CAR_Public/150622.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 123


                            Headlines


AB EROSION: "Barbosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AITHERAS AVIATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Dearborn Police Class Action
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held
AMERICA MOVIL: Defending Against Profeco Class Action

ARCH COAL: Faces "Roe" Suit Over Imprudent Investment Option
ARGOSY EDUCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
AS FULTON: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Teel" Suit Over FX Exchange-Price Fixing
BIOSCRIP INC: Inks MOU to Settle 2 Securities Class Actions

CHEN MEDICAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHINA FINANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CONWAY PROWASH: Faces "Steimel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CREDIT CONTROL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
CROSSROADS HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Unlawful Lockout Practices

CSOS LLC: "Trevino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CYAN INC: Faces "Fenske" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger
DA SILVANO: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DANAHER CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale
DARK STAR: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DNJ INTERMODAL: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Antitrust Class Actions
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Suppresses Employees Wages, "Seaman" Suit Says
EAST WOK: Faces "Gao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Companies Filed Class Action
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ESPAR INC: Faces North Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
EXCEL TRUST: Facing Class Action Over Merger
EXPEDIA INC: Court Approved Settlement in Columbia Litigation

EXPEDIA INC: Interlocutory Appeal Bid Denied in Consumer Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Amended Class Action Filed by Orbitz Stockholders
EXTREME ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Warf" Suit Says
FINGER ONE: Removed "Spaulding" Class Suit to C.D. California
FIRST SOLAR: Oral Argument on June 25 for Summary Judgment Bids

FIRSTENERGY CORP: To Defend Against Air Emissions Class Action
FLO-WELL OILFIELD: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HENRY FORD HEALTH: "Whaley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HERTZ CORPORATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Procurement Policies
HESS EXPRESS: "Gould" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HORIZON INC: "Lemieux" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HORIZON LINES: Reached MOU in Consolidated Action
INDUSTRIAL COOLING: "Petzer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ITALIAN TERRAZZO: Removed "Rodriguez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Direct Claims by 9,200 Plaintiffs Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cert. Ruling in Blood Reagent Suit Reversed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on BC Civil Claim
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 30 Class Suits Filed by Contact Lens Patients
KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gautier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KOYO FRANCE: Faces DALC Gear Suit Over Bearing-Price Fixing

LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Named Defendants in 2 Class Actions
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vincent" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMINESS DIRECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says
MACKANAN LLC: "Benoit" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MADISON SQUARE: Facing Claims in Class Actions Against NHL
MASTEC NETWORK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approved Withdrawal Petition
MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action in Discovery Phase
MIMEDX GROUP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Action

NAIL DAY: Faces "Guaman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL: Sued Over Emergency Care Fees
OMNI WATER: "Ostrowski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OVERDRIVE SYSTEMS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PASTAI INC: Faces "Basurto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PENTA RESTORATION: Faces "Rosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PHL VARIABLE: Settled Cost of Insurance Cases
PIPELINE SERVICES: "Kelly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PLANTATION CAR: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
QUINN'S RENTAL: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Parties Await Decision by District Judge
STREAM ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Wants Cert. Order in "Abdeljalil" Revised

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Filed in "Cowan" Case
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Pittman" TCPA Class Action Remains Stayed
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Stay "Hofer" TCPA Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Dubanoski" TCPA Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Resolved 2 TCPA Class Actions

TAMKO BUILDING: Falsely Marketed Shingles, "Hummel" Suit Claims
TAXI CAB: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TILE SHOP: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
TRANSFIRST LLC: Faces "Nable" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Removed "Brown" Class Suit to E.D. Kentucky

TRICORP MANAGEMENT: "Volz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Restraint Systems Price Manipulation
VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Company Merger
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed AOL Merger
WHOLESALE COINS: Illegally Records Incoming Calls, Action Claims

WIRELESS CHOICE: Faces "Burley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WORLD WRESTLING: Removed "Frazier" to M.D. Tennessee Dist. Court
WORLD WRESTLING: Class Action Suits Transferred to Connecticut
WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Ansari" Amended Suit
XOOM CORPORATION: Facing Liu and Barrett Class Actions

YELP INC: Deadline to Amend Securities Complaint Expired
YELP INC: Former Eat24 employees File Class Action


                            *********


AB EROSION: "Barbosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Reyes Barbosa, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. AB Erosion Control, LLC and
Andrew S. Bray, Case No. 4:15-cv-01573 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AB Erosion Control, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that
is engaged in landscaping business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AITHERAS AVIATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rauchfleisch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Aitheras Aviation Group, LLC and George Katsikas, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01159-SO (N.D. Ohio, June 9, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an aircraft charter business based in
Cleveland, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Dearborn Police Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against allegations in the securities
class action launched by the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B.
Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action"). On
July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On
August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without
leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Align intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is
currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
a range of possible loss, if any."


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held
------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit has been fully briefed and an oral argument was
scheduled for May 5, 2015.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
adding alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"). HealthpointCapital, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and
Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and the
Company's financial guidance following the closing of the
acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 18, 2011. The
district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend
on March 22, 2012. On April 19, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act against the same named defendants. On
May 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The district court granted that motion without
leave to amend and entered final judgment in the Company's favor
on March 28, 2013. On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and an oral
argument was scheduled for May 5, 2015.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint.
However, the outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted at this
time and any outcome that is adverse to the Company, regardless of
who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition and results of operations.


AMERICA MOVIL: Defending Against Profeco Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. De C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit filed by the Federal
Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor, or
"Profeco").

Profeco filed an action similar to a class action in Mexican
courts on behalf of customers who filed complaints before it,
alleging deficiencies in the quality of Telcel's network in 2010
and breach of customer agreements. If the action is resolved in
favor of Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to
compensation for damages.

Beginning in 2012, Mexican Law provides for class actions seeking
compensation. These class actions may arise from antitrust,
consumer, data and privacy protection issues, as well as
administrative, criminal and environmental violations, and may be
filed by the competent authorities or the affected groups.

Five class actions have been initiated against Telcel (i) three
are related to quality of service and were filed by consumers;
(ii) one also filed by consumers is related to quality of service,
but in addition compares wireless voice, data and broadband
international rates claiming that rates offered by Telcel are
higher than international comparable rates; and (iii) one was
filed by Profeco and relates to a network technical malfunction
that occurred in January 2013.

"The Company currently does not have enough information to
determine whether these class actions could have an adverse effect
on our business and results of operations if they are resolved
against us. Consequently, Telcel has not established a provision
in the accompanying financial statements for loss arising from
these contingencies," the Company said.


