CAR_Public/150626.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 127


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Banisaid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABC INC: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AIG INC: Individual Class Member Appeals Securities Case Accord
AIG INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Securities Actions
AIG INC: Filed Complaint for Declaratory Relief

AIG INC: Preliminary Approval of ERISA Case Settlement Sought
AIG INC: No Merits Discovery in Canadian Securities Class Action
AIG INC: Parties Completed Post-Trial Briefing in Starr Case
AIG INC: Caremark Class Action Returns to Trial Court
ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Braunstein" Suit Over Intel Merger

ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Reinauer" Suit Over Intel Merger
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 13
ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Petition for Writ of Mandate
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Filed Over Fire
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action by Arkansas Customer Remanded

BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tenn. Lawsuit
BANKRATE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Claims
BATESVILLE CASKET: Arkansas Court Affirms Clayton Case Dismissal
BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Hohnbaum" Class Action Finalized

BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Aug. 17 Return Date for Certification Motion
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
CALIX INC: Court Vacated April Trial Date in Merger Suit
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, "Brodsky" Suit Says

CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages
CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Facing 4 Shareholder Class Actions
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Evaluating Claims in "Dice" and "Gracia"
CHICKEN EXPERTS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Case

CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Case Against Single Plaintiff Continues in 2015
COLLEGE BOARD: Sued in Fla. Over Improper SAT Test Administration
COMCAST CORP: Court Grants Bid to Decertify "Elder" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Bid on "Sasaki" Claim Granted
DELTA AIR LINES: Court Won't Revive "Opper" Airfare Case

DIMENSIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arthur" Suit Over Rental Agreement
DOW CHEMICAL: High Court to Decide on Writ Petition by Month End
DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Case
EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Tullman" Class Action
EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action

EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective Ventilation Products
GREENSOURCE LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Daeda" Suit Over Brookfield Merger
GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Grinberger" Suit Over Brookfield Sale

GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
INWELL INC: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Yvonne Jansky Lawsuit

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Plaintiff Files Appeal
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend v. Bohlander & Andres Cases
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Rabanes Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Legg Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LipoScience Case

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Delaware Plaintiffs Entered Into MOU
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: La. Court Stays "Loehn" Case Proceedings
MAC PROPERTY: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Unlawful Rental Agreement
MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Ochoa" Suit
MED DIRECT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Autodialed Solicitation Call

MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Fortinet Merger
MIAMI ANGEL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Remands "King" Suit v. Prison Officials
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Trims "Grochowski" Action
MOBILEIRON INC: Faces "Panjwani" Class Action in N.D. Cal.

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Iron Workers Fund's Class Action
MOODY'S CORPORATION: NY Appeals Court to Hear Certified Question
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending
NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint v. DOH

NORTEK INC: Unit Named as Defendant in "Harris" and "Bauer" Suits
NUVASIVE INC: Wants 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed
PACPIZZA LLC: CA Affirms Denial of Petition to Compel Arbitration
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
PFS GROUP: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

PHARMACYCLICS INC: Judicial Review of MOU in 2nd Half 2015
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Huseynov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
PLAINS ALL: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Sued Over Transactions With Major Investor
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Class Action in M.D. Florida

REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren City Police Files Class Action
RIYAL HOLDINGS: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SIEMENS USA: Court Grants Motion to Enforce Settlement
SINGER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Motion to Stay Discovery

SOVRAN SELF: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Superior Court
STARJEM RESTAURANT: Faces "Briones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
STEWART INFORMATION: Trial on Non-Settling Plaintiff Claims Held
SUB TENDER: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TENET HEALTHCARE: Payment for Undisputed Claims in August 2015

TOWN OF ROCKPORT: Sued Over Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
US INSTALLATION: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNO RESTAURANTS: Removed "Whittington" Suit to C.D. Maryland
VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
VARANDA'S CAFETERIA: "Lorenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

VERIZON NEW YORK: Court Remands Proceedings to Kingsley County
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Heard on Motion to Dismiss
VIRGINIA: Court Denies Inmate's Motion for Class Certification
VISTA TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Equipment Rental Balance
WENTWORTH PAOLI: Jury Judgment in Ex-Employee's Case Upheld

WEST MARINE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in May
WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action in Calif. Superior Court


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Ct. Directed to Vacate "Greenberg" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Allowed to Present Fibro Claims at Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Md. PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Ct. Flips "Casey" Summary Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Favors Insurers in THAN Audit Right Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Libby School Worker's Claim Barred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,400 Product Liability Cases


                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Banisaid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sufian Ali Mohammad Banisaid v. 7-Eleven, Inc. d/b/a 7-Eleven, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03468-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

7-Eleven, Inc. owns and operates a convenience store engaged in
selling food items and goods to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andreas G. Geroulakis, Esq.
      GEROULAKIS LAW, P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1901
      New York, New York
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6999
      Facsimile: (914) 462-4259
      E-mail: ageroulakis@gmail.com


ABC INC: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Cruz, Domingo Clemente Sapon Garcia and Alfredo Vasquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC
Inc. d/b/a Fresco Tortillas Taco and Yitong Liu, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04645-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 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 Fresco Tortillas Taco restaurant
located at 536 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP
      500 North Broadway, Ste. 105
      Jericho, NY 11753-2131
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      Facsimile: (516) 931-0030
      E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com


AIG INC: Individual Class Member Appeals Securities Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an individual
class member/objector has filed a notice of appeal of the final
order approving the AIG Settlement in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all
eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 26, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims against the
outside auditors in their entirety, and it also reduced the scope
of the Securities Act claims against AIG and defendants other than
the outside auditors.

On July 15, 2014, lead plaintiff and all defendants except AIG's
outside auditors accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation for a cash payment by AIG
of $960 million (the AIG Settlement).  On August 1, 2014, lead
plaintiff and AIG's outside auditors accepted a mediator's
proposal to resolve the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation
for a cash payment by the outside auditors (the Auditor Settlement
and, collectively with the AIG Settlement, the Settlement). On
October 7, 2014, the Court granted lead plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Notice to the
Class and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March
20, 2015. The deadline for parties to exclude themselves from the
Settlement passed on January 5, 2015. On October 22, 2014, AIG
made a cash payment of $960 million, which is being held in escrow
pending final, non-appealable, approval of the AIG Settlement and
until all funds are distributed pursuant to the AIG Settlement.
The Court entered a final order approving the AIG Settlement on
March 20, 2015; however, on April 14, 2015, an individual class
member/objector filed a notice of appeal of the final order
approving the AIG Settlement.


AIG INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Securities Actions
------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that AIG has filed
motions to dismiss the claims in whole, or in part, asserted in
two securities actions.

Between November 18, 2011 and September 16, 2013, nine separate,
though similar, securities actions were filed asserting claims
substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG
and AIGFP (one such action also names as defendants AIG's outside
auditor and the underwriters of various securities offerings). Two
such actions have been voluntarily dismissed; the remainder are
now pending in the Southern District of New York. On January 20,
2015, AIG and other defendants filed motions to dismiss some or
all of the claims asserted in all such actions pending as of that
date.  On February 2, 2015, and February 9, 2015, two additional
securities actions were filed in the Southern District of New York
asserting claims substantially similar to those in the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG (one of the
two actions also names as defendants certain directors and
officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside auditor and certain of
AIG's underwriters during the relevant period). On March 25, 2015
and April 3, 2015, AIG filed motions to dismiss the claims in
whole, or in part, asserted in the two additional securities
actions.


AIG INC: Filed Complaint for Declaratory Relief
-----------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 27,
2015, an additional securities action was filed in state court in
Orange County, California asserting a claim against AIG pursuant
to Section 11 of the Securities Act that is substantially similar
to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation and the
nine individual securities litigations pending in the Southern
District of New York.  On April 29, 2015, AIG filed a complaint
for declaratory relief in the Southern District of New York
seeking a declaration that the Section 11 claims filed in Orange
Country, California are time-barred.  On April 30, 2015, AIG
removed the action from state court in Orange County, California
to federal court in the Central District of California.


AIG INC: Preliminary Approval of ERISA Case Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 23,
2015, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the ERISA actions,
certification of a settlement class, approval of notices of
settlement, approval of the plan of allocation, and setting of a
fairness hearing.

Between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II. On December 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed under seal a third consolidated amended complaint. The
action purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on
behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit
plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG
Common Stock. In the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and
their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG
Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly
became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to,
among other things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor
and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure
Issues.

On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had
accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $40
million. On April 23, 2015, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
certification of a settlement class, approval of notices of
settlement, approval of the plan of allocation, and setting of a
fairness hearing. The entirety of the $40 million settlement is
expected to be paid by AIG's fiduciary liability insurance
carriers.


AIG INC: No Merits Discovery in Canadian Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed in the Canadian Securities
Class Action - Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a
pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC
17. On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the
standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-
province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must
have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual,"
presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases,
defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be
doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business
activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter
of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.
Plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate. As of May 4, 2015, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation.


AIG INC: Parties Completed Post-Trial Briefing in Starr Case
------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties
have completed post-trial briefing and closing arguments took
place on April 22, 2015 in the Starr International Litigation.

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined
below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury
Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of
AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit
facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States
received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The
complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the
appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was
discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity
assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at
the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012 and September 17, 2012, the Court of
Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss
in the SICO Treasury Action.

In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party
(as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG.
On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our
Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO
to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board
unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January
23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO
describing the process by which our Board considered and refused
SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action and denied the United States'
motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG
Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those
shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. SICO
has provided notice of class certification to potential members of
the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25,
2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to
participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock
during the two class periods have opted into the classes.

Trial in the SICO Treasury Action began in the Court of Federal
Claims on September 29, 2014, and witness testimony concluded on
November 24, 2014. SICO argued during trial that the two classes
are entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages,
plus interest. The parties have completed post-trial briefing and
closing arguments took place on April 22, 2015.

While AIG is no longer a party to the SICO Treasury Action, the
United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its
answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its
representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery
in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or
recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United
States alleges that we received as a result of the government's
assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a motion by SICO
to strike the United States' affirmative defenses of
indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment.

AIG believes that any such indemnification obligation would arise
only if: (a) SICO prevails on its claims at trial and receives an
award of damages and prevails through any appellate process; (b)
the United States commences an action against AIG seeking
indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such
an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its
claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG
intends to assert defenses thereto. A final determination that the
United States is liable for damages, together with a final
determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States
for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.


AIG INC: Caremark Class Action Returns to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class
action related to Caremark Rx, Inc. will return to the trial court
for general discovery (which has not yet commenced) and
adjudication of the merits.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter will return to the trial
court for general discovery (which has not yet commenced) and
adjudication of the merits. AIG is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation.


ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Braunstein" Suit Over Intel Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. John P. Daane, Blaine Bowman, Elisha W.
Finney, Kevin McGarity, T. Michael Nevens, Krish A. Prabhu,
Shane Robison, John Shoemaker, Thomas Waechter, Altera
Corporation, Intel Corporation, and 615 Corporation, Case No.
11146-VCG (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public shareholders of Altera Corporation, to enjoin the agreement
and plan of sale of Altera to Intel Corporation for an unfair
price and inadequate consideration.

Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading-
edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with
access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP
cores and development tools for more than 30 years.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and
builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for
the world's computing devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON
      1000 W St 10th Fl
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone:  (302) 984-3889
      Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
      E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com


ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Reinauer" Suit Over Intel Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Reinauer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Altera Corporation, et al., Case No. 11144-
VCG (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
shareholders of Altera Corporation, to enjoin the agreement and
plan of sale of Altera to Intel Corporation for an unfair price
and inadequate consideration.

Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading-
edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with
access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP
cores and development tools for more than 30 years.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and
builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for
the world's computing devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      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


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 13
------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a final approval
hearing for July 13, 2015.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the
present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance
histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options
and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its
subsidiaries.

