials (SRMs) and must be removed from cattle in
accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that may
contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are
closely associated with these potentially infective tissues.
Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize
potential human exposure to the BSE agent.

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Lawrence Althis, at (607) 293-7927.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Sued Over Unlawful Installment Loan Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marquetta Carzell, Luella Carter, and Gladys Chege, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Life of the South
Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the South, Case No.
2015CV261693 (Ga. Super. Ct., June 4, 2015), is an action for
damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief, as a
result of the Defendant's unlawful provision and servicing of
insurance products tied to installment loans.

Life of the South Insurance Company is a Georgia-domiciled insurer
and source of credit life and credit disability insurance for
financial institutions and their customers.

Insurance Company of the South is a Georgia-domiciled insurer and
provider of various credit-related insurance products, including
accidental death and dismemberment and personal property
insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
      Atlanta, Georgia 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-0998
      Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
      E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
              Matt@WebbLLC.com

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              ikaliel@tzlegal.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Approved Settlement in "Benner" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide 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 27, 2015, that the
Court approved a settlement in the case filed by Jon Benner.

The Company said, "In December 2012, Jon Benner, an owner of
fractional interests at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San
Francisco (the "RCC San Francisco"), filed suit in Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco, against us
and certain of our subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all owners of fractional interests at the RCC San
Francisco who allegedly did not receive proper notice of their
payment obligations under California's Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act"). The plaintiff
alleged that the disclosures made about bonds issued for the
project under this Act and the payment obligations of fractional
interest purchasers with respect to such bonds were inadequate,
and this and other alleged statutory violations constituted
intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent
concealment. The relief sought included damages in an unspecified
amount, rescission of the purchases, restitution and disgorgement
of profits."

"In September 2014, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Benner action, which agreement was subject to court approval
because the case is a putative class action. The court approved
the settlement on March 31, 2015. At March 27, 2015, we have an
accrual of $2.9 million related to the settlement."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Abramson Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide 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 27, 2015, that the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Abramson action.

The Company said, "In May 2014, we received notices of intent to
initiate litigation or arbitration from: Michael and Marla Flynn,
owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership
products at two of our resorts in Hawaii; William Sterman, an
owner of such products at one of our resorts in Massachusetts; and
Norman and Carreen Abramson, owners of such products at one of our
resorts in California. The claimants, all of whom are represented
by a single law firm, allege that the introduction of the MVCD
program caused an actionable decrease in the value of their
vacation ownership interests. The claimants stated that, if a
satisfactory resolution of their concerns could not be achieved,
they would pursue their claims through litigation or arbitration,
each on behalf of a putative class consisting of themselves and
all others similarly situated. The notices indicated that the
relief that would be sought would include compensatory and
exemplary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable timeshare and unfair trade
practices acts and common-law theories of breach of contract and
breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The
Flynns filed a claim based on the above allegations with the
American Arbitration Association on August 6, 2014. We initiated a
declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court of
Hawaii against the Flynns, seeking to enjoin the arbitration
proceedings."

"In December 2014, the Court ruled that the arbitrability of the
Flynns' claims must be resolved by an arbitrator. We appealed that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The Court granted our motion to expedite the appeal. On
March 30, 2015, the arbitrator ruled that the Flynns' claims are
not subject to arbitration, and dismissed the Flynn proceeding. As
a result of the arbitrator's ruling that the Flynns' claims are
not subject to arbitration, we dismissed as moot our appeal in the
Ninth Circuit.

"Mr. Sterman filed a claim based on the above allegations with the
American Arbitration Association in August 2014. We initiated a
declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida against Mr. Sterman, seeking to
enjoin the arbitration proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the Court
ruled that the arbitrability of Mr. Sterman's claims must be
resolved by an arbitrator. We appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court
granted our motion to expedite the appeal, which remains pending.

"On March 30, 2015, the arbitrator ruled that Mr. Sterman's claims
were subject to arbitration, but reserved judgment on our motion
to dismiss the arbitration for other reasons.

"On January 29, 2015, the Abramsons filed an action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California based
on the above allegations. On March 30, 2015, we filed a motion to
dismiss the Abramson action, which remains pending. We dispute the
material allegations in the arbitration claim, as well as the
allegations in the California action, and intend to defend against
them vigorously. Given the early stages of the arbitration and
litigation proceedings, we cannot estimate a range of potential
liability, if any, at this time."


MASTEC INC: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
--------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
investors who purchased securities of MasTec, Inc. ("MasTec" or
the "Company") (NYSE:MTZ) between August 12, 2014 and March 17,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Mastec investors have until
July 6, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

MasTec is a leading infrastructure company that operates mainly in
North America providing services such as the engineering,
building, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of energy,
utility, and communications infrastructure.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and failed to disclose that (1)
certain cost to complete estimates, currently believed to be in
the range of zero to $13 million, which were recognized during the
company's third quarter of 2014, should have been recognized
during the second quarter of 2014; (2) MasTec's internal control
over financial reporting was ineffective; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 to inform the
SEC that it would delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014.

On March 17, 2015, the Company issued a press release after the
close of trading announcing another delay in filing its 2014 Form
10-K. Upon this news, shares of MasTec fell $1.88 or over 9.5% on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $17.82 on March 18, 2015.

If you purchased shares of MasTec, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website
athttp://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

The firm may be reached at:

          Lesley Portnoy Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 888-773-9224
          Emaill: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


MERGE HEALTHCARE: No Appeal Filed in Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated 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 to date, no appeal
has been filed in the shareholder class action.

On January 16, 2014, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Fernando Rossy, who claims to be
a Merge Healthcare stockholder, against Merge Healthcare and
certain current and former directors and officers claiming
violations of federal securities laws and asserting that a class
of our stockholders suffered damages due to the alleged
dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements by
Merge Healthcare from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014,
related to falsified subscription backlog figures and a reluctance
amongst large health systems to make enterprise purchases, as well
as a lack of effective controls.  Several other putative
shareholder class action complaints alleging materially the same
causes of action were subsequently filed.  A hearing was held on
March 26, 2014, before the Court of the Northern District
Illinois, at which time the Court granted the motion of the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ("ATRS") to consolidate the
purported class action cases and to appoint ATRS as lead
plaintiff.  ATRS filed an amended complaint on May 28, 2014.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit
and, on March 12, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting our motion and dismissing the lawsuit. To date, no
appeal has been filed," the Company said.

"On February 14, 2014, William B. Federman, who claims to be a
Merge Healthcare stockholder, filed a derivative complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain of our
current and former directors and officers, asserting breaches of
fiduciary duty arising out of materially the same conduct alleged
in the purported securities class action complaints.
Subsequently, two other derivative complaints were filed in the
United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

"On June 6, 2014, the judge assigned to the purported class action
case granted our motion to reassign the two Federal derivative
actions to her on the basis of relatedness and stayed the Federal
derivative cases until she rules on our motion to dismiss the
class action case," the Company said.  "The derivative cases
currently remain stayed by informal agreements with plaintiffs'
counsel.  The plaintiffs in the purported class action and
derivative cases have not claimed a specific amount of damages.
Merge Healthcare and the other named defendants are actively
considering all possible responses to these complaints.  While we
intend to defend the claims vigorously and carry directors and
officers insurance, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a
loss in this matter.  At this stage of the proceedings, however,
it is not possible for management to reasonably estimate either
the likelihood of such a loss or its magnitude."


MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Strougo" Sued Over Proposed Company Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Strougo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenik, John T. Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc.,
and Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11097 (Del. Ch., June 4,
2015), is brought on behalf of all other public stockholders of
Meru Networks, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition off the
Company by Fortinet, Inc., in an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Meru Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that serves
customers around the world by delivering high performance
intelligent Wi-Fi solutions that are designed to deliver an
extraordinary mobility experience, especially in high density and
bandwidth intensive environments.

Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides fast,
secure, and global cyber security solutions through a broad, high-
performance protection against dynamic security threats while
simplifying the IT infrastructure.

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
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Ofer Ganot, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100


MOL GLOBAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------
Mol Global, Inc. 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 between November 24,
2014 and December 2, 2014, three putative class actions were
commenced against, among others, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York captioned Freedman v. MOL
Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9357 (WHP), Grodko v. MOL Global,
Inc., et al., 14 CV 9397 (WHP) and Jewell v. MOL Global, Inc., et
al., 14 CV 9493 (WHP). Each asserts claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who
acquired the Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between
October 9, 2014 and November 20, 2014, and/or who acquired ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 9, 2014
Initial Public Offering. The Freedman and Grodko actions also
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 22, 2014, plaintiffs voluntary dismissed the Grodko
action. The Court has consolidated the two remaining complaints
into a single action but has yet to appoint a lead plaintiff. The
Company intends to defend the actions vigorously.

Given the early stage of this case, the Group is not in a position
to evaluate the likelihood that damages or other relief will be
awarded, or the amount of damages that may be awarded.


MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL: Expands Recalls on Injectable Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. (Nasdaq: MYL) announced that its U.S.-based Mylan
Institutional business is expanding its voluntary nationwide
recall to the hospital/user level of select lots of the following
injectable products due to the presence of visible foreign
particulate matter observed during testing of retention samples.

Administration of a sterile injectable that has foreign
particulates has the potential of severe health consequences.
Intrathecal administration could result in a life threatening
adverse event or result in permanent impairment of a body
function. Intravenous administration has the potential to damage
and/or obstruct blood vessels which could induce emboli,
particularly in the lungs. If a right to left cardiac shunt is
present, the particulate may lead to arterial emboli and result in
stroke, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and loss of
renal and hepatic function or tissue necrosis. Other adverse
effects associated with intravenous injection of particulate
matter include local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response
and/or embolization in the body and infection. Intra-arterial
administration could result in damage to blood vessels in the
distal extremities or organs. Intramuscular administration could
result in foreign-body inflammatory response, with local pain,
swelling and possible long term granuloma formation. To date,
Mylan has not received any reports of adverse events related to
this recall.