ARCH COAL: Faces "Roe" Suit Over Imprudent Investment Option
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas R. Roe, on behalf of himself and Arch Coal, Inc. Employee
Thrift Plan, and/or alternatively on behalf of a class consisting
of similarly situated participants of the Plan v. Arch Coal, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00910-NAB (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by continuing to
offer Arch Stock as a Plan investment option when it was imprudent
to do so and maintaining the Plan's pre-existing significant
investment in Arch Stock when it was no longer a prudent
investment for the Plan.

Arch Coal, Inc. is a diversified coal company engaged in coal
production, marketing and supply of cleaner-burning, low-sulfur
thermal and metallurgical coal to power generators and steel
manufacturers over five continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Blitz, Esq.
      Christopher O. Bauman, Esq.
      BLITZ, BARDGETT & DEUTSCH, L.C.
      120 South Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 863-1500
      Facsimile: (314) 863-1877
      E-mail: rblitz@bbdlc.com
              cbauman@bbdlc.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


ARGOSY EDUCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony James Gerhardt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Argosy Education Group, Inc. d/b/a argosy
University, Case No. 2015-CH-08848 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 3, 2015),
seeks stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
telemarketing calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

Argosy Education Group, Inc. is a for-profit college that offers
education-related programming at campuses throughout the country
and also online.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Gallery Tower 1
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


AS FULTON: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marino Antonio Guzman v. A.S. Fulton Food Corp. 1299 Meat and
Produce Food Corp., Nicolas Lopez, Arodiz Xavier Diaz, and David
Santana, Case No. 1:15-cv-03313 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Bravo Supermarket with its
principal place of business at 1299 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New
York 11216.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Teel" Suit Over FX Exchange-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Teel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04436 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
manipulate prices for foreign exchange ("FX") futures and options
on FX futures.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis F. Burke, Esq.
      Leslie Wybiral, Esq.
      LOUIS F. BURKE, P.C
      460 Park Avenue, 21ST Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 682-1700
      E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
              lwybiral@lfblaw.com

         - and -

      Michael Brickman, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      174 East Bay Street, P.O. Box 879
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      Facsimile: (843) 727-3103
      E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com

         - and -

      James C. Bradley, Esq.
      Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
      Matthew A. Nickles, Esq.
      Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
      1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
      Post Office Box 1007
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      Facsimile: (843) 881-6183
      E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
              nfields@rpwb.com
              mnickles@rpwb.com


BIOSCRIP INC: Inks MOU to Settle 2 Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, that on April
30, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle two separate
putative class action lawsuits.

On March 9, 2015, the Company entered into a securities purchase
agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with Coliseum Capital
Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., and Blackwell
Partners, LLC, Series A, (collectively, the "PIPE Investors"),
pursuant to which the Company issued and sold to the PIPE
Investors in a private placement (the "PIPE Transaction") an
aggregate of (a) 625,000 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred
Stock (the "Preferred Stock"), (b) 1,800,000 Class A warrants to
purchase Company common stock ("Common Stock") (the "Class A
Warrants"), and (c) 1,800,000 Class B warrants to purchase Common
Stock (the "Class B Warrants" and, together with the Class A
Warrants, the "Warrants"), for gross proceeds of $62.5 million. As
disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on
April 8, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement"), the Company is seeking
stockholder approval at the Company's 2015 annual meeting of
stockholders to be held on May 11, 2015 (the "Annual Meeting") to
remove certain conversion and voting restrictions affecting the
Preferred Stock and exercise restrictions affecting the Warrants
("Stockholder Approval"). Until Stockholder Approval is obtained,
the terms of the Preferred Stock and the Warrants contain caps on
the conversion of the Preferred Stock into Common Stock and on the
exercise of the Warrants to purchase Common Stock (the "Conversion
Caps") and a cap on voting power (the "Voting Cap" and, together
with the Conversion Caps, the "Caps") that prevent the issuance of
Common Stock if a single holder would own or vote more than 19.99%
of the Common Stock or have more than 19.99% of the voting power.
If the Company does not receive Stockholder Approval by September
30, 2015, then the Caps will remain in effect and the dividend
rates on the Preferred Stock will increase (the "Dividend Rate
Adjustment") from 8.5% to 13.5% for cash dividends and from 11.5%
to 16.5% if the dividend is accrued and added to the liquidation
preference of the Preferred Stock.

On April 9, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") by purported
stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin ("Plaintiffs"),
respectively, against the Company, the individual directors of the
Company and the PIPE Investors. The two separate class action
lawsuits have been consolidated by order of the Court as In re
BioScrip, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the
"Delaware Action").

In consideration for the full settlement and release of the
Delaware Action (the "Settlement"), the Memorandum of
Understanding provides for, among other things, agreement that:
(1) additional disclosures will be made by the Company to
stockholders regarding the PIPE Transaction and Stockholder
Approval, as set forth in a supplement to the Proxy Statement (the
"Supplemental Disclosures"); (2) if Stockholder Approval is
obtained at the Annual Meeting, causing the Caps to be removed and
the Dividend Rate Adjustment to never go into effect, the Delaware
Action will be dismissed with prejudice; (3) if Stockholder
Approval is not obtained at the Annual Meeting, the Caps will
remain in place and the Dividend Rate Adjustment will not go into
effect unless the Court determines that the Dividend Rate
Adjustment and the Caps are valid after a trial on the merits with
a final judgment to be entered into no later than August 31, 2015,
and (4) the Company will commence a previously announced rights
offering (the "Rights Offering") on or before June 30, 2015,
subject to confirmation regarding any required regulatory or other
approvals, whereby stockholders entitled to receive a fractional
right consisting of at least 1/2 right will be rounded up to the
nearest whole right, and stockholders entitled to receive a
fractional right consisting of less than 1/2 right will be rounded
down to the nearest whole right; provided that if the total number
of units subscribed for exceeds 200,000, then each subscribing
stockholder's allocation of units will be reduced on a pro rata
basis that results in a total subscription of 200,000 units. In
addition, the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the
withdrawal of the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
in respect of the Annual Meeting.

While the Company has entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Settlement will be subject to the parties
entering into a formal stipulation of settlement and approval of
the Court, which the parties to the Delaware Action will use their
best efforts to agree upon, and execute prior to May 11, 2015.