On March 26, 2015, the parties submitted to the Court for approval
a settlement in the amount of $27.5 million that would result in
full and final dismissal of all claims. On April 6, 2015, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a final
approval hearing for July 13, 2015. The settlement, net of
insurance recovery, has no impact to the Company's consolidated
results of operations.


ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Petition for Writ of Mandate
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) contracted with Levy Premium
Foods to manage the food and beverage services at several
entertainment venues located in southern California. Levy
contracted with Canvas Corporation to provide laborers who sold
food and beverages at AEG venues. In 2013, several vendors filed a
wage and hour class action against AEG, Levy and Canvas for
failure to pay minimum wage and willfully misclassifying them as
independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 226.8.
AEG and Levy filed motions for summary judgment arguing in part
that they were entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs'
section 226.8 claim because the undisputed evidence showed Canvas
was the entity that had classified the vendors as independent
contractors. Although the trial court denied the motions for
summary judgment, it agreed that plaintiffs could not pursue a
section 226.8 claim against AEG or Levy because neither entity had
made the alleged misclassification decision.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate and AEG and Levy,
in return, argued for the first time that even if the trial court
erred in interpreting section 226.8, the writ should be denied
because the statute did not provide a private right of action.

Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals for the Second
District of California in the Order dated June 1, 2015 available
at http://bit.ly/1M7Af7bfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiff's Writ
of Mandate finding that, contrary to the trial court's
interpretation, section 226.8 was not limited to employers who
make the misclassification decision, but also extended to any
employer who was aware that a co-employer willfully misclassified
their joint employees and failed to remedy the misclassification.
However, Judge Zelon further concluded that section 226.8 could
not be enforced through a direct private action and denied the
plaintiffs' writ on that basis.

The appellate case is, YVETTE NOE, et al. Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. Real Parties in Interest, Case No.
B259570.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
     Alicia Olivares, Esq.
     FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES
     10100 Santa Monica Blvd #2490
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 552-7812

          - and -

      Altshuler Berzon, Esq.
     Michael Rubin, Esq.
     Peder J. Thoreen, Esq.
     PINE & PINE AND NORMAN PINE
     141456 Magnolia Blvd., Suite 200
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
     Tel: (818) 379-9710


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Filed Over Fire
------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that four putative
class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater
residents and others who may have been harmed by the fire. In
addition, 14 lawsuits representing over 100 individual plaintiffs
have been filed against the Company.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey
("Edgewater"). Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings.
One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed. The
second building, containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal
damage and has been repaired. The Company is still assessing the
direct losses resulting from the fire as well as its potential
liability to third parties who incurred damages as a result of the
fire. The Company is also evaluating whether to rebuild and
replace the building that was destroyed and does not believe that
the outcome of this decision will have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations. As of
March 31, 2015, Edgewater was encumbered with a fixed rate secured
mortgage note with an effective interest rate of 5.95% that had an
outstanding principal balance of $74,718,000 that will be due in
May 2019 (the "Edgewater Mortgage"). After discussions with the
lender, the Company believes that it will be permitted to pay off
the entire outstanding principal balance of the note at par, which
the Company currently expects to do.

The Company believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a
torch used during repairs being performed by a Company employee
who was not a licensed plumber. The Company's insurers have begun
to negotiate and settle claims made by third parties who incurred
property damage and other losses. Four putative class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater residents and
others who may have been harmed by the fire. In addition, 14
lawsuits representing over 100 individual plaintiffs have been
filed against the Company. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed. Additional
lawsuits arising from the fire may be filed.

Following the fire, the Company received a civil citation for
"failure to notify Fire Department of an active fire" from Bergen
County, New Jersey. The Company is appealing this citation. The
Company believes that additional governmental investigations are
or may be ongoing, which could include a review of the state of
compliance of the construction and operation of Edgewater with
building codes and other legal requirements and the materiality of
any defenses related thereto. The Company is unable to evaluate
the nature and potential materiality of any such investigations or
actions.

While the Company currently believes that all of its liability to
third parties resulting from the fire will be substantially
covered by its insurance policies, subject to applicable
deductibles and a self-insured amount equal to 12% of the first
$50,000,000 of property damage, the Company can give no assurances
in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action by Arkansas Customer Remanded
------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer has been remanded to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for
further proceedings.

On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was
transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an
order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.

There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to predict
the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to
this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations. However, there can be no assurance that an adverse
outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given
fiscal period.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tenn. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no class has been
certified in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint has subsequently been amended to add
the former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and process
related to certain of its compliance programs.  The plaintiff
seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and
awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  No class has been
certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.

Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or
financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is
currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
consolidated financial position or results of operations.


BANKRATE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Lynn Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bankrate, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-80854-KLR
(S.D. Fla., June 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's and other class
members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and
artificial or pre-recorded voice message.

Bankrate, Inc. operates a financial services company, which
maintains its principle mailing address at 11760 U.S. Highway 1,
Suite 200, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
      2254 Riverside Ave.
      Jacksonville, FL 32204-4620
      Telephone (904) 374-0111
      Facsimile (904) 374-0113
      E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


BATESVILLE CASKET: Arkansas Court Affirms Clayton Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brandon J. Harrison of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas
affirmed the ruling of the circuit court in the case captioned,
GARRY CLAYTON AND ZELMA MAGBY, Appellants, v. BATESVILLE CASKET
COMPANY, INC., AND HUMPHREY FUNERAL SERVICE, INC, Appellees, Case
No. CV-13-819 2015 ARK APP 361.

A casket bearing the remains of Frank Clayton lies buried in a
Newton County cemetery, where it has been interred for almost 20
years. The casket was manufactured by appellee Batesville Casket
Company and was sold in 1996 to Frank's widow, appellant Zelma
Magby, and his son, appellant Garry Clayton, by appellee Humphrey
Funeral Service. In 2010, Clayton and Magby sued Batesville and
Humphrey based on a belief that the casket's seal had been
breached by water. Their complaint contained over a dozen counts
and alleged similar problems with other Batesville caskets.
Batesville and Humphrey moved to dismiss, citing the statute of
limitation and the complaint's failure to plead damages caused by
a defect in the Clayton casket. The circuit court dismissed all
causes of action with prejudice.  Clayton and Magby appealed.

Judge Harrison, in the Order dated June 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/a242pQfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the ruling of the
circuit court, concluding that some causes of action in the case
had actually been dismissed more than once, and could have been
dismissed with prejudice earlier; and that the final dismissal
with prejudice was correct under the two-dismissal rule.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles Phillip Boyd, Jr., Esq.
     THE BOYD LAW FIRM
     900 S Gay St #705
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Tel: (865)246-1800

Defendants are Jess Askew III, Esq. -- Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com,
Teresa Wineland, Esq. -- Teresa.Wineland@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK
ROCK LLP, Alex G. Street, Esq. -- ags@streetlawfirm.com -- James
A. Street, Esq. -- jas@streetlawfirm.com -- and Robert M. Veach,
Esq. -- rmv@streetlawfirm.com -- THE STREET LAW FIRM


BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Rangel, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. Brenntag Pacific, Inc. and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
BC585066 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Brenntag Pacific, Inc. is a distributor of specialty and
industrial chemicals with headquarters in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C.
      410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-102
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Hohnbaum" Class Action Finalized
--------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the second
quarter of fiscal 2015, the class action lawsuit styled as
Hohnbaum, et al. v. Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. was finalized
resulting in an additional charge of approximately $5.8 million to
adjust our previous estimate of the final settlement amount.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Farshid Yassian and Farshid Yassian as Custodian for Remy Yassian
And Ryan Yassian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No.
30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2015), is a
class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom
Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom
Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate
consideration and through a flawed sales process.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes
semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks,
streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud.

Avago Technologies Limited designs, develops and markets
semiconductor devices in four primary product categories: wireless
communications, enterprise storage, wired infrastructure and
industrial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
      WEISSLAWLLP
      1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
      E-mail: lparker@weisslawllp.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Aug. 17 Return Date for Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015, that in the case, Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision
Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, the plaintiffs have
filed a motion for class certification and the return date for the
motion is August 17, 2015.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the
District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the
Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying
claim and related state common law claims to proceed.
Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.

On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The return date for the motion is August 17, 2015.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. While a loss is
reasonably possible, the Company is currently unable to estimate a
range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015, that expert discovery is proceeding in the Cablevision
Consumer Litigation.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015. The Company believes that
this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CALIX INC: Court Vacated April Trial Date in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 28, 2015, that the Court has vacated the April 20,
2015 trial date in a class action lawsuit and indicated it would
set a new trial date after ruling on the motion requesting leave
to add additional parties.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these
stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt
complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which
has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint
did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011(the
"Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on
a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain
of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class
of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the
motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek
Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and
Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non-
opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose
shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.
On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also
granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate
entity. The court left in place process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary
judgment on separate claims that the director and officer
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy
statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained
misleading disclosures and had material omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This
motion sought additional documents from defendants and from
Jefferies, Occam's former advisor, and requested that the court
impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding of
liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the
suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and
vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September
3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to
defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an
affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered
discovery into defendants' document collection and review
methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce
additional documents. Those proceedings are ongoing, but the
plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to seek any
sanctions against the defendants at this time. Instead, plaintiffs
have filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to
add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former
defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants. That motion was
heard by the Court on March 23, 2015, and the court has not yet
ruled on it. At the hearing the Court vacated the existing April
20, 2015 trial date and indicated it would set a new trial date
after ruling on the motion requesting leave to add additional
parties.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously contest the action as it moves forward toward trial.
However, there can be no assurance that the defendants will be
successful in defending this ongoing action. In addition, the
Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold
harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors and
officers against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses
related to claims against such directors and officers to the
fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation. Such obligations may apply to this
lawsuit and may ultimately result in the payment of
indemnification amounts by the Company, and the Company currently
expects that, if the case proceeds to trial, defense costs are
likely to exceed available Directors & Officers liability
insurance coverage.

In addition, under the engagement letter between Occam and
Jefferies, the Company has obligations, under certain
circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify Jefferies against
judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to Jefferies'
engagement by Occam, and Jefferies has demanded that the Company
indemnify Jefferies in connection with this litigation under this
agreement. The Company has begun to pay fees and expenses of
Jefferies in connection with this matter, and expects that it will
make additional payments as the matter proceeds, though at this
time the Company is not able to estimate the amount of any future
payments. Following Jefferies' demand for indemnification the
Company notified Occam's insurance carriers, and such carriers
have advised in writing that they do not believe the Jefferies
indemnification obligations are covered by the Company's
insurance. Thus, the Company's indemnification obligations to
Jefferies that apply to this lawsuit may not be covered by
insurance.

The plaintiffs have not communicated any specific demand for
damages. However, the plaintiffs' valuation expert has opined that
the fair value of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date
exceeded the merger consideration by between $7.77 and $9.65 per
share. Defendants' valuation expert has opined that the fair value
of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date was less than the
merger consideration. The Company estimates that as of the
Effective Date, the class held approximately 15,147,085 shares of
Occam's common stock. In addition to the difference between the
fair value of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date and the
merger consideration, the plaintiffs also seek an award of
attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest relating back to
the Effective Date, and post-judgment interest.

At this time, the Company is unable to quantify its
indemnification risk. The Company may have indemnity obligations
that are in excess of its insurance coverage, particularly if
there is an adverse result at trial. Any such costs could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating
results or financial condition.


