CAR_Public/150706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, July 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 133


                            Headlines


A10 NETWORKS: Facing Suits by Warren Police, ATRS and Kaveny
AAA SNE: Sued Over Insurance Coverage in "Gricci" Class Action
AIRPORT TERMINAL: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in N.Y.
AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALIMENTS CANDESA: Recalls Corn Products Due to Sulphites

AMERICAN WATER: Federal District Court Denied Motion to Dismiss
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Leniski" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ARCHER-DANIELS: Class Action Parties in Pretrial Proceedings
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal

CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings Stayed in "Surrett"
CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motion Filed in "Wilson" Case
CENTURYLINK INC: To Contest Claims in Fulghum & Abbott Cases
CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in 32 States Win Final Approval
CLEARSPRING LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Perez" Suit Claims

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Case Management Held in Shareholder Cases
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
CRICKET WIRELESS: Removes "Barraza" Class Suit to N.D. California
CSOS LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CYNOSURE INC: Falsely Marketed PicoSure Products, LDGP Suit Says

DALLAS BARBER: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff in O&R Case to Limit Class
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case

DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Answer to Amended Sentry Complaint
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decision in "Scranton" Case Under Appeal
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Complaint
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action by Ty Rayner

EMPIRE STATE: Bid to Approve Settlement Fund Distribution Pending
EMPIRE STATE: Defendants File Brief in Class Action Appeal
EXELIS INC: Two Class Actions Consolidated in S.D. Indiana
EXIT PROS: Faces "Zamborowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FELLERS INC: Faces "Roddin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Aug. 10 Implementation of Cressy Settlement
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: No Trial Date Set in "Ludwick" Action
FIRM BAXTER: Recalls Clinimix Products Due to Particulates
FORD: Recalls 18,226 Escape & Transit Connect SUVs
FORD: Recalls Escape & Transit Connect SUVs in Canada

GLOBAL NITROGEN: "Kaminski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GROUPON INC: Deadline to Elect to Terminate Deal Has Passed
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Seven State Actions Consolidated
H-E-B: Recalls Hamburger & Hotdog Buns Due to Foreign Material

HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Okayed $450,000 in Plaintiff Atty. Fees
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Accord in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
HSN INC: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Dismissal of Nasyrova Complaint Sought
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: "Rothenberg" State Court Complaint Dismissed

JAMP PHARMA: Recalls Piperacillin & Tazobactam Powder
JAYCO: Recalls 2014 Starcraft Ar-One Models Due to Crash Risk
JL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Mayonnaise, Dressing, & Tartar Sauce
LAMA MEDITERRANEAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
LEGGETT & PLATT: Parties in Direct Purchaser Cases Must Talk

LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal in Direct Purchaser Cases Goes to 6th Cir
LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial to Begin in Mid-October in Ohio Case
LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial in 12 Direct Purchaser Cases to Begin Aug.
LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Says Kansas Case Must Be Remanded
LEGGETT & PLATT: Cert. Motion in "Robillard" Still Pending

LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling on Missouri Case Reconsideration Bid
LES DEPENDANCES: Recalls Munster Gerome Cheese Due to Bacteria
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Women's Top Due to Injury Risk
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chapman" Suit in Iowa District Court
MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Peeled White Hominy Due to Sulphites

MOBILE MAINTENANCE: "Erickson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
NASDAQ OMX: Reply Due in "Providence v. BATS Global" Case
NASDAQ OMX: "Lanier v. BATS Exchange" Case Dismissed
NASDAQ OMX: Faces Class Action by Stephen Rabin
NATURAL BALANCE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation

NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in NAM 4th Amended Complaint
NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Little Digger Toys Due to Lead Content
NU SKIN: Defending Against Class Action Over China Probe
OFT INC: Recalls Beef Bone Extract and Beef Concentrate Products
PETM CANADA: Recalls Plastic Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazard

PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Ranch Salad Dressing Due to Eggs
PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Stuffing Baked Turkey Products
POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx Electric Blowers Due to Shock Hazard
RAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella
RESONANT INC: Defending Against John Paggos Class Action

RESONANT INC: Defending Against John DeVouassoux Class Action
RESONANT INC: Defending Against Ramon Arias Class Action
RGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
SAPUTO INC: Recalls Roquefort Cheese Due to Staphylococcus
SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation

SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls NeoRok Stools Due to Fall Hazard
SHRED-TECH CORP: Recalls Business Class M2 106 Model Trucks
SOLARCITY CORP: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Due
SR SUNTOUR: Recalls 101,600 Bicycles in U.S. and Canada
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued Over Improper Pay and Rest/Break Policies

SUNSHINE USA: Sued Over Fair Labor Standard Act Violation
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Class Action in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Developments in Calif. Wage Class Suits
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Currently Stayed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Class Suit to Move Into Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Case v. Central Refrigerated in Discovery
TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Posting Order Settlement Has Final Approval
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Plaintiffs Drop Claims

TOP RANK: Faces "Schofield" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TRANS CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
TRANSOCEAN LTD: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Class Action
US GYPSUM: Removes "Arredondo" Labor Suit to S.D. California
US SECURITY: Faces "Decaro" Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA

VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Parties in TTM Merger Suit Entered Into MOU
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
WILLBROS GROUP: CEO Added as Defendant in Consolidated Complaint
WORLD JOURNAL: Sued Over Alleged Age & Racial Discrimination
WPX ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay New Colorado Lawsuit

WPX ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Additional Discovery
YAMAHA: 1,815 Motorcycles Recalled Due to Injury Hazard
ZUFFA LLC: Four Suits Transferred From N.D. California to Nevada


                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: Facing Suits by Warren Police, ATRS and Kaveny
------------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will
vigorously defend lawsuits filed by City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, and Kaveny.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014, initial public offering were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-276207.  Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).
The complaints seek to allege violations of the federal Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers
of our common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the initial public offering, and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. We intend to
vigorously defend these lawsuits. Based on information currently
available, we are unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or
range of possible loss, if any, in regards to these lawsuits;
therefore, no accrued liabilities has been recorded in the
accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets."


AAA SNE: Sued Over Insurance Coverage in "Gricci" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Insurance Company v. AAA of Southern New England, Case No.
1:15-cv-12067 (D. Mass., June 3, 2015) seeks a declaration of
Federal's alleged rights and obligations under Forefront Portfolio
Policy For Not-For-Profit Organizations, Policy No. 8160-2913,
issued to AAA SNE, with respect to a putative class action brought
by John Gricci against AAA SNE, pending in the Court under Docket
No. 1:15-cv-10589-MLW.

The Plaintiff alleges that an actual controversy has arisen
between the parties as to whether Federal has a duty to defend and
indemnify AAA SNE with respect to the Underlying Action under the
Policy.

The Underlying Action was originally filed by John Gricci in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk
County, on January 12, 2015.  AAA SNE filed a notice of removal
and removed the Underlying Action to the Court on February 27,
2015.  In the Underlying Action, Mr. Gricci alleges he owns and
operates a towing and repair facility business, Shamrock Towing,
located in Winthrop, Massachusetts, which provided roadside
assistance and towing services to AAA SNE's members in
Massachusetts pursuant to a Second Amended and Restated Roadside
Assistance Agreement with AAA SNE.

Mr. Gricci alleges, among other things, that AAA SNE misclassified
him and the Individual Class Members as independent contractors
rather than employees, and failed to pay them wages and benefits
as employees, in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws.

Federal Insurance Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered
in Warren, New Jersey.

AAA of Southern New England is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. McGivney, Esq.
          David B. Stanhill, Esq.
          RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP
          50 Rowes Wharf
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 330-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 439-9556
          E-mail: jmcgivney@rubinrudman.com
                  dstanhill@rubinrudman.com


AIRPORT TERMINAL: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox Bailey v. Airport Terminal Services, Inc, and Youliana
Kouumdjieva, Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-03161-FB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015) seeks to redress alleged injuries the
Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being subjected to
discrimination solely based on his race (black) and retaliation
for complaining about race discrimination.

ATS is a Missouri domestic business corporation headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri.  ATS provides services to the aviation
community.  Youliana Kouumdjieva, an ATS employee, was the
Plaintiff's supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Welch, Esq.
          Dorina Cela, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212)248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-mail: nwelch@tpglaws.com
                  dcela@tpglaws.com


AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Murphy v. Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00120 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is a Texas corporation that manufactures
frozen ethnic foods and appetizers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Murphy, Esq.
      PRO SE
      Patterson, MO 63956
      RR 1, Box 13360


ALIMENTS CANDESA: Recalls Corn Products Due to Sulphites
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Aliments Candesa Foods
Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9901

Industry is recalling Phoebe brand Mote Blanco / White Corn
products from the marketplace because they may contain sulphites
which are not declared on the label. People with sensitivity to
sulphites should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

If you have sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

   Brand    Common name    Size      Code(s) on   UPC
   name     -----------    ----      product      ---
   -----                             ----------
   Phoebe   Mote Blanco/   396.9 g   All codes    16712 01525 6
            White Corn     (14 oz)

Phoebe Mote Pelado Blanco / Peeled White Corn  50 lb  This product
may have been sold in bulk. Consumers who are unsure if they have
purchased the affected product are advised to contact their
retailer.  None

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7EPQPP


AMERICAN WATER: Federal District Court Denied Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 9,
2015, the federal district court denied a motion to dismiss all
claims against the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction in a
case relating to the Freedom Industries' spill.  A separate motion
to dismiss filed by American Water Works Service Company, Inc.
("AWWSC") and West Virginia - American Water Company ("WEAWC")
(and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
remains pending.

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases ("federal
action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who
allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and
tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of
the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to
water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WEAWC in Logan,
Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties
and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of
January 9, 2014. The consolidated complaint names several
individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including AWWSC,
WEAWC and the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for
alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a
mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss
of use of property, personal injury and other consequences
allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages
and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a
medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members
from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent
disease.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Leniski" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Leniski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02992-HRL
(N.D. Cal., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information from data breach.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
      Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.
      ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
      177 Post Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 421-7151
      Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
      E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
              jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

         - and -

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
              sward@barrack.com

         - and -

      Lisa M. Port, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: lport@barrack.com

         - and -

      J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      Michael Stewart, Esq.
      Karla Campbell, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH AND JENNINGS, PLLC
      227 Second Avenue North
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com
              mikes@BSJFirm.com
              karlac@BSJFirm.com


ARCHER-DANIELS: Class Action Parties in Pretrial Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are currently engaged in pretrial
proceedings.