  NDC Number   Product Name   Package   Lot Number     Expiration
  ----------   and Strength   Size      ----------     Date
               ------------   -------                 ----------
0069-3857-10   Gemcitabine    10 mL     7801084        07/2015
               for Injection,
               USP 200 mg
0069-3857-10   Gemcitabine    10 mL     7801110        08/2015
               for Injection,
               USP 200 mg
67457-463-02   Gemcitabine    100 mL    7801221        03/2016
               for Injection,
               USP 2 g
67457-464-20   Gemcitabine    10 mL     7801398        08/2016
               for Injection,
               USP 200 mg
67457-464-20   Gemcitabine    10 mL     7801406        08/2016
               for Injection,
               USP 200 mg
67457-464-20   Gemcitabine    10 mL     7801427        09/2016
               for Injection,
               USP 200 mg
67457-462-01   Gemcitabine    50 mL     7801284        05/2016
               for Injection,
               USP 1 g
67457-467-99   Methotrexate   5 x 2 mL  7801421        09/2016
               Injection, USP
               50 mg/2 mL
               (25 mg/mL)

Gemcitabine for Injection, USP is an intravenously administered
product indicated for the treatment of ovarian cancer, breast
cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. These
lots were distributed in the U.S. between January 8, 2014, and
February 10, 2015, and were manufactured and packaged by Agila
Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company. Lot 7801084 and 7801110
are packaged with a Pfizer Injectable label.

Methotrexate Injection, USP 25 mg/mL can be administered
intramuscularly, intravenously, intra-arterially, or intrathecally
and is indicated for certain neoplastic diseases, severe psoriasis
and adult rheumatoid arthritis. The lot was distributed in the
U.S. between December 8, 2014, and December 19, 2014, and was
packaged by Agila Onco Therapies Limited, a Mylan company.

Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is
arranging for return of all recalled products. Distributors,
retailers, hospitals, clinics, and physicians that have these
products which are being recalled should stop use and return to
place of purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Mylan
Customer Relations at 800.796.9526 or customer.service@mylan.com,
Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST. Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to using these drug
products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company committed to setting new
standards in healthcare. Working together around the world to
provide 7 billion people access to high quality medicine, we
innovate to satisfy unmet needs; make reliability and service
excellence a habit; do what's right, not what's easy; and impact
the future through passionate global leadership. We offer a
growing portfolio of around 1,400 generic pharmaceuticals and
several brand medications. In addition, we offer a wide range of
antiretroviral therapies, upon which approximately 40% of HIV/AIDS
patients in developing countries depend. We also operate one of
the largest active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers and
currently market products in about 145 countries and territories.
Our workforce of approximately 30,000 people is dedicated to
creating better health for a better world, one person at a time.
Learn more at mylan.com.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeal from Concussion Suit Settlement Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reported that former players
who need compensation for the long-term consequences of head
injuries have been waiting since August 2013 to receive their
payments. They'll be waiting even longer.

Craig Heimburger and Dawn Heimburger have filed an appeal of the
court order approving the settlement of the concussion litigation
against the NFL. Even if the appeal fails, the process of
resolving the case and paying benefits could be delayed by another
year, or longer.

"We are extremely disappointed and perplexed that an objector
would file a notice to appeal the Court's final order, even though
this decision means thousands of retired NFL players suffering
from devastating neurocognitive injuries, and those concerned
about their future, will now be forced to wait many months for the
immediate care and support they deserve," the lawyers representing
the retired players said in a statement.

"Final approval was granted by Judge Anita Brody only after
objections were raised and heard at the fairness hearing in
November and carefully considered by the Court. Ultimately, in an
extremely detailed and thorough opinion, the Court overruled the
very same objections that will likely be made in any appeal."
The Heimburgers may not be alone in their efforts. The family of
former NFL safety Dave Duerson, who committed suicide in 2011,
said that they will appeal the settlement .

"With over 99 percent participation, it is clear the retired
player community overwhelmingly supports this agreement," the
lawyers representing the former players said. "Throughout this
settlement process, we have heard directly from countless retired
players who are in dire need of these benefits, and their most
common question has been to ask how quickly they can get help. For
those who hoped to receive benefits as soon as this summer, this
appeal is heartbreaking news. We look forward to offering a
forceful defense of the settlement in the Court of Appeals."

Regardless of whether the lawyers or any of the former players
don't like it, the procedure allows for an appeal to be pursued.
And, as in any class action, it takes only one member of the class
who objects to the deal to appeal.

It's unclear which aspect(s) of the settlement the appeal will
attack. As explained in the aftermath of the approval of the
settlement, it arguably mishandles the CTE issue.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Appeal in Shareholder Litigation Still Open
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc 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 a decision in
respect of the appeal in the Shareholder litigation (US) has not
yet been issued.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc or RBSG and certain of its
subsidiaries, together with certain current and former officers
and directors were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York involving holders of American Depositary
Receipts (the ADR claims).

A consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under Sections
10 and 20 of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act was filed in November 2011 on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBSG's
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from issuance through 20
January 2009. In September 2012, the Court dismissed the ADR
claims with prejudice. In August 2013, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and for leave to re-plead
their case. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of this case to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and that appeal was heard on
19 June 2014.  A decision in respect of the appeal has not yet
been issued.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: RBS Group Are Defendants in Novastar Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc 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 RBS Group companies
are defendants in a purported MBS class action entitled New Jersey
Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al., which
remains pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Members of Settlement Class File Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc 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 the status of the
previously disclosed settlements in the other MBS class actions in
which RBS Group companies were defendants is as follows: In re
IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation (final court
approval of settlement granted in February 2015), New Jersey
Carpenters Vacation Fund et al. v. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
et al. (final court approval of the settlement granted in November
2014), and Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. and
related class action cases (final court approval of the settlement
granted in December 2013). In the latter matter, several members
of the settlement class are appealing the court-approved
settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: ISDAFIX Antitrust Case in Pre-Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc 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 the beginning in
September 2014, RBS plc and a number of other financial
institutions were named as defendants in several purported class
action complaints (now consolidated into one complaint) alleging
manipulation of USD ISDAFIX rates, to the detriment of persons who
entered into transactions that referenced those rates.  The
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and contain claims for unjust
enrichment and violations of the U.S. antitrust laws and the
Commodities Exchange Act. This matter is subject to pre-discovery
motions to dismiss some or all of the claims against the
defendants.


NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Additional FX Antitrust Litigation Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Westminster Bank Plc 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 certain members of
the RBS Group, as well as a number of other financial
institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust class
action on behalf of U.S.-based plaintiffs that is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendants
violated the U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the
foreign exchange market by manipulating benchmark foreign exchange
rates. On 28 January 2015, the court denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss this action.  On the same day, the court dismissed two
similar class action complaints that had been filed on behalf of
non-U.S. plaintiffs in Norway and South Korea on the principal
ground that such claims are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvements Act. On 23 February 2015, an additional class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that
transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts
and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts.  The
complaint contains allegations that are substantially similar to
those contained in the consolidated antitrust class action, and it
asserts both antitrust claims and claims under the Commodities
Exchange Act.


NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Motion to Amend Complaint Again
----------------------------------------------------------
Navient 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 the Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend a class action
complaint again.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned
Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL.
The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class
consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of
charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and
Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily
interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice
and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury
claims under California state law and two additional defendants
(Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"),
and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended
Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought
restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the
class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest
payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees, among other relief. Prior to the formation of
Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM followed prevalent capital market
practices of acquiring and securitizing private education loans
purchased in secondary transactions from banks who originated
these loans. Plaintiffs alleged that the services provided by Old
SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. to the originating banks resulted in Old
SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. constituting lenders on these loans.
Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all
private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue
in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank
since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient
and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole
responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014,
a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional
customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees,
but denied the motion as to the usury claims.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file another amended complaint. On March 24, 2015, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend the
complaint again. It is not possible at this time to estimate a
range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be
payable in connection therewith.


NAVIENT CORP: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Navient 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 a hearing on the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the
Marlene Blyden class action is set for June 15, 2015.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was
captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No.
5:14-CV-2456. On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended
Complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly
situated California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged
that plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged
and/or paid interest at a rate above that permitted under
California law.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint,
which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various
securitization trusts as defendants, and adds claims for
conversion and for money had and received. Defendants filed
Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015.
The plaintiff filed her Opposition on April 16, 2015, and
Defendants filed Replies on April 20, 2015. A hearing on the
motions is set for June 15, 2015. It is not possible at this time
to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts
that may be payable in connection therewith.


NETHERLANDS: Ruling in Climate Change Suit Expected by Month End
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gayle Nelson, writing for Nonprofit Quarterly, reported that
knowing the long-term effects climate change will have on the
Netherlands and the world, the nonprofit Urgenda concluded it
could not wait for its government to act. In November 2012, it
filed a groundbreaking class action suit. In it, their attorneys
used current human rights and tort law to claim the Dutch
government is placing human life in danger by failing to reduce
carbon emissions. If they are successful, some experts believe it
will begin a major shift in environmentalists' efforts to reduce
carbon emissions.

Although many associate the Netherlands with windmills and
bicycles, citizens rely heavily on coal-powered utility plants for
most of their electricity. Additionally, the Dutch government's
goal of reducing emissions is far less ambitious than its European
neighbors. At the same time, the country will be critically
affected by the effects of climate change, since it is located
three meters below sea level.

To force their government to act, an innovative class action
lawsuit was filed by the Dutch nonprofit Urgenda on behalf of
slightly less than 900 citizens and against the government of the
Netherlands. The suit contends the Dutch government is not doing
enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate
change. On April 14th, the suit was heard by a district court in
The Hague. If the court rules in the class's favor, it will force
the Dutch government to execute policies that will reduce emission
by a minimum of 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The suit hinges on whether the rising of the Earth's global
temperature by 2 øC will cause conditions dangerous to human life.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) created this
benchmark for developing nations. The Panel is a scientific body
created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. Its mission is to
provide "the world with a clear scientific view on the current
state of knowledge in climate change and its potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts." The organization
evaluates scientific, technical and socioeconomic information to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the effects of climate
change on the planet.