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, "Brodsky" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Brodsky, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Capital Alliance Group
d/b/a BankCapital Direct, Capital Alliance Partners LLC, narin
Charanvattanakit and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05303 (N.D.
Ill., June 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company, with
their principal place of business in Santa Anna, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Catamaran Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Beeman, et
al. v. Anthem Prescription Management, Inc., et al., is still in
its early stages.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in February 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against a number of pharmacy benefit managers,
including current subsidiaries of the Company, by several
California pharmacies. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to
comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code
Section 2527 to conduct studies of pharmacy dispensing fees and
provide the results to third party payors in California, and seek
money damages. Because the lawsuit was stayed by appeals,
including a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, for
nearly its entire history and was remanded back to the District
Court in 2014, it is still in its early stages. As of March 31,
2015, based on currently available information, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a potential impact in this matter.


CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Facing 4 Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Catamaran Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015, four
purported shareholders of the Company filed four putative class
action complaints in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
each on behalf of a purported class of shareholders.  Each of the
lawsuits names the Company, each of the Company's directors and
UnitedHealth Group as defendants.  The lawsuits allege, among
other things, the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to take steps to ensure that the putative class
members will obtain adequate and fair consideration under the
circumstances.  The lawsuits allege that UnitedHealth Group aided
and abetted our directors' breach of fiduciary duties.  Based on
these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the proposed Acquisition or, in the
alternative, damages in the event the Acquisition is consummated.
These lawsuits are in a preliminary stage.


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Evaluating Claims in "Dice" and "Gracia"
-------------------------------------------------------------
ChannelAdvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
currently evaluating the claims asserted in the cases, Dice v.
ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. and Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al.

The Company said, "On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice
filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws against us and certain of our
executive officers. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our
common stock by making false and misleading statements to
investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter
of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a
purported class action complaint in in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff brings the
same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action
brought by Mr. Dice. The complaint names us and certain of our
executive officers. We are currently evaluating the claims
asserted in these two matters."


CHICKEN EXPERTS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Villa, and other similarly situated line cooks v. Chicken
Experts, LLC, Case No. 2015-013294-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Chicken Experts, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Miami
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District
Court for District of Columbia dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
the case captioned, ANDRE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
more than 50 other Credentialed Delegates of the General Assembly
of the Church of God in Christ, Inc., Plaintiff, v. JAMES W. HUNT,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-8986 (D.D.C.).

In 2009, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor
Michelle Rhee decided to fire 233 school teachers pursuant to a
purported Reduction in Force (RIF) that Rhee maintained was
necessary due to budget constraints and poor performance.
Plaintiff Willie Brewer was a former DCPS music teacher and WTU
member who retired after receiving notice that his position was
being eliminated due to the 2009 RIF. He brought suit against the
District of Columbia, current DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson in
her official capacity, former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee in her
individual capacity, and former DCPS Chief Financial Officer Noah
Wepman in his individual capacity.  Brewer's argued that DCPS's
employment action in 2009 was not actually a valid RIF and,
instead, was a pretext for age discrimination, and that even if it
was a valid RIF, Defendants failed to implement the various
procedural protections for RIF-separated teachers that D.C.'s
municipal regulations require. He further argued that Defendants
unlawfully breached Brewer's own employment contract, and that
Defendants fraudulently misrepresented both the reasons why DCPS
made the terminations generally and the reasons for Brewer's
termination in particular.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment, that the District of Columbia and Henderson
have filed, and a motion to dismiss the complaint that has been
submitted by individual defendants Wepman and Rhee.

Judge Jackson, in the Memorandum Opinion dated May 22, 2015
available at http://is.gd/9g0uaYfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' motions and dismissed the case. The Court concluded
that Brewer's complaint precluded Brewer from relitigating whether
or not the 2009 DCPS employment action was, in fact, a RIF and
that Brewer chose to retire when the RIF announcement was made and
as a result, Brewer lacked standing to challenge Defendants'
alleged failure to implement post-RIF procedural protections for
the benefit of RIF-separated teachers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kerry J. Davidson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KERRY J. DAVIDSON
     4626 Wisconsin Ave.
     NW Washington, DC 20013
     Tel: (202) 244-4411

Defendants are represented by Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez, Esq. --
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Case Against Single Plaintiff Continues in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all settlement
funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case
against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015.

Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR"), is a defendant in a suit filed
in April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where
the plaintiffs initially sought in excess of $8 million for the
costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which operations
were commenced in the 1930s. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and
the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million,
of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement,
the case was converted to a class action, and each member of the
class was offered the right to either participate or opt out of
the class and continue a separate action for damages. One
plaintiff opted out and will be subject to all previous rulings of
the court, including an order dismissing certain claims on the
basis that such claims were time barred. A loss on settlement of
$0.7 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2013 in
connection with this proposed settlement. The settlement was
entered by the Court on December 19, 2014, and all settlement
funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case
against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015.


COLLEGE BOARD: Sued in Fla. Over Improper SAT Test Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pataky and Debra Rubin Pataky v. College Board and
Educational Testing Service, Case No. 3:15-cv-00723-HLA-JBT (M.D.
Fla., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to properly review and administer the SAT test materials
uniformly and consistently.

The Defendants are in the business of administering college
entrance examinations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
      Norwood S. Wilner, Esq.
      THE WILNER FIRM
      444 East Duval Street, 2d Floor
      Jacksonville, Florida 32202
      Telephone: (904) 446-9817
      Facsimile: (904)446-9825

         - and -

      Janine Pollack, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4710
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
      E-mail: Pollack@whafh.com
              Biirt@whafli.com


COMCAST CORP: Court Grants Bid to Decertify "Elder" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James F. Holderman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Comcast
Corp.'s motion to decertify the FLSA collective class in the case
captioned, ISIAH ELDER, DONALD HART, and TIMOTHY ELDER,
Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COMCAST CORPORATION and COMCAST CABLE MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12 C 1157 (N.D. Ill.).

The Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes
covering all Comcast service technician.

Plaintiffs Isiah Elder, Donald Hart, and Timothy Wharton were
former service technicians at Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable
Management, LLC. They sued Comcast alleging that Comcast violated
three statutes -- the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWCPA) by failing to pay service technicians for
all of the time they were required to work, including overtime. On
October 9, 2012, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the
court conditionally certified an FLSA collective class of Comcast
service technicians who have been employed at Comcast's South
Chicago facility since October 4, 2009. The case proceeded through
the close of discovery and 74 additional service technicians have
opted into the suit.

Plaintiffs argued that each of the proposed classes satisfy the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Holderman, in the Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/7WzWERfrom Leagle.com, denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and granted
Comcast's Motion for FLSA Decertification. Plaintiffs failed to
meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) amd Rule 23(b)(3). The case
was decertified as a collective action and the claims of the opt-
in plaintiffs and unnamed class members were dismissed without
prejudice. The case was set for status on June 18, 2015 at 9:00
a.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
     STEPHAN, ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N Michigan Ave #2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312)233-1550

          - and -

     Leah M. Farmer, Esq.
     Noelle Christine Brennan, Esq.
     NOELLE BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     20 S Clark St # 1530
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)422-0001

Defendants are represented by Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. --
salamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Alexandra S. Tuffuor, Esq. --
atuffuor@morganlewis.com -- Allison Nugent Powers, Esq. --
apowers@morganlewis.com -- Gregory P. Abrams, Esq. --
gabrams@morganlewis.com -- Michael L. Banks, Esq. --
mbanks@morganlewis.com -- and Ritu Srivastava, Esq. --
rsrivastava@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Bid on "Sasaki" Claim Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned,
SHIRLEY "RAE" ELLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C-04-3341-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Elaine Sasaki asserted two claims against Defendant
Costco Wholesale Corp.: (1) a claim for disparate treatment based
on gender and (2) a claim for retaliation. The thrust of Ms.
Sasaki's disparate treatment claim was that she was not promoted
from the position of Assistant General Manager (AGM) to General
Manager (GM) because of her gender. The thrust of Ms. Sasaki's
retaliation claim was that, after making an internal complaint
about gender discrimination in promotions, filing her DFEH
complaint based on disparate treatment, and joining in the instant
lawsuit, she was retaliated against again, by not being promoted.

Defendant Costco moved for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, for partial summary judgment because part of each
claim was time barred.

Judge Chen, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1BLRwxefrom Leagle.com, granted in part Defendant's
motions for summary judgment and the motion to seal. Claims for
(1) disparate treatment claim and (2) retaliation claim but only
with respect to failures to promote that took place 300 days prior
to the DFEH charge for retaliation specifically and not disparate
treatment.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
     LEWIS FEINBERG LEE & JACKSON, P.C.
     476 9th St
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Tel: (510)839-6824

          - and -

     Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
     Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
     LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
     E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
             kdermody@lchb.com

          - and -

     Robert Loren Schug, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER LLP

          - and -

     Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq.
     Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq.
     James M. Finberg, Esq.
     DAVIS COWELL & BOWE
     ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
     E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com
             ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
             jfinberg@atlshulerberzon.com

Defendant is represented by Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq., at IMPACT
FUND, David B. Ross, Esq. -- dross@seyfarth.com -- Gerald L.
Maatman, Jr. Esq. -- gmaatman@setfarth.com -- Lorie E. Almon, Esq.
-- lalmon@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


DELTA AIR LINES: Court Won't Revive "Opper" Airfare Case
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLA OPPER, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-C-962 (E.D. Wis.), Plaintiff has moved to
reconsider the Court's dismissal of the complaint

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Delta Airlines
based on Delta's allegedly misleading "best price" guarantee.
Given the fact that the guarantee was explicitly comparative,
Judge Griesbach concluded that it did not matter how Delta
computed its fares, so long as the fares it offered on its own
website were the same or better than fares a customer could find
on competing websites.

In seeking reconsideration, the Plaintiff repeated her argument
that the guarantee was much simpler than the phrase quoted. She
wanted to amend the complaint to make clear that she never read
any disclaimers or any fine print, or even the basic substance of
the guarantee. Instead, she assered that all she saw on Delta's
website were the words "best fare guarantee," and from those three
modest words she jumped to the conclusion that Delta was
warranting that the fares it offered on flights with connections
would be the same price as the fares offered to customers who
purchased individual legs of the same flight.

District Judge William C. Griesbach of the District Court for
Eastern District of Wisconsin in the Decision and Order dated May
22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/y0en9cfrom Leagle.com, denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found that even
if somehow the "best fare guarantee" were itself the guarantee,
rather than merely a description of the guarantee, it could not
reasonably be interpreted in the fashion Plaintiff asserted.

Plaintiffs are represented by Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D
Kaliel, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP;

          - and -

     James C. Shah, Esq.
     SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC
     735 North Water Street, Suite 1222
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Tel: (414)-226-9900

Defendants are represented by Gabor Balassa, Esq. --
gabor.balassa@kirkland.com -- and Renee D. Smith, Esq. --
renee.smith@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


DIMENSIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arthur" Suit Over Rental Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Arthur, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dimensions Management Corp., & Unknown Beneficiaries
of Chicago Title Land Trust Co. Trust Numbered 4477 Dated 9-26-
1991, Case No. 2015-CH-09370 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the  Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, specifically by failure
to disclose landlord's obligations and foreclosure policies in its
rental agreement.

The Defendants own and operate buildings with multiple dwelling
units in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Silverman, Esq.
      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington, #2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 775-1015
      Facsimile: (312) 256 2055


DOW CHEMICAL: High Court to Decide on Writ Petition by Month End
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Supreme Court may
issue a decision on Dow's Writ Petition by the end of June 2015.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of
"opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers;
these cases are substantively identical to the class action
lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through
1998.