A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is available at
http://1.usa.gov/1BvjgLJ

OF COUNSEL:

KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Lee D. Rudy
Eric L. Zagar
Michael C. Wagner
Christopher M. Windover
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Tel: (610) 667-7706


PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
1310 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 888-6500
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin


OF COUNSEL:

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Esq.
Joseph Serino, Jr., P.C., Esq.
Shireen A. Barday, Esq.
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 446-4800


RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
Brock E. Czeschin, Esq.
Sarah A. Clark, Esq.
One Rodney Square
920 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 651-7700
Counsel for BioScrip, Inc., Myron Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W.
Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R. Hubers, Yon Y. Jorden, Tricia
N. Nguyen, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H. Woodward, and Richard M
Smith


OF COUNSEL

PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Kevin C. Logue, Esq.
Kurt W. Hansson, Esq.
75 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 318-6039


MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
William M. Lafferty, Esq.
Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Esq.
Lauren K. Neal, Esq.
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 658-9200
Counsel for Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, Coliseum Capital
Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P. and Christopher
S. Shackelton


OF COUNSEL:

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
Robert H. Pees, Esq.
Jacqueline Yecies, Esq.
One Bryant Park
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 872-7479


POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
Matthew F. Davis, Esq.
Hercules Plaza
1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 984-6000
Counsel for Blackwell Partners LLC


CHEN MEDICAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy A. Demoya-Valdes and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Chen Medical Aventura, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-22141-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Chen Medical Aventura, Inc. owns and operates a health care
facility in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHINA FINANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thuc Pham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, Zhiwei Zhao and Jun
Wang, Case No. 2:15-cv-04256-PA-E (C.D. Cal., June 5, 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.

China Finance Online Co. Limited operates a web-based financial
services company in China that provides Chinese retail investors
with online access to securities and commodities trading services,
wealth management products, securities investment advisory
services, as well as financial database and analytics services to
institutional customers.

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


CONWAY PROWASH: Faces "Steimel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Steimel, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Conway Prowash LLC, Prevention Fire & Safety LLC,
Conway Professional Services LLC, and Bradley Behrendt, Case No.
1:15-cv-00599 (W.D. Mich., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate fire protection and janitorial
services, with its principal place of business located at 8730
Commerce Court, Harbor Springs, Michigan 49740.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Bryan Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
      One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 746-4044
      E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Ezheni Chavushyan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit Control LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04371
(C.D. Cal., June 9, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number using
an automatic telephone dialing system.

Credit Control LLC is a company engaged, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of collecting a debt.

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


CROSSROADS HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Unlawful Lockout Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Hardy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crossroads Hospitality, Inc., Family Bank and Trust
Company, De Patel, Earl Micculins, and Rohit Patel, Case No. 2015-
CH-08833 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 3, 2015), seeks to redress the
Defendants' unlawful practices of subjecting its tenants to
illegal lockouts and evictions in violation of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The Defendants own and operate a single room occupancy building in
downtown Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ring Berton N., Esq.
      123 W. Madison 15th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 781-0290


CSOS LLC: "Trevino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Trevino, Joe Prado, Eduardo Trevino, Joel Prado, Milton
Robles, Frank Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions,
LLC, KLX Energy Services, LLC, Carlos I. Garza, III and Jorge
Gomez, Case No. 2:15-cv-00249 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in business of providing services to
the oil and gas exploration and production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CYAN INC: Faces "Fenske" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Fenske, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cyan, Inc., Mark Floyd, Michael Boustridge, Paul
Ferris, Promod Haque, Michael Hatfield, Neil Ransom, Robert
Switz, Ciena Corporation, and Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary,
Inc., Case No. 11090-CB (Del. Ch., June 3, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all holders of the common stock of Cyan, Inc. against
the Board of Directors of Cyan to enjoin the acquisition of Cyan
common stock by Ciena Corporation for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

Cyan, Inc. is a telecommunications company that was founded in
2006 and whose main products consist of optical networking
hardware and related management software.

Ciena Corporation is a United States-based global supplier of
telecommunications networking equipment, software and services
that support the delivery and transport of voice, video and data
service.

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


DA SILVANO: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Vega Avila, Jorge Molina, and Gianluca Starace, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Da Silvano Corp.,
d/b/a Da Silvano Restaurant, and Silvano Marchetto, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04375-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at
260 6th avenue, New York, NY10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


DANAHER CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navya Shekhar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Danaher Corporation, et al., Case No. 603554/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
stockholders of Pall Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the company by Danaher Corporation for unfair price
and inadequate consideration.

Danaher Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs,
manufactures, and markets professional, medical, industrial, and
commercial products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              stornatore@zlk.com


DARK STAR: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dark Star Production Testing, Inc. d/b/a Liberty
Production Testing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00248 (S.D. Tex., June
5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dark Star Production Testing, Inc. is an oilfield service company
operating across the four Western Canadian provinces and the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


DNJ INTERMODAL: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Barrera, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04952
(N.D. Ill., June 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC is an intermodal trucking and
container drayage company that provides intermodal logistics and
transportation services to clients in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 S Michigan, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com
              acaffarelli@caffarelli.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation Skg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, with leave to amend.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. In
September 2014, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company (nominally and in a derivative capacity) and
several of its officers and directors for alleged violations of
fiduciary duties to the Company for, among other things,
permitting the Company to issue alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. This
lawsuit generally asserts, purportedly on the Company's behalf,
the same underlying factual allegations as those made in the class
action lawsuits discussed above and has been deemed a related
case. These lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of
shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary
relief.

On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, with
leave to amend. On April 16, 2015, the plantiffs informed the
Company that they had elected not to amend their complaint, and
the case was dismissed on April 24, 2015. The derivative class
action has not been dismissed. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. At this time the Company is unable
to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits, nor
can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: To Defend Against Antitrust Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation Skg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in September and
October 2014, three putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws were filed against
the Company and various other companies in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits have been
consolidated and generally assert that the defendants agreed to
restrict competition through non-solicitation agreements and
agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The lawsuits seek to
recover damages on behalf of all persons who worked for the
defendants at any time from 2004 to the present. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At this time
the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Suppresses Employees Wages, "Seaman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Seaman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Duke University, Duke University Health
System, Inc., and Does 1-20, Case No. 1:15-cv-00462 (M.D.N.C.,
June 9, 2015), arises from the illegal conspiracy among Duke,
DUHS, and co-conspirators the University of North Carolina (UNC)
and the University of North Carolina Health Care System, to
suppress employee compensation, and to impose unlawful
restrictions on employee mobility.

Duke University owns and operates educational and research
facilities with its principal place of business in Durham, North
Carolina.

Duke University Health System, Inc. operates three hospitals in
the Raleigh-Durham area, as well as a physician network consisting
of twenty primary care physician practices throughout the North
Carolina and five urgent care facilities in Durham and Wake
counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert M. Elliot, Esq.
      ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC
      426 Old Salem Rd.
      Brickenstein-Leinbach House
      Winston-Salem, NC 27101
      Telephone: (336) 724-2828
      Facsimile: (336) 724-3335
      E-mail: rmelliot@emplawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
      Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Martin D. Quinones, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
              bglackin@lchb.com
              dharvey@lchb.com
              mquinones@lchb.com


EAST WOK: Faces "Gao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Rong Gao, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similiarly situated v. East Wok Inc. d/b/a "East Wok Chinese
Restaurant", Zu Qiu Yang, Ling Xia Chen, John Does and Jane Does
#1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-04347 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 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 140 Midland
Avenue, Port Chester, NY 10573.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Companies Filed Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that on April 17, 2015,
Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. ("Barington") filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company and its board
of directors (the "Board") in the Superior Court of Waterbury,
Connecticut (the "Action").  The Action alleges, among other
things, that the Eastern Board breached its fiduciary duties by
amending the Company's bylaws to allow the board to fill vacancies
resulting from an expansion of the number of board seats.  The
Action also challenges the Board's announced intention to increase
the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20,
2015 Annual Meeting and seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the Board from nominating a new director to fill
a vacancy that is the result of an expansion of the number of
board seats.  On April 17, 2015, Barington filed a motion for
expedited proceedings and discovery prior to the May 20, 2015
Annual Meeting.  On April 29, 2015, the Court issued an Order
holding that the Action is derivative and staying the case until
July 11, 2015 pursuant to Connecticut law.  No estimate for the
cost of defending this suit was available when this Form 10-Q was
filed with the SEC.


ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Justyn A. Grimsley, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Environmental Management Specialists, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02371-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio, June 9, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Environmental Management Specialists, Inc. is an environmental
contracting company servicing a wide variety of clients in the
fields of oil and gas, transportation companies, industrial
facilities, environmental services companies, general contractors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Drew Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              akoropey@bm.net


ESPAR INC: Faces North Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
North Jersey Truck Center, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Espar Inc. and Espar Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03290 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2015), alleges that from at
least October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012, the
Defendants and their co-conspirators inflated the price for air
and coolant parking heaters sold aftermarket for use in commercial
vehicles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 201-6820
      Facsimile: (646) 219-6678
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckne, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Devona L. Wells, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              hsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              dlwells@locklaw.com


EXCEL TRUST: Facing Class Action Over Merger
--------------------------------------------
Excel Trust, Inc. and Excel Trust, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April
22, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego, against the
Company, the Operating Partnership, Blackstone, BRE Retail Centers
Holdings LP, BRE Retail Centers Corp, BRE Retail Centers LP and
the members of our board of directors alleging, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of the company in connection with the proposed
Mergers. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Company, the
Operating Partnership, Blackstone, BRE Retail Centers Holdings LP,
BRE Retail Centers Corp and BRE Retail Centers LP aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the completion of the
Mergers.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Approved Settlement in Columbia Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 6, 2015, the
court entered an order approving the class action settlement in
the City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al. Litigation.


EXPEDIA INC: Interlocutory Appeal Bid Denied in Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 26, 2015, the
court denied the plaintiffs' request for interlocutory appeal of
the trial court's ruling granting the motions to dismiss filed in
the Miller and Frank putative class action consumer cases against
Hotwire.


EXPEDIA INC: Amended Class Action Filed by Orbitz Stockholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, In re
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, Case
No. 10711-VCP (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), on
April 8, 2015, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Orbitz stockholders against Expedia, Inc., Xeta, Inc. (Expedia's
indirect wholly owned subsidiary), Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and the
Orbitz board of directors relating to the merger agreement between
Expedia, Xeta and Orbitz. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty by the Orbitz board of directors and claims against
Expedia, Xeta and Orbitz for aiding and abetting the Orbitz
directors' alleged breach of their duties. Plaintiffs claim, among
other things, that the Orbitz directors breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to an inadequate price for the transaction and
unreasonable deal protection devices, that certain Orbitz
directors have conflicts of interest, and that the Orbitz
directors failed to disclose material information concerning the
fairness of the merger.


EXTREME ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Warf" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Warf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Extreme Engineering Ltd., and Schlumberger Tech.
Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-01580 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours a week.

Extreme Engineering Ltd. operates an oilfield service company that
provides MWD services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


FINGER ONE: Removed "Spaulding" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Brittany Spaulding, as an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Finger
One, Inc. d/b/a Goldfinger's Gentlemen's Club, Auric Elemental,
Inc. d/b/a Brewski's Bar and Grill, Aaron Benjamin Goldberg, and
Does 1 through 50 Inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00017740-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-01261-AJB-DHB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noam Glick, Esq.
      GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2100
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 382-3400
      Facsimile: (619) 615-2193
      E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew D Skale
      MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
      3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 314-1500
      Facsimile: (858) 314-1501
      E-mail: askale@mintz.com


FIRST SOLAR: Oral Argument on June 25 for Summary Judgment Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument on the
motions for summary judgment is currently scheduled for June 25,
2015 in a class action lawsuit.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages,
including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on March 27, 2015, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for partial
summary judgment on the same day. Plaintiffs and Defendants filed
briefs opposing the other's motion for summary judgment on April
27, 2015, and briefing on the motions for summary judgment is set
to conclude on May 27, 2015. Oral argument on the motions for
summary judgment is currently scheduled for June 25, 2015. Expert
discovery is scheduled to commence after the motions for summary
judgment have been resolved.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: To Defend Against Air Emissions Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in July 2008, three
complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FG
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-
fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to
enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe,
responsible, prudent and proper manner." One complaint was filed
on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other is a class
action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight
named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FG believes the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations made in these complaints, but, at this
time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate
the possible loss or range of loss.


FLO-WELL OILFIELD: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flo-Well Oilfield Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00247 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Flo-Well Oilfield Services, Inc. is an oilfield service company
operating across Canada and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


HENRY FORD HEALTH: "Whaley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Whaley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Henry Ford Health System, Case No. 2:15-cv-12101-DML-
DRG (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Henry Ford Health System operates a network of six hospitals and a
network of health centers, medical centers, optometrist's offices,
emergency rooms and pharmacies in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance C. Young, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 415-2238
      E-mail: lyoung@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com


HERTZ CORPORATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Procurement Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Sterling Infosystems, Inc. d/b/a Sterlingbackcheck,
and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-02545-JSW (N.D. Cal.,
June 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
strictly comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
governing the procurement and use of consumer reports for
employment purposes.

The Hertz Corporation is the largest worldwide airport general use
car rental company with more than 1,700 airport locations in the
U.S.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. is wholly owned and operated
by the Hertz Corporation.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. is one of the largest consumer
reporting agencies in the United States, providing consumer
reports to companies, to be used for employment purposes, such as
making hiring decisions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Meredith Desautels, Esq.
      Stephanie Funt, Esq.
      LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
      OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
      131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 543-9444
      Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
      E-mail: mdesautels@lccr.com
              sfunt@lccr.com


HESS EXPRESS: "Gould" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dalton Gould, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hess Express, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00071-DLH (D.N.D.,
June 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hess Express, LLC owns and operates an oil and gas exploration
company doing business in the State of North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq.
      ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC
      2603 Augusta, Suite 880
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (713) 780-7100
      E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com


HORIZON INC: "Lemieux" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lemieux, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Horizon, Inc., Mark Keith, and Gina Keith, Case No.
2:15-cv-02332-SB (D.S.C., June 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction business with its
headquarters located in Ridgeland, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E.MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


HORIZON LINES: Reached MOU in Consolidated Action
-------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 22, 2015, that the defendants and the
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action have reached an agreement in
principle, subject to the court's approval (the "Memorandum of
Understanding"), providing for the settlement and dismissal, with
prejudice, of the Consolidated Action.

On November 25, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10399-VCL (the "Loken Action"). The complaint names as
defendants each member of the Company's Board (the "Individual
Defendants"), the Company, and Matson Navigation Company, Inc.,
Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition, Inc. (collectively, "the
Matson Companies"). The complaint generally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good
faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized
the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with
Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of
the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with
damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 1, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned J. Cola Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No.
10412-VCL (the "J. Cola Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the J. Cola Action filed an amended complaint, adding
a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 2, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No.
10418-VCL (the "Kristiansen Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the Kristiansen Action filed an amended complaint,
adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary
duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23,
2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On January 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case
No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty,
due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the
November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of
the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an order consolidating the Loken Action, J. Cola
Action, Kristiansen Action, and Schwartz Action into "In re
Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated C.A.
10399-VCL (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 13, 2015, the
defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached
an agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval (the
"Memorandum of Understanding"), providing for the settlement and
dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to
such Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make
additional disclosures to the Company's stockholders through a
supplement to the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement and the
Company and Matson agreed to amend the Merger Agreement in order
to reduce the amount of the termination fee payable by the Company
to Matson under certain circumstances pursuant to Section 7.3(a)
of the Merger Agreement from $17.1 million to $9.5 million. On
February 13, 2015, the Company, Matson and Merger Sub entered into
Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The Company and its Board
of Directors believe that the claims in the Actions are entirely
without merit and, in the event the settlement does not resolve
them, intend to contest them vigorously.


INDUSTRIAL COOLING: "Petzer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Petzer, individually, and all other similarly situated v.
Industrial Cooling Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-03854-KM-MAH
(D.N.J., June 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Industrial Cooling Corporation is an air conditioning contractor,
doing business within the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elliot David Ostrove, Esq.
      EPSTEIN ARLEN & OSTROVE LLC
      220 Davidson Ave, Suite 102
      Somerset, NJ 08873
      Telephone: (732) 828-8600
      Facsimile: (732) 828-8601
      E-mail: e.ostrove@epsteinarlen.com


ITALIAN TERRAZZO: Removed "Rodriguez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Angel Rodriguez and other
similarly situated individuals v. Italian Terrazzo & Tile Co., of
Brevard, LLC, Alexander Pezzeminti, and Jerry J. Pezzeminti, Jr.,
Case No. 15-009883-CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22149-CMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew Stanton Hament, Esq.
      Laura Lee Mall, Esq.
      FORD & HARRISON LLP
      One Harbor Place
      1901 S. Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 501
      Melbourne, FL 32901
      Telephone: (321) 724-5970
      Facsimile: (321) 541-1468
      E-mail: ahament@fordharrison.com
              lmall@fordharrison.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Direct Claims by 9,200 Plaintiffs Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that as of March 29, 2015,
in the U.S. there were approximately 9,200 plaintiffs with direct
claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the
DePuy ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip
Resurfacing System, 7,600 with respect to the PINNACLE(R)
Acetabular Cup System, 38,500 with respect to pelvic meshes, and
2,400 with respect to RISPERDAL(R).

Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are involved in numerous
product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products.
Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where
available, punitive damages. While these subsidiaries believe they
have substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the
ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established
product liability accruals in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on
currently available information, which in some cases may be
limited. In addition, product liability accruals can represent
projected product liability for thousands of claims around the
world, each in different litigation environments and with
different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required
in the future as additional information becomes available.

The most significant of these cases include the DePuy ASR(TM) XL
Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System, the
PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, and
RISPERDAL(R). As of March 29, 2015, in the U.S. there were
approximately 9,200 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending
lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR(TM) XL
Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System, 7,600
with respect to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, 38,500 with
respect to pelvic meshes, and 2,400 with respect to RISPERDAL(R).

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected
to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and
additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in Federal courts in
the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Canada and Australia. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement
with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR(TM)
Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with
eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to
replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August
31, 2013. This settlement covered approximately 8,000 patients. In
February 2015, DePuy reached an additional agreement which would
effectively extend the existing settlement program to ASR Hip
patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and
prior to February 1, 2015. This second agreement is estimated to
cover approximately 1,500 additional patients. The estimated cost
of these agreements is covered by existing accruals. This
settlement program is expected to bring to a close significant ASR
Hip litigation activity in the U.S. However, many lawsuits in the
U.S. will remain, and the settlement program does not address
litigation outside of the U.S. The Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs associated with this
recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals
for the costs associated with the DePuy ASR(TM) Hip program and
related product liability litigation. Updates to these accruals
may be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and
Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup
System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending
product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The
Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in
connection with product liability litigation associated with
DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System. Changes to this accrual
may be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal
injury cases or claims have been commenced in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, England, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and
Venezuela, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an
accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Changes to this accrual may
be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia,
acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder
and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in
connection with product liability litigation associated with
RISPERDAL(R). Changes to this accrual may be required in the
future as additional information becomes available.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cert. Ruling in Blood Reagent Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in April 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
class certification ruling in the Blood Reagent Antitrust
Litigation.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the
divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that
may result from these cases. In August 2012, the District Court
granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In
April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on BC Civil Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015 on the BC Civil Claim.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 30 Class Suits Filed by Contact Lens Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in March and April
2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United
States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVC), other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging
vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of
contact lenses. The complaints alleged that the manufacturers
reached agreements between each other and certain distributors and
retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could
be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages. Motions
to consolidate the cases are pending.


KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gautier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gautier v. Kayden Industries Ltd., Kayden Industries LP, and
Kayden Industries Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02369-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio,
June 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing services
to the liquid-solid separation industry used for petroleum
drilling, wastewater management, and mining.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


KOYO FRANCE: Faces DALC Gear Suit Over Bearing-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
DALC Gear & Bearing Supply Corp., McGuire Bearing Company, and
Sherman Bearings Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Koyo France SA, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
12068-DML-RSW (E.D. Mich., June 5, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged conspiracy to artificially
inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Bearings
sold in the United States from January 1, 2000 through the
present.

Koyo France SA is a manufacturer and supplier of automotive and
industrial machinery bearings sold in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      100 West Long Lake Road, Ste. 111
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com


LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Dudymott, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. Legend Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00082
(W.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Legend Energy Services, LLC owns and operate a coiled tubing
service specialists with service centers in Victoria, Bowie and
Andrews, Texas, Elk City, Oklahoma, Ft. Lupton, Colorado and
Dickinson, North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW P.C.
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Named Defendants in 2 Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and/or
Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's
subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties
unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 17
individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative
class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas
County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan
Regional Medical Center received improper interventional
cardiology procedures.  One of the putative class action lawsuits,
filed on November 21, 2014, seeks certification of a class
consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive
cardiology procedure at any LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and
who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that
procedure.  The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on
February 6, 2015, seeks certification of a class of individuals
that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not
medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action
asserts, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful,
would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury
resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees.  In March
2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S. District Court
in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending resolution of
these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order
granting the requested stay of discovery.

Through April 24, 2015, six plaintiffs have notified Raleigh
General Hospital that they intend to file lawsuits against the
hospital.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vincent" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Thalia Vincent, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., alleges
that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip W. Segui Jr., Esq.
      SEGUI LAW FIRM, PC
      864 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite A
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 884-1865
      E-mail: psegui@seguilawfirm.com

         - and -

      John T. Chakeris, Esq.
      THE CHAKERIS LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 397
      Charleston, SC 29402
      Telephone: (843) 853-5678
      E-mail: john@chakerislawfirm.com


LUMINESS DIRECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Luminess Direct, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04345
(C.D. Cal., June 9, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number using
an automatic telephone dialing system.

Luminess Direct, LLC is a Texas corporation that provides
publication and periodical subscriptions to tens of thousands of
consumer nationwide.

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


MACKANAN LLC: "Benoit" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Benoit, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MacKanan, LLC, d/b/a MacKanan Fabrication,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01578 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

MacKanan, LLC is a Houston, Texas-based manufacturer of babies'
accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      Stephen R. Ricks, Esq.
      Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
      STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 364-7261
      Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
              sricks@starzyklaw.com
              mmitchell@starzyklaw.com


MADISON SQUARE: Facing Claims in Class Actions Against NHL
----------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants,
including the Company, are vigorously defending claims in
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought against the NHL
and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints,
which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain
of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by
defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain
territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television
and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive
relief against the defendants' continued violation of the
antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss. On April
8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the complaints in their entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court
denied the motions for summary judgment. The defendants, including
the Company, are vigorously defending the claims.


MASTEC NETWORK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolan Patterson, and other similarly situated individuals v.
MasTec Network Solutions, LLC and MasTec Network Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-61227-WJZ (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide comprehensive services and turnkey
solutions required to design, build, optimize and maintain
telecommunications networks.

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


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Approved Withdrawal Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Israeli Court
has approved the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the Israeli
Claim in the Weinberger Case.

On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli Claim was
filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant"). The Israeli
Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company's
President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are
responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court. On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the
Company filed a procedural agreement with the court to stay the
Israeli Claim pending the completion of the In re Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation disclosed herein. On
April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this procedural
agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings.

On January 7, 2015 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company,
filed a request to withdraw the Israeli Claim (and related class
action claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the decision to dismiss
the U. S. Class Action (In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
Securities Litigation disclosed herein), reached the conclusion
that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Israeli
Claim and have the complaint approved as a class action. Neither
the plaintiff nor its attorneys received or will receive any
benefit in return for their withdrawal.  On January 8, 2015, the
Israeli Court approved the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the
Israeli Claim.


MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that following the
publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the
Company's micronized products in September 2013, the trading price
of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers asserting violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to
various statements and alleged omissions related to the Company's
belief that its products were 361 HCT/Ps, including its micronized
products. These cases have now all been removed to, and
consolidated in, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. By order dated December 9, 2013, the Court
approved the appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. A
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing
substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as
the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014. The case is
currently in the discovery phase. The Company currently believes
that the outcome of this litigation will not have a material
adverse impact on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


MIMEDX GROUP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February 19, 2015,
a separate purported class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to various statements
and alleged omissions related to the Company's receipt of the
subpoena. On April 22, 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
this purported class action lawsuit against the Company.


NAIL DAY: Faces "Guaman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Carmen Guaman, Maria Rosario Guaman, Maria Patricia Leon,
Maria Teresa Guaman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Nail Day Inc. and Nam Soon, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04473-JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a nail salon and spa located at 315
West 57TH Street, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mordy Yankovich, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN BELL
      1 Old Country Road
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 280-3008
      Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
      E-mail: mordy@jonathanbelllaw.com


NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL: Sued Over Emergency Care Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Krobath, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. South Nassau Communities Hospital and Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 602113/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 3, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's unreasonable, unconscionable and
unlawful pricing, billing and collection practices for emergency
care.

South Nassau Communities Hospital owns and operates a number of
healthcare facilities in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Oren Giskan, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
      11 Broadway, Suite 2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 847-8315
      E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com


OMNI WATER: "Ostrowski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Ostrowski, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Omni Water Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00493
(W.D. Tex., June 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Omni Water Solutions, Inc. provides mobile water treatment
services for hydro-fracturing to oil and gas operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Isaac Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza
      Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


OVERDRIVE SYSTEMS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tatiannia Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Overdrive Systems II, Inc. d/b/a J.D. Byrider,
Drivestar Financial II, Inc. d/b/a CNAC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00938-
PGB-DAB (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Overdrive Systems II, Inc. provides secure management, digital
rights management and downloads fulfillment services for
publishers, libraries, schools, and retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      11020 Northcliffe Blvd
      Spring Hill, FL 34608
      Telephone: (352) 683-2016
      Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
      E-mail: jason@thefllawfirm.com
              lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com


PASTAI INC: Faces "Basurto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heron Basurto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pastai Inc. d/b/a Pastai and Melissa Muller, Case No.
1:15-cv-04447 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at
186 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENTA RESTORATION: Faces "Rosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Rosa, Nolis Aquino, and Yorkis Guzman v. Penta Restoration
Corp., Nickos Fillas, and Chris Fillas, Case No. 1:15-cv-03286
(E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company that
performs construction work, demolition and renovations for
commercial and residential projects in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony R. Portesy, Esq.
      SLATER, SLATER, SCHULMAN, LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 420-9300
      Facsimile: (631) 465-7052
      E-mail: aportesy@sssfirm.com


PHL VARIABLE: Settled Cost of Insurance Cases
---------------------------------------------
PHL Variable Insurance Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, that
Phoenix Life Insurance Company and PHL Variable (together, the
"Companies"), wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries of The
Phoenix Companies, Inc., reached an agreement as of April 30, 2015
with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as
trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve two previously disclosed class
actions (the "Class Actions") against the Companies relating to
certain cost of insurance ("COI") rate adjustments made in 2010
and 2011 with respect to certain policies issued by the Companies.
The agreement requires that a formal settlement agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement") will be filed with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and will be
subject to certain conditions and court approval.

The settlement class consists of all policyholders that were
subject to the 2010 or 2011 COI rate adjustments (collectively,
the "Settlement Class") and will be structured to allow members of
the Settlement Class to opt out of the settlement (the
"Settlement"). The Companies will establish a Settlement fund,
which may be reduced proportionally for any opt-outs, and will pay
a class counsel fee if the Settlement is approved.  The Companies
will be released by all participating members of the Settlement
Class.  The Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million, as
reduced for any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement.

PHL Variable expects to incur a $36.4 million charge in the first
quarter of 2015 in connection with the Settlement.


PIPELINE SERVICES: "Kelly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kelly, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Pipeline Services International, LLC, Brown Integrity,
LLC and Gordon Barksdale, Case No. 4:15-cv-01579 (S.D. Tex., June
5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and gas field services
company doing business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLANTATION CAR: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Arnoldo Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals
v. Plantation Car Care Inc. and Carlos Aguilar, Case No. 0:15-cv-
61228-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto repair shop, having their
main place of business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUINN'S RENTAL: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Self, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quinn's Rental Services (USA), LLC
f/k/a Quinn's Energy Services, LLC f/k/a Lee Specialties (USA),
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01569 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants are engaged in business of providing services to
the oil and gas exploration and production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------
Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5:15-cv-00634 (W.D. Okla., June 9, 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.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas exploration
company headquartered at 123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas G. Farha, Esq.
      FARHA LAW, PLLC
      6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 110
      Oklahoma City, OK 73118
      Telephone: (405) 471-2224
      Facsimile: (405) 810-9901
      E-mail: nick@farhalawfirm.com

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com

         - and -

      J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
      WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
      570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 758-4000
      Facsimile: (212) 758-4004
      E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herb Kardon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 11089 (Del.
Ch., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders
of SFX Entertainment, Inc. against the members of SFX's board of
directors for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with
the proposed acquisition of the company by Robert F.X. Sillerman
in an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is a
global producer of live events and digital entertainment content
focused exclusively on electronic music culture (EMC) and other
world-class festivals.

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


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Parties Await Decision by District Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2015, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit have fully briefed the defendants' motion
to dismiss, presented oral arguments before the court on February
6, 2015 and are currently awaiting a decision by the district
judge.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. The parties have fully briefed
the defendants' motion, presented oral arguments before the court
on February 6, 2015 and are currently awaiting a decision by the
district judge.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


STREAM ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Basile, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-03204-GAM (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2015), arises from the
Defendants unfair, unlawful and deceptive acts in trade and
commerce, breached its contract with the Plaintiff and the
Proposed class, specifically by failing to provide savings and
competitive rates that it agreed and promised to provide.

Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC is engaged in the business of
marketing, advertising, and selling electric utility services to
consumers in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
      One South Broad St. Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
      MARCUS & MACK, PC
      57 South Sixth Street
      Indiana, PA 15701
      Telephone: (724) 349-5602
      Facsimile: (724) 349-8362
      E-mail: tfrederick@marcusandmack.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Wants Cert. Order in "Abdeljalil" Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Synchrony Bank is
seeking reconsideration of the order granting class certification
in the case, Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank.

The Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August
22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, originally naming GECC as the defendant.  In August
2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss
the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed and the
plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the
defendant. On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
(for damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief). The Bank is
seeking reconsideration of the order.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Filed in "Cowan" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On August 4,
2014, the Bank filed motions to stay and dismiss the action.

No updates were given in Synchrony Financial's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Pittman" TCPA Class Action Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. The action is currently stayed pursuant to
the parties' agreement, Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Stay "Hofer" TCPA Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on November 4, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On
January 15, 2015, the Bank filed a motion to stay the action,
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Dubanoski" TCPA Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

"Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which we are
defending the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois," Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Resolved 2 TCPA Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is a defendant in four putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a fifth putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in addition to the
Abdeljalil, Cowan, Pittman, Hofer, and Dubanoski actions, the Bank
has resolved two other putative class actions that made similar
claims under the TCPA, both of which were settled on an individual
basis with the class representative. Travaglio et al. v. GE
Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC was filed on January
17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014. Fitzhenry v. Lowe's
Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 29,
2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
and dismissed on October 20, 2014.


TAMKO BUILDING: Falsely Marketed Shingles, "Hummel" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Hummel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv 00910-
PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., June 5, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendant's false representation of its
Tamko Heritage Series Shingles as durable, reliable and free from
defects.

The Shingles at issue are defective and problematic. They blister
and crack, leading to early granule loss and increased moisture
absorption.

Tamko Building Products, Inc. is a Missouri corporation that
design and manufacture roofing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd Ste 301
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Scott Harris, Esq.
      WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      3700 Glenwood Ave., Suite 410
      Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              scorr@wbmllp.com


TAXI CAB: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Santana, Jose Demetrio Hernandez, Pedro Marte-King,
Peter Alvarado, and Ruben Florencio-Ramirez, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated v. Taxi Cab Partitions, Inc. and
Jesus Villalobos, Case No. 1:15-cv-04461 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an auto shop located at 1415 Inwood Avenue,
Bronx, New York 10452.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


TILE SHOP: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action complaint is pending before the Court.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, its directors,
and certain companies affiliated with the directors, are
defendants in a consolidated class action brought under the
federal securities laws and now pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v Tile Shop
Holdings, Inc., et al. Several actions were filed in 2013, and
then consolidated. The plaintiffs are four investors who seek to
represent a class or classes consisting of (1) persons who
purchased Tile Shop common stock in the market between August 22,
2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), (2)
persons who purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's
December 2012 secondary public offering; and (3) persons who
purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's June 2013
secondary public offering. Eight investment banking firms who were
underwriters in the secondary public offerings are also named as
defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on
May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs allege that defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact in press releases and SEC
filings about the Company's relationships with its vendors,
financial performance, and prospects, and that defendants failed
to disclose certain related party transactions. The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs,
the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock in the
secondary public offerings or in the market during the alleged
class period. The defendants are defending the matter and have
moved to dismiss the complaint. Those motions are pending before
the Court.