The class was originated by the Dutch nonprofit Urgenda. Urgenda,
abbreviated from "urgent agenda," is a leader in developing new
methods of fighting climate change. Before filing the suit, the
organization, led by its founder Marjam Minnesma, created a
campaign to introduce solar panels to a large number of individual
consumers. When the campaign was completed, the organization
negotiated a deal with Chinese manufacturers for 50,000 panels.
Many of the members of the class have changed their lifestyle to
limit their individual carbon emissions. They ride bicycles on a
daily basis and heat their houses using solar panels.
Unfortunately, they know their individual actions alone will do
little to change the direction of climate change. They are hoping
this suit will develop into a large movement to change carbon
emission.

To build the movement, Urgenda spent critical resources
translating research and court documents into English and posting
them online. A similar class action suit with over 8,000 members
is pending in Belgium. Additionally, lawyers in Australia, Canada,
and the United States are investigating opportunities in their own
countries.

A decision in the suit filed by Urgenda is expected by the end of
June.


NEW YORK: City Transit Sued Over Denial of Services to Disabled
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Riley, writing for Newsday, reported that New York City
Transit violates the constitutional rights of the disabled by
denying them paratransit services through the Access-a-Ride
program and refusing to give reasons, according to a class-action
lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court.

Access-a-Ride is designed to provide vans and other alternatives
for people who are medically unable to use subways and buses, but
the agency gives applicants a bureaucratic runaround when they are
deemed ineligible or denied recertification, the suit said.  Among
other problems, it alleges: Denials come in generic form letters
without reasons, applicants seeking reasons are told to file a
Freedom of Information request which takes longer to process than
the appeal deadline and disabled applicants can't get a ride to
attend an in-person appeal.

The plaintiffs, the suit said, include Patricia Davis, a Bronx
woman suffering from a stroke who was certified for Access-a-Ride
in 2011, but then cut off without being given reasons this year;
and Barbara Walsh, a Queens senior citizen with a brain injury who
was cut off without reasons in 2014, with her service restored
only after she got a lawyer.

The lawsuit says that during the past few years the transit
authority has been refusing to recertify many previously eligible
disabled riders, and the "black box application process" violates
the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Transit
officials have said that because of budgetary constraints, the
agency has been enforcing medical eligibility for Access-a-Ride
more strictly. The program is expected to cost $465 million for
6.4 million trips this year.

Kevin Ortiz, an agency spokesman, declined to comment on the
lawsuit. New York City Transit is part of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.


OMNICARE INC: Faces "Elow" Suit Over Proposed Merger with CVS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Elow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Omnicare, Inc., James D. Shelton, Nitin Sahney, John
L. Bernbach, James G. Carlson, Mark A. Emmert, Steven J. Heyer,
Sam R. Leno, Barry Scochet, Amy Wallman, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and
Tree Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11093 (Del. Ch., June 4, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Omnicare,
Inc., to enjoin the proposed agreement and plan of merger with CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Omnicare, Inc. is a healthcare
services company that specializes in the management of
pharmaceutical care in the United States.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation that provides
integrated pharmacy health care services in the United States via
its pharmacy services and retail pharmacy segments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMNICELL INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors who purchased Omnicell, Inc.
("Omnicell" or the "Company") securities between December 23, 2013
and October 22, 2014.

Click here to learn about the case:

   http://docs.wongesq.com/OMCL-Info-Request-Form-693

There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose: (a) the existence of a "side letter"
arrangement with a Company customer for certain discounts and
Company products that were provided at no cost, but which were not
reflected in final invoices paid by the customer; (b) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(c) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you suffered a loss in Omnicell you have until May 18, 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/OMCL-Info-Request-Form-693.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.


ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Alu Banarji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Onemain Financial, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01270-WQH-
DHB (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of placing multiple calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Onemain Financial, Inc. is in the business of purchasing consumer
debts and collecting thereon from debtors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


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


PALERMO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Velez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Palermo Enterprises, Inc. and Joe Greco,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04997 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery located in Norridge,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit vs. DA Over Forfeiture Laws Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Roebuck, writing for Philly.com, reported that lawsuit
challenging the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office's use of
state civil-forfeiture laws will proceed in federal court after a
judge rejected calls from city lawyers to throw it out.

In an opinion released, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno
dismissed the city's arguments, including that it had recently
made reforms to one of the most debated parts of the controversial
program -- the use of "seize and seal" orders to take preliminary
possession of a property targeted for forfeiture before a full
hearing in court.

In legal filings, First Assistant District Attorney Edward F.
McCann Jr. said his office never had a policy allowing prosecutors
to take this step unless "exigent circumstances" warranted such
drastic action.  As of October, however, his personal approval was
required before prosecutors could seek such an order, he added.

Judge Robreno responded: "If the D.A.'s Office charted a course
that may have run afoul of due process -- as [the] plaintiffs
allege that it has -- then a directive to essentially stay the
course cannot, of itself, ensure that the D.A.'s Office will not
run aground on rocky constitutional shoals again."

Judge Robreno's opinion comes nine months after Philadelphia
residents filed a lawsuit challenging the civil asset forfeiture
program -- aimed at depriving drug dealers of cash and property.
The program has come under increasing scrutiny for instances in
which people faced eviction for only tangential connections to
crime.

Of the four plaintiffs seeking class-action status, three had
their houses threatened after relatives were accused of dealing
drugs on their properties. None of them have been accused of
involvement in a crime.  The fourth plaintiff's car was seized
after his arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Lead plaintiff Christos Sourovelis, 52, and his wife, Markela,
were kicked out of their $350,000 house in Somerton last May with
a "seize and seal" order more than a month after police arrested
their 22-year-old son, Yianni, for selling drugs outside.

Although Christos Sourovelis said his family had no idea what
their son was up to, prosecutors moved for permanent forfeiture of
their property. The law allows authorities to go after properties
suspected as criminal hot spots even if no one associated with
them is ever charged.

And unlike a criminal case, where prosecutors must offer "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt," authorities in forfeiture cases must
only show it is more likely than not that the property was used in
or obtained as a result of a crime.

Property owners can challenge the seizures, but those efforts can
take months and multiple court visits to resolve, the plaintiffs'
lawyers argue. The Sourovelises were allowed to return to their
home within a week of the initial seizure, but for months feared
they could lose the legal fight over the fate of their property.
Prosecutors withdrew their action against the Sourovelises' house
in December and described their case as an "exception rather than
the rule" in the employment of a tool they say has aided in
cleaning up dozens of rough neighborhoods across Philadelphia.

City attorneys cited the withdrawal of their case against the
Sourovelises' house and that of one other plaintiff in their
arguments to persuade Judge Robreno to toss the case. They also
argued that since judges made the decisions in these cases, the
District Attorney's Office was not the proper entity to sue.

The judge rejected both arguments.


PLATINUM GROUP: Investors' Class Suit Wins Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Healing, writing for Calgary Herald, reported that a class
action lawsuit allowing hundreds of investors to unite to sue
individuals and companies associated with the Platinum Group for
millions of dollars in losses has been certified, but the lead
lawyer concedes the process could still take months or years to be
concluded.

An estimated 2,200 investors lost an estimated $200 million buying
limited partnership units or trust units that invested in
commercial real estate entities that operated and were heavily
marketed in print and on radio and television between 2002 and
2012.

"There are approximately 21 separate projects and there were
concerns about the co-mingling of funds between projects," said
Kevin McGuigan of McGuigan Nelson LLP, who is representing about
1,000 of the investors who have joined the class action.

"What (the certification) does is allows us to proceed in a way
that all of the investors in different projects are working
together as opposed to potentially having to fight over priority
to funds later."

He said that under Alberta law, investors can "opt out"of the
lawsuit but his will be the only class action allowed.

The ruling by Justice A.D. Macleod follows an application in
December that named a long list of defendants, chief among them
Shariff M.Chandran, Riaz Mamdani, Chitra Chandran, the Strategic
Group of Companies and the Platinum Group of Companies.

McGuigan said many of the investors are elderly so he will try to
move the process along as quickly as possible. He pointed out the
defendants vigorously opposed the granting of certification.

He said he is seeking approval from the defendants for a form of
order, then will send a notice to all investors inviting them to
join the suit. He said he hopes the process can proceed by fall
with questioning of witnesses but that could be derailed if the
defendants launch an appeal.

In September, Shariff Chandran, principal of real estate
investment company Platinum Equities Inc., was given a $1 million
fine by the Alberta Securities Commission for real estate fraud.
His sister Chitra, who held various official titles with Platinum
Group entities, was fined $150,000.

The ASC ruled in February 2014 that a significant portion of over
$58 million raised from Platinum investors was obtained through
illegal trades and distributions.

Platinum Equities raised money through a series of separate
limited partnerships which sold units typically for $25,000 or
$50,000 each and used the funds to buy property.

Shariff Chandran and Chitra Chandran were also ordered to pay
$136,500 and $52,500, respectively, to cover the costs of the ASC
investigation and hearing.

The firm may be reached at:

         Kevin McGuigan, Esq.
         MCGUIGAN NELSON LLP
         300, 1550 -- 8th Street SW
         Calgary, AB T2R 1K1
         Tel: 403.265.7744
         Fax: 403.265.7528


QUALITY LINEALS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adan Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quality Lineals USA, Inc., Northeast Windows USA,
Inc., Jeffrey Kaiserman, and Steven Kaiserman, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03320 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Quality Lineals USA, Inc. is a New York with a principle executive
office at 1 Kees Place in Merrick, New York. Quality maintains a
window factory address at 105 Bennington Avenue in Freeport, New
York.

Northeast Windows USA, Inc. maintains a factory address at 1 Kees
Place in Merrick, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUICKSILVER INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Quiksilver Inc.
("Quiksilver" or the "Company") securities between June 6, 2014
and March 26, 2015.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

On March 4, 2015 the Company disclosed there would be a delay in
the release of its financial results for the first quarter of 2015
due to management's identification of a revenue recognition issue.
Then on March 26, 2015, the Company announced that the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting, contrary to its
previous reporting, were ineffective as of October 31, 2014. Then
on March 27, 2015 the Company announced the resignation of the
Company's CEO and CFO.

If you suffered a loss in Quiksilver 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/ZQK-Info-
Request-Form-716.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.


RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v AECOM
---------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. 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 discovery is underway
in the case of Hopkins v AECOM.

In 2005 RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ("RBSGA"), previously ABN
AMRO Australia Pty Limited, a member of RBSH Group, was a member
of a consortium that appointed AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (formerly
known as Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd) ("AECOM") to forecast traffic
for the Clem7 Tunnel in Brisbane, Australia. Three sets of
proceedings have been brought against AECOM.

The first (Hopkins v AECOM) is a class action relating to the
initial public offer of units to retail investors in the RiverCity
Motorway Group, which operated the Clem7 Tunnel. The claim relates
to allegations that the IPO disclosure was defective, particularly
in relation to traffic volume forecasts by AECOM. The second and
third proceedings (RiverCity v AECOM and Portigon v AECOM),
involve claims of negligent misstatement and misleading or
deceptive conduct in the issuance of traffic forecasts. In all
three proceedings AECOM filed a number of cross-claims for
contribution in the event it is found liable, including against
RBSGA. On 18 July 2014, the court refused to allow the cross-
claims to proceed, except in the case of Hopkins v AECOM.
Discovery is underway.


RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. 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 discovery is underway
in the case Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation.

Certain members of RBS Group, as well as a number of other
financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The plaintiffs generally allege that
defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by restraining
competition in the market for credit default swaps through various
means and thereby causing inflated bid-ask spreads for credit
default swaps.  On 4 September 2014, the Court largely denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss this matter. Discovery is underway.


RCF LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer and Edward Makaron, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RCF, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00896
(C.D. Cal., June 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of placing multiple calls to the Plaintiffs' cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

RCF, LLC is in the business of offering consumers and business
owners business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SARAH LEE: Calif. Court Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California
judge refused to dismiss class action allegations that Sarah Lee
Corp. illegally fixed the prices independent distributors could
charge for its baked goods, pointing to new claims that Sara Lee's
record-keeping system prevented the distributors from negotiating
their own prices.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jane L. Johnson overruled Sara
Lee's demurrer to the fifth amended complaint in the nine-year-old
suit, which alleges that distributors who bought baked goods from
Sara Lee and resold them to retail chains were illegally prevented
from negotiating with the retailers.

Judge Johnson said in a written tentative ruling and during the
hearing that a California Court of Appeals panel had ordered her
to give plaintiffs another shot to amend their complaint to plead
allegations that could support their claim for illegal vertical
price-fixing under California's Cartwright Act. Johnson wrote that
the plaintiffs had bolstered their allegations with specifics
about the handheld computer record-keeping system Sara Lee
required distributors to use, which plaintiffs say does not allow
distributors to change the prices they charge to retailers.

"The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff did not sufficiently
allege price fixing," Judge Johnson wrote. "The [fifth amended
complaint] now directly addresses the Court of Appeal's comments."

The original suit was filed in October 2006, and in 2008 an
amended complaint was filed by four former distributors containing
10 causes of action that alleged, as one theory of liability, that
Sara Lee classified distributors as independent contractors when
they were in fact employees. The suit proposed a class of all
persons who delivered Sara Lee baked goods to stores since
November 1999.

After an appellate court in May 2012 affirmed Judge Johnson's
denial of certification for the misclassification claims, the
plaintiffs sought to proceed as a class under their alternative
antitrust theory relating to price-fixing and territorial
divisions.

In May 2013, Judge Johnson dismissed those claims without leave to
amend, ruling that Sara Lee's contracts with the distributors gave
it the right to negotiate the price of its baked goods with chain
stores and that the distributors' grievance is at best a
contractual dispute.

In October 2013, however, a California appeals court panel ruled
that while the fourth amended complaint did not contain sufficient
allegations to support a Cartwright Act claim, the plaintiffs
should have been granted leave to amend to add a new class
representative or new allegations.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mike Arias, Esq. --
marias@aogllp.com -- of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Gretchen M.
Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, and George A. Kaufman and
Jonathan Weiss.

Sara Lee is represented by Donna D. Melby, Esq. --
donnamelby@paulhastings.com -- Holly A. House, Esq. --
hollyhouse@paulhastings.com -- Elizabeth Brown, Esq., Sean Unger,
Esq. -- seanunger@paulhastings.com -- and Ryan Craig, Esq. --
ryancraig@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is Kaewsawang v. Sara Lee Corp., case number BC360109, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.


SATANIC TEMPLE: Abortion Battle May Become Class Suit, Atty Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massoud Hayoun, writing for Aljazeera America, reported that
the Satanic Temple's bid to allow a Missouri follower to
circumvent state laws restricting abortion may soon become a
class-action lawsuit, the woman's legal counsel said.

Court documents filed and obtained by Al Jazeera argue that, as a
Satanist, a woman referred to as "Mary Doe" should not have to
undergo the state's mandatory 72-hour wait period, be offered an
ultrasound to listen to a potential heartbeat and receive
requisite informational materials that her attorneys say are
designed to dissuade her from the procedure.

The Satanic Temple, an organization that has long sought to
bolster the separation between church and state -- most notably
through an ongoing bid to place a Satanic monument next to the Ten
Commandments statue on the Oklahoma state Capitol lawn -- hopes to
"leverage" Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said
Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves, who is also known by his legal
name, Doug Mesner.

The documents say Missouri's abortion restrictions contravene the
group's religious tenets, which hold "her body is inviolable and
subject to her will alone" and that "she makes any decision
regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of
the world."

Attorneys are waiting for a court date when the state and Missouri
Gov. Jay Nixon will have to argue either against the sincerity of
Doe's religious convictions or her exemption from state law, said
W. James Mac Naughton, one of Doe's attorneys.

Nixon's office did not respond to an interview request by time of
publication.

Doe may not be the only plaintiff. Her complaint "lends itself to
a class-action-type claim," Mac Naughton said. Although other
women may not identify with Doe's professed religious convictions,
"Mary Doe is not alone in her beliefs."

"What's my class?" he said of potential co-filers. "Women situated
closely to Mary Doe. Who are they? Mary Doe 1, Mary Doe 2, Mary
Doe 3, Mary Doe 4."

He is looking into other circumstances where class-action lawsuits
have been filed on behalf of entirely anonymous clients. Doe and
whoever she ends up filing with would remain anonymous for safety
reasons, he said, noting "physicians have been shot by people on
the other side of the debate on whether the fetus is just tissue
or an unborn child."

In May 2009, abortion doctor George Tiller, was shot to death at
age 67 in a Kansas church. It was the second time an opponent had
shot him, and he had also survived the bombing of his clinic.
Mary Doe reportedly entered the St. Louis Planned Parenthood
facility late to submit a letter from the Satanic Temple arguing
against the mandatory information and wait time. Greaves said he
would not reveal the exact timing of Doe's trips to the clinic,
out of respect for her safety. Mac Naughton said Doe is not giving
interviews.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Facing "Samborsky" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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 is facing Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on
behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California
Funeral Services, Inc., et al; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse. This lawsuit was
filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have
been brought on behalf of employees who worked as family service
counselors in California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege
causes of action for various violations of state laws regulating
wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and
injunctive relief.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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
case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, will continue against
the Company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former
individual directors.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and
our subsidiary in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and
its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart
Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages
concerning the combination.

"We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case will continue against our
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual
directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for
the payment of damages," the Company said.


SINGING RIVER: Must Turn Over Docs Regarding Failed Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Walker, writing for WMC ActionNews5, reported that during a
hearing that lasted one and a half hours, several motions were
heard by the judge. The bottom line is Singing River Health System
must turn over accounting documents regarding the failed pension
plan within 10 days.

Plaintiff attorneys have doubts about what those records will
reveal. Harvey Barton is one of them.

"I'm afraid that the documents that they've already given to the
CPA and accounting firm have already been sanitized. They've
already been cleaned by the lawyers representing the hospital,"
Barton said.

Hospital attorneys, including Kelly Sessoms, disagreed.

"I think the documents that will be produced within the 10 days
ordered by judge Hilburn will be consistent with the judge's
ruling regarding the accounting part of the lawsuit," Sessoms
explained.

Just in case, attorneys for the retirees are filing another
lawsuit, this one naming names including Jackson County elected
officials and high ranking hospital executives. Earl Denham talked
about the process.

"Everyone that we add will be someone who aided, assisted or
covered up, in one way or another, the breach of fiduciary
relationship and breach of contract between my clients and the
hospital," Denham said.

There was a point of some confusion during a hearing. That's
because in addition to the state court cases, there are federal
cases as well.

So, what happens between those two? Matthew Mestayer is
representing some retirees in federal court.

"With the class action also pending involving some of the same
parties, but not all, so that's an issue that has to be dealt with
about where the cases are going to be resolved and the interplay
between the two courts, for sure," Mestayer explained.

For the retirees, they are just glad something is happening.
Cynthia Almond is the original plaintiff in the case.

"It appears that we are getting the things that we have asked for.
We need discovery. We need factual documents that will help us
build our case," said Almond.

While that may be true, everyone agrees this case is a long way
from being over.


SOVEREIGN SILVER: Court Tentatively Junks Consumers' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge
has tentatively decertified and dismissed a class action over
immune-support claims on Natural-Immunogenics' Sovereign Silver
products, after excoriating plaintiffs' counsel for their
"repeated inability" to find a class representative.  U.S.
District Judge Larry Burns in the Southern District of California
gave class counsel from the Newport Trial Group until May 15 to
respond to his tentative decision, which came in response to
revelations that the named plaintiff selected to represent
California consumers was not a class member.


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Seeks to Junk Class Suit on Mental Health Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry, writing for Mass Live, reported that parents,
education advocates and civil rights activists packed a courtroom
for a hearing in a class action lawsuit filed by a parent of a
teen with mental health issues against the city and the School
Department.

S.S et al vs. the City of Springfield focuses on the city's public
day schools: three of them which cater to students who are deemed
to have mental health issues that discount them from mainstream,
neighborhood schools. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the
children are being warehoused and deprived of basic educational
rights.

They filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court and the city has a
motion to dismiss pending.

"They're getting less classroom time and also being excluded from
a whole host of other activities . . . because they're being
restrained, suspended and isolated in the classrooms," plaintiffs'
lawyer Carole Head told U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni.