In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the
District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant,
the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20,
2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400
million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the
District Court under applicable antitrust laws - less offsets from
other settling defendants - resulting in a judgment entered in
July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed
this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth
Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral arguments on the
matter on May 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Court of
Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment.
On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the
Court of Appeals, which the Circuit Court denied on November 7,
2014.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme
Court"), seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and
requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental
errors in the Circuit Court opinion. While it is unknowable
whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for
review, there are several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court
should grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and if the
petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes
it is likely that the District Court judgment will be vacated.
Specifically, it is the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit
decision violates the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set
out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Tenth
Circuit also did not follow accepted law from other federal
circuits on dispositive case issues, including legal precedent
from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit
Courts. Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is
not supported by any other circuit court. In April 2015, six amici
filed Amicus Briefs in support of Dow's Writ Petition. The class
plaintiffs' opposition brief was due May 11, 2015, and pursuant to
the current Supreme Court schedule, it is reasonably anticipated
the Supreme Court may issue a decision on the Writ Petition by the
end of June 2015.

The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of
price fixing and the Company will continue to vigorously defend
this litigation. As with any litigation and based on various
factors, the Company may from time to time pursue confidential
settlement negotiations to resolve the matter. As part of the
Company's review of the jury verdict, the resulting judgment and
the Court of Appeals' opinion, the Company assessed the legal and
factual circumstances of the case, the trial record, the appellate
record, and the applicable law including clear precedent from the
Supreme Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated above,
the Company believes the judgment and decision from the Court of
Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the Company has
concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and,
therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these
matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a loss will
occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals'
opinion, and subsequent denial of Dow's Rehearing Petition
indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur.
The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero to the
$1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-judgment interest and
possible award of class attorney fees).

On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been
consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-
trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there are two separate
but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March
2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Dow
filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014,
which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed
pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded
it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a
liability has not been recorded with respect to the opt-out
litigation or the Canadian matters.


EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Tullman" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on March 3, 2015, two
putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex, its
directors, Avago Technologies Limited and Purchaser, captioned as
follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No.
10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v.
Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On
March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other
things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement, and that Avago and Purchaser aided
and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware
Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three
Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL.
Management is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or
to estimate the range of such loss, therefore, no amount of loss
has been accrued.


EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, a
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary
Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-
554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its
directors, Avago Technologies Limited and Purchaser, and purports
to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Board failed to
provide material information and/or omitted material information
from the Statement. The complaint seeks to enjoin the Offer as
well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs. Management is unable to determine whether any loss will
occur or to estimate the range of such loss, therefore, no amount
of loss has been accrued.


EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Lopez and other similarly situated individuals v.
Expressway Motorcars, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of South Florida, Case No.
2015-013273-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Expressway Motorcars, Inc. is a Toyota Dealer in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective Ventilation Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Brandes Newsom, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., Goodman
Global, Inc., Goodman Company, L.P. Case No. 1:15-cv-00943-WTL-DKL
(S.D. Ind., June 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
residents and entities who purchased air conditioners, air
handlers, and heat pumps manufactured by the Defendants, with leak
refrigerant because the copper coils used in the Products are
defective and prematurely corrode, which caused holes and cracks
in the coils.

The Defendants are manufacturers of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning equipment for residential and light commercial use in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


GREENSOURCE LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Jose Cabrera and all others similarly situated v.
GreenSource Landscape and Sports Turf, Inc., Jason Wingate, Susan
Npres Wingate a/k/a Nicki Wingate, Case No. 1:15-cv-22278-UU (S.D.
Fla., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscape company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Daeda" Suit Over Brookfield Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Daeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11145-
VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
holders of the common stock of GrafTech International Ltd., to
enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of GrafTech
common stock by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., for an unfair
price and inadequate consideration.

Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers
innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide
range of industries and end markets, including steel
manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation
electronics.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset
manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management,
engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable
energy, infrastructure and private equity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Grinberger" Suit Over Brookfield Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Grinberger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11148-
VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
holders of the common stock of GrafTech International Ltd., to
enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of GrafTech
common stock by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., for an unfair
price and inadequate consideration.

Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers
innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide
range of industries and end markets, including steel
manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation
electronics.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset
manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management,
engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable
energy, infrastructure and private equity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendants failed in their bid to dismiss the case captioned, SHU
LAN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA INC.,
"SHERRY W" DOE, and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES #1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 15-CV-2520 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y.).

Shu Lan Chen brought a putative collective and class action
against Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc. and several other unidentified
defendants designated as John Does and Jane Does #1-10 for
violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs
were employees allegedly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Some worked as cashiers, nail technicians, or beauticians; others
served as cleaners or bookkeepers. Plaintiff alleged in the
complaint that upon information and belief, during the times
relevant to the Complaint, Defendants employed more than thirty
employees and have an annual gross volume of sales of not less
than $500,000.

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the complaint
failed to plead that either enterprise or individual coverage
applied.

District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York in the Opinion and Order
dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Naln3Xfrom
Leagle.com, held that the complaint adequately pleads coverage
under the FLSA.

Plaintiffs are respresented by Jian Hang, Esq. --
jhang@hanglaw.com & William Michael Brown, Esq. --
wbrown@hanglaw.com -- HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Simon Shih-Min Chang, Esq.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2015, that the Court has
issued preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the
amount of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by
insurance.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us following our announced intention to
restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the
related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain
of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the
initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related
to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and
prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential
agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to
submission and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the
court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount
of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. We
expect final court approval of the settlement and termination of
all proceedings in this matter in the second quarter of 2015."


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2015, that the Court has
granted conditional certification to the class in the lawsuit
filed by six former tipped employees.

The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States
District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped
employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint
against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees
were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as
the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked.
These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of
tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses
of tipped employees regarding their state law claims. By order
dated January 26, 2015, the court granted conditional
certification to the class. We are vigorously contesting this
matter and have answered and asserted affirmative defenses.
Discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages. At
this early stage, it is impossible to predict with any certainty
whether the former employees will prevail or the amount of damages
they might recover were they to prevail."


INWELL INC: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lawrence and Andrew Lawrence, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Inwell, Inc. and MWD Services
(Mgmt), Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01714 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants fir failure to pay overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

The Defendants operate an oilfield service company with
significant operations in the United States.

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


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Yvonne Jansky Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Yvonne Jansky.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that
the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices,
and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes
to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting
in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages,
as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Plaintiff Files Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Sandusky Wellness
Center, LLC.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief. In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for class
certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was
granted. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend v. Bohlander & Andres Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits by Christine Bohlander
and Jemuel Andres.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and
the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated
phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees. The parties have reached a tentative class
settlement, which is subject to Court approval. The Court held a
hearing on the merits of the settlement terms on February 26, 2015
and requested further briefing on the settlement terms. Another
hearing was scheduled for May 14, 2015. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Rabanes Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Rachel Rabanes.

The Company is a defendant in two additional putative class action
lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres
consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California
Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and
the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA
LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that
the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and
rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California
Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Legg Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Christopher W. Legg.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that
the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration
date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt.
The lawsuit seeks damages of not less than $0.0001 but not more
than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LipoScience Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a
settlement has been reached in the case by stockholders of
LipoScience.

Prior to the consummation of the Company's acquisition of
LipoScience, Inc., purported stockholders of LipoScience filed
four putative class action lawsuits against LipoScience, members
of the LipoScience board of directors, the Company and Bear
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the
lawsuits, in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina.
The lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other
violations of state law arising out of the proposed acquisition.
Each suit sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the merger.

On October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On October 29, 2014,
the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the four actions under
the caption In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP (the "Consolidated Action"). On
November 7, 2014, the Consolidated Action plaintiffs entered into
a memorandum of understanding with the defendants regarding a
settlement of the Consolidated Action. In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that LipoScience would make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders.

Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel, entry by the parties into a stipulation of settlement and
customary conditions, including court approval, the settlement
will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been
brought, including all claims relating to the merger.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Delaware Plaintiffs Entered Into MOU
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement.

On November 19, 2014, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement to acquire Covance for approximately $6,200.0 in cash
and Company common stock. The transaction closed on February 19,
2015. Prior to the closing of the transaction, purported
stockholders of Covance filed two putative class action lawsuits.
One of the lawsuits, captioned Berk v. Covance Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 10440-VCL, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on
December 9, 2014. The other lawsuit, captioned Ojeda v. Herring et
al., No. MER-C-92-14, was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, New Jersey, on November
12, 2014. Both suits named as defendants Covance, members of the
Covance board of directors, the Company and Neon Merger Sub, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was merged out of
existence in connection with the Acquisition. The lawsuits alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law
arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought, among
other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On January
21, 2015, the case in New Jersey was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the Plaintiff.

On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the Defendants regarding a
settlement. In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed
that Covance would make additional disclosures to its
stockholders. Subject to the entry by the parties into a
stipulation of settlement and customary conditions, including
court approval, the settlement will resolve all the claims that
were or could have been brought, including all claims relating to
the merger.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: La. Court Stays "Loehn" Case Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant moved to Stay Pending MDL Determination in the case
captioned, THOMAS E. AND RACHEL M. LOEHN, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS,
INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SECTION "L" (5), Case
No. 15-01088 (E.D. La.).

On December 30, 2014, Thomas and Rachel Loehn filed an action for
redhibition and damages against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in Louisiana state court. The
complaint alleged that Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (LLI) recommended
and sold to them an inappropriate underlayment for their flooring
and that LLI was a Bad Faith seller who knew or should have known
of these defects and failed to warn Plaintiffs.

LLI filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the MDL panel's
decision of whether to transfer the case, arguing that having to
defend the same issues in multiple fora would cause them hardship.
The Loehns opposed the motion, arguing that they filed a Motion to
Remand and that they dismissed all allegations asserting a class
action in their latest filing with the Court.

District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the Order and Reasons
dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/viLkFWfrom
Leagle.com, granted for 60 days LLI's Motion to Stay Pending MDL
Determination. The Court said it is wise to wait for the MDL panel
to decide whether the claim did fall within the proposed MDL.
Granting a short stay was unlikely to prejudice the Loehns' case
or cause them undue hardship. In contrast, denying the stay
creates the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings which could
greatly burden the Defendants. Additionally, granting the stay was
in the interest of judicial economy.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas Edward Loehn, Esq.
     BOGGS, LOEHN & RODRIGUE
     2324 Severn Avenue, Suite 100
     Metairie, LA 70001
     Tel: (504) 437-1699

Defendants are represented by H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq. --
mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Erica A. Therio, Esq. --
etherio@barrassousdin.com -- BARRASSO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN, FREEMAN &
SARVER, LLC


MAC PROPERTY: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Unlawful Rental Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Buckner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MAC Property Management, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-09371
(Ill. Cir. Ct., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the  Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance, specifically by failure to disclose landlord's
obligations and foreclosure policies in its rental agreement.

MAC Property Management, LLC owns and operates buildings with
multiple dwelling units in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Silverman, Esq.
      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington, #2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 775-1015
      Facsimile: (312) 256 2055


MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Ochoa" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the defendants, all various McDonald's corporate
entities, moved to strike 106 of the 161 changes plaintiffs made
to the deposition transcripts of the four named plaintiffs by
means of errata sheets in the case captioned, STEPHANIE OCHOA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-CV-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs invoked Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which allowed the deponent to review the deposition
transcript or recording within 30 days of notice of availability
and make changes in form or substance by signing a statement
listing the changes and the reasons for making them.

District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California
in the Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/TtTYbG
from Leagle.com, denied the motion to strike and allowed
Defendants to renew their motion to strike if Plaintiffs relied on
the modified testimony in the course of any future summary
judgment briefing to try to establish a dispute of material fact.

Plaintiffs are represented by Abigail Evans Shafroth, Esq. --
ashafroth@cohenmilstein.com -- Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq. -
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,
Matthew J. Murray, Esq. -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com, Michael
Rubin, Esq. -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Esq. -- bchisholm@althshulerberzon.com -- Patrick Casey
Pitts, Esq. -- ppitts@atlahulerberzon.com -- ALSTHULER BERZON LLP

Defendants are represented by Brent D. Knight, Esq. --
bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jonathan M. Linus, Esq. --
jlinus@jonesday.com -- Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. --
ldinardo@jonesday.com -- Allison B. Moser, Esq. --
amoser@jonesday.com -- Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. --
csnasser@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. --
emcree@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


MED DIRECT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Autodialed Solicitation Call
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Med Direct Capital, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04569-DDP-
GJS (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of placing autodialed solicitation call to
consumers' cellular telephone.