On April 22, 2011, certain manufacturers and distributors of sugar
cane and beet sugar products filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company, other
manufacturers and marketers of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS),
and the Corn Refiners Association, alleging that the defendants
falsely claimed that HFCS is "natural" and nutritionally
equivalent to sugar. Plaintiffs have submitted an expert report
alleging as much as $1.6 billion in damages against all the
defendants in the case, including the Company. Defendants
vigorously deny the plaintiffs' allegations and have filed a
counterclaim. The parties are currently engaged in pretrial
proceedings.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Baxter is a defendant
in a number of suits alleging that certain of the company's
current and former executive officers and its board of directors
failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's plasma-based therapies business, the company's
remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product,
and other quality matters.

Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its
shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the
second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the
board of directors and certain of the company's current and former
executive officers, and other damage to the company.

A consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the
Northern District of Illinois was settled with the plaintiffs in
February 2015, and as a result the two other derivative actions
previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County, Illinois and
one in the Delaware Chancery Court, were dismissed.

Separate from these actions, a consolidated alleged class action
is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company and certain of its current executive officers
seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the
parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013,
the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class action, which motion is pending.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
stayed the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie
Mae, Inc., pending a ruling on an appeal.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the
placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to
the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus
loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the
appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings Stayed in "Surrett"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all proceedings
with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute,
Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the
Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part
of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on
omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and
denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at
WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who
dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic
reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case.

"The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and we
are awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the trial
court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal," the
Company said.


CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motion Filed in "Wilson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, Wilson, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former
admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the
plan."

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on
October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012.
On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for
rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of
contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

"The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue
of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary
judgment."


CENTURYLINK INC: To Contest Claims in Fulghum & Abbott Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants will
continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and
Abbott cases.

The Company said, "In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq
Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of
retirees filed a class action lawsuit challenging the decision to
make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating
to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug
benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008
(which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce
estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than
$300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit
plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan
administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.
The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but
rejected class certification as to other claims."

"On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

"On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum
court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

"On February 24, 2015, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the plan
documents reviewed do not support any claim for vested benefits,
and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims based on
those documents. The Tenth Circuit decision allows a subset of
claims for vested benefits to return to the district court for
further proceedings.

"As to the subset, defendants anticipate successful motion
practice in the district court. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed
the district court's dismissal of all age discrimination claims.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's determination that
ERISA's statute of repose is a time bar to the breach of fiduciary
duty claims of fifteen named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs petitioned for
further Tenth Circuit review on their claim for vested benefits.

"We petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review regarding the
ERISA statute of repose. On April 27, 2015, a revised Tenth
Circuit panel opinion was issued with no material change in the
outcome, and en banc review was denied. As to any further
proceedings that may occur in the district court, defendants will
continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and
Abbott. We have not accrued a liability for these matters because
we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is
warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of
probable liability."


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in 32 States Win Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that to date, parties in
several class action lawsuits related to rights-of-way disputes
have received final approval of settlements in 32 states.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

"For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install
our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way," the Company
said.  "The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-
way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to
install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs'
consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages."

After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide
settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties
proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-
state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of
such settlements in 32 states.

The settlement administration process, including claim submission
and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these
settlements. The parties have not yet received final approval in
one state (New Mexico). There is one state where an action was at
one time, but is not currently, pending (Arizona).

"We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for
resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to
our consolidated financial statements," the Company said.


CLEARSPRING LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Perez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Myla A. Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ClearSpring Loan Services, Inc., NPA Associates LLP,
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-01031 (C.D. Cal.,
June 26, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of attempting to collect a
debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Thomas Weber, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. WEBER
      17155 New Hope Street Suite H
      Fountain Valley, CA 92708
      Telephone: (657) 235-8359
      Facsimile: (714) 459-7853
      E-mail: ed@eweberlegal.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Case Management Held in Shareholder Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that case management
was set for May 11, 2015, in the shareholder federal securities
cases.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to
dismiss this case has been fully briefed and remains pending
before the court. Case management was set for May 11, 2015. The
Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case.


CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Witt, Tyrone Henderson, James O. Hines, Jr., John Moore,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, Docket No. 3:15-cv-00386-REP (E.D. Va.,
June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
      Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC
      1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 273-7770
      Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
      E-mail: casey@clalegal.com
              matt@clalegal.com


CRICKET WIRELESS: Removes "Barraza" Class Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Barraza v. Cricket Wireless, LLC,
et al., Case No. CGC 15-545624, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
02471-DMR to the proceeding.

According to Top Class Actions, the lawsuit claims that the
Defendants falsely advertised that they could provide customers
with unlimited 4G/LTE services; however, actual coverage was rare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Allyn Robinson, Esq.
          6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 849-3135
          Facsimile: (818) 279-0604
          E-mail: keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Raymond Paul Bolanos, Esq.
          AT&T SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DEPT.
          525 Market Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 778-1357
          Facsimile: (415) 882-4458
          E-mail: rb2659@att.com


CSOS LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions, LLC and
KLX Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00845 (W.D. Pa., June
26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield service company providing
pressure control, well testing, flow-back, and other services to
the oilfield with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


CYNOSURE INC: Falsely Marketed PicoSure Products, LDGP Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LDGP, LLC, d/b/a Hartsough Dermatology and all others similarly
situated v. Cynosure, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-50148 (N.D. Ill.,
June 26, 2015), is a class action based upon the alleged false and
misleading representations and omissions of material fact made by
the Defendants regarding the PicoSure Picosecond Aesthetic
Workstation's ability to eliminate tattoos through the use of
laser technology.

Cynosure, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which specializes, in
part, in the marketing and sale of medical devices including in
the field of dermatology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devon C. Bruce, Esq.
      Joseph A. Power Jr., Esq.
      Jonathan M. Thomas, Esq.
      POWERS, ROGERS & SMITH
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 5500
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-9381
      E-mail: dbruce@prslaw.com
              jpower@prslaw.com
              jthomas@prslaw.com

         - and -

      Marc Gravino, Esq.
      John Holevas, Esq.
      Joel Huotari, Esq.
      WILLIAMS MCCARTHY, LLP
      120 W. State Street, 4th Floor
      P.O. Box 219
      Rockford, IL 61105-0219
      Telephone: (815) 987-8900
      E-mail: mgravino@wilmac.com
              jhuotari@wilmac.com
              jholevas@wilmac.com


DALLAS BARBER: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brannon Morris v. Dallas Barber & Stylist College, Incorporated,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02147-p (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Dallas Barber & Stylist College, Incorporated owns and operates a
cosmetology school with its principle place of business located at
9357 Forest Lane, Dallas, TX 75243.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff in O&R Case to Limit Class
------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case,
O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation,
et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.), plaintiff has
informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a
nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder
purchasers in Washington.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
April 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with the parent
company of DBCC, Credibility, to acquire Credibility. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated
the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief.

On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the
motion and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a
contract claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining
claims without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for
negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under
Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies
in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability
against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for
practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence,
defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the
Company answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17,
2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to
certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to
CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)).

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The complaint alleged
deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of
the amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed
a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District
of Washington.

On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.
On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended
complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery in the
case is ongoing and the Company is continuing to investigate the
allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case
----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and
CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-
00451 (C.D. Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court
granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by
the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Vinotemp filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3,
2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On
April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is
continuing to investigate the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case
---------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed
as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.))

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to
waive service of the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Company and
DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to
the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New
Jersey court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on
August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014
by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.
On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing,
and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Answer to Amended Sentry Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint in the case, Sentry
Insurance, a Mutual Company v. The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01952 (SRC) (D.N.J.)

On March 17, 2015, Sentry Insurance filed a Declaratory Judgment
Action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. (collectively, the "Company"). The Complaint
seeks a judicial declaration that Sentry, which issued a General
Commercial Liability insurance policy (the "CGL Policy"), to the
Company, does not have a duty under the CGL Policy to provide the
Company with a defense or indemnification in connection with five
putative class action complaints (the "Class Actions") filed
against the Company and DBCC. Against the Company, the Class
Actions complaints allege negligence, defamation and violations of
state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in
connection with DBCC's marketing and sale of credit monitoring
products. Sentry's Complaint alleges that the Company is not
entitled to a defense or indemnification for any losses it
sustains in the Class Actions because the underlying claims in the
Class Actions fall within various exceptions in the CGL policy,
including exclusions for claims: (i) that arise from D&B's
provision of "professional services"; (ii) that are based on
intentional or fraudulent acts; and (iii) that are based on
conduct that took place prior to the beginning of the CGL Policy
periods.

On March 26, 2015, Sentry filed and served an Amended Complaint
which added several exhibits but did not otherwise materially
differ from the original Complaint. The Company filed an Answer to
the Amended Complaint on April 16, 2015 and also asserted
counterclaims. In addition, the parties have held informal
discussions regarding a possible resolution to the dispute. The
Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decision in "Scranton" Case Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff in the
class action by John Scranton has filed a Notice of Appeal on
April 27, 2015.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior
Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on
all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in
the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal April 27, 2015. The Company will continue to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated
amended complaint does not identify the Company as a defendant or
make any allegations regarding the Company.

On April 18, 2014, a putative class action was filed by the City
of Providence, Rhode Island against 41 high frequency trading
firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers,
including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the high
frequency trading firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark
pools, and the exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets,
and that numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in
that manipulation by doing business with the high frequency
traders. As to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On May 2, 2014, a
similar putative class action was filed by American European
Insurance Company against forty-two high frequency trading firms,
stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers,
including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The action filed by American European
Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar to the
allegations in the City of Providence complaint.

On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J.
Flynn and Dominic Morelli against twenty-six firms including the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations
substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence
Complaint. The consolidated amended complaint does not identify
the Company as a defendant or make any allegations regarding the
Company.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action by Ty Rayner
--------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 26, 2015,
a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE
Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The
complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and
unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its
customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and
attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend
indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company
will defend itself vigorously in this matter.


EMPIRE STATE: Bid to Approve Settlement Fund Distribution Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs'
counsel has filed a motion with the court for its approval of
distribution of the net settlement fund. No opposition to the
motion was filed and it is currently pending.

According to the Company, "In March 2012, five putative class
actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York
State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of
the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-
controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012,
March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012.
The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor's
management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the
estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other
things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by
which it was structured (including the evaluation that was
employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities,
the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings
LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a
fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints
sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the
consolidation. The Original Class Actions were consolidated and
co-lead plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State
Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Further, an underlying
premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions
among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the
consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would
cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60
East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates
L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax
liabilities."

"The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The
Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was
approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing
entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for
the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's evaluation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of
the named class representatives intends to support the
consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further
states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the
claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,
appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be
consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors
in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they
have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation
on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff
class.

"The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.
The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and
maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or
freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,
after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million
settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock
and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of
specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities
pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for
plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would
be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during
the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage
of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by
defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total
gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,
defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not
be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment.

"The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be
made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin
Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's
affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in
the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and
certain investors in the existing entities who agree to
contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.
The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and
other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of
the members of the class against the defendants and related
persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.
The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including
but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any
supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is
declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in
writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,
so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to
review such supplement. There was no such supplement that
plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was
subject to court approval. It was not effective until such court
approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.
Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.
On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing.

"On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State
Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary
approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class
Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf
of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On
February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such
objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such
objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the
Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely
to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-
consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of
"fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability
Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion
that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.

"Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that
such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and
that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

"On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of
which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.
On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
investors in all of the existing entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out
will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages.

"Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are
included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

"The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice
of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the
appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,
these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on
their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to
perfect the appeal.

"On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the
appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that
these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC
contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal
under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among
other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the
transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as
defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those
transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates
L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties
agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings
LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the
class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that
settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated
bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin
Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to
pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class
action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed
their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to
dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its
reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the
appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring
the issues raised in the motion to the panel that was to hear the
appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21,
2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it
affirmed the trial court's ruling.

"In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one
additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the
Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the
trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices
of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013
granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the
order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order
to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the
consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the
motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf
of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the
order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show
cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out
of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment
and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,
2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the
order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss
these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely
perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,
2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals were
perfected by March 17, 2014.

"On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout
provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the
alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the
New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on
April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22,
2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for
leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was
filed on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by order
dated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors moved
to re-argue that dismissal. That motion was denied on December 17,
2014, and counsel for these investors has represented that the
investors do not intend to pursue further appellate review of the
court's April 30, 2013 ruling rejecting the challenge to the
buyout provision. On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
motion with the court for its approval of distribution of the net
settlement fund. In that motion plaintiffs' counsel also asked for
additional fees and expenses to be paid out of the fund. On March
20, 2015, Malkin Holdings LLC filed a response to that motion in
which it supported distribution of the fund and took no position
on additional fees and expenses. No opposition to the motion was
filed and it is currently pending.

"On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class
Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court's May 17,
2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original
Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated
September 12, 2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No
other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the
appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order. The Original Class
Actions Settlement is final and non-appealable."


EMPIRE STATE: Defendants File Brief in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants' brief
in a class action appeal was filed April 22, 2015, and any reply
was due May 1, 2015.

The Company said, "Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative
class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New
York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings
LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.
on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates
L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our
operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions
were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was
appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our
operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages."

"On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

"On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement
the record on appeal to include additional materials from the
Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion
was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal
by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on
March 23, 2015. Defendants' brief was filed April 22, 2015, and
any reply is due May 1, 2015. Thereafter the appeals court will
schedule argument.

"We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an
appeal were successful and the court were ultimately to rule
against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a
material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of
monetary damages or other equitable relief."


EXELIS INC: Two Class Actions Consolidated in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
Exelis Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits were
consolidated by order of the court dated April 20, 2015.

On February 5, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Harris
under which the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Harris when the transaction closes. Under the Merger Agreement, at
the time of the merger, all issued and outstanding shares of
Exelis common stock will be canceled and Exelis shareholders will
receive $16.625 in cash and 0.1025 of a share of Harris common
stock for each share of Exelis common stock they own. Upon
closing, Harris shareholders will own approximately 85 percent of
the combined company and Exelis shareholders will own
approximately 15 percent. The proposed merger has been approved by
the boards of directors of both companies. The transaction is
expected to close during the second quarter of 2015, subject to
customary closing conditions. There are no assurances that the
proposed merger with Harris will be consummated on the expected
timetable, or at all.

The completion of the proposed merger is subject to certain
conditions, including: (1) the approval of the Merger Agreement by
Exelis' shareholders (on May 22, 2015, Exelis shareholders will
vote to approve the Merger Agreement at a special meeting); (2)
the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as
amended; (3) receipt of required regulatory approvals, including
all consents required to be obtained from the Federal
Communications Commission pursuant to communications laws in
connection with the merger; (4) the absence of certain legal
impediments preventing the consummation of the merger; (5) the
approval by the New York Stock Exchange of the listing of the
shares of Harris common stock issuable to Exelis shareholders
under the merger agreement; (6) the effectiveness of the
registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Harris relating to the
shares of Harris common stock to be issued in the merger; (7) the
truth of the representations and warranties of the parties and the
compliance of the parties with their respective covenants, subject
to customary qualifications including with respect to materiality;
and (8) the absence of a material adverse effect occurring with
respect to Exelis.

To date, two putative class action lawsuits, captioned McGill v.
Hake et al., Case No. 1:15-ce-00217, and The George Leon Family
Trust, et al. v. Exelis Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-ce-00466,
which are referred to collectively as the shareholder litigation,
have been filed by purported Exelis shareholders in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Exelis, the members of Exelis' board of directors, Harris and
Harris Communications Solutions (Indiana), Inc. ("Merger Sub") in
connection with the announcement of the merger. The two actions
were consolidated by order of the court dated April 20, 2015.

The operative complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Exelis have breached their fiduciary duties owed to
shareholders by approving the proposed acquisition of Exelis by
Harris, that Exelis, Harris and Merger Sub have aided and abetted
the directors of Exelis in breaching their fiduciary duties, and
that Exelis and its directors have made untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts in the registration
statement filed by Harris in connection with the merger, in
violation of federal securities laws. Among other things, the
shareholder litigation seeks to enjoin the merger. Exelis, Harris,
Merger Sub, and their respective directors believe that the
shareholder litigation and the underlying claims are without
merit.


EXIT PROS: Faces "Zamborowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Zamborowski, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Exit Pros, LLC and William Heavener, Case No. 6:15-cv-
01050-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 26, 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 restaurant in Volusia County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly Hagan Chanfrau, Esq.
      CHANFRAU & CHANFRAU
      701 N Peninsula Dr
      Daytona Beach, FL 32118
      Telephone: (386) 258-7313
      Facsimile: (386) 238-1464
      E-mail: kelly@chanfraulaw.com


FELLERS INC: Faces "Roddin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Roddin, Dennis Blades, and Dustin Contine, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fellers, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00560 (W.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fellers, Inc. is a wholesale supplier of wrap and banner products
that is authorized to do business in Texas and is doing business
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin Harris Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      98 San Jacinto Blvd. Suite 540
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 553-9390
      Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
      E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Aug. 10 Implementation of Cressy Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that implementation of the
settlement in the Cressy class action shall commence on or about
August 10, 2015.

"Except for the Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et al. class action Complaint and the complaint
filed by Dale R. Ludwick, there has been no material updates to
our legal proceedings during the period," the Company said.

"On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the
"Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic]
Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court
Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of
the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing
unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive.  As part of the
settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the
nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An Amended
Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in
Cressy, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and
finally approving the class settlement. The implementation shall
commence on or about August 10, 2015. The parties will advise the
Court when the settlement is complete.

At March 31, 2015, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9 million and established a liability for the
unpaid portion of the estimate of $3 million. The Company has
incurred and paid $4 million related to legal fees and other costs
and $2 million related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2015.
Based on the information currently available the Company does not
expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other
related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. The
Company is seeking indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited
("OMGUK") under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase
Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase
Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the settlement and
the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the
federal and state courts. The Company has established an amount
recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4 million, the
collection of which the Company believes is probable. The actual
amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than the
Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the amount
recovered will not be materially different than its current
estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to
this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is
presented net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations in "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: No Trial Date Set in "Ludwick" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has not set
a trial date in the class action filed by Dale R. Ludwick.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front
Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint asserts claims of violation
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in an amount not presently
determinable, treble damages, and injunctive relief, among other
forms of relief. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On April 13,
2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint motion to
dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of the defendants.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine that the Company is exposed to any losses
that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an
expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was accrued
during the three months ended March 31, 2015. On April 2, 2015,
the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which requires the parties
to: (i) hold a discovery conference by June 1, 2015; (ii) submit a
discovery plan by June 15, 2015, with Plaintiff's counsel taking
the lead "in preparing the proposed plan"; (iii) designate a
mediator by June 15, 2015 (unless the discovery conference is held
earlier, and then the designation is fourteen days after the
conference); (iv) hold a mediation within 75 days after June 1,
2015, which would be approximately August 15, 2015. The Court has
not set a trial date.


FIRM BAXTER: Recalls Clinimix Products Due to Particulates
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Posting date: June 22, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53900

Reason: Particulate matter found in the solution.

Depth of distribution: Hospital Pharmacy

Affected products:
A. Clinimix
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02046709
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Dextrose - 16.6 g/100 mL
          Glycine - 1040 mg/100 mL
          Histidine - 220 mg/100 mL
          L-Alanine - 1040 mg/100 mL
          L-Arginine - 520 mg/100 mL
          L-Isoleucine - 240 mg/100 mL
          L-Leucine Hydrochloride - 310 mg/100 mL
          L-Lysine Hydrochloride - 290 mg/100 mL
          L-Methionine - 290 mg/100 mL
          L-Phenylalanine Hydrochloride-310 mg/100 mL
          L-Proline - 210 mg/100 mL
          L-Threonine - 210 mg/100 mL
          L-Tyrosine - 20 mg/100 mL
          L-Valine - 230 mg/100 mL
          Tryptophan - 90 mg/100 mL
Lot or serial number: W4J03C2
                      W4J14C1
                      W4J14C1S

Recalling: Firm Baxter Corporation
           7125 Mississauga Road
           Mississauga
           L5N 0C2
           Ontario
           CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Baxter Corporation
                                7125 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 0C2
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


FORD: Recalls 18,226 Escape & Transit Connect SUVs
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 18226
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015278TC
ID number: 2015278
Manufacturer recall number: 15C03

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 - Controls and Displays. The
instrument cluster may not display safety warning lamps/messages,
and sound chimes when the ignition key is first turned on,
contrary to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers
will reprogram the instrument cluster.

   Make    Model             Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----             ----------------------
   FORD    ESCAPE            2014
   FORD    TRANSIT CONNECT   2014


FORD: Recalls Escape & Transit Connect SUVs in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 18226
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015278TC
ID number: 2015278
Manufacturer recall number: 15C03

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 - Controls and Displays. The
instrument cluster may not display safety warning lamps/messages,
and sound chimes when the ignition key is first turned on,
contrary to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers
will reprogram the instrument cluster.

   Make    Model             Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----             ----------------------
  FORD     ESCAPE            2014
  FORD     TRANSIT CONNECT   2014


GLOBAL NITROGEN: "Kaminski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Kaminski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Nitrogen Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01830
(S.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Global Nitrogen Services, LLC owns and operates an oilfield
service company providing nitrogen related services to the
oilfield with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      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


GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Grayson County Glass, Inc. d/b/a Nortex Glass &
Mirror, and Woodrow J. Reid, Case No. 3:15-cv-02166 (N.D. Tex.,
June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide glass and mirror services to customers
throughout North Texas and Southern Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              forester@l-b-law.com


GROUPON INC: Deadline to Elect to Terminate Deal Has Passed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action against Groupon Inc., had until June 22,
2015 to make an election to terminate a settlement agreement or
supplement the record consistent with an appellate court opinion
in an effort to seek re-approval of the settlement, Groupon said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The consolidated actions
are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed
to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination
had been made on the merits or with respect to class
certification.  Because the case had been filed as a class action,
the parties were required to provide proper notice to the
settlement class and obtain court approval for the settlement.
During that process, certain individuals asserted various
objections to the settlement.  The parties to the case opposed the
objections and on December 14, 2012, the district court approved
the settlement over the various objections.

Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain
of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the
settlement and appealing the matter to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company and the Plaintiffs
opposed the appeal and sought confirmation of the settlement
approved by the District Court. On February 19, 2015, the Court of
Appeals vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further
proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeals' opinion. The litigation is now pending in the
District Court.

The parties have the right to terminate the settlement. Pursuant
to an agreement of the parties and an order of the court, the
parties have until June 22, 2015 to make this election or
supplement the record consistent with the opinion from the Court
of Appeals in an effort to seek re-approval of the settlement. The
Company is presently analyzing its options with respect to this
matter.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Seven State Actions Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015, that the Court has consolidated seven state
actions under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder
Cases.

Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement,
eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged
stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one
complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's
acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuits are captioned as follows:
Miller v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
1-2531-12 KTN (December 15, 2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12
JHC (December 15, 2014) (the Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN
(December 17, 2014) (the Stein Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30,
2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the
Cohn State Action); Guenther v. Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-
003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the Guenther Action); Hudson v.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01
JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS
(January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on this
motion on February 13, 2015 and granted consolidation and
appointment of co-lead counsel on March 6, 2015. On March 10,
2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action filed an amended
complaint, and added J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JP Morgan),
which was HEI's financial advisor for the Merger, as a defendant.
On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action
moved for limited expedited discovery. After limited discovery,
the parties in the consolidated state action stipulated and the
Court ordered that the deadline for defendants to respond to the
amended complaint is extended indefinitely.

On April 30, 2015, the Court consolidated the seven state actions
under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases.

On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily
dismissed. Thereafter, the same alleged stockholder plaintiff
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the
individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition
subsidiaries. The lawsuit is captioned as Cohn v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc. et al., 15-ce-00029-JMS-KSC (January 27,
2015) (the Cohn Federal Action).

The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's
Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an
unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and
contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI,
NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors'
fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from
consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger
to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (e) damages suffered
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the
consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a
conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its
affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The
consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI board of
directors violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts
from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. In addition, the Cohn
Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of directors violated
its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by omitting
material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4.

HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations of the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


H-E-B: Recalls Hamburger & Hotdog Buns Due to Foreign Material
--------------------------------------------------------------
H-E-B, committed to the quality of its products, is issuing a
voluntary recall for H-E-B brand hamburger and hotdog buns and
Hill Country Fare hotdog buns due to the possible presence of
foreign material that might impact the quality of the product. A
terry cloth glove used for handling hot pans could have broken up
in the dough, resulting in a potential choking hazard.

No incidents have been reported.

Product on the shelf as of Friday June 26 is not included in this
recall.

The voluntary recall impacts the following products:

  Description     UPC          Best Before Date     Tie Color
  -----------     ---          ----------------     ---------
Hamburger Buns
  H-E-B 4.5 %100  4122083056   7/2/15-7/4/15        Org/Grn/Blue
  Wheat
  H-E-B TX Plain  4122074226   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  H-E-B TX Seeded 4122021761   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  H-E-B 4.5 Plain 4122023498   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  H-E-B 4.5       412210127    7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  Seeded
  H-E-B 4.5 Whole 4122019164   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  Wheat
Hotdog Buns
  H-E-B Wheat     4122019165   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  Coney
  HCF Coney       4122060201   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  (8 ct)
  HCF Coney       4122041461   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  (16 ct)
  H-E-B Coney     4122083910   7/3/15-7/4/15        Green/Blue
  (8 ct)

Customers who purchased the product can return the product to the
store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns
can contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452998.htm


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Okayed $450,000 in Plaintiff Atty. Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
approved the settlement in a class action and entered a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding
plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and
terminating the litigation.

On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage
entered into and documented an agreement in principle among
Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for
the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court
of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action").
The Action alleged that Washington Banking's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders
in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined
their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington
Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleged,
among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and
that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking
Merger are misleading in various respects.

On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of the consolidated litigation and
ordering WBCO to provide notice of the proposed settlement to
those persons who held Washington Banking shares during the
purported class period.

On February 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to consider whether
the settlement was fair and reasonable to the class members and,
if so, to approve the settlement and to consider plaintiffs'
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs
from Washington Banking.  At the hearing, the Court approved the
settlement and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses
totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation.

The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking
Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in
connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on
May 1, 2014.  Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage took
the position that the Action was without merit and denied any
wrongdoing of any kind.  Washington Banking, its directors and
Heritage entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the
costs, risks, burden, distraction and expense of further
litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been
asserted to rest.  Nothing in the stipulation of settlement or any
public filing, including this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the
materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional
information contained herein or in any public filing associated
with the settlement of the Action.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Accord in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Crush Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has issued a
final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement and
dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the
consolidated action.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. ("Baker Hughes") in
response to the repudiation of the agreement by Baker Hughes, the
Partnership, our general partner, certain of its officers and
directors and its underwriters were named as defendants in
purported securities class action lawsuits brought by the
Partnership's unitholders in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one
lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities
Litigation, No. 12-Cie-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with the Partnership's Registration
Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the
consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to
Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22,
2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims
relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not
dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations
concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after
the IPO.

On September 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of the
consolidated action and release of all claims for $3.8 million,
subject to the court's approval. On January 5, 2015, the court
issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement
and dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the
consolidated action.


HSN INC: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSN, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that a purported stockholder of the Company
filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.

The Company said, "in April 2015, a purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors and Bank of America Corporation ("BAC").
The complaint is captioned David Shave Profit Sharing Account v.
HSN, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10919-CB. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the members of our Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties, and that BAC aided and abetted such
breaches, in connection with the Credit Agreement dated as of
January 27, 2015 (the "Credit Agreement").  The complaint alleges
that the Credit Agreement contains a so-called "dead hand proxy
put" provision that (a) defines the election of a majority of
directors whose initial nomination arose from an actual or
threatened proxy contest to be an event of default that triggers
the lenders' right to accelerate payment of the debt outstanding
under the Credit Agreement; and (b) thereby coerces stockholders
and entrenches the members of the Board of Directors. The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as an award of costs and disbursements including
attorney's and experts' fees.  We believe we have meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in the lawsuit.  While an estimate
of the possible loss, if any, or the range of loss cannot be made,
we do not believe it will be material."


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Dismissal of Nasyrova Complaint Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Nasyrova
class action lawsuit on April 13, 2015.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors failed to disclose and/or made material
misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the
termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to make timely disclosure
concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of
veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the
Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order
appointing John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A. as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The
defendants believe that the allegations in the class action
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September
22, 2014.

On January 29, 2015 the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. The Court's opinion concluded that
Immunomedics had no duty to disclose issues raised with Takeda-
Nycomed prior to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. The
Court granted Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the opinion
in order to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015 a
second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff alleging
failure to disclose information related to the status of the
agreement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on April 13, 2015. The defendants continue to
believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are
without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: "Rothenberg" State Court Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Harry Rothenberg
voluntarily dismissed a state court complaint.

On January 20, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, and the
individual members of the Board of Directors, in the Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County,
entitled Harry Rothenberg v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. (the
"State Court Complaint"), The Rothenberg State Court Complaint
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties of due care and seeks to
invalidate the bylaw amendment adopted by the Board of Directors
on October 30, 2014, which requires current and former
shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action against
the Company, its directors or its officers to first obtain written
consent from shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% of the
outstanding shares of the Company. On March 2, 2015, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike certain allegations
in the State Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg filed a Verified Shareholder
Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Federal Court
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, which names the same defendants and asserts
similar claims as in the State Court Complaint. The Federal Court
Complaint also alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Securities Act, and asserts derivative claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, among other claims, based on the previously
disclosed IRS Investigation and allegations regarding our prior
structured settlement business made in a case styled Michael
Lafontant v. Washington Square Financial, LLC, et al. ("Lafontant
Complaint"), which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The Company has moved to
dismiss the Lafontant Complaint based on contractual arbitration
provisions, which is pending an order by the district court. On
April 21, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg voluntarily dismissed the State
Court Complaint, without prejudice. The Company has not
established any provision for losses in respect of this matter.


JAMP PHARMA: Recalls Piperacillin & Tazobactam Powder
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 23, 2015
Posting date: June 29, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53970

Reason: Potential presence of particulate matter.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and pharmacies

Affected products:
AJ-PIP/TAZ (Piperacillin/Tazobactam) for injection
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02391546
Dosage form: Powder for solution
Strength: Piperacillin 4 g/vial
          Tazobactam 0.50 g/vial
Lot or serial number: 7103921
                      7103959
                      7103960


Recalling Firm: JAMP Pharma Corporation
                203 - 1380, rue Newton
                Boucherville
                J4B 5H2
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC
                                85 Advance Road
                                Etobicoke
                                M8Z 2S6
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


JAYCO: Recalls 2014 Starcraft Ar-One Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Label
Units affected: 20
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015273TC
ID number:2015273

On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loading
information labels do not contain correct tire size information.
The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of ST205/75R14C while
the correct tire size is LT235/75R15C. As a result, the vehicle
may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect replacement tires.
Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle handling
characteristics, which could result in a crash causing property
damage and/or injury. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to
owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for proper
installation.

  Make         Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----       ----------------------
  STARCRAFT    AR-ONE      2014


JL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Mayonnaise, Dressing, & Tartar Sauce
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: JL International
Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9893

  Brand    Common name   Size        Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------   ----        product       ---
  -----                              ----------
  Girard's Custom Real   2 x 1 gal   All codes     034629 510176
           Extra Heavy   (US)        where
           Mayonnaise                mustard is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label.
  Girard's Custom Real   30 lb       All codes     034629 510893
           Extra Heavy               where mustard
           Mayonnaise                is not declared
                                     on the label.
  Girard's Custom Real   30 lb       All codes     034629 510183
           Extra Heavy               where mustard
           Mayonnaise                is not declared
                                     on the label.

  Girard's Cilantro      1 gal       All codes     034629 559878
           Pepita        (US)        where mustard
           Dressing                  is not declared
                                     on the label.
  Girard's Olde World    1 gal       All codes     034629 592271
           Bacon         (US)        where mustard
           Dressing                  is not declared
                                     on the label.
  Girard's Classic       1 gal       All codes     034629 553579
           Chunky        (US)        where mustard
           Bleu Cheese               is not declared
           Dressing                  on the label.
  Girard's Seafood       1 gal       All codes     034629 551377
           Grotto Tartar (US)        where mustard
           Sauce                     is not declared
                                     on the label.
  Girard's Creamy        1 gal       All codes     034629 581275
           Caesar        (US)        where mustard
           Dressing                  is not declared
                                     on the label.


LAMA MEDITERRANEAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Rodriguez-Flores, Allan Rodriguez-Flores, Roberto Flores,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
Lama Mediterranean Cafe, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01833 (S.D. Tex.,
June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Lama Mediterranean Cafe, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
specializing in fresh Mediterranean cuisine in Shenandoah, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM LLP
      9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Parties in Direct Purchaser Cases Must Talk
------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
ordered all parties in the U.S. Direct Purchaser class action
cases to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their
choosing.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in three pending
direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15,
2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action
cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct
purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly
suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of
polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each
plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future
violations. We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser
class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to
state a legally valid claim, which were denied by the Ohio Court.
A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the direct
purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court
certified the direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for
Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied.
The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with
a mediator of their choosing."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal in Direct Purchaser Cases Goes to 6th Cir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals has transferred the appeal in certain
U.S. Direct Purchaser class action cases to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Company said, "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S.
direct purchaser class action cases on August 14, 2014, by
agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all
allegations in the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class
cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of
litigation. The settlement was subject to Court approval. We
recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third
quarter 2014. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 to the
Court related to the settlement. Since the accrual is partially
attributable to our former Prime Foam Products business, which was
sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 of expense was reflected
in discontinued operations. The deadline for direct purchasers to
exclude themselves from the litigation and settlement classes was
January 26, 2015. A final fairness hearing was held on February 3,
2015, and on February 26, 2015, the Court entered a memorandum
opinion and order granting the motion for final approval of the
class settlement.  Subsequently, final judgments of dismissal with
prejudice were entered on March 13, 2015.  On March 20, 2015, an
objector filed a notice of appeal of the order approving the class
settlement to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  The direct
purchaser class plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, transfer the appeal on March 27, 2015. On May 1,
2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion to
dismiss and transferred the appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial to Begin in Mid-October in Ohio Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is
tentatively set to begin in mid-October 2015 in certain U.S.
Indirect Purchaser class action cases.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer
protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations."

"We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action,
for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied
the motions to dismiss. Discovery is substantially complete in
this case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of
the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the
Court certified the indirect purchaser class. The deadline for
indirect purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation was
March 13, 2015.

"We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class
Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which
was denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to
attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing.
Trial is tentatively set to begin in mid-October 2015."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial in 12 Direct Purchaser Cases to Begin Aug.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial in 12 of the
individual direct purchaser cases is set to begin on August 18,
2015.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in 34 pending
individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and
October 16, 2013, which were filed in or transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In
re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.
The claims in the individual direct purchaser cases are generally
the same as those asserted in the direct purchaser class action
case. Additionally, several individual direct purchaser plaintiffs
bring state claims under individual states' consumer protection
and/or antitrust statutes in addition to their federal claims.
Once pretrial practice concludes, some of the individual direct
purchaser cases are scheduled to be tried in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio and others will be
remanded back to the federal district courts where the cases were
originally filed for trial. Trial in 12 of the individual direct
purchaser cases is set to begin on August 18, 2015."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Says Kansas Case Must Be Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an Ohio court has
entered an order suggesting to the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation that a Kansas lawsuit be remanded to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in two
individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims
under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29,
2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. These two cases were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and then
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The claims and allegations of
these plaintiffs are generally the same as the other direct and
indirect purchaser plaintiffs, with the exception that the Kansas
plaintiffs seek full consideration damages (their total purchase
amounts for the allegedly price-fixed polyurethane foam products).
On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two actions filed a
motion for immediate remand of those actions back to the District
of Kansas federal district court for further pretrial practice and
trial. On May 5, 2015, the Ohio Court entered an order suggesting
to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the
Kansas case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Cert. Motion in "Robillard" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v.
Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior
Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, has a
pending motion for certification, which has been postponed
indefinitely.

The Company said, "We were named in two Canadian class action
cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co.
Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al. in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CE-
10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CE-11-17279 (issued
December 30, 2011). In each of these Canadian cases, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,
seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly
overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100
million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the
action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of
purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is
on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. We are not yet
required to file our defenses in these or any other Canadian
actions."

"In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers
of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which
was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification,
which has been postponed indefinitely. We also were notified in
June 2014 of two motions to add us as parties to two class
proceedings in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to
the Ontario proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers
of polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam
Products et al., No. ELC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one
proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium
Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). The motion to add us as
parties to these actions was heard on April 7, 2015 and the
British Columbia Supreme Court ordered our addition as parties to
the two actions in British Columbia. The British Columbia actions
involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario
actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers."


LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling on Missouri Case Reconsideration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
yet to receive a ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration in a Missouri class action.

The Company said, "On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to a
lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CE15179 under the caption
"Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of
polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that
we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon
our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam
products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive
damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a
motion to dismiss this action, which was denied. Discovery has
commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification. A hearing on the motion was held, and the Court
subsequently entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for
class certification on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of that order on March 30, 2015, but we have
yet to receive ruling."


LES DEPENDANCES: Recalls Munster Gerome Cheese Due to Bacteria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Les Dependances
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly
National, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9899

Les Dependances is recalling La Cigogne brand "Munster Gerome"
cheese from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin
produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

These products may have been sold in smaller packages, cut and
wrapped by some retailers. Consumers who are unsure if they have
purchased affected products should check with their retailer.

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

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand     Common name   Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      -----------   ----    product       ---
  -----                          -----------
La Cigogne  "Petit        200 g  All Best       8 31014 41380 3
            Munster              Before dates
            Gerome"              up to and
                                 including 2015
                                 AU 06          None
La Cigogne  "Munster      800 g  All Best
            Gerome"              Before dates
                                 up to and
                                 including 2015
                                 AU 06

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


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Women's Top Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
lululemon athletica of Vancouver, B.C., announced a voluntary
recall of About 133,000 lululemon women's top in the United States
and 185,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

When the elastic draw cord with a hard tip in the hood or around
the neck area is pulled or caught on something and released, it
can snap back, impact the face area and result in injury.

The recalled tops have an elastic draw cord with hard metal or
plastic tips in the hood or around the neck area. Recalled tops
come in a variety of colors and styles, including Carry and Go
Hoodie; Cool Down Jacket; Course-ette Jacket; Cozy Up Jacket;
Dance Studio Jacket; Dance Sweat Shirt; Don't Hurry Be Happy
Pullover; Gratitude Wrap; Necessity Jacket; Proactive Jacket;
Refresh Snap Up; Run Sun Blocker Pullover; Run Track N Field
Jacket; Run With It Jacket; Sanctuary Jacket; Savasana Tunic;
Sing, Floss, Travel Jacket; Stow 'N Go Jacket; Stride Jacket;
Summertime Tunic; Varsity Hoodie; Victory Jacket and Wear With All
Jacket. Each top displays an embroidered or printed lululemon
logo; the location of the logo varies with the style of the
garment.

There were seven reported incidents, resulting in seven injuries
to the face and eye.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1ECNDa

The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh, China,
Indonesia and Peru and sold at lululemon stores, online at
www.lululemon.com and through select sales partners between
January 2008 and December 2014 for $75-260.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chapman" Suit in Iowa District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Chapman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holding, Inc., and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03118-MWB (N.D. Iowa,
June 3, 2015) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Granfield Arato, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROB TULLY
          2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1201
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 221-2600
          E-mail: ben@robtullylaw.com


MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Peeled White Hominy Due to Sulphites
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mixtura Latina Co.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9900

The food recall warning issued on June 19, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Mixtura Latina Co. is recalling Mixtura Latina Co. brand Mote
Blanco Pelado / Peeled White Hominy from the marketplace because
it may contain sulphites which are not declared on the label.
People with a sensitivity to sulphites should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have a sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the
recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

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

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand    Common name  Size    Code(s) on    UPC     Additional
  name     -----------  ----    product       ---     info
  -----                         ----------           ----------
Mixtura    Mote Blanco  14 oz./ None          None    Sold from
Latina Co. Pelado /     396.9 g                       Mixtura
           Peeled White                               Latina Co.
           Hominy                                     located at
                                                      1104 Wilson
                                                      Avenue in
                                                      Toronto,
                                                      Ontario.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xp3Baj


MOBILE MAINTENANCE: "Erickson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steele Erickson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  Mobile Maintenance, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-
00043 (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mobile Maintenance, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that
serviced fleets in numerous industries, including construction
equipment, medium duty delivery, public transit, DOT, oilfield
equipment and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 880-8181
      Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


NASDAQ OMX: Reply Due in "Providence v. BATS Global" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's reply
was due on May 8, 2015, in the case, City of Providence v. BATS
Global Markets, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City
of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names
the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations.
We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion
to dismiss on March 24, 2015. Our reply is due on May 8, 2015."

"On January 12, 2015, the court consolidated this case in a multi-
district litigation proceeding under the heading In re Barclays
Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation, 14-md-02589
(S.D.N.Y). The consolidated cases bring claims against Barclays
PLC and Barclays Capital alleging that certain marketing materials
about Barclays LX contained false or misleading statements.
Although the Providence matter has been consolidated with the
Barclays matter, separate motions to dismiss have been filed for
each case. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and
intend to litigate them vigorously."


NASDAQ OMX: "Lanier v. BATS Exchange" Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the district court has
entered an order dismissing the complaints Lanier v. BATS Exchange
Inc., et al.

The Company said, "we are named as one of many exchange defendants
in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.),
Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and
Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were
filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three
complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of
a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by
national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches."

"On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January
16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order
dismissing the complaints with prejudice, concluding that they are
foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a
claim under the contracts."


NASDAQ OMX: Faces Class Action by Stephen Rabin
-----------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February 5, 2015,
I. Stephen Rabin filed a putative class action, Rabin v. John Doe
Market Makers, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.,
No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that options traders on
the Nasdaq PHLX exchange were damaged when market makers on that
exchange manipulated options in advance of dividend payments on
underlying stock and exchange traded funds for their personal
benefit. Plaintiff further alleges that -- with the assent of the
Nasdaq defendants -- the unidentified market maker defendants
(plaintiff states an intention to seek their identities from the
Nasdaq defendants in discovery) damaged other writers of call
options by executing among themselves prearranged manipulative
matched options trades on an underlying security immediately prior
to the date for the that security's dividend payment. The alleged
class period is from February 6, 2010 through the present. Based
on these allegations, plaintiff asserts claims against all
defendants for securities fraud pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
for unjust enrichment.

"We believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate
them vigorously," the Company said.


NATURAL BALANCE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Madau, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04875-SJO-AJW (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bicvan T. Brown, Esq.
      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Jennifer Han, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
      249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: bbrown@mahoney-law.net
              kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              jhan@mahoney-law.net


NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in NAM 4th Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that The NAM Group answered
the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against
The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company,
L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is
proceeding.

On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J.
Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms,
Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum
Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and
state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America
Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM
FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM
In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and
NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended
complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint
asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and
on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs'
purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert
coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended
complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation,
H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry
Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District
Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its
claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions.

On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of all persons residing in the United
States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April
5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to
contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not,
however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing
insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs'
motion on October 10, 2014, and the District Court heard oral
argument on the motion on December 12, 2014.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree
of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group
believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Little Digger Toys Due to Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Northern Tool + Equipment Company, Inc. of Fredericksburg, Va.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Little Digger Toy.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The red paint on the Little Digger toy frame contains excessive
levels of lead, which is prohibited under federal law.

This recall involves Wel-Bilt brand Little Diggers, Item # 28303.
It is a stationary scooper toy with moveable poles that allow the
child to scoop items up into the bucket. The item has a red
powder-coated steel frame with a black plastic seat and black
adjustable scoop with two yellow plastic grips on the poles and a
six-sided frame base. The measurements are about 17 inches high
and 25 inches wide. It has a manufacture date of August 2014
through June 2015.  Wel-Bilt is printed on the front of the bucket
and the manufacture date is written on the tracking label located
on the bucket.  The item number #28303 is printed only on the
toy's packaging

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Northern Tool
+ Equipment retail stores and catalogs and online at
www.amazon.com, www.kotulas.com  and www.northerntool.com from
August 2014 through June 2015 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Little Digger Toy, put
it out of reach of children and contact the firm for a full
refund.


NU SKIN: Defending Against Class Action Over China Probe
--------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
currently being sued in a purported class action lawsuit and
derivative claim relating to negative media and regulatory
scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland China and
the associated decline in the Company's stock price.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On May 1, 2014, the court consolidated the various purported
class actions, appointed State-Boston Retirement System as lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action and appointed the law firm
Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action
complaint was filed. The Company sought to dismiss the case; that
motion was denied by an order issued on February 26, 2015.

The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims
on behalf of certain of the Company's stockholders under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M.
Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia,
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its sales operations in and financial results derived
from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid
scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities. The
Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated
class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself.


OFT INC: Recalls Beef Bone Extract and Beef Concentrate Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
OFT Inc., a Henderson, Nev., establishment, operating as Whakyung
Foods, Inc., is recalling approximately 67,232 pounds of
commercial-use beef leg bone extract and beef concentrate products
produced in Australia and New Zealand that were not presented at
the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse
health consequences exists.

The concentrated extract items were produced and imported from
July 29, 2014 through June 2, 2015. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked
      "Beef Leg Bone Extract" Manufactured by Est. 662, CJ
      Nutracon Ltd (Australia)
  --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked
      "Beef Leg Bone Extract" Manufactured by TBE1, Taranaki Bio
      Extracts Ltd (New Zealand)
  --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked
      "Beef Concentrate with Salt" Manufactured by Est. 662, CJ
      Nutracon Ltd (Australia)

The products subject to recall bear the establishment
certification "New Zealand TBE1 Inspected" for the beef leg bone
extract and identifier "Est. 662 PRODUCT OF AUSTRALIA" for the
beef leg bone extract and beef concentrate with salt.

The problem was discovered on June 8, 2015 during routine FSIS
surveillance activities of imported products conducted by the
Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff (RMTAS).

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Jason Lee, President of OFT, Inc, at (702) 778-6401.

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


PETM CANADA: Recalls Plastic Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Posting date: June 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53815

This recall involves 50W, 100W, 150W, 200W and 250W Top Fin brand
plastic aquarium heaters.   The black cylindrical-shaped heaters
are about 4 centimeters in diameter and about 33 centimeters in
length.

Heaters with the following model numbers are included in this
recall.

Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heater (50W, 100W, 150W, 200W, 250W)

  Model    UPC          Description               Certification
  Number   ---          -----------               authorization
  ------                                          number
                                                  -------------
  HT50     73725745804  Top Fin plastic aquarium  50W  UL E230625
                        heater
  HT100    73725745800  Top Fin plastic aquarium  100W  UL
                        heater                    E230625
  HT150    73725745801  Top Fin plastic aquarium  150W  UL
                        heater                    E230625
  HT200    73725745802  Top Fin plastic aquarium  200W  UL
                        heater                    E230625
  HT250    73725745803  Top Fin plastic aquarium  250W  UL
                        heater                    E230625

Model numbers are printed on the side of the heater near the top.

The aquarium heaters may overheat or short circuit, posing a fire
or electrical shock hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor PetSmart has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of
these aquarium heaters.

PetSmart, Inc. has received reports of 13 incidents in the United
States, including four reports of minor electrical shock to
consumers, seven reports of water tanks overheating and one report
of minor property damage due to an electrical shortage resulting
in fire.

Approximately 4830 units were distributed to PetSmart's retail
stores across Canada.  Approximately 112,200 were distributed to
PetSmart, Inc. stores in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from August 2014 to March 2015 in
Canada and from August 2014 to April 2015 in the United States.

Manufactured in China

Manufacturer: Shenzhen Xing Risheng Industrial Co., Ltd.
              CHINA

Importer: PETM Canada Corporation, operating as PetSmart
          Burlington
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled aquarium
heater and return it to any PetSmart store for a full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact PetSmart toll-free at
1-888-839-9638 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. MT, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's website and click on " Product
Recalls"   listed under the "Shop With Us"   category.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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


PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Ranch Salad Dressing Due to Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of its Wish-Bone Ranch Salad Dressing variety, due to the
product containing Wish-Bone Blue Cheese Dressing, inadvertently
packed in Ranch Salad Dressing bottles and was brought to our
attention by a consumer. This product contains eggs, a known
allergen not declared on the packaging. Those people who have
allergies or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.
If you are not allergic to eggs, this product is safe to eat. No
illnesses have been reported to date. The Food and Drug
Administration has been made aware of this recall.

The product was produced on April 23, 2015 by a contract
manufacturer. In total, 8,678 cases of Wish-Bone Ranch Salad
Dressing in 24 oz. bottles, distributed nationwide, are involved
in the recall. The 'Best Used By' date can be found on the neck
label of the bottle. No other Wish-Bone products are included in
this recall. Specific details of the product being recalled are
outlined below.

  Flavor        UPC CODE           Best Used By date
  ------        --------          (found on neck label of bottle)
                                   ------------------------------
Wish-Bone Ranch 0-41321-00661-6    FEB 17 16
Salad Dressing
- 24 oz.

All affected distributors and retail customers, as well as the
Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN), are being notified and
the affected product is being removed from store shelves.
Consumers who may have purchased the recalled product can return
it for a full refund at the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions should call 1-888-299-7646 Monday through Friday between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452492.htm


PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Stuffing Baked Turkey Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Labelling
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pinnacle Foods Canada Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and
Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9903

  Brand    Common name   Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name     -----------   ----    product        ---
  -----                          ----------
  Swanson  Stuffing      383 g   MAR-06-15 to   6 91479 11914 2
           Baked Turkey          SEP-01-16


POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx Electric Blowers Due to Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Positec Tool Corp., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 24,300 Worx electric blower/vacs and 370 in
Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The grounded and ungrounded wiring in the electric blower/vacs
could be reversed, posing a shock hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Worx brand electric blower/vacs. The
blower/vacs are black, measure 11 inches high by 19.5 inches long
and have the "Worx" logo printed on the side of the motor housing.
The model and serial numbers are printed on the opposite side of
the motor housing. Model number WG507 and a serial number in one
of the following ranges are included in this recall.

  Model Number    Serial number ranges
  ------------    --------------------
  WG507           201418000134 through 201418018263
                  201418018268 through 201418021382
                  201511000379 through 201511001397

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/LMk7LQ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards and Walmart stores nationwide from January 2015 through
May 2015 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.


RAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------
RAND BK CORP. of MASPETH, NEW YORK is recalling 450 CASES OF
GOODIES CASHEW RAW 9OZ, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was labeled as "GOODIES BY NATURE RAW CASHEWS 9oz."
and was packed in 9oz. clear plastic tubs. The recalled product
has sell-by dates of 04.29.2016 and 05.02.2016 and a UPC code of
846034010055.

Recalled items were sold in NY, NJ, PA, VA, MD, and GA in "H Mart
"retail stores.

No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine
testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was
determined that the raw cashew tested positive for Salmonella.

Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and
may bring in their receipt to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-
417-5607, Monday through Friday 9am,-5pm, EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453007.htm


RESONANT INC: Defending Against John Paggos Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 17, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company,
Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned John
Paggos v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-01970-SJO-EBK. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that
the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

"The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between
August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Paggos Class Period").
The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants'
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance,
our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout
the Paggos Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said.


RESONANT INC: Defending Against John DeVouassoux Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 19, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company,
Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned John
DeVouassoux v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-02054-JFW-EBK.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between
November 6, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the " DeVouassoux Class
Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the
defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning our financial well-being and prospects, our
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the
DeVouassoux Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said.


RESONANT INC: Defending Against Ramon Arias Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 31, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company,
Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Ramon
Arias v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-02369-DDP-MAN. Later
the same day, an amended complaint was filed.  The plaintiff
alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between
August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Arias Class Period").
The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants'
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance,
our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout
the Arias Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said.


RGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Liebowitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RGS Financial, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-04454-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAPUTO INC: Recalls Roquefort Cheese Due to Staphylococcus
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Saputo Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9895

The food recall warning issued on June 17, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Papillon brand Roquefort Cheese from the
marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by
Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled
product described below. Consumers who are unsure if they have
purchased affected product should check with their retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

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

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

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

  Brand name  Common name  Size      Code(s) on product  UPC
  ----------  -----------  ----      ------------------  ---
  Papillon     Roquefort   Variable  All codes up to    Variable
                                     and including Best
                                     Before: 2015.09.15


SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Alexa Politi, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. Gil Vigneault, Savit
Collection Agency, and Savit Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
04425 (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), Case No. MID-L-03209-15, was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to
the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04425-PGS-DEA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claim under the Fair Debt Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls NeoRok Stools Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
School Specialty, Inc. of Greenville, Wisc., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,350 Classroom Select NeoRok Stools. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The stool can break during use, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves three models of Classroom Select NeoRok
Stools with a tilting and rocking feature, for use by children in
the classroom. Recalled stools were sold in three sizes: 15 inch
tall (Item Number 1496633), 18 inch tall (Item Number 1496340) and
20 inch tall (Item Number 1496342). The Classroom Select logo/name
is printed on one side of the base and the NeoRok name is printed
on the other side of the base.  The stools have a round black
rubber seat insert with a solid color plastic seat and black
rimmed base. The stools were sold in five colors: Pistachio
(green), Paprika (orange), Periwinkle (light blue), Cardinal (red)
and Marine (navy blue).

School Specialty has received two reports of stools breaking. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/IF9Edd

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Classroom Direct catalogs, School Specialty Furniture and
Equipment catalogs, School Specialty Education Essentials
catalogs, School Specialty Early Childhood catalogs, and on
www.schoolspecialty.com from May 2015 through June 2015 for
between $105 - $115.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled stools and
may contact School Specialty. School Specialty is contacting
consumers directly and sending free replacement stools with a
prepaid return shipping label and instructions.


SHRED-TECH CORP: Recalls Business Class M2 106 Model Trucks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 12
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015276TC
ID number: 2015276

On certain mobile document shredder vehicles, installation of the
shredding equipment combined with the increased weight of
additional emissions components may have caused the vehicle weight
to exceed the front gross axle weight rating (GAWR). This would
result in vehicle being overloaded, potentially affecting vehicle
handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing
injury and/or property damage. Correction: For vehicles built on
the Freightliner M2 106 chassis, dealers will place a new
compliance label to reflect an increased GAWR (to 9000 lbs from
8000 lbs). For vehicles built on the Hino 258LP chassis,
correction to be determined.


SOLARCITY CORP: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Due
-------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs had until
June 19, 2015 to file an amended complaint to attempt to remedy
the defects in the original complaint.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers. The complaint alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014.
On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint. The
plaintiffs had until June 19, 2015 to file an amended complaint to
attempt to remedy the defects in the original complaint. The
Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.


SR SUNTOUR: Recalls 101,600 Bicycles in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SR Suntour North America, of Vancouver, Wash. (bicycle forks),
announced a voluntary recall of about 68,000 Bicycles with SR
Suntour bicycle forks in the United States and 33,600 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bolt that attaches the upper part of the bicycle's fork to the
lower part of the fork can break or separate and cause the front
wheel to come off the bicycle. This is a crash hazard for riders.

This recall involves Cannondale, Diamondback, Giant, GT, INA
International, Schwinn, Scott and Trek brand bicycles with SR
Suntour bicycle forks models M3010, M3020, M3030, NEX and XCT. The
recalled forks have serial numbers in the top row beginning with
"K" and ending with a number between 141101 and150127. The fork
model and serial numbers are located on the back of the fork's
crown. The serial number is the first row. The model number is in
the second row. "SR Suntour" is printed on stickers on both sides
of the fork legs. A detailed list of the specific model numbers
included in the recall is on the firm's website.

There have been 15 reports of the bolts breaking or separating
from the bicycles, including two reports of minor injuries,
including abrasions, cuts and bruises.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/h1bLYE

The recalled products were manufactured in Kunshan, China and sold
at bicycle stores, sports stores and mass merchandisers from
November 2014 through May 2015 for between $300 and $400 for the
bicycles.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalled
SR Suntour bicycle forks and return the bicycle to the place of
purchase for a free inspection and repair.


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued Over Improper Pay and Rest/Break Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Talavera, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Sun-Maid Growers of California,
a California Corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00842-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2015) challenges the
Defendants' alleged policy and practice of requiring their
nonexempt employees, including the Plaintiff, to work substantial
amounts of time without pay and failing to provide their nonexempt
employees with the meal and rest periods to which they are
entitled by law at their plants in California.

Sun-Maid Growers of California, is a California Corporation.  The
Company is a food processor in Fresno County, California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 291-3333
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
          E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


SUNSHINE USA: Sued Over Fair Labor Standard Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Yanhua Zhang, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sunshine USA, Inc., d/b/a Wu Liang Ye, Ru Qiu Li, and Liang
Zhang, Case No. 1:15-cv-05031 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yanhua Zhang
      PRO SE


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
motion to decertify the entire class in the case, Arizona Owner-
operator Class Action Litigation, remains pending before the
court.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CE7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On
November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification
as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the
trial court issued the following rulings with respect to certain
motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel
arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class;
(3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract;
and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on
statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add
new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the
employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative.
On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for
summary judgment 1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee
class since there is no class representative; and 2) to dismiss
plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

Swift filed a motion to decertify the entire class which remains
pending before the court. The matter is scheduled for trial in
October 2015.

The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate
relief supported by the record, which the Company believes
demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further,
that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Class Action in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit
Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation remains
pending in the District Court and is currently in discovery.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIE-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending
the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The District Court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the
agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of
plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration
agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published
decision, "expressly held that a district court must determine
whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration
under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter."

As a consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court to address whether the district court or
arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment
contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On
June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remains
pending in the District Court and is currently in discovery. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Developments in Calif. Wage Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there have been no
significant developments since December 31, 2014, to the
California Wage, Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIEDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell
Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. EDCE10-809-EAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted.

On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed
plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal
and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code. Plaintiff
has appealed. Minimum wage claims (specifically that pay per-mile
fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-related services),
timeliness of such pay and the issue of class certification remain
pending.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This class action is James R. Rudsell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIEDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell
Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a
resolution in the Burnell Complaint.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters, as
well as the merits of these matters, should the classes be
certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of
such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at
this time. There have been no significant developments to these
cases since December 31, 2014.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Currently Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
by Lawrence Peck is currently stayed.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The
putative class includes current and former non-exempt employee
truck drivers who performed services in California within the
four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to pay for
all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and
Rudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the
claims in those earlier filed cases. The final disposition of the
case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined
at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Class Suit to Move Into Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Washington
Overtime Class Action is anticipated to move into discovery.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-
114380. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington State-based employee drivers during the three-year
statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit through to
present and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other
class, including any class related to over the road drivers ("OTR
Drivers"). The parties dispute the definition of "dedicated" as
used by the court and a class notice has not yet been issued. The
matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend the merits of these claims
and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Case v. Central Refrigerated in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a collective
action involving Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., et al., is
currently in discovery.

On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed
by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire
and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all
similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.,
Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. ED CE 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class
involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced
labor and state law contractual claims.

On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that
the FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah
Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the FAA. The September
24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity
of proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then
if the arbitrator determines that such collective action is
permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's FLSA
claim. On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered
a clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim
was to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the
plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law contractual claims
were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs
seeking to pursue those specific claims.

Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for
interlocutory appeal of the California District Court's orders,
both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to
collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On
December 9, 2013, the arbitrator determined that the issue of
misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a
collective arbitration; however, the plaintiffs forced labor claim
and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach
of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and
not as a class. The matter is currently in discovery.

Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the
Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and
any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on
the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.


TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated class
action lawsuit is now in the early stages of discovery.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in
2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors
who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and
January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's December 2012 and June 2013 registration statements,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Eight
firms who were underwriters in the December 2012 and June 2013
secondary public offerings are also named as defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on
May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs allege that certain defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact in press releases
and SEC filings about the Company's relationships with its
vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and producer
relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose certain
related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs
seek to recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported
classes. The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in July 2014, and that
motion was granted in part and denied in part by an Order of the
court on March 4, 2015. The matter is now in the early stages of
discovery.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Posting Order Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the District Court has
granted final approval of the Posting Order Settlement Payment.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company, a division of Synovus Bank, were named as
defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the
manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.
The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was
filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and
asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a
result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in
connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards
allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the
plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was
transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern
District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21,
2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied
the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion
as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the
amended complaint on September 24, 2012.

On August 23, 2014, Synovus reached a settlement in principle with
plaintiffs' counsel to settle the Posting Order Litigation. Under
the settlement in principle, Synovus shall cause to be paid $3.75
million plus payment of $150,000 in settlement expenses (the
"Posting Order Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad
releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Posting Order Litigation
and other material and customary terms and conditions. The
District Court granted final approval of the Posting Order
Settlement Payment on April 2, 2015.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Plaintiffs Drop Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that claims against Synovus
Financial Corp. were dismissed by Plaintiffs in the TelexFree
Litigation.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted.  The
claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus- related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.

TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC "Base
Commerce", an independent sales organization/member service
provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action
lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper
multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol
telephone services and that the various defendants, including
Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that
allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations.
Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.


TOP RANK: Faces "Schofield" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Schofield and Nycole Evans, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-04540-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), is an action for
damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to
disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by
Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd
Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
      David Jacoby, Esq.
      Kimberly Aponte Borden, Esq.
      SHELLER, P.C.
      1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 790-7300
      Facsimile: (215) 546-0942
      E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com
              djacoby@sheller.com
              kaponte@sheller.com

         - and -

      David Woloshin, Esq.
      Jordan Schlossberg, Esq.
      ASTORWEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP
      200 South Broad Street, Suite 600
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 790-0100
      Facsimile: (215) 790-0509
      E-mail: dwoloshin@astorweiss.com
              jschlossberg@astorweiss.com


TRANS CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gayyell N. Cammock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05023-AJN (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


TRANSOCEAN LTD: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument has not
yet been scheduled in a proposed federal securities class action.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief
executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired
companies as defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of
the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement
relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger
with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the
proposed class members.  In connection with this action, we are
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  On March 11, 2014,
the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed an opening brief on
December 19, 2014.  On February 17, 2015, defendants filed their
brief in opposition.  On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed their
reply brief.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled."


US GYPSUM: Removes "Arredondo" Labor Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Arredondo v. United States Gypsum
Company, et al., Case No. ECC08706, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Imperial to
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01247-
BAS-KSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP LLP
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com


US SECURITY: Faces "Decaro" Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Decaro, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01329-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Parties in TTM Merger Suit Entered Into MOU
-------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
litigation relating to the Technologies, Inc. ("TTM") Merger
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, documenting the
agreement-in-principle for the settlement of the Missouri Lawsuit.

The Company said, "Since the public announcement on September 22,
2014, of the proposed Merger with TTM, we, the Company's board of
directors, TTM and Merger Sub, have been named as defendants in
two putative class action complaints challenging the Merger. The
first lawsuit, filed on September 30, 2014, in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri (the "Missouri Lawsuit"), and the
second lawsuit, filed on October 13, 2014, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Lawsuit" and,
together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"), generally
allege, among other things, that the Merger fails to properly
value our company, and that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the merger agreement and that
those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub and the
Company."

"The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Company's board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly
inadequate consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with
deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Company's board of
directors and management are divided; (2) the Voting Agreements
prevent the Company's stockholders from providing a meaningful
vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those
breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger
Sub, and the Company.

"Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Merger is the result of an unfair and
flawed process because TTM's financial advisor conspired with the
Company's two largest stockholders and their affiliates to sell
the Company to TTM without the knowledge of the Company's board of
directors; (2) the Merger is unfair because it undervalues
Viasystems; (3) the Company's board of directors and the Company's
management have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus
and change in control payments to be made to certain executive
officers and key employees if the Merger is consummated; (4) the
Merger is unfair because the Merger Agreement contains preclusive
deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems and prevent the
Company's stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the
proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement; and (5) the definitive
Proxy Statement/Prospectus mailed on or about November 10, 2014 to
the Company's stockholders of record as of November 6, 2014 (the
"Proxy Statement") failed to provide the Company's stockholders
with material information regarding the Merger. The Lawsuits seek,
among other things, injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants
from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding,
to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of
the terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the
court deems proper. Viasystems believes the Lawsuits are without
merit.

"On December 8, 2014, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit agreed
in principle to resolve all claims against the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors, TTM, and Merger Sub.
The agreement contemplated a release and settlement by the
Company's stockholders of all claims against the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors, TTM, and Merger Sub,
and in exchange Viasystems would promptly make certain agreed-upon
supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger that the plaintiff
in the Missouri Lawsuit alleged were material to the Company's
stockholders considering whether to vote to adopt the Merger
Agreement. On December 9, 2014, in accordance with the parties'
agreement, Viasystems filed with the SEC on Form 8-K the agreed-
upon supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

"On January 6, 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the
settlement of the Missouri Lawsuit. The settlement will not affect
the merger consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive
settlement agreement, or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such definitive
settlement agreement. In the event that the parties enter into a
definitive settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled,
following notice to the Company's stockholders, at which the court
will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions (including the
Delaware Lawsuit) that were or could have been brought challenging
or otherwise relating to any aspect of the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith. The
defendants to the Lawsuits deny all fault or liability, and deny
that they have committed any of the unlawful or wrongful acts
alleged in the Lawsuits or otherwise in relation to the Merger,
the Merger Agreement, or any of the events/actions related
thereto, and specifically deny that any further disclosure was
required to supplement the Proxy Statement under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. The Company agreed to provide
the Supplemental Disclosures solely to minimize the cost of
defending the Lawsuits and to permit the stockholder vote on the
Merger Agreement to proceed without delay."


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is voluntarily recalling packaged raw macadamia
nuts due to possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was labeled as "Whole Foods Market Raw Macadamia Nuts"
and was packaged in 11 oz. plastic tubs. The recalled product has
best-by dates of March 19, 2016 through June 21, 2016 and a UPC
code of 0-76958-62059-1.

Recalled items were sold in AR, AZ, CA, CO, HI, KS, LA, NM, NV,
OK, TX, and UT Whole Foods Market Stores.

No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine
testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was
determined that the raw macadamia nuts tested positive for
Salmonella.

Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and
may bring in their receipt for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market Customer
Service, 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm
CDT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452907.htm


WILLBROS GROUP: CEO Added as Defendant in Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated
complaint was filed in which the Company's current chief executive
officer was added as a defendant.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014
seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case are the Company and its former chief executive officer
and current chief financial officer.

On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed in which the current chief executive officer
of the Company was added as a defendant. The complaint in the
case, now entitled In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of the
restatements of the Company's first and second quarter 2014
financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss the case. As this matter is at
a very early stage, the Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


WORLD JOURNAL: Sued Over Alleged Age & Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Yun Fang Teng, Eshin Nee and Ming Hong Han, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. World Journal LLC and
Jen Feng Yang, Case No. 1:15-cv-03743-MKB-VVP (E.D.N.Y., June 26,
2015), arises out of the Defendants discriminatory practices based
on the age and national origin discrimination.

The Defendants operate and distribute one of the largest Chinese-
language newspapers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


WPX ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay New Colorado Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties have agreed to
stay the new lawsuit filed in the District Court, Garfield County.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the
sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged
certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess
of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of
royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation
errors.

"We entered into a final partial settlement agreement," the
Company said.  "The partial settlement agreement defined the class
for certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of
royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules
to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved
claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments,
established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding
in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. We
have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the
first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct
mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease
agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we
are required to have proportionately increased the value of
natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission
lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to
deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in
calculating royalty payments."

"Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs. Trial occurred in December
2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden.

"Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting
plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position as to the
methodology to use in determining the standard by which our
activity should be judged. We have completed the accounting
process under the standard and have obtained the court's approval.
However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have
been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we have appealed this
matter to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have now filed
a second class action lawsuit in the District Court, Garfield
County containing similar allegations but related to subsequent
time periods. The parties have agreed to stay this new lawsuit
pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of
Appeals."


WPX ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Additional Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit have not timely filed an appeal of this denial but
have filed a motion seeking to conduct additional discovery in
order to attempt to redefine their proposed class.

The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty
interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint
against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs
sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining
activities relating to production, payments and future reporting.
This matter was removed to the United States District Court for
New Mexico."

"In March 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs have not timely filed an appeal of this
denial but have filed a motion seeking to conduct additional
discovery in order to attempt to redefine their proposed class.

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunction. At this time, we believe that our
royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance
with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws.
We do not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated
range of exposure related to these claims."


YAMAHA: 1,815 Motorcycles Recalled Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1815
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015277TC
ID number: 2015277
Manufacturer recall number: M15-099

On certain motorcycles, the stator coil insulation could become
damaged and short circuit due to insufficient heat resistance.
This could decrease electrical output which could allow the
battery to discharge. This low battery voltage could result in a
loss of speedometer function and could cause the engine to stall
and unable to be restarted, which could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will replace the stator coil with a new one with sufficient heat
resistance.

  Make         Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----       ----------------------
  YAMAHA                   2008, 2008, 2010


ZUFFA LLC: Four Suits Transferred From N.D. California to Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas):

   * Vazquez, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05591.  The
     Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
     2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF to the proceeding;

   * Vera, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05621.  The
     Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
     2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF to the proceeding;

   * Ruediger, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00521.  The
     Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
     2:15-cv-01057-JCM-CWH to the proceeding; and

   * Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05484-EJD.  The
     Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
     2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are civil antitrust actions brought under the Sherman
Act for treble damages and other relief arising out of the
Defendant's alleged overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain
and enhance its (a) monopoly power in the market for promotion of
live Elite Professional mixed martial arts bouts, and (b)
monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA
Fighter services.  The relevant geographic market for both the
Relevant Input Market and Relevant Output Market is limited to the
United States and, in the alternative, North America.

The Vazquez, Vera and Le Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Maysey, Esq.
          Jerome K. Elwell, Esq.
          WARNER ANGLE HALLAM JACKSON & FORMANEK PLC
          2555 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 264-7101
          Facsimile: (602) 234-0419
          E-mail: rmaysey@warnerangle.com
                  jelwell@warnerangle.com

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Hiba Hafiz, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net

               - and -

          Frederick S. Schwartz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK S. SCHWARTZ
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, #1040
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 986-2407
          Facsimile: (818) 995-4124
          E-mail: fred@fredschwartzlaw.com

The Le Plaintiffs are also represented by:

          Patrick Fanning Madden, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: pmadden@bm.net

               - and -

          Richard Adam Koffman, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com

The Ruediger Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jcohen@srkw-law.com
                  jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
          Perry Maxwell Grossman, Esq.
          Steven Christopher Holtzman, Esq.
          Suzanne Elizabeth Jaffe, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
          E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com
                  pgrossman@bsfllp.com
                  sholtzman@bsfllp.com
                  sjaffe@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Richard James Pocker, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
          300 S. Fourth St., Suite 800
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 382-7300
          Facsimile: (702) 382-2755
          E-mail: rpocker@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Donald Jude Campbell, Esq.
          Jon Colby Williams, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          700 South 7th Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 382-5222
          Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
          E-mail: djc@cwlawlv.com
                  jcw@cwlawlv.com


                            *********

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  * * *