The lawsuit seeks to restructure special education for children
with mental illnesses to school-based behavioral services. The
lead plaintiff is a now-16-year-old boy who has been diagnosed
with depression and ADHD, and filed suit when he was a middle-
schooler, who transitioned to a public day high school and then
out of school, according to Head. She suggested he was de facto
forced from school because he couldn't tolerate the conditions at
the day schools.

His mother was in the courtroom, identified only as "Mrs. Y." The
plaintiffs filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
umbrella legislation that supports accommodations for people with
all manner of disabilities.

Edward Pikula, a lawyer for the city, told Mastroianni that the
plaintiffs essentially repurposed a claim after it was rebuffed by
a state board of special education appeals. According to Pikula, a
judge in that forum ruled that the city had accommodated "S.S" and
forged an individual education plan that was "the least
restrictive" alternative for the boy. That phrase is key to
special education.

"This child has had the opportunity to be in a less restrictive
environment and was found to have failed in that environment; so
we had a track record," Pikula argued to Mastroianni, adding that
the behavior of the plaintiff child was "very disruptive."

"There has been that opportunity and it didn't work; and the judge
said it didn't work and we need to move on," he continued.

Pikula argued that, if successful, the class action suit will
"open the floodgates" for disgruntled families who want to trump
the administrative process the state sets up for special education
appeals.

Head argued that is not the case, and the lawsuit is simply about
discrimination.

"ADA says you get equal opportunity, not some . . . they're
different; one is some, one is equal," she told the judge.

She asked that Mastroianni allow the case to advance while Pikula
argued that it be thrown out. The judge took the matter under
advisement.


TEREX CORPORATION: Received Complaints Seeking Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Terex 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 the Company has
received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits
in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder
derivative lawsuit as follows:

* A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut on September
20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation.

* A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

* A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
ERISA lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. These motions are
currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in the
stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put
this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
in connection with the securities lawsuit.


TFS FACILITY: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Florencia Cipriano-Pioquinto, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. TFS Facility Services Georgia, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02055-AT (N.D. Ga., June 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

TFS Facility Services Georgia, LLC owns and operates a cleaning
and maintenance services company, doing business in Atlanta,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


TINDER INC: Sued Over Paid Version of Dating App
------------------------------------------------
Legal NewsLine reported that a popular smartphone dating app is
being sued after it introduced a paid version of its app.

Michael Manapol filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of California court on April 28 against Tinder, Inc.,
claiming the company falsely advertised that the app's services
would be free.

In March, Tinder announced the services Manpol had used before
would no longer be available unless he purchased a subscription
called Tinder Plus, which started around $2.99 per month.
Further, the app charges users over the age of 30 about $19 a
month for the service, which the lawsuit claims is discrimination.

"Not only is the price discriminatory based on age, it also
discriminates based on gender," the lawsuit said. "Based on
information and belief, Tinder provides swipes or uses with and
without Tinder Plus at a more favorable rate to women based solely
on their gender."

Manapol is seeking class status for all Tinder users, and is also
seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs.

He is represented by John P. Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of
Kristensen Weisberg, LLP in Los Angeles.

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Tel: (310) 507-7924


UNITED SERVICES: Sued Over Denial of Injury Protection Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Battaglia, individually and as representative of all
persons similarly situated v. United Services Automobile
Association and Auto Injury Solutions, Case No. 201532011 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., June 4, 2015), is a class action to secure redress for
the Defendants' denial of properly submitted personal injury
protection (PIP) claims related to automobile accidents for no
legitimate reason.

United Services Automobile Association is a foreign for-profit
company doing business in the State of Texas. United provides
customizable, end-to-end medical review solutions to clients in
the property and casualty insurance industry.

United Services Automobile Association owns and operates an
insurance company, authorized to do business in and doing business
in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brad T. Wyly, Esq.
      WYLY & COOK, LLP
      4101 Washington Ave.
      Houston, TX 77007
      Telephone: (713) 236-8330
      Facsimile: (713) 863-8502
      E-mail: bwyly@wylycooklaw.com

         - and -

     Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
     JOSH DAVIS LAW FIRM
     1010 Lamar, Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 337-4100
     Facsimile: (713) 337-4101
     E-mail: josh@thejdfirm.com


UNUM GROUP: Alabama Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Unum Group 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 no further action in a class
action case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds)
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the first action, filed in the same court
in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage
on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until
the stay is lifted.


UNUM GROUP: Parties to Seek Status Conference in 2015 First Half
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group 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 no further action in a class
action case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA,
PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their
property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the
case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May
2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the
Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the
first case filed there. In May 2013, the court placed the case on
its administrative docket due to co-defendant Synagro's bankruptcy
filing. Pursuant to directions from the Morgan County court, the
parties reported that the Synagro Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was
concluded and closed in September 2014. The parties will request a
status conference with the Morgan County court in the first half
of 2015.


UNUM GROUP: Answered 3rd Amended Complaint in Calif. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group 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 answered the third
amended complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who
were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint made allegations against
us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business
and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief.

"We removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and filed a motion to dismiss.
Rather than oppose the motion, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and we filed another motion to dismiss," the Company
said.

In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as
well as plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory
relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleged breach of contract, bad faith,
fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 on
behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-term
care policies containing an inflation protection feature.

"In October 2014, we answered the second amended complaint," the
Company said.

In December 2014, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he
was an adequate representative with claims typical of the putative
class.

"We are awaiting the court's ruling on this issue," the Company
said.

In March 2015, the court permitted the plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of
Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through his Guardian ad Litem
Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum Group, and Unum Life
Insurance Company of America. The complaint alleges breach of
contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200 and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-
term care policies containing an inflation protection feature.

"In April 2015, we answered the third amended complaint," the
Company said.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet in Allergan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint in the Allergan
Shareholder Class Action.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing
Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). The complaint alleges claims on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of Allergan securities between
February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants
asserting violations of Sections 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder. The complaint also
alleges violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against
Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A.
Ackman. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants have
not yet responded to the Complaint. The Company is reviewing these
claims and intends to vigorously defend these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Salix Shareholder Class
Actions.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement with Salix, six purported stockholder class actions were
filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims
against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix
Board"), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc.
("Sun Merger Sub"). On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the
actions under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals Shareholder
Litigation (Court No. 10721-CB), and designated the complaint in
one action to be the operative complaint. The operative complaint
alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Salix through an inadequate sale process and for inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protections. The complaint also alleges that the Form 14d-9 filed
by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained
inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other
things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to
the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, including enjoining the proposed transaction,
and unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On April 1,
2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action. Those
motions remain pending. The Company is vigorously defending this
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 oral
argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was held on March
12, 2015 and a decision is currently pending in the Solodyn(R)
Antitrust Class Actions.

On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-
04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers
of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from
the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets,
a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis
under the brand name, Solodyn(R).  The plaintiff further alleges
that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain
trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly
power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release
tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of
end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay
overcharges.  Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and,
where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

Additional class action complaints making similar allegations
against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have
been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated
direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July
23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-
JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed
Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge
31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D.
Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health
& Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug.
30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed
Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-
cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of
Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013);
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U
Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Oct. 25, 2013)).

On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class
action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all
defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar
relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints.

On February 25, 2014, on a motion by Medicis and the Company, the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered that
the cases pending outside the District of Massachusetts be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, with the consent of
that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the actions already pending in that district.  The Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline
Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC,
is now pending before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.  Two
additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District of
Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order:
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D.
Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case
No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014).  These cases
have been included in the pending MDL.  On September 12, 2014, the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs each
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs, with the Defendants' consent, subsequently
filed a corrected amended complaint on September 22, 2014. On
November 24, 2014, the Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and the End Payor Plaintiffs'
complaints.  Oral argument on the Defendants' motion was held on
March 12, 2015 and a decision is currently pending.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, two additional non-class
action complaints were filed against Medicis in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania by purported direct purchasers of
Solodyn, making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to
that sought in the other direct purchaser plaintiff complaints
(Walgreen Co., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.. No. 1:15-
cv-00611-YK (M.D. Pa. filed March 26, 2015); Rite Aid Corp., et
al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00673-YK (M.D.
Pa. filed April 6, 2015)). On April 8, 2015, the JPML transferred
the Walgreen complaint to the District of Massachusetts, where it
is now included in the MDL. The Company intends to vigorously
defend these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 22 Cert. Hearing in Afexa Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 a
date for the certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled
for June 22, 2015, in the Afexa Class Action.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff
served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-
characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what
was originally claimed.  On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a
motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff's claim for
failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff
proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the
motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended claim was held on
February 4, 2015 and a decision is pending. A date for the
certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 22,
2015. The Company denies the allegations being made and is
vigorously defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Ruling on Appeals Bid
------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 B&L
has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant
in approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits
(some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State
Consolidated Proceeding, as well as in certain other U.S. state
courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal
injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with
MoistureLoc(TM). Two consolidated cases were established to handle
MoistureLoc(TM) claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated
proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South
Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State
Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases
filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination
responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non-
fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On
July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New
York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On
September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. On February 7,
2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' additional
appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial
court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion to renew, and granted B&L's motion for
summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On
June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial
Court's ruling. The appeal was argued January 20, 2015. The Court
issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs'
appeal to renew and affirming the lower court's decision granting
B&L's motion for summary judgment regarding all remaining non-
fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their
motion for leave to appeal this decision and B&L filed its
opposition on March 26, 2015. A decision was expected on the
motion for leave to appeal by the end of May 2015.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 630 MoistureLoc Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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 B&L
has settled approximately 630 cases in connection with
MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All U.S.-based fusarium
claims have now been resolved and there are two active fusarium
claims involving claimants outside of the United States that
remain pending. The parties in these active matters are involved
in settlement discussions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals 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
beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which
generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers
and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with
respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory
levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal
controls.  Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned:
Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al.
(Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)).
These two actions have been consolidated and an initial schedule
has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this
consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption
Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-
00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles "Cramming" Allegations for $158-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy, writing for USA Today, reported that Verizon Wireless
and Sprint will pay $158 million collectively to settle
allegations the wireless carriers billed customers millions of
dollars for unauthorized text-messaging subscription services,
authorities announced.  The settlements mark the latest government
enforcement action over the alleged practice known as cramming.
Verizon and Sprint allegedly charged customers 99 cents to $14 per
month for premium text-messaging services -- such as horoscopes,
trivia, sports scores and other data many consumers neither
requested nor approved.