Med Direct Capital, LLC is engaged in the business of lending
business capital loans to business owners throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com


MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Fortinet Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Middleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenik, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., and
Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11143-VCP (Del. Ch., June
12, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Meru Networks, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company
to Fortinet, Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Malbrouck
Acquisition Corp., for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Meru Networks, Inc. provides intelligent wireless LAN solutions
that optimize the network to deliver the highest performance,
reliability, and operational simplicity.

Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is a worldwide
provider of network security appliances and the market leader in
unified threat management (UTM).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 984-3800
      E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylot.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com


MIAMI ANGEL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fanny Lopez, and other similarly situated employees v. North Miami
Angel Gardens ALF, Inc. and Norma Leon-Aristide, Case No. 2015-
013249-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in
Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Remands "King" Suit v. Prison Officials
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in, and
remanded for further proceedings, the case captioned, KEVIN KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CHUCK ZAMIARA, CURTIS
CHAFFEE, SHARON WELLS, in their individual and official
capacities, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 13-
1766, 13-1777 (6th Cir.).

King filed suit against Chuck Zamiara, Curtis Chaffee, Sharon
Wells, and other prison officials under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. He
alleged that after he participated in a class-action lawsuit
designed to challenge personal property policies at MDOC
facilities (the Cain litigation), prison officials transferred him
to a prison with a higher security classification and more
restrictive conditions.

The Sixth Circuit previously held that Zamiara, Chaffee, and Wells
were liable for retaliating against King for his First Amendment-
protected conduct, namely participating in the Cain litigation and
assisting other petitioners to file grievances. The Sixth Circuit
remanded the case back to the district court, and that court
granted compensatory damages and awarded attorney fees, but denied
punitive damages and injunctive relief. Both parties appealed.

In the Opinion dated June 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/XXyiKC
from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's
judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that
the district court abused its discretion.

Plaintiff is respresented by Gregory N. Longworth, Esq. --
glongworth@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL PLC

Defendant is represented by Kevin R. Himebaugh, Esq., OFFICE OF
THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Trims "Grochowski" Action
-----------------------------------------------
LISA GROCHOWSKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. C13-343 TSZ (W.D. Wash.),
was commenced on February 22, 2013, against the Gordon Firm and
Midland Funding, LLC asserting one or more claims under each of
five different subsections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) and two claims under Washington's Consumer Protection
Act (CPA).

Plaintiff obtained a loan from Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. on
which she defaulted.  Capital One "charged off" the debt, in the
amount of $5,025.54, and sold it to Equable Ascent Financial, LLC.
Equable unsuccessfully attempted to collect $5,025.54 from
plaintiff and then sold the debt to Midland. MCM, acting on behalf
of Midland, also failed to collect from plaintiff, and then turned
to the Gordon Firm for assistance.

MCM's correspondence with plaintiff indicated that the accrued
interest was $0 and the interest rate was 0%.  In contrast, the
Gordon Firm's "dunning letter" to plaintiff indicated that the
amount due was $6,325.85, which included interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of Capital One's "charge off" of the
debt, which was July 30, 2010.

The Court had granted Midland's motion for summary judgment,
holding that plaintiff had provided no evidence to support either
direct or vicarious liability on the part of Midland. The Court
also granted in part the Gordon Firm's motion for summary
judgment, dismissing Count IV of the Complaint, which alleged
violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(1), as well as portions of each
of the other five counts of the Complaint. Plaintiff's and MCM's
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, was denied
without prejudice.

In an Order dated May 26, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wGKP3s
from Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
granted in part MCM's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which the
Gordon Firm joined. The motion was granted as to plaintiff's
theory that Equable waived or was equitably estopped from charging
interest at the statutory rate, and plaintiff's FDCPA claim was
dismissed with prejudice to the extent it was premised on such
theory. The motion to dismiss was otherwise denied. Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, as revised, was denied in part
with prejudice and denied in part without prejudice.

Plaintiff is represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC,

          - and -

     Mathew J. Cunanan, Esq.
     DC LAW GROUP NW LLC
     101 Warren Ave N
     Seattle, WA 98109
     Tel: (206)494-0400

          - and -

Jon N. Robbins, Esq. -- jrobbins@attorneysforconsumers.com --
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC

Defendants are represented by:

     J. Kurt Kraemer, Esq.
     Katie Jo Johnson, Esq.
     McEWEN GISVOLD LLP
     Standard Plaza Building
     1100 SW 6th Ave #1600
     Portland, OR 97204
     Tel: (503)226-7321


MOBILEIRON INC: Faces "Panjwani" Class Action in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on May 1, 2015, a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned
Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action is purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February
13, 2015, and April 22, 2015.  It asserts claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The
Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Iron Workers Fund's Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 15, 2015,
a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle,
against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive
officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of the secondary
public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April
2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron
Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to
represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus, and all documents
incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection with the
2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly
false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014
Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit.


MOODY'S CORPORATION: NY Appeals Court to Hear Certified Question
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the New York Court of
Appeals has agreed to hear the certified question, and argument is
scheduled for June 2015.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.

In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added
to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants
moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding
and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new
New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed
claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and
abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court
ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims
of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims
to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those
plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The
court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and
abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were
dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7,
2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the
claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April
24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14
plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated
to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as
against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation
on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of
two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School
Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and Commerzbank AG
("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by the Court. On
May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims
and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of class
certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively,
$5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in
connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal.

In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a
ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence
relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second
Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but
instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's
argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of
Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question, and
argument is scheduled for June 2015. After the New York Court of
Appeals has ruled on the certified question, the case will be
returned to the Second Circuit for a final decision on
Commerzbank's appeal.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative shareholder
class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with
C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative
shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges
that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red
Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The
plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded. On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014,
the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's
judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending."


NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galina Sergeeva, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. NCB Management Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03459 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint v. DOH
--------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Backer appealed from an order by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf
of the Eastern District of New York, dismissing her complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The complaint
alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The appeal is
captioned, MINDY BACKER, by her guardian and next friend Gay Lee
Freedman, Plaintiff-Appellant, FANNIE MAE WILLIAMS, by her
guardian and next friend United Guardianship Services, ANNIE L.
KELLY, by her guardian and next friend United Guardianship
Services, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIRAV R. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., in his
capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-1367-CV (2nd Cir.).

Appellant is incapacitated and resides in a nursing home. She
receives Medicaid benefits. Medicaid covers part or all of the
costs of nursing home facility services for qualified
beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396d(a)(4)(A). Such beneficiaries
are required to contribute their available income to the cost of
their institutional care. Appellant's sister, Gay Lee Freedman,
was appointed by the New York Supreme Court to be appellant's
guardian. The guardianship order stated that the income appellant
deposited in her guardianship account would be considered
unavailable income for purposes of calculation of her net
available monthly income.

DOH determined that appellant could not deduct the guardianship
fees and was required to contribute approximately $1,800 per month
in NAMI toward her nursing home costs.  That ruling left her
without funds to pay the guardianship fees. Relying on the terms
of the guardianship order, Freedman challenged DOH's decision in
state court, but the court upheld DOH's decision on the ground
that it had a rational basis. The court also noted that New York's
Medicaid regulations did not authorize the deduction of
guardianship fees and expenses from the amount required to be
contributed toward nursing home costs.

Freedman filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of
New York. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that DOH violated the
Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(19), 1396a(q)(1), 1396d,
by refusing to deduct guardianship expenses from required Medicaid
contributions. Backer alleged she was being damaged because of the
failure of DOH to permit the deduction of the guardianship fees
from her available assets. DOH successfully moved to dismiss the
action. The district court held that appellant lacked
constitutional standing to bring the claim and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Backer appealed.

Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Order dated June 3, 2015
available at http://is.gd/6am6HJfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) concluding that Backer had
standing but nevertheless failed to state a valid Section 1983
claim.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph P. Garland, Esq.
     Michael Korsinsky, Esq.
     KORSINSKY & KLEIN, LLP
     2926 Ave., L.
     Brooklyn, NY 11210
     Tel: (212)495-8133

Defendants are represented by Bethany A. Davis Noll, Esq. --
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL; Barbara D. Underwood,Esq. --
SOLICITOR GENERAL; Anisha S. Dasgupta, Esq., DEPUTY SOLICITOR
GENERAL


NORTEK INC: Unit Named as Defendant in "Harris" and "Bauer" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nortek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 28, 2015, that Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, is the defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  In addition, Nortek,
Inc., Nortek Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America,
Inc. are the defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in
Tennessee, Bauer, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
01940, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

The Company said, "These lawsuits allege that evaporator and
condenser coils in Nordyne's residential heating and cooling
products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion of the
copper tubing in the units that can result in coil leaks and/or
failure of the units.  The Florida action was initiated on May 21,
2014 and seeks compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's
alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Tennessee action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and
seeks damages associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or
replacing the allegedly defective products, the loss of value due
to the alleged defect, property damages associated with the
alleged defect, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs. No arguments or ruling with respect to
class action status have occurred to date in either of these
actions.

"While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints.  At
this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material
loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or
liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events
could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss,
which could ultimately have a material impact on our business.
The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material
loss as the actions progress."


NUVASIVE INC: Wants 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the Securities
Litigation.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California naming the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers for allegedly making false
and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results, specifically relating to the
purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. In March 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to amend its
complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September
8, 2014. The Company once again moved to dismiss the complaint on
September 22, 2014 and that motion was granted on December 9,
2014.  On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
on January 9, 2015. While the Company's motion was pending,
Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The
Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and the
motion is pending. At March 31, 2015, the probable outcome of this
litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a
range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance
on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not
recorded an accrual related to this litigation.


PACPIZZA LLC: CA Affirms Denial of Petition to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision denying the petition
to compel arbitration in the case, JULIO OREGEL, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. PACPIZZA, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
A141947 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Julio Oregel filed a class action against his former employer,
defendant PacPizza, LLC for failure to fully reimburse delivery
drivers for necessary expenses associated with using their
personal vehicles to deliver pizza on PacPizza's behalf. It
asserted two causes of action (1) failure to reimburse expenses in
violation of Labor Code section 2802 and (2) for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law PacPizza petitioned to compel
arbitration of Oregel's claims. Plaintiff sought compensatory and
special damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorney fees,
and costs. The trial court denied the petition, finding PacPizza
waived its right to enforce a purported arbitration agreement
between the two parties.

PacPizza appealed, primarily contending the court erred in denying
the petition, and also asserting that Oregel "conceded" the
existence of a valid arbitration agreement and it was improper for
Judge Flinn to "pocket" the order denying its petition.

Justice James A. Richman of the Court of Appeals of California,
First District, Division Two, in the Decision and Order dated June
1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/dRU9Uifrom Leagle.com, affirmed
the order denying PacPizza's petition to compel arbitration
finding that the bad faith or willful misconduct of a party may
constitute a waiver and thus justify a refusal to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric Andrew Grover, Esq.
     Steven Lee Miller, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER
     1965 Market St
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Tel: (415)543-1305

          - and -

     Ellen Lake, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ELLEN LAKE
     4230 Lakeshore Ave
     Oakland, CA 94610
     Tel: (510)272-9393

Defendants are represented by Michael Robert Bodzin, Esq. --
rbodzin@burnhambrown.com -- BURNHAM BROWN


PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland denied Plaintiff's
motions and granted Defendant's motion in the case captioned,
CHRISTIE ADEMILUYI, Plaintiff, v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT
TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC n/k/a PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. ELH-12-00752 (D. Md.).

PennyMac attempted to collect Christie Ademiluyi's delinquent
mortgage debt without a debt collection license, allegedly in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as
well as the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA) and
Sec. 7-301 of the Business Regulation Article (BR). Plaintiff
initially filed her Complaint in March 2012, as a putative class
action seeking statutory damages as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a supporting
memorandum of law and a Motion to Certify a Class and Defendant
filed a motion to oppose both motions.

Judge Hollander, in the Memorandum Opinion dated May 22, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1dOCz8jfrom Leagle.com, denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and summary judgment
and granted Defendant's opposition.

Plaintiff is respresented by April Teniade Ademiluyi, Esq., at THE
LAW OFFICE OF APRIL ADEMILUYI

Defendants are represented by Edward Win-Teh Chang, Esq. --
Echang@BlankRome.com -- Harris N. Cogan, Esq. --
Hcogan@BlankRome.com -- James Robert Billings Kang, Esq. -
JKang@BlankRome.com; and Laura E. Vendzules, Esq. --
Lvendzules@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP


PFS GROUP: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Safdieh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PFS Group a/k/a Patient Financial Services and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-04032-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., June 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHARMACYCLICS INC: Judicial Review of MOU in 2nd Half 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacyclics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company currently
anticipates that the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in class
action lawsuits will undergo judicial review for approval during
the second half of 2015.

In March 2015, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the members of the Pharmacyclics board of directors and
certain others (the Defendants) in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Santa Clara County. Each alleges generally that the
members of the Pharmacyclics board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with AbbVie's offer to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Pharmacyclics and the Mergers by,
among other things, (i) failing to maximize the value of
Pharmacyclics to its public stockholders, (ii) ignoring or failing
to protect against conflicts of interests and (iii) agreeing to
unreasonable deal protection devices (see Note 14 for a brief
discussion of AbbVie's offer and the Mergers). The plaintiffs
seek, among other relief, equitable relief to enjoin consummation
of the offer and the Mergers, rescission of the offer and the
Mergers and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 16, 2015, all parties to the shareholder suits entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle these
lawsuits. The Defendants in the MOU have denied, and continue to
deny, that any of them has committed, threatened to commit, or
aided and abetted in the commission of, any wrongdoing, violations
of law or breaches of duty to the plaintiffs, the class or anyone
else in connection with the settled claims. The Company currently
anticipates that the MOU will undergo judicial review for approval
during the second half of 2015.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Huseynov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Azar Huseynov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No.
1:15-cv-03458 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAINS ALL: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hicks, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP, Plains Pipeline,
L.P., and John Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04573 (C.D.
Cal., June 16, 2015), , injunctive relief, and any and all other
relief, as proximate result of the Defendant's failure to adhere
to statutory guidelines, failure to meet the requisite standard of
care, and negligence which resulted in the release, disposal, and
exfiltration, of petroleum and petroleum byproducts, at and near
Santa Barbara County, which continues to spread, exacerbate, and
contaminate previously uncontaminated areas, negatively impacting
the local economy, particularly that which is reliant on tourism.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates a pipeline
system, which transported crude oil, obtained from ExxonMobil's
Santa Ynez fields at Las Flores Canyon to Gaviota Pump Station in
Santa Barbara County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juli Farris, Esq.
      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805)456-1496
      Facsimile: (805)456-1497
      E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
              mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Robert Lawrence Lieff, Esq.
      Robert Nelson, Esq.
      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415)956-1000
      Facsimile: (415)956-1000
      E-mail: rlieff@lchb.com
              rnelson@lchb.com
              ecabraser@lchb.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Sued Over Transactions With Major Investor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haverhill Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated v. The Providence Service Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 11149-VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), arises from breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Providence Board in connection with a
series of transactions designed to improperly benefit Coliseum
Capital Management, LLC, the company's largest stockholder.

The Providence Service Corporation provides and manages government
sponsored human services, innovative global employment services,
comprehensive assessment and care management services, and non-
emergency.

Coliseum Capital Management, LLC is a Stamford, Connecticut-based
hedge fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine S. Azar, Esq.
      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 573-2540
      E-mail: cazar@labaton.com
              nweinberger@labaton.com
              rsianno@labaton.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
              ebelfi@labaton.com
              mstocker@labaton.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Class Action in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, that a
lawsuit has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against Rayonier Advanced Materials
Inc. (the "Company") and certain current and former officers of
the Company. The complaint, which was served on the Company on May
4, 2015, purports to be a class action and alleges federal
securities laws violations. The primary allegations are that
certain environmental-related reserves recorded by the Company
were understated and materially false and misleading. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. It
is possible additional lawsuits making similar or related
allegations may be filed against the Company and/or its current
and/or former officers.

The Company strongly believes the complaint and its allegations to
be baseless and without merit, and will vigorously defend this
action.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
the case, Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company, is now in the discovery phase.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records.  The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California
law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out
the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate
sales associates as independent contractors and all elements of
the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales
associates.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and
a hearing was held on August 28, 2013.  The Court denied the
Demurrer and stated that it would look to the more complex multi-
factor common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was
misclassified.  CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal seeking its discretionary review of
that decision on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013, the
Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's ex parte
application which sought, in part, to invalidate, for purposes of
this litigation, arbitration clauses with class action waivers in
independent contractor agreements executed by some putative
members of the class following the commencement of the litigation.
Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of
Appeal seeking its discretionary review of the Court's decision to
deny plaintiff's application.  On June 2, 2014, the Court of
Appeal summarily denied the petition.  The case is now in the
discovery phase.  The first mediation session was currently
scheduled for May 5, 2015. The parties have not held any pre-
mediation discussions nor exchanged demands.

The Company said, "The case raises significant classification
claims that potentially apply to the real estate industry in
general and that have not been previously challenged in any
significant manner in California or many other jurisdictions.  As
with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex
and subject to many uncertainties.  We believe that CBRBC has
properly classified the current and former affiliated sales
associates.  There can be no assurance, however, that if the
action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the
plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and
other remedies.  Given the stage of this case, the novel claims
and issues presented and the great uncertainties regarding which
sales associates, if any, may be part of a class, if one is
certified, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential
losses for this litigation. The Company believes it has complied
with all applicable laws and regulations and will vigorously
defend this action."


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren City Police Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, that on May
1, 2015, a complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement Systems v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV
533635, was filed in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), the
Company's directors and executive officers at the time of the
Offering (defined below), and the investment banking firms that
acted as the underwriters in the Offering.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the Company's then-present status of its RT001
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug
candidate, RT001, for the treatment of lateral canthal lines,
known as crow's feet lines, at the time of the Company's June 19,
2014 follow-on public offering of common stock (the "Offering").
The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock in the
Offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


RIYAL HOLDINGS: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Abreu and other similarly situated individuals v. Riyal
Holdings Corporation and Melvin H. Stoutfnburg, Case No. 2015-
013281-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Riyal Holdings Corporation is a Florida corporation that sells and
markets its services and goods to customers from throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


SIEMENS USA: Court Grants Motion to Enforce Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Siemens moved to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement in
the case captioned, JARRID J. WHITLEY, on behalf of himself, and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
also doing business as and referred to as SIEMENS USA, SIEMENS
CORPORATION, and SIEMENS, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-CV-00099-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal.).

Jarrid Whitley filed a putative class action for alleged wage and
hour claims against his former employer, Defendant Siemens
Industry, Inc. He asserted that Siemens: 1) failed to provide meal
and rest periods in accordance with California Labor Code Sections
226.5 and 512; 2) failed to furnish accurate wage statement in
violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226; 3) conversion; and 4)
unfair business practices in contravention of California Business
and Professions Code Sec. 17200.

In the interests of timely resolution and conservation of
resources on the part of all involved, the Parties decided to
engage in early mediation with a voluntary exchange of documents
and information. Decl. of Gregory Iskander, Michael Dickstein, an
experienced mediator with extensive experience in employment
cases, and in particular wage and hour class actions, was selected
to mediate.

On May 6, 2014, the parties attended a voluntary mediation with
Mr. Dickstein in San Francisco. Both Plaintiff and his counsel,
Anthony Perez, Jr., were present at the resulting mediation, which
lasted about twelve hours.  Although no final resolution was
reached at that session, the parties made substantial progress and
agreed to continue to discuss settlement through Mr. Dickstein. On
June 30, 2014, both Plaintiff and Mr. Perez signed the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU). Following execution of the MOU, counsel
for Siemens agreed to draft a Formal Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement to file with this Court, as contemplated by the MOU.
Plaintiff's counsel agreed that the Stipulation was acceptable and
accurately reflected the terms of the MOU. Consistent with that
representation, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Settlement
with this Court on July 3, 2014. Plaintiff subsequently refused to
sign either the Stipulation of Class Action Settlement or the
corresponding Settlement Agreement as to his personal claims.
Siemens moved to enforce the terms of the Settlement.

Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Eastern District of California in the Order
dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ylK9tKfrom
Leagle.com, granted Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement in
its entirety. Given the fact that Plaintiff entered into a binding
settlement as to both his class-based and individual claims, the
Court declined Plaintiff's suggestion that his individual claims
be severed and permitted to proceed. Plaintiff's second Opposition
was stricken as untimely.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony M. Perez, Jr., Esq.
     PEREZ LAW OFFICES
     455 Capitol Mall # 225
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Tel: (916)441-0500

          - and -

     David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N Brand Blvd #705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818)230-8380

Defendants are represented by Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. --
giskander@littler.com -- Alexa L. Woerner, Esq. --
awoerner@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


SINGER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Motion to Stay Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery in the case captioned,
GOLDEN PALM INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DANIEL AZOURI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-336-KJD-VCF
(D. Nev.).

Marvin Lipschultz commenced the securities fraud action under
state and federal law against Defendants. Private securities fraud
actions were governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, (PSLRA). The Act was passed to restrict perceived
abuses in securities class-action litigation by testing the
sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint before discovery begins.

The defendants include Azouri, Singer Joseph and Singer
Entertainment Group LLC.

On March 27, 2015, Defendant Azouri moved to dismiss Plaintiffs'
action. Under the PSLRA this triggered an automatic discovery
stay.  On May 6, 2015, Defendant Azouri moved to enforce the
automatic stay. Plaintiff did not assert that discovery should
proceed; rather he filed a limited opposition, which reserved the
right to seek a lift of the stay should circumstances change.

Magistrate Judge Kam Ferenbach of the United States District Court
for District of Nevada in the Order dated June 2, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/qQiQu1from Leagle.com, granted Defendants' Motion
to Stay Discovery because the PSLRA mandated a stay under these
circumstances, and the parties did not dispute that a stay should
be entered. All discovery was stayed pending resolution of
Defendants' motions to dismiss. If Defendants' motions to dismiss
are denied, discovery automatically recommences on the date
Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.

Plaintiffs are respresented by Kimberly P. Stein, Esq. --
KStein@howardandhoward.com -- Robert W. Hernquist, Esq. --
RHernquist@howardandhoward.com -- HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC

Defendants are represented by Kurt R. Bonds, Esq., at ALVERSON
TAYLOR MORTENSEN, ET AL., Severin A. Carlson, Esq. --
scarlson@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL & Shawn A. Mangano, Esq.
-- shawn@manganolaw.com -- SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.


SOVRAN SELF: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the class action filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division
Burlington County to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The Company intends to vigorously defend
the action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be
determined at this time.


STARJEM RESTAURANT: Faces "Briones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellington Briones and Luis Julian Rayon, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Starjem Restaurant Corp.
d/b/a Fresco by Scotto, Marion Scotto and Anthony Scotto, Case No.
1:15-cv-04646 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours
work over 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 34 East
52nd Street, New York, NY 10022.

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


STEWART INFORMATION: Trial on Non-Settling Plaintiff Claims Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a trial
of the claims of the remaining non-settling plaintiffs was
scheduled to start on May 11, 2015.

In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against
Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Guaranty), Stewart Title of
California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging
that the plaintiffs had suffered damages relating to loans they
made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named
Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Thereafter,
several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a
lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San
Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, which was dismissed and then refiled in San Luis
Obispo Superior Court. The defendants vary from case to case, but
Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company
and Stewart Title Insurance Company were also each sued in at
least one of the cases.

Following several years of discovery and other pretrial
proceedings, the Court conducted a bellwether jury trial of the
claims of eight of the plaintiffs, four selected by plaintiffs and
four selected by defendants, starting on August 5, 2013. The eight
plaintiffs in the bellwether jury trial each asserted claims
against Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and
Guaranty. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted
claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart
Title Company's motion for directed verdict after the close of
plaintiffs' case.

On October 8, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cuesta
Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Guaranty on every
one of every plaintiff's claims against them. On January 30, 2014,
the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial. On February 28,
2014, plaintiffs filed their notices of appeal from the verdict in
the bellwether jury trial. Rather than incur additional time and
expenses associated with these actions, the Company announced on
June 11, 2014, the settlement with approximately 500 plaintiffs
representing more than 90 percent of the total number of
plaintiffs, pursuant to which it agreed to pay $10.53 million. The
settlement agreement involved no admission of liability or
violation of law by the defendants and bars the plaintiffs from
pursuing further associated claims against the defendants.

A small number of plaintiffs have not settled. A trial of the
claims of two non-settling plaintiffs started on January 5, 2015.
On April 17, 2015, the Court issued its Statement of Decision in
favor of all defendants on the claims of both plaintiffs. A trial
of the claims of the remaining non-settling plaintiffs was
scheduled to start on May 11, 2015.

Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these
actions with the remaining plaintiffs, it will vigorously defend
itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome relating to
the remaining plaintiffs will be material to its consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.


SUB TENDER: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Lopez, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Sub Tender, Inc., d/b/a
Submarine Tender, Gregory Liveris, and John Liveris, Case No.
1:15-cv-05286 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 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 Submarine Tender restaurant in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Payment for Undisputed Claims in August 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the payment for
all undisputed individual damages claims is expected to be made in
August 2015.

The Company said, "in October 2014, we received court approval of
a final agreement to settle a previously disclosed class action
lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical
Foundation, which was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs
pursued a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact
that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric
hospital we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure
location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court
certified a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight
individuals (in addition to the two plaintiffs) were identified in
the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each
member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory
of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any
members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the
incident. In an effort to avoid protracted litigation, the parties
settled this matter in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment
of $32.5 million, subject to the number and type of claims
asserted by the class members. We made an initial deposit of $5.5
million into an escrow account in late November 2014. The payment
for all attorneys' fees and costs and undisputed common damages
claims is expected to be made in the near term. The payment for
all undisputed individual damages claims is expected to be made in
August 2015. Based on low class participation as of March 31, 2015
(the end of the claims period), management reduced the reserve
previously established for this matter from $11.5 million at
December 31, 2014 to $8.0 million, recorded in discontinued
operations, to reflect our current estimate of probable
liability."


TOWN OF ROCKPORT: Sued Over Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen G. Sheehan, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Town of Rockport, Case No. ESCV2015-00997
(Mass. Super. Ct., June 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the covenant quiet
enjoyment.

Town of Rockport is a town organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth, and has a principal place of business located at
Town Office Building, 34 Broadway, Rockport, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William H. Sheehan III, Esq
      Thomas J. Flannagan, Esq.
      MACLEAN HOLLOWAY DOHERTY ARDIFF & MORSE, P.C.
      8 Essex Center Drive
      Peabody, MA 01960
      Telephone: (978) 774-7123
      E-mail: wsheehan@mhdpc.com
              tflannagan@mhdpc.com


US INSTALLATION: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vulfrano Perez and James Mercado, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. U.S. Installation Group,
Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1 Through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG15774021 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

U.S. Installation Group, Inc. is in the business of selling and
installing carpet and other flooring material at the retail level.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a retailer of home improvement and
construction products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Arns, Esq.
      Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
      Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
      THE ARNS LAW FIRM
      515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94109
      Telephone: (415) 495-7800
      Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
      E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
              jed@arnslaw.com
              kmo@arnslaw.com


UNO RESTAURANTS: Removed "Whittington" Suit to C.D. Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Tiera Whittington, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Uno Restaurants, LLC,
Case No. 13-C-15-103016 OC, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Maryland for Howard County to the U.S. District Court District of
Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01759-ELH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
      BRADFORD WARBASSE ATTORNEY AT LAW
      401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 337-5411
      Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
      E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq.
      HOWARD B HOFFMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW
      600 Jefferson Plz Ste 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Telephone: (301) 251-3752
      Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
      E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher T. Vrountas, Esq.
      VROUNTAS AYER AND CHANDLER PC
      250 Commericial Street Ste 4004
      Manchester, NH 03101
      Telephone: (603) 782-8444
      Facsimile: (603) 518-7617
      E-mail: cvrountas@vaclegal.com

          - and -

      Edward J. Gilliss, Esq.
      James Lindsay Shea Jr., Esq.
      ROYSTON MUELLER MCLEAN AND REID LLP
      The Royston Building, Suite 600
      102 W Pennsylvania Avenue
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 823-1800
      Facsimile: (410) 828-7859
      E-mail: egilliss@rmmr.com
              jshea@rmmr.com


VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03457 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VARANDA'S CAFETERIA: "Lorenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marilin Lorenzo and Marisol Lorenzo and other similarly situated
individuals v. Varanda's Cafeteria, Inc. d/b/a Varanda's Rrasil
Cafe and Paula Yousef, Case No. 2015-013284-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
June 12, 2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


VERIZON NEW YORK: Court Remands Proceedings to Kingsley County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to remand in the case captioned, MENDEL WEIDER,
YOSSI LEVITIN, BOWLING GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.P., 111 JOHN REALTY
CORP., GEM NET INC., and MADISON TITLE AGENCY, LLP, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
VERIZON NEW YORK INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-
7378(FB)(JO)(E.D.N.Y.).

On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Defendant Verizon New York Inc. in New York Supreme Court,
Kings County. Plaintiffs Verizon residential and business
subscribers  alleged that Verizon unlawfully assessed a Municipal
Construction Surcharge (the Surcharge) on its New York State
accounts in violation of an order of the New York Public Service
Commission (the PSC Order). Plaintiffs further maintained that
Verizon misled them into thinking that the Surcharge was a
government-mandated tax so that they would not challenge its
imposition. Plaintiffs  on behalf of themselves and a putative
class  asserted nine claims under New York law, including: (1)
deceptive acts and practices under New York General Business Law
Sec. 349; (2) false advertising under New York General Business
Law Sec. 350; (3) fraud and deceit; (4) negligent
misrepresentation; (5) breach of warranty; (6) breach of contract;
(7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(8) promissory estoppel; and (9) unjust enrichment and imposition
of a constructive trust. On December 18, 2014, Verizon removed
this suit to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(A).

Plaintiffs moved to remand. Plaintiffs contended that Verizon
failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction under
CAFA. In the alternative, Plaintiffs maintained that remand was
warranted under either CAFA's mandatory local controversy and home
state exceptions, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4)(A) and (d)(4)(B),
or CAFA's discretionary interests of justice exception.

Senior District Judge Frederick Block, in the Memorandum and Order
dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wGKP3sfrom
Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' motion and the case was remanded
to New York Supreme Court, Kings County finding that discretionary
remand was warranted under Sec. 1332(d)(3).

Plaintiff is represented by Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. --
jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- Mark D. Smilow, Esq. --
msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- WEISSLAW LLP

Defendants are represented by Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Rebecca Garibotto, Esq. --
garbottor@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Heard on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court
heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No.
8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP
as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class.

On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs'
opposition to its motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the
motion under advisement. The Company believes the claims to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As
of March 31, 2015, the Company has not recorded any reserves for
this purported class action.


VIRGINIA: Court Denies Inmate's Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Glen E. Conrad of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, KRISTOPHER
GUPTON, Plaintiff, v. B. WRIGHT, ET AL., Defendant(s), Case No.
7:15CV00214 (W.D. Va.).

Christopher Gupton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and submitted a motion for class
certification stating his intention to vindicate the religious
rights of a group of inmates incarcerated with him.

Judge Conrad, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/to9BbJfrom Leagle.com, directed the Clerk of Court
to send copy of his order to Plaintiff denying motion for class
certification. It is plain error to permit imprisoned litigant who
was unassisted by a counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a
class action, the Court said.


VISTA TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Equipment Rental Balance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Vista Tower Condominium, The Board of
Managers of Vista Tower Condominium, Sinclair C. Haberman and
Brook A. Haberman, Case No. 602552/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 12,
2015), arises from the Defendants' breach of the Rental Agreement,
specifically by  failure to pay the remaining balance of
$104,399.85 due and owing to Sunbelt from Vista and the Board for
the equipment it rented, and supplies and services it received.

Vista Tower Condominium is a residential condominium development
located at 143-51 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing, New York.

The Board of Managers of Vista Tower Condominium manages and
operates the Vista on behalf of its residential condominium unit
owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
      333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Ste. 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: pmisir@forchellil.com


WENTWORTH PAOLI: Jury Judgment in Ex-Employee's Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Raymond J. Ikola of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, affirmed judgment of jury in the case captioned,
CLARICE J. LETIZIA, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. WENTWORTH,
PAOLI, & PURDY, LLP, Cross-defendant and Respondent, Case No.
G049384 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Around January 2008, WPP hired Letizia as a salaried associate
attorney. There was no written contract . At a meeting on October
12, 2011, two WPP partners, Court Purdy and Theodore Wentworth,
told Letizia they "were going to have to let her go, effective
that day. Letizia filed a complaint with the labor commission
alleging WPP failed to pay her wages. For reasons not explained in
the record, according to Letizia, the Labor Board claim was never
adjudicated.

In July 2012, WPP filed a declaratory relief action against
Letizia, seeking a judicial determination of the value of WPP's
services in the cases Letizia took from the firm.  A jury found in
favor of cross-defendant WPP and against cross-complainant Letizia
on her first and second causes of action for nonpayment of wages
and for a waiting time penalty, respectively. The jury awarded
Letizia $1,165 on her third cause of action for unreimbursed
travel expenses. Letizia timely appealed.

In her appeal, Appellant contended that the special verdict form
was fatally defective, the jury did not properly deliberate on the
special verdict form's third question, and the court abused its
discretion by denying two of her motions in limine.

Judge Ikola, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LRl2xXfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the judgment of the
jury finding that there was no prejudicial error. The Court
further ordered that WPP should recover its cost on appeal.

Appellant is represented by:

     Jon B. Miller, Esq.
     Scott A. Johnson, Esq.
     MILLER JOHNSON LAW
     100 W Michigan Ave #200
     Kalamazoo, MI 49007
     Tel: (269)226-2950

Defendant is represented by:

     William M. Delli Paoli, Esq.
     PAOLI & PURDY
     18851 Bardeen Ave
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Tel: (949)752-7711


WEST MARINE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in May
----------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the District Court
granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
with the hearing for final approval scheduled for May 21, 2015.

On October 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by two California former hourly
employees. The complaint sought unspecified damages for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as civil penalties and attorney's fees under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act. The complaint alleged that the
Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for employees
off-the-clock work and certain selling incentive bonuses (or
"spiffs"), issued inaccurate wage statements, failed to provide
adequate rest and meal periods and other labor-related complaints.

In January 2015, the Company entered into a settlement and release
agreement for all remaining class and individual claims, without
admission of any wrongdoing, and the District Court granted the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, with the
hearing for final approval currently scheduled for May 21, 2015.