TRANSFIRST LLC: Faces "Nable" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin G. Nable, as an individual, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TransFirst, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Case
No. 8:15-cv-00891 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TransFirst, LLC is one of the largest providers of secure payment
processing in the United States, serving 200,000 merchants,
financial institutions, and sales partners and employing over
1,000 employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com



TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Removed "Brown" Class Suit to E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Gary Brown DMD, PSC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 15-CI-
153, was removed from the Johnson Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Kentucky (Pikeville). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-00050-ART-EBA to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
      Erik David Peterson, Esq.
      M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
      Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
      MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Telephone: (859) 225-3731
      Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
      E-mail: bkh@austinmehr.com
              edp@austinmehr.com
              amehr@austinmehr.com
              pgf@austinmehr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael S. Maloney, Esq.
      Stephen Keller, Esq.
      SCHILLER, OSBOURN, BARNES & MALONEY, PLLC
      401 W. Main Street
      One River Front Plaza, Suite 1600
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 583-4777
      Facsimile: (502) 583-4780
      E-mail: mmaloney@sobmlegal.com
              skeller@sobmlegal.com

         - and -

      Stephen E. Goldman, Esq.
      Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
      ROBINSON & COLE LLP
      280 Trumbull Street
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 275-8200
      Facsimile: (860) 275-8299
      E-mail: sgoldman@rc.com
              wackerman@rc.com


TRICORP MANAGEMENT: "Volz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jania Volz v. Tricorp Management Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00627 (S.D. Ill., June 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tricorp Management Company owns and operates T.G.I. Friday's
franchised restaurants in Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas,
and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
      WISE LAW FIRM LLC
      5215 Kingwood Drive
      St. Louis, MO 63123
      Telephone: (217) 710-1403
      E-mail: brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Restraint Systems Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc. et al v. TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-12050-VAR-APP (E.D.
Mich., June 5, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to suppress
and eliminate competition in the vehicle parts industry by
agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the
prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, which were sold to
vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan. TRW U.S.,
directly or through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries,
manufactured, marketed, and sold Occupant Safety Restraint Systems
that were purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-1000
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com
              jmparks@duanemorris.com


VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Company Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Barry Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, et al., Case No.
11087 (Del. Ch., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
stockholders of LRR Energy, L.P. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the company by Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC for
unfair price and inadequate consideration.

LRR Energy, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership that operates,
acquires, exploits, and develops producing oil and natural gas
properties in North America.

Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its corporate headquarters located 5847 San Felipe,
Suite 3000, Houston, Texas 77057. Vanguard focused on the
acquisition, production and development of mature, long-lived oil
and natural gas properties.

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


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed AOL Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Timothy M. Armstrong, Fredric G. Reynolds, Dawn Gould
Lepore, Eve Burton, Alberto Ibarguen, Patricia E. Mitchell, James
R. Stengel, Richard L. Dalzell, Hugh F. Johnston,
Verizon Communications Inc. and Hanks Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case
No. 11092 (Del. Ch., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the stockholders of AOL Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
the company by Verizon Communications Inc. for unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

AOL Inc. is a web services company that provides online
advertising services on company owned and operated properties as
well as third party websites.

Verizon Communications Inc. is an integrated telecommunications
company that provides wire line voice and data services, wireless
services, Internet services, and published directory information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


WHOLESALE COINS: Illegally Records Incoming Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Ocasio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wholesale Coins Direct, LLC and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04370-DSF-MRW (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose to every
caller any recording or monitoring of incoming telephone calls.

Wholesale Coins Direct, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
that does business in California. Wholesale operates an online
retail store services featuring gold and precious metals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


WIRELESS CHOICE: Faces "Burley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wireless Choice, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04967
(N.D. Ill., June 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Headquartered in Berkeley, Illinois Wireless Choice, LLC operates
11 retail stores in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Removed "Frazier" to M.D. Tennessee Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February
18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court, entitled
Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased
husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative
of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The lawsuit alleges many of the same
allegations as the purported class actions regarding alleged
traumatic brain injuries and that these brain injuries contributed
to Mr. Frazier's fatal heart attack. WWE removed the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee and then moved to transfer to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection clauses
in the decedent's contracts with WWE. The Company believes these
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against them.


WORLD WRESTLING: Class Action Suits Transferred to Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that by Order dated
March 23, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer
venue of a class action lawsuit.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert
Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class
action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as
Haynes.  On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs. By Order dated March 23, 2015, the court granted the
Company's motion to transfer venue.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, entitled
Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and
Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

Each of these suits purports to be a class action and seeks
unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring.  The
Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against them.


WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Ansari" Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class action
lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license.  The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios.  Both lawsuits are purported
securities class actions subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA.  Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court
issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as
Lead Plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.

On January 5, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants.  On March 6,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in its entirety. The Company believes the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against them.


XOOM CORPORATION: Facing Liu and Barrett Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is facing
the Liu and Barrett class action lawsuits.

On January 6, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and Ryno Blignaut were
sued in a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Alexander Liu
v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-15-543531, filed in San
Francisco Superior Court by purported stockholders of the Company,
in connection with its January 5, 2015 announcement that the
Company was the victim of criminal fraud resulting in the transfer
of $30.8 million in corporate cash to overseas accounts. On
February 6, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal court in the
Northern District of California, and assigned the case number
5:15-cv-00602-LHK. On March 11, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and
Ryno Blignaut were sued in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Patrick Andrew Barrett v. Xoom Corp., et al., Case No.
CGC-15-544655, also filed in San Francisco Superior Court by
purported stockholders of the Company. On March 20, 2015, the
lawsuit was removed to federal court in the Northern District of
California, and assigned the case number 5:15-cv-01319. Plaintiffs
in the Liu action have moved to remand the case to state court,
and the Defendants have opposed that motion, which is pending.
The Court has ordered that its ruling on the remand motion will
apply as well to the Barrett action.

The Liu and Barrett lawsuits allege that the Company and Messrs.
Kunze and Blignaut violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting information in the offering
materials distributed in connection with the Company's February
2013 initial public offering.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  Although the ultimate
outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend against the actions vigorously. The Company believes
that any liability resulting from this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or
results of operations.


YELP INC: Deadline to Amend Securities Complaint Expired
--------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in class action lawsuits had
until May 21, 2015 to file an amended complaint.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3,
2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January
2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 6,
2015, the Company and the other named defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted on
April 21, 2015 following a hearing on the motion. The plaintiffs
had until May 21, 2015 to file an amended complaint.


YELP INC: Former Eat24 employees File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior
Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants
Yelp Inc. and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants
failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and
former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists,
and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California
Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.


                            *********

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  * * *