Most consumers were targeted online as they clicked on ads that
led them to websites where they were asked to enter their
cellphone numbers. Some of the third-party text-messaging
providers allegedly tricked consumers into providing their
cellphone numbers to receive "free" digital content that instead
resulted in extra charges.

Verizon kept 30% or more of each third-party charge it billed,
while Sprint received approximately 35% of collected revenue for
the charges, the Federal Communications Commission and Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau said.

"Consumers rightfully expect their monthly phone bills will
reflect only those services that they's purchased," Travis
LeBlanc, head of the FCC's enforcement bureau, said in a statement
about the settlements announced by the federal regulators and
attorneys general of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

"Settlements put in place strong protections that will prevent
consumers from being victimized by these kinds of practices in the
future," LeBlanc said.
At least $120 million of the penalties paid by Verizon and Sprint
will be used to reimburse customers who unwittingly paid again and
again for the unauthorized charges. The wireless carriers will
distribute the refunds through programs supervised by the CFPB.

The settlements also require Sprint and Verizon to stay out of the
commercial PSMS business, the electronic platform where regulators
alleged most of the mobile cramming occurred. The wireless
carriers also must:

   * Obtain consumers' consent before billing for third-party
     charges and ensure customers are charged only if they have
     been informed about all material terms and conditions.

   * Give consumers an opportunity to obtain a full refund or
     credit for unauthorized third-party charges.

   * Inform customers their mobile phones can be used to pay for
     third-party charges, and tell the consumers how to block
     charges if they don't want the services.

   * Detail any third-party charges in a separate section of
     customers' mobile phone bills.


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

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

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

The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with
Natural Grocers label:

  UPC Code      Description                Packed on Dates
  --------      -----------                ---------------
000080657552    Raw Macadamia Nuts 10 oz.  14-328, 14-337, 14-
                                           360, 14-365, 15-020,
                                           15-041, 15-056, 15-
                                           077, 15-090, 15-104,
                                           15-127

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 97 stores located
in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the
specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at:
https://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locationsdisclaimer icon.
Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450676.htm


WALGREEN CO: Recalls Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts
-----------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL is recalling Nice! Powdered Sugar
Mini Donuts, because it has received consumer complaints alleging
that mold was observed on some products. Consumers in possession
of this product should return the product to any Walgreens store
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-800-925-4733.

The Nice! Powdered Sugar Mini Donuts were distributed to Walgreens
stores nationwide.

The product comes in 11.5 oz packages and is marked with WIC
number 178206 and UPC number 4902264948. Both the WIC and UPC
numbers can be found near the product bar code, which is located
next to the nutrition facts on the package.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm450673.htm


WASHINGTON KENNEL: "Hwang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Hwang and Horace Carr, III, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Washington County Kennel Club,
Incorporated d/b/a Ebro Greyhound Park & Poker Room, Case No.
5:15-cv-00128-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Washington County Kennel Club owns and operates a casino located
at 6558 Dog Track Rd, Ebro, FL 32437, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit Over Deceptive Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has filed a class action lawsuit against
Wells Fargo Bank (NYSE: WFC) alleging the bank victimized its
customers by using illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive tactics to
boost sales of its banking and financial products.

Wells Fargo has recently been in the news due to allegations of
unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct including forcing
employees to misuse customers' confidential information and refuse
to close accounts even when customers complained.

The complaint, filed on behalf of a California consumer and other
Wells Fargo customers nationwide, includes detailed allegations
about Wells Fargo's "gaming" of customers, including inside
information from a current Wells Fargo employee who saw bank
employees open unauthorized accounts on a "nearly daily basis."

"We have heard from Wells Fargo customers in multiple states who
have been charged fees or faced collection actions for accounts
they did not sign up for," said Matthew Preusch, an attorney in
Keller Rohrback's Santa Barbara office.

Wells Fargo's practices have caused significant stress to, and
hardship and financial losses for, its customers, the complaint
alleges. Specifically, Wells Fargo has allegedly: (a) withdrawn
money from customers' authorized accounts to pay for the fees
assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts opened in
customers' names; (b) placed customers into collections when the
unauthorized withdrawals from customer accounts went unpaid; (c)
placed derogatory information in credit reports when unauthorized
fees went unpaid; (d) denied customers access to their funds while
Wells Fargo stockpiled account applications; and (e) caused
customers to purchase identity theft protection.

"As a result of its deceptive and illegal practices, Wells Fargo
has engineered a fee-generating machine that produces
extraordinary profits for the corporation at the significant
expense of its customers," the complaint says.

The class action complaint comes after a separate lawsuit against
the bank by the Los Angeles City Attorney. The City Attorney is
warning customers to scrutinize their bank statements and pay
extra attention to online accounts. Customers should also review
bank statements for suspicious withdrawals ranging from $25 to
$100, the same amounts needed to open a Wells Fargo checking or
savings account.

If you are concerned about suspicious withdrawals or activities
related to one or more of your Wells Fargo accounts, please
contact attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio at (800) 776-6044 or via
email at consumer@kellerrohrback.com.

The case is Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., in the Northern District of California. A copy of the
complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P., with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New
York, and Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in
class actions throughout the country. Our Complex Litigation Group
is proud to offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our
trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of
clients in excess of seven billion dollars.

The firm may be reached at:

          Matthew Preusch, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile:(206) 623-3384
          Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com


WINSTON RETAIL: Removed "Sartore" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jenny Sartore and Shanna
Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
and aggrieved v. Winston Retail Solutions, LLC and Does 1 through
25, Case No. 37-02013-00046851-CU-OE-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-01273-AJB-BLM to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq.
      GRAHAMHOLLIS, APC
      3555 Fifth Street
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-0080
      Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
      E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael S. Kun, Esq.
      EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, PC
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
      Telephone: (310) 556-8861
      Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
      E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com


WORLD FUEL: ME District Court Stayed Transferred Cases
------------------------------------------------------
World Fuel Services 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 the ME District
Court entered an amended consent order staying proceedings in the
transferred cases pending the appeal and allowing plaintiffs to
file additional cases.

The Company said, "We, on behalf of DPTS Marketing, LLC ("DPM"), a
crude oil marketing joint venture in which we owned a 50%
membership interest, purchased crude oil from various producers in
the Bakken region of North Dakota. Dakota Petroleum Transport
Solutions, LLC ("DPTS"), a crude oil transloading joint venture in
which we also owned a 50% membership interest, arranged for the
transloading of the crude oil for DPM into tank cars at the joint
venture's facility in New Town, North Dakota. We leased the tank
cars used in the transloading from a number of third party lessors
and subleased these tank cars to DPM. We, on behalf of DPM,
contracted with Canadian Pacific Railway ("CPR") for the
transportation of the tank cars and the crude oil from New Town,
North Dakota to a customer in New Brunswick, Canada. CPR
subcontracted a portion of that route to Montreal, Maine and
Atlantic Railway ("MMA"). On July 6, 2013, the freight train
operated by MMA with tank cars carrying approximately 50,000
barrels of crude oil derailed in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. The
derailment resulted in significant loss of life, damage to the
environment from spilled crude oil and extensive property damage."

"In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along
with a number of third parties, including MMA and certain of its
affiliates, as well as several manufacturers and lessors of tank
cars, were named as defendants in twenty complaints filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaints generally
allege wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for
the proper and safe transportation of crude oil and seek economic
and compensatory damages, as well as costs. The actions were
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (the "IL District Court") and subsequently
reassigned to a single judge in the IL District Court (other than
one action that was remanded to state court prior to reassignment
and another that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs).

"The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to have these actions
remanded to state court. We filed a motion in the United States
District Court for the District of Maine (the "ME District
Court"), where MMA's bankruptcy is pending, to transfer all of
these actions to that court. On March 21, 2014, the ME District
Court granted the transfer motion.  On April 4, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
granting the transfer motion and a motion requesting the ME
District Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the
cases.  The motion for reconsideration was denied and the motion
for abstention remains pending. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a notice stating their intention to appeal the order
granting the transfer motion to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On June 17, 2014, the ME District Court entered a
consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending
the appeal.  On November 11, 2014, the Trustee for MMA's U.S.
bankruptcy estate (the "Trustee") and plaintiffs moved to amend
the consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases to
allow plaintiffs to file additional cases in other jurisdictions.
On March 23, 2015, the ME District Court entered an amended
consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending
the appeal and allowing plaintiffs to file additional cases.  We
believe the plaintiffs' claims against us, certain of our
subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all
defenses available."


WORLD FUEL: Stay Lifted for Non-Settling Defendants in Train Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Fuel Services 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 the stay was
lifted in respect of all non-settling defendants.

The Company said, "In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM
and DPTS, along with a number of other third parties, including
CPR, MMA and certain of its affiliates, several manufacturers and
lessors of tank cars, as well as the intended purchaser and
certain suppliers of the crude oil, were named as defendants in a
motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of
a class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs. The motion generally alleges wrongful
death and negligence in the failure to provide for the proper and
safe transportation of crude oil. On February 24, 2015, the
Superior Court of Quebec issued an order staying the class action
proceedings in light of settlement agreements reached by several
defendants with the Trustee and the monitor in MMA's Canadian
bankruptcy (the "Monitor").  On March 20, 2015, by terms of the
order dated February 24, 2015, the stay was lifted in respect of
all non-settling defendants, including us.  We believe these
claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims
and pursue any and all defenses available."


WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Misael Carrizo, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Worldwide Transportation Services, Inc. and Ali A. Malek, Case No.
1:15-cv-22172-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing corporate sedan,
executive limousine, van and coach services, having their main
place of business in Miami-Dade County.

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


XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Shreves, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Xunlei Limited, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
04288 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 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.