The Company recorded a charge of approximately $0.4 million in
2014 for the estimated payments, including attorneys' fees, costs
and administrative expenses, in connection with this settlement
liability. Such amount had no material impact on the Company's
financial statements.


WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action in Calif. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that on October 8, 2014, a
putative class action was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees,
alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store
employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods
in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of
failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed
upon termination of employment. The Company intends to defend this
action vigorously and the outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Ct. Directed to Vacate "Greenberg" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
David and Gloria Greenberg asserted products liability claims
against real party in interest Hennessy Industries, Inc., alleging
that a brake lining arcing machine manufactured by its predecessor
in interest released asbestos dust that caused David Greenberg's
mesothelioma.  The trial court granted summary judgment in
Hennessy's favor on petitioners' claims, concluding that Hennessy
was not liable for injury caused by asbestos dust from brake
linings its predecessor in interest neither manufactured nor
distributed.  The Petitioners seek a writ directing the trial
court to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to enter a new
order denying Hennessy's motion for summary judgment or
adjudication.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an opinion dated June 18, 2015, granted the petition for
writ of mandate.  The California Court of Appeals directed the
respondent trial court to vacate its order granting Hennessy's
motion for summary judgment, and enter a new order denying summary
judgment and summary adjudication.

The case is DAVID GREENBERG et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; HENNESSY INDUSTRIES,
INC., Real Party in Interest, NO. B262432 (Cal. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated June 18, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/va4HSffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Allowed to Present Fibro Claims at Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE
INSURANCE CO., et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
L. Felipe Restrepo of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued the following rulings:

   * The motion filed by defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company to preclude evidence at trial of any underlying asbestos-
related claim for which GRC sues to recover insurance benefits is
denied.  At trial, Travelers may challenge GRC's proof with
admissible, material evidence that presents a genuine dispute for
the jury to resolve as to the reasonableness of the settlements
and payments made in the underlying asbestos-related claims.
Travelers' evidence and argument will be limited strictly to the
question of whether those settlements and payments were reasonable
"in view of the size of possible recovery and degree of
probability of claimant's success against the insured."  A full-
text copy of Judge Restrepo's memorandum dated June 11, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/NRuN2Cfrom Leagle.com.

   * The legal question of estoppel and waiver presented by GRC's
motion for an order declaring that Travelers' policies (1) "do not
exclude GRC's liabilities relating to claims for exposure to its
asbestos-containing products"; (2) "Travelers has waived any
defenses to coverage for claims on the Queue"; and (3) "Travelers
is required to pay its full limits plus interest," because GRC's
insured damages far exceed the limits of liability of Travelers'
policies, is reserved for decision until the close of the evidence
at the trial scheduled to begin July 13, 2015, upon GRC's motion
under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law.  A full-text
copy of Judge Restrepo's memorandum dated June 11, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/0DBGpafrom Leagle.com.

   * GRC moves for an order precluding Travelers from arguing at
trial that GRC must establish actual payment of the underlying
asbestos-related claims asserted against GRC, which actual payment
exhausts the specified limits of liability of the insurance
policies directly underlying Travelers' policies, before Travelers
must begin to pay insurance proceeds under its policies to GRC.
Travelers does not oppose a ruling.  Judge Restrepo's memorandum
dated June 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/b1INg9from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order accompanying the June 11 memoranda
is available at http://is.gd/8sqEdhfrom Leagle.com.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant,
represented by MARK E. GOTTLIEB, OFFIT KURMAN PA, MEGHAN K.
FINNERTY, OFFIT KURMAN PA, MICHAEL CONLEY, OFFIT KURMAN PA &
WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, OFFIT KURMAN PA.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by KAREN H. MORIARTY, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & KEVIN E.
WOLFF, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., Defendant, represented by
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO..

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS &
YOUNG, DANIEL T. FITCH, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP &
WILLIAM T. MANDIA, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Md. PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed R. Dashtizadeh has brought an action against Honeywell
International, Inc., as successor to Bendix Corporation, and
Earl's Discount Auto Parts, Inc.  The Plaintiff originally
asserted a variety of claims against the defendants.  The only
claims that he is now pursuing are those for strict liability and
negligence.  Discovery has been completed, and the defendants have
moved for summary judgment.

In a memorandum dated June 12, 2015, Judge J. Frederick Motz of
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
granted the motions for summary judgment, holding that:

   (1) To the extent that the brakes to which the plaintiff was
       exposed manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl's contained
       asbestos.  The brakes did not give rise to any viable claim
       because they contained a warning about the dangers of
       asbestos that fully complied with the applicable
       Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements.

   (2) The plaintiff cannot establish, by direct or circumstantial
       evidence, that brakes manufactured by Bendix and sold by
       Earl's constituted "a substantial factor" to his
       asbestosis.  It is undisputed that by the time that the
       plaintiff was exposed to any such brakes Bendix
       manufactured brakes, some of which contained asbestos and
       some of which did not.  The Plaintiff has presented
       absolutely no evidence that the brakes manufactured by
       Bendix and sold by Earl's contains asbestos.

The case is MOHAMED R. DASHTIZADEH v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., ET AL., CIVIL NO. JFM-14-553 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Motz's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yUPfccfrom
Leagle.com.

Mohamed R. Dashtizadeh, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Patrick
Monaghan, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos, Fredrick Hugh Durst, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos & Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law
Offices of Peter Angelos.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Alicia N Ritchie, Esq. --
aritchie@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC, Bruce T
Bishop, Esq. -- bbishop@wilsav.com -- Wilcox and Savage PC, Jack
Roy Reiter, Esq. -- jack.reiter@gray-robinson.com -- Gray
Robinson, P.A., Jonathan James Huber, Esq. --
jhuber@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Matthew
Thomas Wagman, Esq. -- mwagman@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC & Michael Alan Brown, Esq. --
mbrown@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Earl's Auto Parts, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher C Jeffries, Esq. Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLC.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Pamela
Thomas Broache, Esq. -- pbroache@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge
Singer and Mahoney & Jeannie Pittillo Kauffman, Esq., Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Danielle Grilli Marcus, Esq. -- dmarcus@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford
Taylor and Preston LLP & Thurman W Zollicoffer, Jr, Esq. --
tzollicoffer@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Ct. Flips "Casey" Summary Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Casey, Catherine Grabinksi and Jessica Casey appeal from
the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant
Dynalectric Company on the plaintiffs' negligence claims.  The
Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that John Casey, decedent,
was injured and later died as a result of his injuries, after
negligent conduct by the defendant's employees caused Casey to be
exposed to asbestos-containing dust.  The trial court found that
the defendant did not owe Casey a duty of care with respect to his
injury because the undisputed facts established that the defendant
did not know and should not have known that the materials to which
it exposed Casey contained asbestos.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, in an opinion dated June 17, 2015, concluded, however, that
the "General Industry Safety Orders" promulgated by the California
Department of Industrial Relations imposed a duty on defendant to
exercise reasonable care with respect to the exposure of decedent
to significant levels of industrial dust, irrespective of whether
defendant knew or should have known the dust contained asbestos.
Accordingly, the California Court of Appeals reversed the judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Favors Insurers in THAN Audit Right Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, AIU Insurance Company and other insurance companies
(collectively "AIG") entered into a settlement agreement with T H
Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., and Philips Electronics North
America Corporation to resolve then-pending insurance coverage
litigation.  Because the insurance companies' settlement payments
would be based on future disbursements by T H Agriculture &
Nutrition L.L.C. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, the insurance
companies negotiated for a prospective right to audit those
payments and distributions.

A current litigation is focused on the parties' differing
interpretations of the nature of the insurance companies' audit
right.  The insurance companies believe that THAN and PENAC have
violated their rights by barring an audit unless they consent to
certain limitations.  THAN and PENAC argue that because the
insurance companies' audit right is limited, it has not been
impaired.

Both sides have moved for summary judgment regarding the extent of
the insurance companies' audit rights.  Related breach of contract
and tortious interference counts are also subject to various
motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment.

In a memorandum opinion dated June 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery
of Delaware ruled that AIG is entitled to declaratory judgment on
the scope of its audit right.  AIG, according to the Court, may
audit the payments and distributions of the Trust at its own
expense, no more than once per year.  While the Settlement
Agreement restricts AIG's use of information obtained through an
audit, the agreement does not limit the proper purposes for its
investigation.

The case is AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY, BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, and
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, T H
AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION L.L.C., and THE T H AGRICULTURE &
NUTRITION L.L.C. ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Defendants, C.A.
NO. 9852-VCN (Del. Ch.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/n0nW3rfrom Leagle.com.

Marc S. Casarino Esquire -- casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com -- of
White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and John S. Favate
Esquire, and Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esquire of Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto P.A., Springfield, New Jersey, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

David J. Baldwin, Esquire -- dbaldwin@potteranderson.com --
Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- and
Andrew H. Sauder Esquire -- asauder@potteranderson.com -- of
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and Kenneth
H. Frenchman, Esquire -- kfrenchman@kasowitz.com -- and Alana S.
Klein Esquire -- asklein@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz, Benson,
Torres & Friedman LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Defendants Philips Electronics North America Corporation and T H
Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C.

Daniel K. Hogan Esquire, and Garvan F. McDaniel Esquire, of The
Hogan Firm, Wilmington, Delaware, and Sander L. Esserman, Esquire
-- esserman@sbep-law.com -- Steven A. Felsenthal, Esquire --
felsenthal@sbep-law.com -- and David A. Klingler Esquire --
klingler@sbep-law.com -- of Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka,
A Professional Corporation, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant
The T H Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C. Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Libby School Worker's Claim Barred
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana, in a June 10, 2015, order granted Montana Schools Group
Insurance Authority's motion for summary judgment on the grounds
that  Phillip Spencer, who worked for the Libby School District,
did not file his asbestos-related occupational disease claim
within one year, as required by Section 39-71-601(3), MCA, and
that he did not file his Petition for Hearing within two years of
the day MSGIA denied liability for his occupational disease claim,
even taking into account the time the statute of limitations was
tolled, as required by Section 39-71-2905(2), MCA.

The case is PHILLIP SPENCER, Petitioner, v. MONTANA SCHOOLS GROUP
INS. AUTHORITY, Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2014-3490 (MTWCC).  A
full-text copy of Judge Sandler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/sysxgvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous
other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous
asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous
lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not
supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were
settled by us for immaterial amounts.

"As of March 31, 2015, we are subject to the claims, as well as
other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in
the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the
lawsuits to which we are a party cannot be determined and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made, we do not believe that the outcomes, either individually
or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells critical
equipment for the energy, defense and chemical/petrochemical
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against an increased number of asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, IC Bus (IC) brand school
and commercial buses, as well as a provider of service parts for
trucks and diesel engines. It also provides retail, wholesale, and
lease financing of trucks and parts. The Company operates in four
reporting segments, which comprises: North America Truck, North
America Parts, Global Operations (collectively referred to as
Manufacturing operations), and Financial Services. Its principal
products and services include Trucks, Parts, Engines and Financial
Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,400 Product Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc., is involved in 3,400 asbestos and silica-related
cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 1, 2015.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 3,400 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our
subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings
relating to environmental matters and litigation arising outside
the ordinary course of business."

Joy Global Inc., is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company manufactures and market original
equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both underground
and surface mining and certain industrial applications. The
Company's equipment is used in major mining regions throughout the
world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, gold and other
minerals. The Company operates in two business segments:
Underground Mining Machinery and Surface Mining Equipment. The
Company is a manufacturer of underground mining machinery for the
extraction of coal and other bedded minerals and offer service
locations near major mining regions worldwide. The Company is a
major producer of surface mining equipment for the extraction of
ores and minerals and provides extensive operational support for
many types of equipment used in surface mining.


                            *********

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  * * *