Xunlei Limited operates an internet platform for digital media
content in the People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Denied Petition for Mandamus
---------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide 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 of Appeals
denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus in the case, Bryant
Holdings Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2011, a putative class action
was filed by Bryant Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws for
statements and/or omissions allegedly made by us and the
individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading."

"The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No
current officers or directors are named in the lawsuit. The
parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013
and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties.
Substantially all of the payments contemplated by the settlement
would be covered by our liability insurance. The self-insured
retention on this matter has been accrued.

"The settlement agreement required court approval.  On August 19,
2013, November 18, 2013, and February 11, 2015, the district court
denied Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On March 4, 2015, the district court set the case for
trial beginning June 6, 2016.  On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, seeking an order requiring the
district court to vacate the trial setting and to give further
consideration to the settlement agreement.  On April 28, 2015, the
Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus."


* Class Action Fairness Act Filings Spike
-----------------------------------------
Keith Paul Bishop, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that on February 18, 2005, Congress enacted the Class Action
Fairness Act(CAFA), P.L. No. 109-2 (28 U.S.C. Section Section
1332(d), 1453, and 1711 - 1715). In enacting the CAFA, Congress
sought to protect consumers and investors from settlements in
which plaintiffs' attorneys received significant fees but class
members received little or even less. In one (in)famous case, for
example, an unfortunate class member incurred $91.33 in attorneys'
fees to recover $2.19 on the merits. Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston
Corp., 92 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 1996).

Congress tried to address this problem by requiring, among other
things, that each defendant participating in a proposed settlement
serve notice on the "appropriate state official" of each state in
which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official.
28 U.S.C. Section  1715(b). Rather unhelpfully, the CAFA doesn't
say what exactly the appropriate state official is to do with the
notice.

In 2007, then Commissioner of Corporations Preston DuFauchard
issued Release 18-G to provide guidance with respect to notifying
the Department of Corporations (now known as the Department of
Business Oversight).

Cornerstone Research recently reported that there were 63 class
action settlements nationwide in 2014 while the number of CAFA
notices filed with the Department was only six.

Congress did not grant state officials any expanded authority or
responsibilities, including the authority to enforce compliance
with the CAFA. 28 U.S.C. Section  1715(f). Indeed, it would be an
interesting question of federalism if Congress had purported to do
so. I have not heard that the Department has ever objected to any
proposed settlement and it is questionable whether it has the
authority under state law to do so even if it were so inclined.
Failure to serve the required notices has at least one
consequence. Congress provided that a class member may refuse to
comply with, and may choose not to be bound by, a settlement
agreement or consent decree in a class action if the class member
demonstrates that the required notice was not served.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits alleging personal injuries arising from asbestos
allegedly present in products manufactured by the Stearns
division, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2015.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 700 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.

Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined.  As of
March 31, 2015, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100%
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.

The Company believes that the combination of its insurance
coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any
future costs of these matters.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2015.

In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation
("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 50
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs as of March 31, 2015.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, is a defendant in
approximately 7,000 personal injury asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2015.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation.  As of March 31, 2015, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 21,000
claims.  Thr Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
$35.0 million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $35.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate.  Further, while this
current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims
through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond
that time frame, and such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2015, is
approximately $248.1 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $172.1 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $248.1 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $248.1 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high. The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment. The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation. The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Savoie" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated June
8, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled LORITA M. SAVOIE v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., ET AL., Section: J (3), Civil Action No. 15-1220 (E.D. La.),
agreeing with the plaintiff that removal is not proper pursuant to
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AIjtyffrom Leagle.com.

Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., also known as Blaine Joseph Savoie, Jr.,
Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel &
Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A.
Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc. formerly known as Avondale
Marine Ways, Inc., Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as Successor to Commercial
Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American
Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel
Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam
Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J.
O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C.,
Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine
Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew
Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins,
III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Mary Reeves
Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill,
Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-
Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Travelers Indemnity Company, formerly known as Aetna Casualty &
Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson,
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon
Wilkinson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer
H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Mathilde
Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP &
Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne
Manufacturing Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Charles N. Johnson,
Jr., and Bertram C. Hopeman, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine
Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew
Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella,
Esq. -- llawrence@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson, Coe, Cousins &
Irons, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Junks Inmate's Dismissal Order Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Oruta purported to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and one other, raising disparate allegations in which he
alludes to deficiencies in state proceedings for workers'
compensation, an unlawful arrest, and exposure to asbestos in
county jail.  The district court described the complaint as
"incomprehensible," dismissed it without prejudice for failure to
state a claim for relief, and identified other defects relating to
Oruta's attempt to bring a class action. Oruta amended his
complaint, restyling it as one under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
naming only himself as the plaintiff. The district court concluded
that Oruta had not cured the deficiencies identified in its
earlier order and dismissed the suit with prejudice.  Oruta
appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an
opinion dated June 4, 2015, dismissed the appeal, after
determining that while Oruta may have fixed the issues raised by
the district court, he has not articulated any reason to disturb
the district court's conclusion that the allegations in his
amended complaint do not give rise to any cognizable federal
claim.  Because Oruta fails to illuminate how his amended
complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
relief, the Seventh Circuit said it is left with nothing to review
and thus dismissed the appeal.

The case is LARRY ORUTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIR
TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-3782 (7th
Circ.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/84bKJdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Nuutinen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, in a decision and order dated June
9, 2015, denied a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant
CBS Corporation and granted a motion for summary judgment filed by
defendant John Crane, Inc., in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit captioned MARYBETH NUUTINEN, Individually and as
Special Administrator for the Estate of Charles H. Nuutinen,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION and JOHN CRANE, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 97-C-678 (E.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Randa's Decision is available at http://is.gd/EEexMqfrom
Leagle.com.

Estate of Charles H Nuutinen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P
Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Marybeth Nuutinen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices Ltd.

CBS Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Ivan A Gustafson, Esq.
-- iagustafson@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff, Richard M
Lauth, Esq. -- rmlauth@ewhlaw.com -- Evert & Weathersby, William D
Harvard, Esq. -- wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff &
Roshan N Rajkumar, Esq. -- roshan.rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman and Brooke LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Directed to Produce Settlement Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Following a bench trial before the Hon. Jeremiah J. Moriarty III,
J.S.C., New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie, a judgment
of $3 million was entered against Hedman Resources, Ltd., as
damages for personal injuries, to wit, pleural mesothelioma,
sustained by Paul J. Mineweaser due to asbestos exposure at his
place of employment, Durez Plastics, a division of Occidental
Chemical Corporation, between May and October of 1971, and
pecuniary loss sustained by his spouse, Edna K. Mineweaser.  Paul
J. Minewaser died of complications from malignant mesothelioma
immediately after the judgment was entered.

An action was filed seeking payment of the state court judgment
from Hedman's excess insurance carriers.  The defendant excess
insurance carriers disclaim any obligation to the plaintiffs on
multiple grounds, including, confidential settlement agreements
releasing them from all outstanding coverage obligations they may
have had with Hedman.  The Plaintiffs assert that the settlement
agreements constitute fraudulent conveyances.

The defendants filed a motion to enforce the confidentiality of
the settlement agreements between the excess insurance companies
and Hedman by allowing defendants to file the agreements under
seal and subject to a protective order, and plaintiffs' motion to
compel production of those settlement agreements.

In a decision and order dated June 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge H.
Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York, denied the defendants motion to
file the settlement agreements under seal and subject to a
protective order and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel
production of those settlement agreements.

Magistrate Schroeder said the settlement agreements in which
Hedman and the excess insurance carriers resolved their dispute as
to coverage for asbestos related claims will be relevant to,
perhaps even determinative of, the Court's assessment of the
merits of plaintiffs' claims against the excess insurance
carriers.  Yet the defendants present no compelling reason for
upholding the confidentiality provisions in the settlement
agreements and precluding public scrutiny of the Court's
determination regarding the propriety and consequences of the
settlement agreements between Hedman and the excess insurance
carriers.  Hedman's desire to avoid the scrutiny of the terms and
conditions of the settlement of the coverage dispute does not
provide a sufficient basis for sealing these documents,
particularly when weighed against the fact that the settlement
effectively foreclosed the ability of workers to collect damages
for personal injuries caused by Hedman, Magistrate Schroeder says.

The case is EDNA K. MINEWEASER, Executrix of the Estate of PAUL J.
MINEWEASER, Deceased, and Individually as Surviving Spouse
Plaintiffs, v. ONE BEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, RESOLUTE
MANAGEMENT INC., Administrator for ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY,
SEATON INSURANCE COMPANY, Individually and as Successor to
UNIGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Individually and as Successor in Interest to HARBOR INSURANCE
COMPANY (CNA), HARPER INSURANCE LIMITED, f/k/a TUREGUM INSURANCE
COMPANY, and ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI, SPA, Defendants, No. 14-CV-
0585A(Sr) (W.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Schroeder's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/SPIRL9from Leagle.com.

Edna K. Mineweaser, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Duggan,
Duggan & Pawlowski LLP & John N. Lipsitz, Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC.

One Beacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Joseph J. Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts,
Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Resolute Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

Seaton Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edward S.
Bloomberg, Phillips Lytle LLP, Anne M. Mohan, Riker Danzig Scherer
Hyland & Perretti LLP, Jonathan D. Henry, Dentons US LLP & Shawn
L. Kelly, Dentons US LLP.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Schwartz, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

Harper Insurance Limited, Defendant, represented by Sharon
Angelino, Esq. -- sangelino@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg
Segalla LLP.

Assicurazioni Generalli, SPA, Defendant, represented by Sharon
Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP.

Assicurazioni Generalli, SPA, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Sharon Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP.

Harper Insurance Limited, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Sharon Angelino, Goldberg Segalla LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Messier" Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff George Messier filed a lawsuit in Connecticut state
court against several corporate defendants, including CBS
Corporation and General Electric Company for injuries arising from
exposure to asbestos.  On March 19, 2015, CBS filed a notice of
removal in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, asserting jurisdiction under the "federal officer"
removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, on the basis of a
"government contractor defense" -- specifically, that CBS and GE
manufactured any allegedly injurious products under contracts with
the U.S. Navy.  On March 20, 2015, GE joined in the removal on the
same grounds.  Messier has moved to remand the case to state
court.

Because there has not been an adequate showing of a causal
connection between Messier's lawsuit and the actions that CBS and
GE took under their government contracts, the District Court ruled
that is is without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442 and
granted the motion to remand the case.

The case is GEORGE MESSIER, Plaintiff, v. INGERSOLL RAND CO., et
al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-00408 (MPS)(D. Conn.).  A full-text
copy of the June 1, 2015 Order penned by U.S. District Judge
Michael P. Shea is available at http://is.gd/xYT5Dsfrom
Leagle.com.

George Messier, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry
& Neusner.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. Successor CBS
Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

A.W. Chesteron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Brian Collins Spring, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP-MA, Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning,
LLP-MA & Kevin W. Hadfield, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP-MA.

Armstrong International Inc., individually and as Successor
Armstrong Machine Works, Defendant, represented by Adam C Martin,
Cetrulo LLP.

Aurora Pump Co, Defendant, represented by Cullen W. Guilmartin,
Esq. -- cguilmartin@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP-CT.

Bell & Gossett Co, Defendant, represented by Robert Stuart Ludlum,
Esq. -- rludlum@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP.

Crane Co., individually and/or as parent, alter ego and/or
Successor Chapman Valve Company Successor Cochrane Corp. Successor
Chempump Successor Crane Supply Successor Crane Pumps and Systems,
Inc. Successor Jenkins Valves, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Jason Kirk Henderson, Danaher Lagnese,
PC & Patrick J. Glinka, Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C..

Crosby Valve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Adams,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., individually and as Successor
Copes-Vulcan formerly known as Vulcan Soot Blower Company,
Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis &
Perritano, LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry,
Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock &
Sheehan PC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Brett Michael Szczesny, Esq. -- szczesny@halloransage.com --
Halloran & Sage & Dan E. LaBelle, Esq. -- labelle@halloransage.com
-- Halloran & Sage.

IMO Indus Inc, Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Esq.
-- BMahoney@uks.com -- Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC-Htfd.

Niantic Seal Rip Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Reed Adam Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC.

Sepco, also known as Sealing Equip Prod Co Inc, Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney,
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC-Htfd.

Superior Boiler Works, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry,
Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock &
Sheehan PC.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., formerly known as Atwood &
Morrill Co, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. &
Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney & Kluger, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Jordan" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit, in an opinion
dated June 10, 2015, affirmed a trial court's summary judgment
dismissing the premises liability claims against Progressive Care
Center, one of the defendants against whom a wrongful death and
survival action was asserted following the death of the original
plaintiff, William H. Jordan, from mesothelioma.

According to the Court of Appeals, Jordan's deposition, which was
the main exhibit offered by PCC in support of its motion for
summary judgment, shows an absence of factual support for elements
essential to the plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability
claims.

The case is WILLIAM H. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THATCHER
STREET, LLC, F/F/A R.F. ZIMMERMAN & COMPANY, CHRISTUS HEALTH
NORTHERN LA D/B/A CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM, PROGRESSIVE
CARE CENTER, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Defendants-Appellees, No. 49,820-CA (La. App.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/TS1NBtfrom
Leagle.com.

MARTZELL & BICKFORD, By: Scott R. Bickford, Lawrence J. Centola,
III, Roshawn H. Donahue, Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants,
William H. Jordan (deceased), Dorothy Jordan, William, H. Jordan,
Jr., Ronnie Jordan, Sr.

FRANK M. FERRELL, WATSON, BLANCHE, WILSON & POSNER, By: Rene J.
Pfefferle, Esq. -- rpfefferle@wbwplaw.com -- Jennifer M. Durham,
Esq. -- jdurham@wbwplaw.com -- Counsel for Defendants-Appellees,
Progressive Care Center and Virginia Hall Nursing Home.

BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, By: Robert S.
Emmett, Paul K. Colomb, Jr., Counsel for Defendants-Appellees,
Christus Health Northern LA and Christus Schumpert Health System.

GRAHAM H. TODD, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, City of
Shreveport.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Directs Co. to Supplement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated June 2, 2015, directed defendant-
appellant in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION, Motion No. M-2344 (N.Y. App. Div.) to immediately file
a supplemental appendix.  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/3PjnTofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory Carrier Dropped as Defendant in 4 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued an order on June 8,
2015, approving the stipulation between Motley Rice LLC, as
counsel for certain asbestos plaintiffs, and Thompson Hine LLP, as
counsel for Defendant Victory Carriers, Inc., agreeing that (1)
Victory Carriers is deemed to have filed motions to dismiss based
on lack of personal jurisdiction in Ohio, and (2) consistent with
the Court's prior Orders dismissing Victory Carriers for lack of
personal jurisdiction, the Court may enter an Order pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2), dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Victory
Carrier with respect to Civil Action No. 2:11CV30170 Bowden, Jr.,
Augustus, Civil Action No. 2:10CV54522 Rivera, Francisco, Civil
Action No. 2:11CV32306 Spencer, Jim, and Civil Action No.
2:11CV33303 Clark, Terrill, for lack of personal jurisdiction,
without prejudice and without consideration, each party to bear
its own costs.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.VI)
This document relates to all actions: In Re Asbestos Products
Liability Litigation (No.: VI), Certain Plaintiffs, v. Certain
Defendants, Civil Action No. MDL 875 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lQVuQp
from Leagle.com.

John E. Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, Attorney for
Plaintiffs.

Harold W. Henderson, Thompson Hine LLP, Cleveland, OH, Attorney
for Defendant Victory Carriers, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Ruling in "Hockler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in an opinion dated June 9, 2015, unanimously reversed
an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, entered Oct. 23,
2014, which denied defendant the William Powell Company's motion
for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related personal
injury complaint captioned RYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, 14981, 190235/13
(N.Y. App. Div.), after determining that, even assuming Powell's
valves were defectively designed, the plaintiff's injuries did not
result from their intended or unintended but reasonably
foreseeable use.  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/tpa0d7from Leagle.com.

Clemente Mueller, PA, New York (William F. Mueller, Esq. --
wmueller@cm-legal.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Brendan Tully of counsel), for
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workplace Exposure Claims in 2 PI Suits Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company filed in two asbestos-related
lawsuits separate motions for judgment on the grounds that: (a)
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin has dismissed similar claims premised solely on
workplace exposure and (b) the time -- as set in the MDL court --
for amending complaints has passed, precluding the plaintiffs from
now claiming the kind of community exposure on which other
asbestos plaintiffs have been allowed to proceed.  The two
plaintiffs move for leave to file second amended complaints,
containing allegations of community exposure.

In an opinion and order dated June 2, 2015, U.S. District Judge
William M. Conley granted in part and denied in part
Weyerhaeuser's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Weyerhaeuser's motion is granted with respect to any claim based
on workplace exposure, but denied in all other respects.  Judge
Conley granted the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their
respective complaints.

The cases are BRIAN HECKEL, individually and as special
administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Sharon
Heckel, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., and
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants. DIANNE JACOBS, individually and
as special administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on
behalf of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., RAPID
AMERICAN CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID
AMERICAN CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC. and
WEYERHAEUSER, Nos. 13-cv-459-wmc, 12-cv-899-wmc (W.D. Wis.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QKALGEfrom Leagle.com.

Brian Heckel, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Emily Zapotocny, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Bradley R. Bultman, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Roshan Nicholas
Rajkumar, Bowman and Brooke, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP &
Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf,
Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers
Law Offices, LLC, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP
& Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Childhood Exposure Claims Allowed to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In two asbestos-related cases, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin previously dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims against defendant Owens-Illinois, Co., based on
a patent licensing theory, finding that those claims failed as a
matter of law, but allowing the plaintiffs to re-plead any claims
premised on Owens-Illinois' sale of asbestos door cores provided
it could plead in good faith that the individual plaintiffs came
into contact with those door cores.

After submitting proposed amended complaints and motions for
reconsideration, the court allowed certain plaintiffs in other
related cases to proceed on claims against Owens-Illinois on the
basis that those plaintiffs worked at Roddis, Weyerhaeuser's
predecessor, during the time in which Owens-Illinois sold its
Kaylo core to Roddis.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in the two
asbestos case, that ruling was of no help since none of them
worked at Weyerhaeuser until well after Owens-Illinois ceased
manufacturing the doors at issue.

Before the court now is a second motion for reconsideration from
plaintiffs Masephol and the Boyers, however, contending that the
court erred in dismissing their claims against Owens-Illinois
based on their respective allegations that "Plaintiff was exposed
to Kaylo dust in the 1950s when his parents brought it home on
their clothes and in their family car."

U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, in an opinion and order
dated June 2, 2015, granted the plaintiffs' motions and allow them
to proceed on a claim against Owens-Illinois based on their
childhood exposure to Kaylo dust, although the court is skeptical
that an attenuated claim can survive the plaintiffs' burden of
proving causation, even at the summary judgment stage.

The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, Nos. 14-
cv-286-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0mOttnfrom
Leagle.com.

Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Galiher
DeRobertis Waxman, Gary Galiher, Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, James
Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G.
McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Emily Zapotocny, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Kevin B. Brown, Thompson Coe
Cousins & Irons, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William P. Croke, von
Briesen & Roper, s.c..

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf,
Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins
Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy,
LLP.

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims vs. Weyerhaeuser Partially Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company seeks to dismiss several asbestos
plaintiffs' negligent nuisance and intentional nuisance claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Weyerhaeuser asserts several bases for dismissal.

In an opinion dated June 2, 2015, Judge William M. Conley of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
granted in part and denied in part Weyerhaeuser's motions, finding
that the plaintiffs may bring their respective nuisance claims,
but may not rely on the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et
seq., and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency,
including the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, in establishing the applicable standard of care.  In
all other respects, defendant's motion is denied.

The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET
PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M
COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS
INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and
JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-
ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, Nos. 14-
cv-286-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc, 14-cv-147-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-
161-wmc, 14-cv-219-wmc (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/KfXGDgfrom
Leagle.com.

Virginia Prust, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd.

Weyerhaeuser Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F.
Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman
Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily
Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William
P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere,
Schiff Hardin, LLP, Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *