/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150707.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 134


3D SYSTEMS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in South Carolina
AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: One Franchisee Class Action Under Mediation
ALPHA NATURAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for April & May 2016
ALPHA NATURAL: Agreement Reached in Greene County Litigation
ANTHEM INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Health Insurance Suit

ANTHEM INC: Medi-Cal Review Reveals Numerous Inaccuracies
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces N. Cal. Pipe Suit Over Proposed OM Merger
ARGENTINA: Says Investors Who Sold Bonds Can't Join Class
ARIZONA: Settles Immersion Program Discrimination Class Action
ASSURANT INC: Facing Class Actions Over Insurance Programs

AT&T INC: Illegally Charges TV Surcharge, "Gordon" Suit Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Vows to Fight Fine Over Unlimited Data Plans
AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Flood Victims Mull Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Intellectually Disabled Workers Can Get Back Pay
BP PLC: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Impact of "Kayne" Ruling

BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Sept. 17 Hearing Set for Speed Camera Suit
CANADA: 60s Scoop Adoptees Seek Apology for Loss of Identity
CASH CONVERTERS: Settles Excessive Interest Class Suit for $23MM
CASTLE & COOKE: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Class Action
CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case

CITIBANK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
COLLEGE BOARD: Students Mull Class Action Over SAT Printing Errors
COLLEGE BOARD: To Waive Fee for June 6 Student SAT Takers
COOPER CITY, FL: Hearing Today in Suit Over EMS Assessment Fees
DOW CHEMICAL: No Settlement Yet in Polyurethane Price-Fixing Suit

EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT: Mutual Plan Head Mulls Class Action
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Faces "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Court
FACEBOOK INC: Belgian Commission Sues Over Privacy Law Violation
FLINT, MI: Councilman Calls for Water Rate Suit Negotiations
FOXTONS: Former Presenters of BBC's Watchdog Join Class Action

GARLOCK SEALING: Oct. 6 Fixed as Bar Date for Asbestos Claims
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Microwave
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Plaintiffs Add Racketeering Claim
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Action
HOUSTON, TX: Class Action Seeks Drainage Fee Reimbursement

HUNTINGTON, WV: Suit to Block SSA Disability Benefits Review
IDAHO: ACLU Files Class Action Over Public Defender System
IDAHO: Settles Decades-Long Juvenile Care Class Action
IDT ENERGY: Judge Grants Motion to Stay Consumer Class Action
INDIANA: BMV Must Face Overcharge Class Action

INSULET CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Black Liquor Leak
IRENE'S BAKERY: Faces False "All Natural" Advertising Class Suit
ITAFOS MINERACAO: Faces Class Action Over Severance Payments
JAMES HARDIE: New Zealand Leaky-Home Victims File Class Action

JD NURSING: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Wage Theft
KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Kashi All-Natural Label
KINROSS GOLD: October 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
KROGER CO: "Rhodes" Class Suit Removed to Arkansas Federal Court
KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger

LANDMARK EVENT: Faces "Hobdy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LANDRY'S INC: "Dvornikov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LINCOLN, NE: Sewage Backup-Affected Property Owners Mull Options
LINKEDIN CORP: Pays $13MM to Settle Add Connections Feature Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MDL Panel Consolidates Formaldehyde Cases

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Merchandising Exec Ousted Amid Class Action
MAKER's MARK: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Suit
MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Sued Over Proposed Sequential Merger
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORT: Nixes "Honor Box" Parking System
MAXLINEAR INC: Parties to Delaware Actions Entered Into MOU

MAXLINEAR INC: Court Dismissed Khoury and Krasinski Actions
MAXLINEAR INC: "Badalato" & "Mouw" Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
MCKNIGHT'S: Medicare Review Class Action Can Proceed
MICHIGAN: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Insurance Issues
MIDATECH PHARMA: Faces "Quinn" Suit Over Proposed DARA Merger

MILLERCOORS: Faces Class Action Over Blue Moon False Advertising
MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
MISSISSIPPI: Aug. 10 Hearing Set for Foster Care Contempt Motion
MONTREAL MAINE: Judge Reserves Decision on Train Crash Settlement
MONTREAL MAINE: Canadian Pacific Challenges Settlement

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
NESTLE PURINA: National Campaign Launched Amid Beneful Action
NISKA GAS: Faces "Barringer" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger
NTN DRIVESHAFT: Law Firm to Add Plaintiffs to OT Class Action

OCEAN VIEW: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
PEPSI CO: Judge Allows Carcinogen Class Action to Proceed
PERFECT WORLD: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Perfect Peony Merger
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Nears Settlement of Civil-Forfeiture Claims
PITTSBURGH WATER: Customers File Class Action Over High Water Bill

POWER AND LIGHT: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Suit
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Approval of Deal in Open-End Funds Case Sought
REGIONS FINANCIAL: November Trial in Stockholders' Class Action
REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint
ROYAL PINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects

SAKUMA BROTHERS: Washington Berry Pickers Call for Union Contract
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Katzoff" Suit Over Planned Company Sale
SMARTHEAT INC: Settles All Claims in US Securities Class Action
SONY PICTURES: Ex-Employees' Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Mull Earthquake Class Action

ST. JUDE HERITAGE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
TENNESSEE: Seeks Dismissal of TennCare Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Repossessed Vehicle Lease
UBER TECH: Drivers Are Employees, Calif. Labor Commission Rules
UC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fugitive Spine Doctor

UNILEVER UNITED: Falsely Marketed Iced Tea Products, Suit Says
UNION PACIFIC: New Mexico Landowners File Class Action
UNITED STATES: Pro-Bono Lawyers Sought for SSA Appeals
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Medicare Delays Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: O&G Leaseholders Get Favorable Ruling in Appeal

UNITED STATES: Court Revives Immigrants' Post-9/11 Detention Suit
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Answers to Consolidated Complaint Filed
WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Ruling in Mental Health Suit
WASHINGTON: Didn't Violate Sex Discrimination Law, 9th Cir. Rules
WESTVIEW SERVICES: Faces "Darmawati" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WILLIS GROUP: Defendants' Sur-Reply Due in "Troice" Case
WILLIS GROUP: July 20 Class Certification Submission Date Vacated
YAHOO INC: Class Suit Over E-Mail Scanning Practices Can Proceed
YINGLI GREEN: Faces "Knox" Investor Class Action in California
ZAGG INC: No 10th Cir. Decision Yet in Securities Case Appeal

ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action

* 35 Firms Plead Guilty of Auto Parts Price-Fixing, Bid-Rigging
* Class Action Lawyers to Target Food Cos. After Transfat Ruling
* Class Action Litigation Funders Pose Risk for New Zealand Cos.
* Courts Tackle Ascertainability Issue in Cy Pres Awards
* Employers Need to Reassess Background Checking Processes

* European Ministers Draft New Data Protection Laws
* Non-US Companies Face More Securities Suit in 2015
* State AGs Express Concerns Over Data Breach Class Actions
* US Insurers More Likely to Face Class Action Threats


3D SYSTEMS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in South Carolina
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on June 15 filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of 3D Systems
Corporation DDD who purchased or otherwise acquired 3D's
securities between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014,

3D Systems makes content-to-print solutions -- 3D printers,
materials, and on-demand custom parts services.  It also provides
content creation and design productivity software platforms.  Its
products are most often used in commercial settings like the
aerospace/defense, healthcare, and automotive industries, as well
as consumer applications and hobbies.

The complaint alleges that Defendants drove up 3D's stock price by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
(i) ability to increase the capacity of its metal printing
business; (ii) demand for its consumer products; (iii) the value
of multiple companies it was acquiring; and (iv) expected
earnings.  The truth was finally revealed on October 22, 2014,
when the Company surprised the market by announcing disappointing
preliminary Q3 results and guided lower full year revenue and
earnings.  In a press release, the Company blamed its
disappointing results on capacity constraints for its direct metal
printers.  On this news, 3D shares plummeted over 15% on high

If you purchased 3D stock during this time period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than August 11, 2015.  Any member of the class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott --
scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:

There is no cost or fee to you.

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

AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: One Franchisee Class Action Under Mediation
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against a well-known transmission-
repair franchisor, certain affiliates and its executives has been
dismissed and is under mediation.

The lawsuit was filed against AAMCO Transmissions Inc. in 2013 by
four former AAMCO franchisees and one existing franchisee,
claiming violations of federal law against the company.

The plaintiffs -- Timothy Montileone, Rick A. Firmand, Thomas W.
Furlong Jr., Kevin Bladow and Clayton Thygerson -- claimed the
violations occurred during the process of purchasing franchises
and the course of the franchise relationships.

AAMCO, represented by Atlanta law firm Parker Hudson Rainer &
Dobbs LLP, filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss the case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Rather than opposing the motion, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their complaint and requested non-binding mediation
under the dispute resolution provision of their franchise
agreements, according to the law firm.

Judge J. Phil Gilbert dismissed the case against defendant and
AAMCO CEO Malon Wilkus with prejudice, and dismissed the case
against the remaining defendants without prejudice.

The court denied as moot the remaining motions in the case.

"We are pleased that the court granted the plaintiffs' request to
dismiss the claims," said Ron Coleman -- rcoleman@phrd.com --
partner at Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs and lead counsel for

However, another, similar lawsuit has been filed against the self-
described "world's leading transmission expert."  That class
action, filed Nov. 19, also in the Southern District of Illinois,
claims a three-pronged "scheme" by the Horshman, Pa.-based AAMCO:

- First, it allegedly fraudulently induces franchisees to
purchase centers by intentionally misrepresenting the contractual
relationship between franchisee and franchisor and the financial
prospects of the franchisee;

- Second, it allegedly willfully teaches and encourages
franchisees to engage in deceptive business practices for profit;
allegedly participates in "franchise churning," or profit through
frequent franchisee turnover; and allegedly charges the
franchisees illegal, undisclosed and inflated fees; and

- Third, it allegedly conspired with fellow defendant
Michael Ganjei -- the president of the National AAMCO Dealers
Association -- to misrepresent material information to franchisees
and mislead them about the health of the system.

Judge Michael J. Reagan is presiding over the case.

ALPHA NATURAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for April & May 2016
Alpha Natural Resources, 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 Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia has scheduled the trial in a
class action lawsuit for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative
class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of
Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI
Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee
Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represented the
plaintiff in the ACTF Litigation, and the complaint's allegations
raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation and arise
from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in the ACTF
Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a
more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore
resumed. The Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29
and May 2-6, 2016.

ALPHA NATURAL: Agreement Reached in Greene County Litigation
Alpha Natural Resources, 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 reached
agreement on definitive terms for settlement of the Greene County,
Pennsylvania litigation.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone
County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and
March 29, 2013. On January 8, 2015, the Boone County Circuit Court
dismissed all claims in the plaintiff's amended complaint. The
plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal.

On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and
certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. By agreement of the parties, the defendants' time to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint
was extended until May 7, 2015.

On April 24, 2015, the parties reached agreement on definitive
terms for settlement of the Greene County, Pennsylvania
litigation, which is subject, among other things, to the
development of definitive documentation and court approval. The
Company expects that proceeds from its insurance policies will
fund the settlement.

ANTHEM INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Health Insurance Suit
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after 13 years
of litigation, Hogan Lovells has won a defense verdict for Anthem
Inc., beating a class action brought by thousands of Connecticut
state employees seeking nearly $100 million from the insurer's
conversion to a publicly-traded company in 2001.

Following a bench trial, Hartford, Connecticut Superior Court
Judge William Bright on June 12 sided with Anthem over the
employees' breach of contract claims.  The 90-page ruling marks a
win for a Hogan Lovells trial team led by Craig Hoover.

The dispute arose out of Anthem's $1 billion transition from a
mutualized company -- in which policy holders owned company -- to
a publicly traded stock company.  The lawsuit was filed in 2002,
when lawyers at Connecticut's Rogin Nassau sued on behalf of a
proposed class of Connecticut state employees who received health
insurance through Anthem.  They claimed that they should have
received nearly $100 million in stock as part of the
demutualization.  Anthem, instead, distributed those shares to the
state of Connecticut, which provided health coverage to the

The trial court certified a class of thousands of Connecticut
employees and retirees in 2011.  Last October's bench trial
included testimony from Anthem's outside counsel during the
demutualization, including a team from Faegre Baker & Daniels led
by Tibor Klopfer.  One major issue was the interpretation of
Anthem's articles of incorporation: The plaintiffs alleged that
they, and not the state of Connecticut, should have received
compensation as mutual members.

On June 12, however, Judge Bright ruled that Anthem's reading of
the contract -- that the state of Connecticut was entitled to the
stock proceeds -- was correct.  "Anthem conducted a careful,
painstaking, months' long effort to accurately identify its
statutory members [that were entitled to the stock]," the judge

E.J. Greenspan, a Rogin Nassau lawyer who represented the state
employees, said she's disappointed with the ruling and plans to
appeal.  She was joined on the case by Rogin Nassau's Andrew
Krevolin and Matthew Wax-Krell.

Company spokesman Tony Felts welcomed Judge Bright's findings and
said the insurer maintained throughout the case that the
demutualization was fair to its members.  Anthem's defense team
also includes Hogan Lovells' Peter Bisio, Adam Levin and Erica

ANTHEM INC: Medi-Cal Review Reveals Numerous Inaccuracies
Barbara Anderson, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a
searing review of Medi-Cal managed care provider directories
released on June 16 by the California State Auditor found numerous
inaccuracies ranging from incorrect phone numbers of doctors to
listings of providers who no longer were participating in the
health plans.

Telephone calls from thousands of frustrated consumers also have
gone unanswered by the state Ombudsman Office, the audit said.
The review comes as California has enrolled more than 1.1 million
new Medi-Cal beneficiaries in 2014 under an expanded Medi-Cal
program offered through Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act is
called.  According to the audit, more than 12.2 million
Californians now rely on the state-federal insurance for people
with low incomes.  In the central San Joaquin Valley, more than
850,000 people -- nearly 43% of children and adults -- have
Medi-Cal coverage

The audit included the provider directory for Anthem Blue Cross of
Fresno County, which it found to have the highest rate of
inaccurate provider information of three plans that were studied.
Anthem and the two other plans, Health Net in Los Angeles County
and Partnership HealthPlan of California in Solano County, all had
inaccurate provider information, the audit found, but Anthem had
the highest rate at 23.4%.  Health Net had an 11.8% inaccuracy
rate and Partnership HealthPlan had a 3.1% inaccuracy rate.

Anthem spokesman Darrel Ng said the audit was flawed. Of 18 Anthem
providers out of 77 that the audit found to have inaccurate
information, only one was an error on the health plan's part, Ng
said.  "In other cases, doctors had moved and changed their
provider status, and despite what is required in their contracts,
they did not contact Anthem."

Updating provider directories is a shared responsibility between
the health plan and providers, he said.

The audit said Partnership HealthPlan in Solano County, which
visits each of its providers eight to 10 times a year, had fewer
errors in provider directories than Anthem Blue Cross, which only
recently began to actively reach out to its providers to update

Mr. Ng said Anthem wants to "provide better service to our
members, and we started going to medical groups multiple times a
year to get updated rosters of their doctors."

The audit faulted the California Department of Health Care
Services, which has oversight of Medi-Cal managed care plans, for
not verifying health plans' information and said the department
could not ensure that the health plans had adequate numbers of
providers to serve Medi-Cal beneficiaries.  The audit was ordered
by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in August 2014 to examine
the Department of Health Services' oversight of the health plans.

The Department of Health Services also did not perform annual
medical audits of health plans and has not always ensured that the
state's Managed Health Care office had performed required
quarterly adequacy assessments, the audit said.

Consumers' complaints also went unheard.  The audit said thousands
of telephone calls from Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the Medi-Cal
Managed Care Office of the Ombudsman went unanswered.

The ombudsman office was established to investigate and resolve
complaints, but the office's telephone system rejected about 7,000
to 45,000 calls per month between February 2014 and January 2015,
the audit said.  The ombudsman office said it could answer just
about 30% to 50% of the calls that the telephone system accepted.

Department of Health Services Director Jennifer Kent issued a
statement on June 16.  "DHCS agrees with many of the state
auditor's recommendations, and we have already begun to work to
implement new processes that enhance our monitoring and
certification processes," she said.

Ms. Kent said, however, that the audit targeted only a portion of
the department's efforts, which include network monitoring through
secret shopping, she said.

Advocates for health consumers said the audit shows the strain on
state agencies as the state has moved more people into Medi-Cal
managed care plans.  According to the audit, statewide about 76%
of the beneficiaries are in health plans.  The remainder are in
the fee-for-service system, which provides services and then pays
claims.  Under the managed care system, health plans provide the
care and the Department of Health Care services pays the plans a
fixed amount per month for each enrolled beneficiary.

"As we shifted more people into managed care, we didn't update the
oversight," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health
Access California, a statewide consumer advocacy coalition. The
audit confirms the need for pending reforms, including the
implementation of annual surveys of network adequacy through
Senate Bill 964, Wright said.

The state auditor made eight recommendations, including:

-- By September, the Department of Health Services should have a
process to verify the accuracy of provider network information the
health plan uses to demonstrate that it meets network adequacy

  -- By September, develop more detailed policies and procedures
for verifying the accuracy of provider directories, including
procedures for staff to select a sample size of providers, ensure
the sample size is randomly selected and retain the documents with
the review for at least three years.

The audit also said Health Care Services should implement "an
effective plan to upgrade or replace the ombudsman office's
telephone system and database."

Health plans said they work to keep online provider directories

Medi-Cal beneficiaries in Fresno County have two managed care
plans from which to choose, Anthem Blue Cross and CalViva Health.
The audit did not review CalViva, but on June 16, CalViva CEO
Gregory Hund said the plan had established a "data integrity team"
that is responsible for accuracy of both the Medi-Cal provider
directories and the demographic data the plan receives from
providers.  The plan's provider relation team also physically
visits the office of each provider that has not returned requested
demographic information, he said.

Advocates for health consumers said the stinging rebuke of the
Department of Health Services by the state shows a need for

The audit is "eye-opening and should be something the state Senate
uses to have an oversight hearing of the state Department of
Health Services," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer
Watchdog, a national nonprofit consumer group.

Court said the audit also shows that "what has happened to too
many patients in the private market is also happening in Medi-
Cal." Consumer Watchdog has a "narrow network" class action
lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California on
behalf of people who purchased individual coverage.

The California Academy of Family Physicians used the audit to push
for a 5% increase in Medi-Cal payments to doctors that was
recently approved by the state Legislature.

"The combination of inaccurate provider directories demonstrated
by this audit and Medi-Cal's bottom-of-the barrel payment rates
are leading to a crisis in access," said Dr. Jay W. Lee, president
of the 9,000-member academy.  "Primary care alone saw a more than
50% payment cut in Medi-Cal rates this year between state action
and the expiration of Affordable Care Act funding provisions."

Wright said while many patients in Medi-Cal get access to the care
they need, problems persist and oversight is needed to find them
so they can be resolved.  "At the end of the day, what's at stake
is the care of millions of Californians."

APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces N. Cal. Pipe Suit Over Proposed OM Merger
The Northern California Pipe Trades Pension Plan and The City of
Plantation Police Officers' Retirement System, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apollo Global
Management, et al., Case No. 11216 (Del. Ch., June 26, 2015), is a
class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of OM
Group, Inc. to enjoin the agreement and plan of merger with Apollo
Global Management, LLC by means of a flawed process and for an
inadequate price.

OM Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a
technology-driven industrial company serving global markets,
including automotive systems, electronic devices, aerospace and
defense, industrial and medical.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 9 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019.
Apollo owns and operates an equity firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Barry, Esq.
      David M. Haendler, Esq.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100

         - and -

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
      John Vielandi, Esq.
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (800) 554-1444
      E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com

ARGENTINA: Says Investors Who Sold Bonds Can't Join Class
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Argentina is
trying to limit investors who can sue the South American nation in
a class action to recover the value of defaulted bonds, saying if
they don't have the bonds anymore, they have to sue on their own.

Argentina defaulted on a record $95 billion of sovereign debt in
2001 and has spent the past 14 years fighting attempts by various
parties to recover what they're owed.  On June 17, lawyers for the
country asked a U.S. appeals court in New York to reverse a judge
who expanded the pool of investors who could join a group lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan failed to follow
instructions from the higher court in his rulings in eight
separate cases, the country's lawyers contend.  While bondholders
have routinely won judgments against Argentina, the nation has
consistently resisted payment, blocking its access to
international credit.

Argentina restructured about 92 percent of its debt in 2005 and
2010, offering new bonds at a discount of about 70 percent.

The restructured bondholders haven't been able to collect since
last year, when Judge Griesa blocked payment of the newer bonds.
The judge held that the new debt holders can't be paid until
Argentina pays $1.7 billion owed to a group led by hedge funds
including Paul Singer's NML Capital, a unit of Elliott Management,
that hold the older bonds.

Elliott declined to comment on the appeal.

Sanctions Request

Separately, NML asked Judge Griesa on June 17 to sanction
Argentina for allegedly disobeying his order to turn over
documents and answer questions about assets held outside the
country.  NML is seeking to seize Argentine assets to pay court
judgments it won on defaulted bond claims.

In 2012, creditors won a court order detaining an Argentine Navy
training ship, the ARA Libertad, in Ghana.  The vessel was allowed
to leave after 76 days, following a ruling by the Hamburg-based
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

In its sanctions request, NML seeks an order barring Argentina
from using defenses, including attorney-client privilege, based on
its failure to obey his orders to produce evidence.

The appeals case is Puricelli v. Republic of Argentina, 14-2104,
Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Manhattan).  The lower-court
case is NML v. Republic of Argentina, 08-cv-06978, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

ARIZONA: Settles Immersion Program Discrimination Class Action
The Associated Press reports that state and federal officials are
working to settle a complaint that alleges Arizona's program for
teaching English to children who don't speak the language is
discriminatory.  Federal authorities have been investigating the
program since 2010 after a complaint was filed alleging the
required four hours of daily instruction illegally segregated
students who don't speak English and denied them access to the
rest of their public-school education.

Michael Bradley, chief of staff for the Arizona Department of
Education, told the Arizona Capitol Times that both sides agree
students should spend less time in English immersion classes as
their skills improve, but they disagree over how to determine when
to cut back.  Federal education and U.S. Justice Department
officials want to use testing to determine when fewer hours are
necessary and require the state to hire someone to monitor the
state's Structured English Immersion program.  But the state wants
teachers to decide a student's progress and when it is time to
reduce the amount of instruction, Bradley said.

The immersion program, whose participants account for 7 percent of
the state's public school enrollment, requires students to spend
four hours a day learning English.  The State Board of Education
voted in December to allow schools to cut the hours of instruction
in half for second-year students who are improving.

The question of whether four hours a day learning English is legal
is also before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court fight is part of the 22-year-old Flores v. Arizona class
action in which a Nogales, Arizona, student alleged the state was
providing inadequate English Language Learner instruction in
violation of federal law.

ASSURANT INC: Facing Class Actions Over Insurance Programs
Assurant, 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 a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases allege a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions. The Company has accrued
an estimated loss for this litigation.

AT&T INC: Illegally Charges TV Surcharge, "Gordon" Suit Claims
Robert Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-09936 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 25, 2015), is brought on behalf of all of AT&T's customers
who have U-verse TV on vacation and were wrongfully charged a TV
surcharge of $3.99 per month.

AT&T, Inc. owns and operates a telecommunications company,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony B. Gordon, Esq.
      Cook County Code #44381
      78 Cumberland Drive
      Lincolnshire, IL 60069
      Telephone: (773) 616-3705
      E-mail: abrandongordon@hotmail.com

AT&T MOBILITY: Vows to Fight Fine Over Unlimited Data Plans
The Associated Press reports that AT&T Mobility LLC has been
slapped with a record $100 million fine for offering consumers
"unlimited" data, but then slowing their Internet speeds after
they reached a certain amount.  The company says it will fight the

The Federal Communications Commission said on June 17 that the
company misled consumers into buying plans they believed would
give them unlimited ability to send and receive data, including
Web browsing, GPS navigation and streaming videos.  But once the
consumer hit a certain level, the data on unlimited plans would be
slowed down significantly, at speeds lower than advertised, the
FCC said.

AT&T said it would "vigorously dispute" the fine, which was the
largest proposed in FCC history.  If AT&T can provide evidence
that the FCC allegations are wrong, the fine could be reduced.
Otherwise, if AT&T refuses to pay, it's possible the two sides
will wind up in court.

"The FCC has specifically identified this practice as a legitimate
and reasonable way to manage network resources for the benefit of
all customers, and has known for years that all of the major
carriers use it," the company said in a statement released to
reporters.  "We have been fully transparent with our customers,
providing notice in multiple ways and going well beyond the FCC's
disclosure requirements."

It's not unusual for phone companies to slow, or "throttle,"
speeds on a network as a way to manage congestion.  Verizon slows
down speeds for its heaviest users, but only on certain
smartphones when there is congestion. Once the bottleneck eases,
speeds return to normal.

Until this spring, AT&T was slowing speeds until the customer's
next billing cycle, even when there was no congestion.  Both
Verizon and AT&T had phased out their unlimited plans after data
usage grew following the iPhone's launch in 2007. Existing
customers, however, were able to keep their unlimited plans.

The FCC says AT&T's approach to unlimited plans violated the
agency's transparency rule.

"Unlimited means unlimited," said Travis LeBlanc, the FCC
enforcement bureau chief.  "As today's action demonstrates, the
commission is committed to holding accountable those broadband
providers who fail to be fully transparent about data limits."

The hefty fine by the FCC comes on the heels of a federal lawsuit
filed against the company last fall.  The Federal Trade
Commission, which enforces rules against deceptive advertising,
said it wants to refund customers who were offered the unlimited
data packages, only to be given slower data speeds than
advertised.  That lawsuit is still working its way through a
federal court in California.

Earlier this year, the FTC accused TracFone Wireless of similar
tactics.  TracFone agreed to settle the case for $40 million.

AT&T Mobility is located in Atlanta and is a subsidiary of Dallas-
based AT&T Inc.

AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Flood Victims Mull Class Action
Louisa Rebgetz, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm
acting for residents who were flooded when a super-storm dumped
torrential rain north of Brisbane in May says it will be talking
to the Queensland Government about buying back flood-affected

Up to 100 homes in Deception Bay, Rothwell and Mango Hill, were
inundated in the May 1 deluge, which dumped up to 360 millimetres
of rain in less than 24 hours.

About 100 residents gathered at a community meeting at North Lakes
to discuss a potential class action.

The State Government launched its own investigation and is waiting
on a report to determine whether construction on a nearby Moreton
Bay rail link caused the homes to be flooded.

A preliminary hydrologist's report, commissioned by Shine Lawyers,
indicated works related to the rail link had contributed to the
inundation of homes.  That report found the construction of an
embankment and concrete barriers at the Moreton Bay Rail Link may
have impeded the drainage of storm water, compounding the flooding
of nearby homes.

Class action could be avoided, lawyer says

However, Shine Lawyers spokesman George Newhouse said court action
may be avoided.  "We really need to work cooperatively with
Government to find out what they are going to do to ensure the
water doesn't build up and flood again," he said.

"If it is going to flood again, there may be a need for buy-backs
and that is something we will be taking up with the Government as

"It may be that the Government has a compensation scheme that
doesn't require people to go to court and have a class action.

"But if it is clear that a man-made event caused this flooding,
then the Government may work together with the people that caused
the flooding to have a scheme were people can make claims without
going through a court process."

Mr. Newhouse said the firm's preliminary inquiries indicated that
works related to the rail link had contributed to the flood that
night.  "That's not determinative -- we need to get to the bottom
of it and that's one of the reasons why we are here today," he

Locals worries flooding could happen again

Rothwell resident Karen De Bruin said locals were worried that
flooding would happen again.  "Our biggest problem is how we sleep
at night -- can we worry about the next shower, next storm? Is it
going to happen again," she said.

Fellow resident Charmaine Palmer said she thought the rail link
construction was to blame.  "Ninety per cent of it was the
construction because we wouldn't have got flooded that high, with
that much rain that had come through," she said.

AUSTRALIA: Intellectually Disabled Workers Can Get Back Pay
Dan Harrison, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
intellectually disabled workers who were paid as little as $1 an
hour will have to waive their right to make discrimination claims
if they accept a government payment equivalent to 50 per cent of
what they are owed.

Legislation to set up the scheme passed the Senate on June 15 with
the support of crossbench senators Nick Xenophon, Bob Day, David
Leyonhjelm, John Madigan, Ricky Muir and Zhenya "Dio" Wang.

The Abbott government announced the payment scheme proposal last
year after law firm Maurice Blackburn lodged a class action to
recover lost wages for more than 10,000 workers.  The wages of
these workers were calculated using the Business Services Wage
Assessment Tool, which the Federal Court has ruled discriminated
against people with intellectual disability.  Under the
government's payment scheme, workers will be required to give up
their right to sue for back pay in return for a payment equivalent
to 50 per cent of their owed wages.

Assistant Minister for Social Services Mitch Fifield, who has
responsibility for disabilities, has argued the government scheme,
which is voluntary, offers workers "a guaranteed outcome and a
swift and transparent process," which includes independent legal
and financial advice paid for by the Commonwealth.  He has said
without the scheme, workers would have no option but to
participate in a "lengthy legal battle with an uncertain outcome".

Labor sought to amend the legislation to allow workers to accept a
payment without giving up their right to pursue other claims, but
the government rejected this proposal.

The Australian Greens joined Labor, and former Palmer United Party
senators Glenn Lazarus and Jacqui Lambie in voting against the
bill.  Greens spokeswoman on disabilities Rachel Siewert said the
payment scheme continued the unfairness of the discriminatory wage
tool, because workers would be inadequately compensated for their
lost wages.

"The clear message from the people with disabilities and peak
disability organizations was that this bill should not have passed
the Senate," Senator Siewert said.

"It is such a shame that people with disability affected now have
to choose between a lump sum or class action."

In April, the Australian Human Rights Commission granted disabilty
enterprises an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act to
continue paying wages calculated using the tool until August 31,
while a new wage assessment tool is developed.

The government has provided $173 million to help develop a new
wage tool and to assist disability enterprises with transition

          Back Pay Offer May Jeopardize DDA Class Action

Bridie Jabour, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class
action on behalf of workers with disabilities who were paid as
little as $1 an hour could be jeopardized by the Senate's decision
to offer them half of what they are owed if they waive their right
to sue.

Up to 10,000 people with intellectual disabilities who were
employed by Australian Disability Enterprises were paid as little
as $1 an hour after their wages were determined by a tool the
federal court has found breached the Disability Discrimination
Act.  The workers are in the process of undertaking a class action
with the law firm Maurice Blackburn but on June 15 the Senate
passed legislation allowing the government to offer the workers up
to half of what they are owed.  The condition is that they drop
any claims to sue.

The head of employment law at Maurice Blackburn, Josh Bornstein,
said the workers and their parents had been the subject of a
"scare campaign" to have them take up to the offer.

The government has not officially revealed the potential total of
payments but Bornstein said one of the central claimants had been
underpaid by $25,000, so he would be offered up to $12,500.

"It's [the legislation] designed to curtail the class action . . .
my gut feeling is that there'll be a lot of pressure and
persuasion applied to the workers with the intellectual
disabilities to sign off," he told Guardian Australia.

"Their parents have already been subjected to a scare campaign
that if a class action goes ahead their child is likely to lose
their job."

The legislation first came before the Senate in 2014 but was voted
down.  It was introduced again on June 15 and the independents
John Madigan and Nick Xenophon and the Australian Motoring
Enthusiast party's Ricky Muir changed their votes to in favor.
The Family First senator Bob Day, Liberal Democrat David
Leyonhjelm and Palmer United Party senator Dio Wang also voted for
the legislation.

The only crossbenchers to vote against it were independents Jacqui
Lambie and Glenn Lazarus.

Mr. Bornstein said he wanted the crossbenchers to explain why they
had changed their votes and that it would be three to six months
before he would know if the class action was still viable.

Patricia McKenzie's daughter Kate has Down syndrome and earns $114
a fortnight working 9am to 4pm doing process work and putting baby
product samples together.  Ms. McKenzie was concerned that if
wages for people with disabilities employed under disability
enterprises were to increase then people could lose their jobs.

"Obviously it would be great if everyone who has a disability was
paid in the same wages everyone else gets, but the fact is that it
costs a lot of money to be able to support people with disability
into the workforce," Ms. McKenzie told ABC's Radio National.

"The money to Kate is nowhere near as important to Kate as the
dignity of work."

Liz Nojins, whose son Michael has cerebral palsy and is in his
40s, has been central to the case and said it was not about the
money but "getting the bastards who screwed" her son.

"To see your son go year in, year out, starting at an activity
centre which is pretty pathetic to take 24 years to get to $1.85
an hour is a heartbreaking thing to watch," she said.

"My son needs holidays, he needs clothes, he needs and wants all
the things that everyone else has at his age and he can't afford
them and he can't understand why. In his view he has a job, he's
working so why can't he have the other things people have jobs

The assistant minister for social services, Mitch Fifield, said
the payment scheme was about giving people involved in the matter
"an additional option".

"The government payment scheme will guarantee additional funds to
supported employees and an alternative to legal proceedings with
an uncertain outcome," he said.

Disability enterprises have been granted an exemption to the
Disability Discrimination Act until 31 August while a new wage
assessment took is developed.

BP PLC: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Impact of "Kayne" Ruling
Lyndsey Delamont, Esq. and Douglas Scott, Esq. of McCarthy
Tetrault report that recent developments suggest that the ongoing
success of the Canadian plaintiffs' bar in obtaining certification
of global securities class actions may be illusory.  On March 26,
2015, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal from the
judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") in Kaynes v. BP,
Plc, 2014 ONCA 580 ("Kaynes").  Kaynes, depending on how it is
interpreted by other Canadian courts, has the potential to reverse
the growing trend of global class action certification in Canada.

In Kaynes, the plaintiffs sought certification of a global
securities class action alleging that BP PLC made
misrepresentations in its financial statements with respect to the
April 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The plaintiffs sought certification in Canada despite the fact
that BP shares do not trade on a Canadian exchange.  In
overturning the decision of the Ontario Superior Court to certify
the proposed class, the ONCA surprised observers by citing the US
principle that securities litigation should take place in the
forum where the related securities transaction(s) took place.
This "transactional" test, firmly entrenched in the United States
by the 2010 US Supreme Court ("USSC") decision Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd. (Morrison), contrasts starkly with
the general Canadian approach in which the holder of a foreign
security may participate in a Canadian class action so long as
there is a "real and substantial connection" to the applicable
Canadian province. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17.
Kaynes did not reject the "real and substantial connection" test.
However, Kaynes significantly limited its application by holding
that, on the facts of the case, principles of international comity
dictate adhering to the US standard tying jurisdiction to the
place where the securities were traded.

The precise impact of Kaynes on Canadian certification standards
for global securities class actions remains unclear.

BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Sept. 17 Hearing Set for Speed Camera Suit
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that the
judge presiding over the New Miami speed camera case is in no
hurry to make any rulings while one issue in the case is still
pending before the 12th District Court of Appeals.

Butler County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Oster, who used to
work in the prosecutor's appellate division, peppered the
attorneys for both sides of the case with questions on June 17.
It was the first time he has had the opportunity to meet with
lawyers in the case since he inherited the "big green folder" from
now retired Judge Michael Sage.

Wilson Weisenfelder, the village's attorney, asked for the hearing
to get clarification on Judge Oster's February ruling confirming
Sage's declaration that the speed catchers are unconstitutional.

Two Butler County and two Cincinnati residents sued New Miami over
the virtually automatic $95 speeding tickets, and Judge Sage
approved establishing the plaintiffs' case as a class action.  The
case was appealed to the 12th District only on the class-action
order.  That court sent it back saying Judge Sage had to more
clearly state his reasons for approving the class.  Judge Sage
sent his reasons for approving the class as well as his thoughts
on the constitutional question to the 12th District just before he
left office.  The 12th District is still pondering the case.

The village filed a motion in December saying since none of the
plaintiffs in the local case went through the administrative
hearing process, they don't have standing -- based on the Supreme
Court ruling in Walker v. Toledo -- to challenge the cameras.  The
high court ruled that the administrative hearings many
jurisdictions use as opposed to municipal court hearings are fine,
but also said the administrative hearings must be exhausted before
judicial remedies can be pursued.

Mr. Weisenfelder told the judge the Walker ruling squarely knocks
the plaintiff's first claim about the administrative hearings out
of the case, and the judge appeared to agree with him.  However,
he said he cannot usurp the appeals court's authority.  He said if
he ruled on the parts of the complaint the way the defense wanted
him too, he would basically make "moot" any decision by the 12th
District on the class issue, and that is not allowed.

"I'm not trying to be confrontational," Judge Oster told
Mr. Weisenfelder.  "I'm trying to say how can I make a ruling
where the 12th District's going to say 'what are they doing down
there in Hamilton, taking away our ability to do that' (decide the

The plaintiff's are challenging New Miami's ordinance because
during an administrative hearing, which New Miami was using,
drivers are not entitled to call witnesses or present evidence,
civil procedure rules don't apply, which the plaintiffs' attorney
Josh Engel says violate due process protections.  He conceded the
high court's Walker decision might have settled part of the case,
but not all.

"If you look at the assignments of error that are presented in
Walker, none of the assignments of error deal with due process
issues," Mr. Engel told Judge Oster, after the judge said the high
court case isn't terribly instructive on due process.  "Therefore
there is no reason to suggest the court wanted to consider that."

The speed cameras were installed in 2012 and after 15 months in
operation, the village collected about $1.8 million on 44,993

While these matters have been bouncing back and forth through the
appellate system the legislature passed a law that gives
guidelines for using speed cameras, including the fact a police
officer must be stationed at the cameras.

New Miami has passed a new ordinance that complies with the new
law and Mr. Weisenfelder filed a motion with Judge Oster asking
him to lift the ban and allow the new ordinance to take effect.
The two sides have added that issue to the list of motions still
unsolved in the case.

Judge Oster set another hearing in the case for Sept. 17.  The
12th District opinion should be in by then so the judge won't have
to worry about usurping anyone's authority.

CANADA: 60s Scoop Adoptees Seek Apology for Loss of Identity
Kim Smith, writing for Global News, reports that many of the '60s
Scoop' adoptees are seeking justice through a class-action lawsuit
filed in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.  The Regina-based
Merchant Law Group is representing more than a thousand Indigenous
survivors, including Bluewaters.

"The impact upon people's lives is difficult to put into dollars
and it usually depends on the kinds of wrongdoing to which they
were subjected," said Tony Merchant.

Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger was scheduled to issue an apology
for the '60s Scoop' in order to acknowledge the damage done to
cultural identity.  Merchant said it's a step towards

"It's an acknowledgement that the courts will consider," said

Maggie Bluewaters became part of the so-called '60s Scoop' at the
age of four-and-a-half.

"Even as a child, I knew it was wrong," said Ms. Bluewaters in an
interview to Global News on June 12. "I suffered much abuse,
pretty much from day one.  Not only loss of identity but also
severe sexual abuse."

Ms. Bluewaters, from the Montreal Lake Cree Nation, said she was
taken from her family and adopted into a non-Indigenous household
in central Saskatchewan until the age of 16.

"I have found two siblings so far and there are seven of us.   I
still do not know if my mother is dead or alive."

Now at the age of 57, Ms. Bluewaters said she's still healing:
"The spiritual part of my life is still a work in progress."

                 Metis Head Not Happy with Apology

Chinta Puxley, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Manitoba's Metis federation says its people are being left out of
an apology for aboriginal children who were taken from their homes
and placed with non-aboriginal families.

President David Chartrand said no one from the Manitoba government
consulted with the Metis or formally invited him to the event set
for June 18 at the legislature.  The Metis were left out of the
residential school settlement and it feels like the same thing is
happening again, he said.

Manitoba appears to be blaming Ottawa for what is known as the
'60s Scoop when it was provincial social workers who seized
aboriginal children and placed them with families as far away as
the southern United States, Mr. Chartrand said in an interview.

"It's the province that took our children.  It's the province that
sold our children to the United States and other places.  It's the
province that did harm to my families.

"Clearly we're not going to let the province get away from this."

Premier Greg Selinger is set to deliver an apology to aboriginal
adoptees in what is thought to be the first by a Canadian
province.  The substance of the apology has not been released, but
Mr. Selinger said it will acknowledge damage done to those taken
from their homes and their culture.

Paul McKie, spokesman for Mr. Selinger, said numerous aboriginal
organizations have been invited to witness the apology.  The
Manitoba Metis Federation was invited on June 12 by phone, by
email and formally by letter, he said.

The province, along with affected adoptees, has been working on
the apology for months, he said.

"Many people, groups and organizations have been invited,"
Mr. McKie said.  "There were informal consultations with many

From the 1960s to the 1980s, thousands of aboriginal children were
taken from their homes by child-welfare services and placed with
non-aboriginal families.  Adoptees have been fighting for
recognition of their experience and a formal apology similar to
that given to survivors of residential schools.  Many have filed
class-action lawsuits in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and

An apology without a plan and proper consultation with those
affected is empty, said Mr. Chartrand, who has worked with '60s
Scoop adoptees and their families for years.

"You can't just say 'I'm sorry' and walk away.  You did permanent
damage here. You tore entire communities apart.  Maybe they're
thinking if they say 'I'm sorry' that ends my responsibility."

Grand Chief David Harper, with Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak
which represents northern First Nations, still remembers children
being taken away from his community, never to be seen again.  He
said he will be there to witness the apology but will also be
looking for more.

Many adoptees are still trying to find their roots, he said.  They
need counselling and help with repatriation, he said.

"I'm very glad that the premier is doing the honorable thing,"
Mr. Harper said.  "But words are one thing.  Action is another.
What kind of action is there for these people?"

CASH CONVERTERS: Settles Excessive Interest Class Suit for $23MM
Sky News reports that more than 37,000 Cash Converters customers
who claimed they were charged excessive interest on short-term
loans will get refunds after a multi-million dollar class action
was settled out of court.  The $23 million in-principle settlement
was reached between the pawn broker and about 37,500 of its NSW
customers on June 18.

Lawyers for the customers said settlement was still subject to
Federal Court approval, but it signalled a "significant victory"
for the customers, many of whom ended up paying up to seven times
what they should have in interest on personal loans.

"Our understanding is and our expectation is that all of the group
members will receive all of their overcharge plus interest.  It's
a particularly impressive settlement," Maurice Blackburn principal
Ben Slade told reporters.

The class action covers all NSW Cash Converters customers who took
out short term loans from July 2010 until consumer lending laws
changed in July 2013.

Maurice Blackburn argued Cash Converters got around state laws
capping interest rates by having borrowers sign a document that
committed them to repay their loans early, but which also caused
interest rates to soar seven-fold on one-month cash advance loans,
and more than double on seven-month loans.

Lead plaintiff Julie Gray said she was very happy with the

"It has been a long and hard road but I just hope this has helped
a lot of people," said Ms Gray, a disability pensioner from
Cambridge Park in Sydney's west.

She warned prospective borrowers not to use pay day lenders like
Cash Converters, saying she got caught in "spiralling debt".

"I would advise them not to do it, it can get very depressing,"
Ms. Gray said.

"There's other avenues you can take that I wasn't aware of . . .
that's the reason I would never go back."

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Miranda Nagy said Ms Gray had paid $60 a
fortnight on a $600 loan instead of $10 a fortnight because she
was locked into a seven month repayment period.

Cash Converters said it would pay $20 million into a fund to be
distributed to members of the class action, while another $3
million would be used to pay court costs.

"Cash Converters is pleased to bring this litigation to a close
without any admission of liability," the company said.

CASTLE & COOKE: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Class Action
Barbara S. Mishkin, Esq. of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
JD Supra, report that a California federal judge has rejected the
attempt of Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC, the mortgage company that
entered into a consent order with the CFPB in November 2013 to
settle charges that it violated the Regulation Z loan originator
compensation rule, to dismiss two counts of an amended class
action complaint filed against it by a consumer who received
redress under the consent order.  The amended complaint alleged
violations of TILA, violations of the Utah Residential Mortgage
Practices and Licensing Act, unjust enrichment under Utah law, and
as to a California subclass, violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL). (The original complaint also included a
RESPA claim.)

The mortgage company sought dismissal of the unjust enrichment and
UCL claims.  The court rejected the mortgage company's argument
that the plaintiff could not pursue equitable relief because his
TILA claim provided him with an adequate legal remedy.  According
to the court, the plaintiff could alternatively plead unjust
enrichment because it was too early in the case to determine if
the plaintiff's TILA claim was viable.

The mortgage company also argued that because the UCL only
provides for equitable relief in the form of restitution or an
injunction, the plaintiff's UCL claim was precluded by his TILA
claim.  In addition, it argued that the plaintiff had not shown
any ongoing TILA violation that an injunction would prevent on a
prospective basis or that restitution was available to force the
mortgage company to give up something it was not entitled to and
that plaintiff should have been allowed to keep.  In refusing to
dismiss the UCL claim, the court indicated that resolution of such
issues went beyond the confines of a motion to dismiss and
"whether Plaintiff or any class member is entitled to restitution
beyond that already paid by the CFPB is similarly not amenable to
determination at the pleadings stage."

The mortgage company appears not to have argued that the redress
obtained by the plaintiff pursuant to the CFPB consent order
barred the filing of the class action.  In the absence of releases
from affected consumers, a company does not necessarily achieve
finality as to issues involved in a CFPB enforcement action by
entering into a CFPB consent order.

CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case
In In re: Chase Bank USA, N.A. "CHECK Loan" Contract Litigation.
Daniel J. Herbison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-15637, Daniel Herbison was held in
civil contempt by the district court for violating an order
approving a class action settlement. He appealed from the contempt
finding the fee award, but dismiss the appeal from the contempt
finding for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Chase argued that the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the fee award because the
stipulated order fixing the fee amount was not mentioned in the
notice of appeal.

According to a June 12, 2015 memorandum entered by the Ninth
Circuit, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1InVMcT
from Leagle.com, the decision to impose fees was explained in the
earlier contempt order, which is named in the notice of appeal,
and Herbison challenged the fee award in his opening brief.  Thus,
there was no abuse of discretion in awarding fees.

However, the Ninth added that it lacks jurisdiction to review the
contempt finding.

The district court ruling is therefore affirmed in part, and
dismissed in part, the Ninth Circuit concluded.

CITIBANK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
The Pennsylvania Record reports that Benjamin Michael Merryman,
Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, Benjamin Michael Merryman Trust and B
Merrman and A Merryman Fourth Generation Remainder Trust filed a
lawsuit June 2 in U.S. District Court in Arkansas against Citibank
Group. Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph H. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Sharan Nirmul and Jonathan Neumann --
jneumann@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP in

The lawsuit claimed the bank would take out fees from dividends
and cash distributions that were issued by foreign companies
without disclosing it to consumers.  The lawsuit further stated
the fees were "unreasonable" in nature.  The plaintiffs also claim
Citi schemed to secretly assign an unfavorable exchange rate when
foreign companies would convert cash distributions that were not
U.S. dollars prior to issuing the payment to the account holder.

The lawsuit claims Citi "skimed millions of dollars from cash
distributions owed and payable to" its account holders.  The
plaintiffs analyzed 610 cash distributions over 22 different
currencies between 2000 and 2015.  The lawsuit seeks class status
for those who had Citi accounts and dealt with foreign exchange
rates between 2000 and 2015.  The plaintiffs believe damages are
more than $5 million plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are also represented by Amy C. Martin of Everett,
Wales and Comstock in Fayetteville, Ark., and G. Chadd Mason of
Mason Law Firm, PLC in Fayetteville.

COLLEGE BOARD: Students Mull Class Action Over SAT Printing Errors
Valerie Strauss, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
The College Board, owner of the SAT, is dumping not one but two
sections of the June 6 SAT because of printing errors in the
instruction booklets given in the United States -- and it has
revised its explanation for what happened on that day when
hundreds of thousands of students took the college entrance exam.

Students, parents and others are questioning whether final test
results, which normally include scores from 10 sections, can be
the same with two sections discarded.  The College Board says that
the results can be the same because the test is designed to
collect enough information, even if the entire test is not scored.
Test prep experts say this situation has never happened with the
SAT before in the United States.

The errors have prompted some students to petition the College
Board to allow them to retake the SAT in October for free, while
some students and parents are discussing other options, including
a class-action lawsuit, according to FairTest, or the National
Center for Fair and Open Testing, which alerted me to the change
in the College Board's statement.  FairTest is also calling for
the College Board to reimburse a portion of applicants'
registration fees because more than 22 percent of the items on the
test are now not being scored.

Some students are reporting on social media and Web sites that
when they called the College Board to talk about the problem, they
were told that they can retake the SAT for free.  A College Board
official who answered some questions about this issue did not
address whether students have been offered a chance to retake the
SAT for free.  There is nothing on the College Board Web site
telling students they get to retake the test for free.

It is not known exactly how many students took the SAT on June 6,
but about 487,000 people registered for it, and all are affected,
said the College Board, which has the SAT administered by the
Educational Testing Service, or ETS.

The board's initial statement about the problem indicated that one
section would be discarded.  In a Q&A, one of the questions was:
"How is it possible to not score a whole section and still have
valid scores?" A revision of the statement now on the Web site has
this question instead: "How is it possible to not score two
sections and still have valid scores?

The original statement also said that there were printing errors
in either a reading or math section:

"[T]here was a printing error in the standard test books ETS
provided to students taking the SAT(R) on June 6 in the United
States.  The time allotted for a specific math or reading section
-- either section 8 or 9, depending on the edition -- was
incorrect in the student test books but correct in the script and
manual provided to test center supervisors."

The newer statement says there was an error only in one section
but that two sections were affected as a result:

The time allotted for the last reading section was incorrect in
the student test books but correct in the script and manual
provided to test center supervisors.  The copy in the student test
books indicated "25 minutes" while the manual and script indicated
the correct time limit of "20 minutes."  Because of the way the
SAT is administered, while the misprint appeared in the last
reading section, students may have been taking the last math
section in the same room at the same time, and also would be

I asked Zach Goldberg, director of media relations for the College
Board, whether June 6 SAT takers were being allowed to take the
test in October for free, and he provided only a partial answer,
not responding to the "for free" part:

As we've previously emailed, we take our responsibility to
students very seriously. While students who tested on June 6 will
receive valid scores, the next opportunity to take the SAT will be
in October.

Asked about the number of sections now being discarded, he sent me
the wording now on the Web site without mentioning that there had
been a change.

This is what the Web site says now:

Q: What happened during the June 6 administration of the SAT?

Shortly before noon Eastern time on Saturday, June 6, Educational
Testing Service (ETS) informed the College Board that there was a
printing error in the standard test books ETS provided to students
taking the SAT(R) on June 6 in the United States.  The time
allotted for the last reading section was incorrect in the student
test books but correct in the script and manual provided to test
center supervisors.  The copy in the student test books indicated
"25 minutes" while the manual and script indicated the correct
time limit of "20 minutes."  Because of the way the SAT is
administered, while the misprint appeared in the last reading
section, students may have been taking the last math section in
the same room at the same time, and also would be affected.

As soon as ETS became aware of the error during the administration
of the test, it worked to provide accurate guidance to supervisors
and administrators.

Q: Will my scores be available and still be delivered to colleges
and universities?

After a comprehensive review and statistical analysis, the College
Board and ETS have determined that the last reading and last math
sections will not be scored, and that we will still be able to
provide reliable scores for all students who took the SAT on June
6. We expect to deliver scores within the usual time frame.

Colleges and universities will know these scores are valid.

Q: How is it possible to not score two sections and still have
valid scores?

The SAT consists of three Tests: Reading, Writing, and Math --
with each test having multiple sections.  To accommodate the wide
range of incidents that can impact a testing experience, the SAT
is designed to collect enough information to provide valid and
reliable scores even with an additional unscored section within a
test.  From fire drills and power outages to mistiming and
disruptive behavior, school-based test administrations can be
fragile, so our assessments are not.

We have deliberately constructed each test to include three equal
sections with roughly the same level of difficulty.  If one of the
three sections is jeopardized, the correlation among sections is
sufficient to be able to deliver reliable scores.

Q: Who does this affect?

All students who took the SAT on June 6 in the United States are
affected.  This does not affect students who took the SAT on
Sunday, June 7, or any SAT Subject Test offered that day.

That statement has a time stamp saying it was updated June 8,
2015, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern time.  However, I took the earlier
statement from the College Board Web site late on the night of
June 8.  FairTest education director Bob Schaeffer said that Web
archives show the statement wasn't changed until at least June 9
and probably later.  Tweets by the College Board to students on
one of its Twitter accounts show that on June 9, it was saying
that one section would not be scored.

COLLEGE BOARD: To Waive Fee for June 6 Student SAT Takers
Valeri Strauss, writing for The Washington Post, reports that The
College Board said on June 15 that it will now waive fees for any
student in the United States who took the June 6 SAT but wants to
retake it because of irregularities with the administration of the
exam.  The unprecedented decision was made after the College Board
was forced to discard two of 10 sections of the SAT because of
printing errors on test booklets -- and students and parents
expressed concerns about the reliability of the scores.

The College Board, which owns the SAT, has said repeatedly that
the final scores would be as reliable as if the entire test had
been graded because the SAT is designed to collect enough
information even if the entire test is not scored.  Shortly after
the June 6 test printing error was discovered, the College Board
said it would not score one section, but then said two sections
would be discarded.  That, according to FairTest, or the nonprofit
National Center for Free and Open testing, represents 22 percent
of the SAT.

Students and parents have been calling the College Board asking
for a free make-up of the SAT and/or refunds.  One Long Island,
N.Y., student named Julia Ellinghaus filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn
Federal Court seeking class-action status for all June 6 SAT test-
takers against the College Board and the Educational Testing
Service, which administers the SAT, according to the New York
Daily News in this story.  She is seeking unspecified monetary
damages and suggests that students be able to retake the test for

That's just what the College Board has decided to do.  At 9:00
p.m. on June 15, it updated a statement on the College Board
website about the printing error, putting the news of a free SAT
retake for June 6 test-taker near the bottom.  Zach Goldberg,
director of media relations for the College Board, noted the
change in an e-mail, which said:

"We remain confident in the reliability of scores from the June 6
administration of the SAT and don't want to cause undue anxiety
for students by making them believe they need to sit for the test
again.  However, we have waived the fee for the October SAT
administration for students who let us know that their testing
experience was negatively affected by the printing error and we
will continue to do so."

It is not known exactly how many students took the SAT on June 6,
but about 487,000 people registered for it, and all are affected,
said the College Board.

The problem developed when students taking the SAT on June 6
discovered that the time allotted for one section, the last
reading section, said 25 minutes rather than the 20 minutes they
were supposed to have.  Because of the way the test is
administered, some students were taking the final math section at
the same time as some were taking the reading section with the
misprinted timing instruction, the College Board said.

How many students will choose to retake the test -- which is next
given in October -- is unclear.  It is also unclear as to whether
June 6 students can see the results of the June 6 test before
deciding to retake it for free.

Most of the students taking the June 6 test were thought to be
high school juniors planning to apply to college this coming fall
and winter for admission in fall 2016.  For students who want to
apply as early as possible to schools with rolling college
admissions, an October SAT test date could mean a delayed
application because some schools start accepting applications as
early as Sept. 1.

FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer said in a
statement: "The decision not to score two entire test sections is
unprecedented in the history of the SAT.  It is not justified by
anything we have seen in the published literature about the exam."

COOPER CITY, FL: Hearing Today in Suit Over EMS Assessment Fees
Brian Ballou, writing for South Florida Sun-Sentinel, reports that
the Cooper City erred in collecting more than $3 million from
residents for an assessment for emergency medical services from
2006 to 2009, a class-action lawsuit alleges.  And the residents
want their money back.

The lawsuit is seeking to do just that.  First filed in 2011, the
lawsuit went though an appeal process of almost two years before a
Broward circuit judge ruled in favor of the residents, allowing
the claim to proceed. A hearing is set for July 7.

The lawsuit is based upon rulings in similar cases in Florida,
specifically one in 2003 in which a judge decided that a special
assessment to fund emergency medical services was

The city passed an ordinance in 1999 which authorized an annual
assessment of fire-rescue services.  The lawsuit alleges the city
used the assessment to fund emergency medical services.

"Basically, the assessment has to benefit property and not the
occupant," said David Frankel, co-counsel for the residents.
"Fire assessments benefit property, but an EMS assessment benefits
the occupants and that's not proper based upon previous rulings,"
he said.

Mr. Frankel said the City specifically attempted to recoup costs
for EMS service, which constituted the vast majority of all
emergency calls to fire and EMS services.

But David Wolpin, the attorney representing the city, said the
lawsuit is without basis.

"The city's annual fire assessments were properly made, collected
and spent to provide excellent fire protection services," he said.

Approximately 10,000 homeowners and business owners are included
in the lawsuit.  Walter Jolliff, one of three plaintiffs named in
the lawsuit, said he was the likely the first resident to bring up
the matter before the commission and said he felt as though those
officials ignored his concerns.

"Well they didn't listen to me, and one commissioner told me that
if I didn't like it that I could sue, so that's what I did,"
Mr. Jolliff said.  He added that he paid out approximately $700
over the four year span.

Circuit Judge Marina Garcia-Wood is presiding over the case and
while it is possible she could make a ruling on the day of the
hearing, she'll likely decide the case at a later date.

DOW CHEMICAL: No Settlement Yet in Polyurethane Price-Fixing Suit
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that Dow Chemical Co
and plaintiffs that won a $1.06 billion judgment against the
company over claims it artificially inflated polyurethane prices
indicated in a Supreme Court filing on June 15 they were settling
the case but then abruptly backtracked.

Both sides now say no settlement has been reached.

Lawyers for Dow and for the companies that sued the chemical giant
for alleged price fixing filed a joint motion with the court on
June 15 saying the parties had "reached a written settlement,"
conditioned upon the Supreme Court justices putting the case on
hold.  The court docket noted that the motion was then withdrawn.

The court has not yet acted on the petition filed by Dow
contesting the judgment but the docket indicates the case has not
been put on hold.

Dow spokeswoman Rebecca Bentley said in a statement that because
the Supreme Court did not act on the motion immediately "a
condition precedent for a potential settlement was not met and
there is no settlement."

Ms. Bentley added that the company "has explored options and will
continue to be open to options to appropriately resolve this
lengthy class action litigation."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, companies that purchased chemicals
from Dow, also issued a statement confirming no settlement had
been reached.

"The plaintiff class of businesses overcharged by Dow's price
fixing is confident that the jury's verdict, which has been upheld
by every federal judge to review it, will continue to be
vindicated on appeal," the statement said.

Polyurethanes are chemical products used to make consumer and
industrial goods such as car seating, footwear, insulation and
mattress foam.

Several companies including Dow had been accused in a 2005 lawsuit
of conspiring to fix prices of urethane chemicals in the preceding
six years.

Dow was the only defendant not to settle, only to be found liable
in February 2013 by a federal jury in Kansas City, Kansas for $400
million of damages.

That sum was tripled under antitrust law to $1.2 billion, and then
reduced to $1.06 billion plus interest because of other

The case is Dow v. Industrial Polymers Inc, U.S. Supreme Court,

EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT: Mutual Plan Head Mulls Class Action
The Economic Times reports that after he retires, the head of a
leading mutual fund house plans to file a class action suit
against the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).  This
will be his argument: By delaying the decision to invest in
stocks, the EPFO didn't allow retirement funds gain from the 700
per cent rise in the Sensex in the past 20 years.

The man may not be serious but does he have a case? ET sought to
put a number to this.  We first calculated the current corpus of a
hypothetical subscriber who joined the EPF in June 1995 and then
calculated how big the corpus would be if 5 per cent had been put
in a Nifty exchange-traded fund (ETF) every month.  Since
Provident Fund (PF) contributions are linked to salary, the
calculation factored in a 10 per cent increase in this every year
in line with the annual increase in income.

If the subscriber started by putting Rs 2,000 a month (including
the employer's contribution) in June 1995, the PF balance would be
Rs 29.35 lakh now.  This is based on the EPF interest rate in the
past 20 years.  If 5 per cent had gone into the Nifty ETF, the
corpus would be marginally more at Rs 30.05 lakh.  So it may be a
good idea not to expect too much from the new investment pattern
the EPFO plans to follow.

EVERCORE PARTNERS: Faces "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Court
Evercore Partners 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 in January 2015, Donna
Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action complaint against
Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, in which she purports to represent a
class of participants in the J.C. Penney Corporation Inc. Savings,
Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") whose
participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at any time between
May 15, 2012 and the present.  The complaint alleges that ETC
breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in J.C. Penney stock
during that period and claims the Plan suffered losses of
approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C. Penney stock.
The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged Plan losses,
attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and equitable
relief.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
against these claims and intends to vigorously defend against
them. ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan,
for reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which
would be refunded should ETC not prevail.

FACEBOOK INC: Belgian Commission Sues Over Privacy Law Violation
Samuel Gibbs, writing for The Guardian, reports that The Belgian
privacy commission is taking Facebook to court for its alleged
"trampling" over Belgian and European privacy law.

The lawsuit was scheduled to be heard in a Brussels court on June
18 after a report and an opinion published by the Belgian privacy
watchdog that detailed Facebook's alleged breaches of European
privacy law, including the tracking of non-users and logged out
users for advertising purposes.

Facebook treats its users' private lives without respect and that
needs tackling, according to Willem Debeuckelaere, president of
the Belgian privacy commission, who said at the time of the report
that it was "make or break time".  The privacy commission has no
power to fine Facebook, but threatened legal action backed by the
Belgian prosecution service should the US-owned social network
fail to address the report's concerns.  That threat has now been
carried out.

Imposing recommendations

"It's not because we want start a lawsuit over this, but we can
not continue to negotiate through other means," Mr. Debeuckelaere
told Belgian news DeMorgen which broke the news.

"We want a judge to impose our recommendations. These
recommendations are chiefly aimed at protecting internet users who
are not Facebook members," he said.

A Facebook spokesperson said: "We were surprised and disappointed
that, after the [Belgium privacy commission] had already agreed to
meet with us on the 19 June to discuss their recommendations, they
took the theatrical action of bringing Facebook Belgium to court
on the day beforehand.

They added: "Although we are confident that there is no merit to
the [Belgium privacy commission]'s case, we remain happy to work
with them in an effort to resolve their concerns, through a
dialogue with us at Facebook Ireland and with our regulator, the
Irish data protection commissioner."

The outcome of the case could result in similar lawsuits in
Europe, should the judge find in the Belgian privacy commission's
favor. A Dutch court recently ruled that Facebook's operations in
the Netherlands were not responsible for data protection issues,
with the responsibility lying with Facebook in Ireland.

Tracking users, non-users and logged out users without consent

According to the report on which the commission is now acting,
Facebook has been tracking users on a long-term basis who visit
any page -- be it a fan page, profile or any other portion of the
site that does not require a Facebook account to visit --
belonging to the Facebook.com domain.

The privacy commission's opinion published in May made it clear
that Facebook should discontinue such tracking and seek explicit
consent from users before conducting tracking.  Facebook's current
measures of seeking consent were deemed insufficient putting it in
breach of EU data protection laws.

Facebook said at the time of the report that it was regulated by
the Irish data protection commissioner, as it operates within
Europe from Ireland, and that it would review the Belgian report
and opinion with its Irish regulators.

The social network is facing several battles within Europe over

The European commission recently warned that EU citizens should
close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep their
information private from US security services, after finding that
current Safe Harbour legislation does not protect citizen's data.

Facebook was also recently ordered by a Vienna court to respond to
a class action data privacy lawsuit that was filed against
Facebook in Austria by privacy activist and lawyer Max Schrems,
which is seeking damages of EUR500 (GBP397) per plaintiff for
alleged data protection violations.

FLINT, MI: Councilman Calls for Water Rate Suit Negotiations
Ron Fonger, writing for MLive, reports that Councilman Scott
Kincaid is urging the city of Flint, Mich., to the negotiating
table to end a lawsuit that claims the city owes water customers a
refund because former emergency manager Mike Brown improperly
raised water and sewer rates more than three years ago.

The state Court of Appeals breathed life back into the lawsuit,
filed by Kincaid and other water customers, reversing a decision
of Genesee County Circuit Judge Richard Yuille, who had dismissed
it in 2013.  The case will go back to Judge Yuille to revisit his
decision, although an amended lawsuit is also pending before
Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman.

"We are willing to sit down, we're willing to negotiate . . . or
go back to court and find a reasonable solution.  I'm hoping it
does not go to the (state) Supreme Court," Mr. Kincaid said during
a news conference June 15.

City Attorney Peter Bade declined to comment on the decision or
what course the city would pursue next.

Mr. Kincaid's lawsuit claims Mr. Brown violated city ordinances
and did not have the authority to raise water rates 12.5 percent
and sewer rates 45 percent in 2012.  In addition to those
increases, Mr. Brown ratified smaller rate increases that had been
proposed by the city's finance director in 2011.

The lawsuit asks the court to certify a class action suit against
the city for all water and sewer customers, declare the rate
increases an illegal tax under the Headlee Amendment, and order
the city to end the practice of co-mingling water and sewer
accounts with other funds.  The suit also seeks a refund for water
and sewer customers, who city officials have said pay some of the
highest water and sewer rates in the state.

Mr. Kincaid would not speculate about how much the city could owe
customers, but said he would "continue to pursue this case unless
a fair deal is negotiated for ratepayers."

"Let's work out a process to get water and sewer rates to a level
that people can afford them and businesses can continue to grow,"
the councilman said.

The Appeals Court decision says in part that state law did not
give Mr. Brown the authority to ratify rate increases recommended
by Flint's former finance director, and said the emergency
manager's own rate increases violated city ordinance because they
were not published at least 30 days prior to implementation and
went into effect almost immediately.

Either party may ask for a Supreme Court review of the case in the
next two months, Washington said.

Washington said customers have been damaged by the inflated water
and sewer rates, particularly those who have liens attached to
their properties because of overdue bills.

"When we talk about the impact on families -- it's real," he said.

FOXTONS: Former Presenters of BBC's Watchdog Join Class Action
Graham Norwood, writing for LettingAgentTODAY, reports that it
appears that the former presenters of BBC consumer program
Watchdog are amongst those participating in a class action against
Foxtons over the letting agency's allegedly exorbitant charges for

The Daily Mail reports that Lynn Faulds Wood and her husband John
Stapleton are set to join 100 landlords suing Foxtons.  Faulds
Wood is reported in the newspaper saying she felt 'cheated' after
learning the agent -- which manages a property the couple own in
South London -- was accused of charging landlords 'secret
commissions' of nearly 50 per cent.

In an email sent to Stapleton on May 28, Foxtons apparently
claimed the cost for materials, shower enclosure, shower door, a
mould resistant silicon seal and disposal of old enclosure and
door would cost GBP958 plus VAT.  It added labor for two plumbers
for one day would be GBP810 plus VAT.  The couple eventually
managed to find their own plumber and fix the problem for under

News of the class action emerged, following a now notorious clash
between the agency and one particular landlord.

In 2013 London landlord Dr Chris Townley was billed GBP616 by the
agency for the replacement of a light fitting carried out by a

The Daily Mail reported that Leigh Day Solicitors has served the
agency with a letter of claim, which is sent prior to legal
proceedings.  Leigh Day believes that Townley and thousands of
other landlords could be entitled to compensation from Foxtons, a
claim which it says could amount to over GBP40m.

Foxtons used subcontractor Maintenance 1st to carry out the work
on Townley's rental property, which had been managed by the London
agency since 2011.  After requesting a refund for the work --
which he believed to be substandard -- the landlord was put in
touch with Maintenance 1st. The firm informed him that its charge
for the work amounted to GBP412.50.

Townley then challenged Foxtons on the difference in costs and
found out that the agent had charged 33 per cent commission,
equating to an additional fee of GBP137.50.  The landlord then
also liable for an 'ad hoc management charge' of 10 per cent plus
VAT, which was incurred after Foxtons' commission had taken the
invoice over GBP500.  This means that Townley ended up paying an
alleged GBP200 over the subcontractors' original fee for the work.

Solicitors Leigh Day believe that the agency was wrong for failing
to declare a conflict of interests as it earns commission from
subcontractors and landlords.

The Daily Mail reports that Foxtons says all its charges were made

GARLOCK SEALING: Oct. 6 Fixed as Bar Date for Asbestos Claims
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC filed with the Bankruptcy Court a
notification of non-solicitation and non-voting status for their
Second Amended Plan of Reorganization dated Jan. 14, 2015.

The Debtors said that if any party disagrees that its claim must
be so classified, it may file a motion for temporary allowance of
its claim for voting purposes with the Bankruptcy Court.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 20, 2015,
Bill Rochelle, bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News, reported
that although Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and its non-
bankrupt parent EnPro Industries Inc. have an agreement with the
official representative for future asbestos claimants, the
confirmation hearing for approval of the Chapter 11 plan
won't begin until June 20, 2016.  The delay largely results from
opposition to the plan by the official committee representing
people who already manifest symptoms of asbestos-caused diseases.

A bankruptcy judge approved disclosure materials on April 10
allowing creditors to vote.  The deadline for casting ballots is
Oct. 6.

In a settlement with the future claimants' representative, Garlock
agreed to a plan with $357.5 million for asbestos claimants,
including $250 million when the plan becomes effective and
$77.5 million more paid over seven years with a guarantee from

The committee for existing claimants said the plan "does not
provide enough money" and requires EnPro and Garlock to pay "much
less" than they "would realistically have to pay if they did not
receive special protections."

With the official committee in opposition, EnPro said earlier this
year that it would take as long as two years before the court
approves the plan.

The January decision on liability allowed Garlock to file a
Chapter 11 plan paying creditors in full, including those with
asbestos claims.  Bankruptcy law entitles EnPro to retain
ownership if creditors are fully paid.

The Debtors disclosed that under the voting and bar date order,
the Court established Oct. 6, 2015 as the last date for all
persons who have a GST Asbestos Claim to file proofs of claim.
Any person having such a claim must file an Asbestos Proof of
Claim Form to the balloting agent by first-class mail or courier,
at this address:

         Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, et al.
         c/o Rust Consulting/Omni Bankruptcy
         Attn: Balloting Agent
         5955 DeSoto Avenue, Suite 100
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Microwave
Legal Newsline reports that three consumers are suing General
Electric, alleging it sold defective microwave ovens.

Daniel Levy of California, David Mequet of Texas and Lauren Harris
of Florida filed a class action lawsuit June 4 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against General Electric,
alleging the glass door on some of GE's microwave ovens will
shatter when used.  The lawsuit names three different models of
GE-branded microwaves, and alleges the company knew about the
defect as early as September 2002.  The plaintiffs say GE has
actively tried to hide the defects of the microwaves from

The lawsuit said the glass shatters due to the interference of the
inside surface of the glass and a hinge spring on the door.  The
plaintiffs seek class status for consumers who purchased one of
the microwave models, plus more than $5 million in damages and
court costs.  They are represented by attorneys Seth R. Klein,
Robert A. Izard and Mark P. Kindall of Izard Nobel in West
Hartford, Conn.; and Hassan A Zavareei and Anna C. Haac of Tycko &
Zavareei in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut case number

GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Plaintiffs Add Racketeering Claim
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that lawyers
representing consumers who are suing GM over faulty ignition
switches have added racketeering allegations to their suit,
claiming the company conspired to conceal the safety defect that
has been blamed for more than 100 deaths.

The government has not brought any criminal charges against GM,
although the automaker did pay a $35 million fine for not alerting
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to the
defective switches quickly enough.

GM has recalled 2.6 million vehicles equipped with ignition
switches that can upexpectedly shut off the engine.  That, in
turn, cuts power to the airbags, power steering, brakes and other
onboard equipment.

$10 billion

The court filing, made on June 12 in New York federal court amends
existing suits for personal injury, wrongful death and falling car
values.  It seeks more than $10 billion in damages.  The filing
claims GM conspired with a law firm and claims administrator to
conceal information about the switch and argues that those actions
amount to an "unlawful enterprise" as defined in the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

A GM spokesman said the new complaint "contains no new
information," the Wall Street Journal reported.  "We look forward
to setting the record straight in court."

The case against GM is what is called "multidistrict litigation."
It is similar to a class action suit in that it allows plaintiffs
in multiple states to sue jointly rather than each party having to
file in a separate jurisdiction.

Separate from the ongoing litigation, GM has established a
victims' compensation fund that so far has linked 100 deaths and
200 injuries to the ignition defect.

GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Action
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock 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 settlement
in a securities class action will be presented to the court for
preliminary approval.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional,
similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450,
were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013,
and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were
consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June
10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint
on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
October 8, 2013. After briefing and oral argument by the parties,
the court entered an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion
to dismiss. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action. Once finalized, the settlement will be
presented to the court for preliminary approval. The settlement is
expected to be paid by insurance.

HOUSTON, TX: Class Action Seeks Drainage Fee Reimbursement
Paul DeBenedetto, writing for Law360, reports that a Houston
resident filed a proposed class action against the city on June 17
seeking reimbursement for a drainage fee meant to fund a public
works measure that voters passed by a slim margin in 2010, after
the Texas Supreme Court on June 12 held that the ballot measure
misled voters because it did not make clear the proposition would
impose charges.

The proposed class action was filed by Elizabeth C. Perez on
behalf of herself and other Houston property owners challenging a
municipal drainage fee they say the city of Houston duped voters
into approving by concealing the fact that they were signing up to
pump $125 million annually into the Rebuild Houston Initiative,
which aims to establish a dedicated fund to maintain and improve
drainage and street infrastructure.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with the property owners on
June 12, holding that the ballot measure, called Proposition 1,
failed to disclose that the amendment imposed charges directly
onto some voters, remanding the case to the trial court.

In the June 17 complaint against the city, which also lists
Houston Mayor Annise Parker and Public Works and Engineering
Director Dale Rudick as defendants, Perez asked the Harris County
district court to certify a class seeking a reimbursement for all
fees charged under the amendment.

"Proposition 1's ballot language did not adequately describe what
the electorate was being asked to vote on," the complaint said.
"Accordingly, the ballot language does not accurately describe the
object and effect of Proposition 1, causing the voters to be
intentionally misled. . . .  Therefore, Proposition 1 is illegal,
and the Illegal Rain Tax Charter Amendment charges are void."

Lawyers for the city did not immediately return requests for

The proposed class includes all Houston residents who have paid a
monthly water bill with the additional drainage fee and were
forced to pay the fee because not doing so would result in a water
shutoff, the complaint said.

In ballot language the city crafted to sell voters in 2010 on
paying for needed infrastructure improvements, Proposition 1
called for amending Houston's charter to provide for a "dedicated
pay-as-you-go fund for drainage and streets" but did not explain
that voters were in reality authorizing the city to charge
landowners a fee, according to its opponents.

If voters had known the truth, they argued, Proposition 1 would
have been rejected.  As it stands, the amendment passed by with
50.94 percent of the vote.

The law was designed to collect about $2.5 billion in drainage
charges in the long run, assessed on "impervious" portions of
private property that contribute to runoff and stress the city's
storm drains.

A group of residents sued in 2012, but the city successfully moved
for summary judgment, arguing that the full details of Proposition
1 were published in a local newspaper prior to the election and
that voters knew what they were approving.

Those property owners later appealed, and eventually, the case was
taken up by the state's high court.

On June 12, the Texas Supreme Court overturned both the trial
court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, which found
that even though the ballot was unclear, it still described the
amendment's character and purpose and enabled voters to
distinguish it from other propositions on the ballot.

In its opinion, the high court said the proposed amendments must
at least be clear enough so as not to mislead voters.

"Though the ballot need not reproduce the text of the amendment or
mention every detail, it must substantially identify the
amendment's purpose, character and chief features," the opinion
said.  "Widespread charges are such a chief feature."

Andy Taylor -- ATaylor@AndyTaylorLaw.com -- an attorney for the
property owners, was emboldened on June 17 by the high court's

"Under the arrogant leadership of Houston's Mayor Parker,
taxpayers were assessed over a half billion dollars in illegal
charges," read a statement from Mr. Taylor.  "This lawsuit seeks
to halt any future collections and requests reimbursement of all
monies previously collected."

In a separate high court appeal, a group of railway companies
including BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. fought
against a lower appeals court ruling that former public works
director Daniel Krueger and the city were immune from suit because
Krueger was acting within his authority as a government official.
The companies argued in part that he misinterpreted or misapplied
that authority in applying the fees, which the companies said were
unfairly high.

The property owners are represented by Andy Taylor of Andy Taylor
& Associates.

Counsel information for the city was not immediately available.

The case is Perez et al. v. Parker et al., case no. 2015-34786, in
the 61st District Court for Harris County, Texas.

HUNTINGTON, WV: Suit to Block SSA Disability Benefits Review
Curtis Johnson, writing for The Herald Dispatch, reports that an
amended lawsuit seeks to block Social Security's proposed path for
re-evaluating disability benefits for 1,500 recipients, all caught
in the midst of a sweeping fraud investigation involving Kentucky
attorney Eric C. Conn and Huntington's regional Social Security

The revised complaint asks U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar to
block any hearings until it is certified the Social Security
Administration's process for redetermining benefits will
adequately protect the constitutional rights of the estimated
1,500 recipients.  It stems from Social Security's initial
decision to suspend benefits without a hearing for more than 900
people, a move the agency later reversed amid pressure from U.S.
Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va.  There were 600
more recipients involved in the investigation, but their benefits
were not initially suspended because their income was considered
too low.

The amended lawsuit alludes to the initial plan in expressing
skepticism of Social Security's path forward.  It insists
investigators found no evidence of fraud by the recipients, while
questioning the likelihood of fair hearings with a 30-day window
to gather records and limited attorneys for 1,500 claimants.

"For (Social Security) to commence with hearings at the present
juncture would violate the due process rights of the Plaintiffs
given representational crisis and lack of time to gather necessary
evidence to insure fair hearings," the filing states.

Social Security contends it acted in response to an Inspector
General's investigation, which revealed evidence of fraud
involving four doctors used by The Conn Law Firm in Stanville,

Congressional investigators allege Conn relied upon those medical
experts for false or fraudulent testimony, while former Social
Security administrative law judge David B. Daugherty assigned
those cases to himself and awarded benefits to hundreds without

The Inspector General's findings required Social Security to
disregard evidence from those doctors and reconsider each person's
eligibility.  Its initial review found none of the estimated 1,500
people qualified for disability benefits based upon remaining
evidence in their file.

Social Security, in reversing its initial suspensions and giving
claimants 30 days to submit records, recommitted itself to the
review process as part of its responsibility to protect public
funds, combat fraud and fight abuse.

But attorneys for the 1,500 recipients insist their clients were
unfairly targeted in light of Conn's alleged involvement and his
collection of approximately $22 million in attorney fees from
Social Security during that time period.

"(Social Security) has taken no criminal action against Eric C.
Conn," the filing states.  "The Administration has, however,
chosen to punish hundreds of individuals for whom there is no
allegation of wrongdoing."

The amended complaint predicts a "representation crisis of immense
proportions" in noting regulations that provide no entitlement to
attorney fees for those representing claimants during their
review.  It cites prior testimony in questioning if Conn's alleged
destruction of records will limit the claimants' ability to
prepare.  It also questions the relevance of re-evaluations
reviews, which are exams many claimants received after their
initial award date to assess their continued eligibility.

The revised, class-action lawsuit was brought by the claimants'
attorneys -- Noah Friend of Pikeville; Ned Pillersdorf of
Prestonsburg; and Anne Marie Regan of Louisville, Kentucky.

Mr. Conn's attorney, Kent Wicker, of Louisville, has called
lawsuits targeting his client misdirected in pointing to the
government as cutting benefits.  He also maintains Conn's
innocence, saying years of investigation have yielded no criminal

Judge Daugherty also has maintained he committed no wrongdoing.
He retired amid paid suspension and later voluntarily agreed to
have his state law license annulled last summer.

IDAHO: ACLU Files Class Action Over Public Defender System
Harrison Berry, writing for Boise Weekly, reports that the Idaho
American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Foundation and other parties
have filed suit against the state of Idaho and members of the
Idaho State Public Defense Commission over the Idaho's public
defender system.

"The current system puts defenders in an incredibly difficult
situation," said interim ACLU-Idaho Executive Director Leo Morales
at a press conference announcing the suit this morning.

Public defenders provide free legal assistance to people who have
been accused of crimes but cannot pay for private legal counsel.
Access to a competent legal defense is a constitutional
requirement, but a report issued more than five years ago by the
National Legal Aid and Defender Association that sampled Idaho
counties' public defender programs found that none of the sampled
counties had programs that passed constitutional muster.  The suit
filed on June 17 alleges little substantive progress has been made
to bring those programs up to par.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Idaho public defenders face
huge caseloads -- sometimes in excess of what two attorneys could
reasonably be expected to handle, according to ACLU-Idaho Legal
Director Richard Eppink.  Other challenges include "fixed-fee"
contracts, lack of adequate communication with clients and the
absence of "structural safeguards to protect the independence of
defenders."  What's more, the state of Idaho has delegated the
responsibility of funding, operating and maintaining public
defender systems to counties that are poorly equipped to do so.
In some cases, defendants make their first court appearances
without having spoken to their court-appointed counsel.

"There are probably many [such] cases going on right now in
Idaho," Mr. Eppink said.

Meanwhile, according to Morales, the burden on public defenders
continues to grow: One out of every three Idahoans doesn't earn
enough money to pay for a private attorney in the event that they
are accused of committing a crime.

"Idaho's failure is a menace to our way of life," he said.

At this year's State of the State speech, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter
outlined the failures of the troubled public legal defense system,
describing it as "unconstitutional."  The object of the lawsuit is
for the state to acknowledge the system's failure and for the
court to issue an injunction for Idaho to address its

"The goal is not to obtain money damages, although the harm has
been substantial," Mr. Eppink said.

Mr. Otter is named as a defendant in the lawsuit in his capacity
as governor -- his comments at the State of the State speech gave
ACLU-Idaho and its allies the impetus to sue the state.

"We had been entreated [by lawmakers since the release of the
NLADA report] to wait and see what happened.  We felt we couldn't
wait any longer," Mr. Eppink said.

ACLU-Idaho Board of Directors President Michael Bartlett said the
lawsuit has far-reaching consequences for ordinary Idahoans.  In
many instances, Bartlett said, public defenders are outmatched by
the time and resources of prosecutors.

"What we hear is that money buys justice.  The side that has all
the resources is the government," he said.

IDAHO: Settles Decades-Long Juvenile Care Class Action
Bryan Clark, writing for The Post Register, reports that a
decades-long legal battle over the state of child mental health
services in Idaho has ended in a settlement that will require a
major overhaul of the system.

It started in 1979 in Blackfoot at State Hospital South, a mental
institution where 17 children with mental disorders were housed.
Child molesters were housed there, too.  There was no school, but
there were mind-numbing drugs and beds with restraints.

One of the children housed there at the time was a 17-year-old
named Jeff D. -- a name that since has become synonymous with
mental health reform in Idaho.  Jeff's mother had abandoned him,
and at age 2 he had watched his foster parents beat his sister to
death while they were on a berry-picking trip in western
Washington, the Spokesman-Review reported.  Psychiatrists later
said they suspected the experience had irreparably scarred him.

When Howard Belodoff and Charlie Johnson, two attorneys barely out
of law school, discovered the conditions in which Jeff and the
other children were living, they filed a class-action lawsuit
against the state. That was 1980.

During the next 35 years, the suit was repeatedly settled and
reopened as Mr. Belodoff accused the state of failing to live up
to its end of the bargain.  Each time he won, and a new settlement
was drafted.

Through four decades it was courtroom fisticuffs, but on June 14,
both sides have struck a different tone. Both sides made a
decision that collaborating on solutions would work better than
endless legal brawls.

Mr. Belodoff said this is the most optimistic he has felt during
his time on the case.

"I am very encouraged by the fact that the governor himself has
indicated that he recognizes and supports the agreement,"
Mr. Belodoff said.  "That's never happened in all the years (the
case has been active)."

Ross Edmunds, behavioral health administrator with the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, agreed.

"It feels like for the first time the resolution between the
plaintiffs and the state has come to a collaborative process," he

Previously, the state's main concern was trying to stay out of the
courtroom, Edmunds said. But sitting down with child advocates and
collaborating to find solutions "changed the game."

The settlement calls for four major changes:

  -- Increased mental health screenings in all state agencies and
institutions that serve children.

  -- Creating a system of community-based mental health services.

  -- Engaging children's families in their care.

  -- Monitoring service quality and outcomes.

And the state will strive to integrate those services.

"Idaho's system has a fair amount of fracture in it right now,"
Edmunds said.

But the new system will allow schools, social workers and
children's mental health providers to work together to provide

The "backbone of the system" primarily will be provided through
Medicaid, and treatment mostly will be provided by private mental
health practitioners, Mr. Edmunds said.

Idaho has nine months to design the new system, and then four
years to enact it.  Mr. Edmunds said some service improvements
will be available earlier than that.  He also said the state will
realize a number of benefits.

Children who wind up in juvenile detention centers at a young age
are more likely to wind up in prison, if they don't get the kind
of treatment they need, Mr. Edmunds said.  And children with
serious mental health disorders have trouble succeeding in
schools, and later in the workplace, if they aren't given skills
to cope.

Patrick Gardner, of the Young Minds Advocacy Project, which helped
to craft the settlement agreement, said community-based services
work much better than institutionalization.

"The focus is to deliver services to kids in the most home-like
setting possible," he said.  "So rather than making kids go to
clinics or emergency rooms, the idea is to put the services in the
places that are most convenient and most life-like.  Because
that's where the children have to learn to cope and manage their

Mr. Belodoff said he is optimistic that the latest settlement will
resolve the issues that long have kept the lawsuit open.  But
there have been settlements before, ones that didn't fix the
system.  Mr. Belodoff brought the suit back to life each time he
judged progress wasn't sufficient.

Gardner said he never has seen anything like it.

"His perseverance is nothing like I have seen anywhere in the
country," he said.  "Because of his perseverance, we have an
agreement that the state favors and supports and will actually

But Mr. Belodoff, while optimistic, remains vigilant.

"The first promises were made in 1983," Mr. Belodoff said.  "To
fulfill those promises and the promises of all the agreements --
to provide necessary and crucial services to children and families
who suffer from mental illness in the state of Idaho -- I hope we
have their commitment that they will carry through."

Mr. Belodoff's 35-year watch over the fate of mentally ill
children in Idaho will go on.

"I'm hopeful," he said. "We'll see."

As for Jeff D., Mr. Belodoff said he's not sure whether Jeff knows
about the settlement, or how much his case will change the state's
child mental health system.  Mr. Belodoff doesn't know where he

Jeff spent years on the streets after leaving the mental hospital,
drifting from Spokane to Salt Lake City, toothless, sometimes
forced to eat from dumpsters, the Spokesman Review reported when
they tracked him down in 2002.  He could be in Boise or maybe
Spokane, Mr. Belodoff said.  He might be dead.

IDT ENERGY: Judge Grants Motion to Stay Consumer Class Action
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports
that a Philadelphia federal judge has granted a motion from IDT
Energy to stay a pending class action lawsuit against it while
also setting aside its motion to dismiss the case.

In March 2014, plaintiff Anthony Ferrare, a resident of Erie
County, brought class action litigation against IDT, which
provides electricity to Pennsylvania customers.  Mr. Ferrare, a
former IDT customer, alleges IDT "breached its contracts with its
customers and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit
in those contracts."  Through his lawsuit, Mr. Ferrare alleges IDT
coaxed energy consumers to switch from the local utility or from
other energy suppliers to IDT by promising competitive, market-
based rates and savings on electric energy bills.

IDT offered new customers a "teaser" rate, and promised after that
initial rate expired, IDT would replace it with a "market-
competitive variable rate."  Despite this promise, IDT allegedly
raised customers' rates to above-market prices, two to four times
higher than before they switched to IDT.

Mr. Ferrare enrolled as an IDT electricity customer in August 2013
and alleges from September 2013 until March 2014, IDT overcharged
him by hundreds of dollars above the local utility's rate for
electricity.  Mr. Ferrare brought suit on behalf of himself and
potential Pennsylvania class members.  Mr. Ferrare levied two
claims against IDT related to its pricing practices -- breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

The Public Utilities Commission is the state regulatory body with
authority over EGS agencies. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Code
authorizes the PUC to regulate certain aspects of EGS operations.

On June 20, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and the
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate began legal proceedings
against IDT before the PUC.  The PUC complaint relates to the IDT
pricing practices implicated in Ferrare's lawsuit.

In a December order, the PUC also determined that it has
"authority to direct an EGS to issue a credit or refund for an
overbill, because of having the authority to order EGS billing
adjustments, including refunds, under the appropriate
circumstances, helps ensure that EGSs comply with the Commission's
Regulations and bill customers in accordance with their disclosure
statement -- a fundamental consumer protection."

PUC further clarified that it lacks "subject matter jurisdiction
to interpret the terms and conditions of a contract between an EGS
and a customer to determine whether a breach of the contract has

Judge Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania said a four-factor test would determine
primary jurisdiction: "(1) Whether the question at issue is within
the conventional experience of judges or whether it involves
technical or policy considerations within the agency's particular
field of expertise; (2) Whether the question at issue is
particularly within the agency's discretion; (3) Whether there
exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4)
Whether a prior application to the agency has been made."

In the first factor, though Mr. Ferrare argued the Court had the
jurisdiction to handle what he termed as a mere "breach of
contract" claim, Brody disagreed.

"The PUC has the technical expertise to evaluate how IDT
calculated the electricity prices it charged customers and whether
IDT's method complied with its Disclosure Statement as the
regulations require," Judge Brody said.

For the second factor, Judge Brody said the PUC, "as the
administrative agency authorized to develop and enforce the
regulatory framework for EGSs, the PUC has the discretion to
evaluate IDT's compliance with its regulations."

As to the third factor, Brody cautioned against leaving open the
possibility for inconsistent rulings.

"The PUC Proceeding is pending; the next hearing is scheduled for
September 2015.  If this Court denies IDT's Motion to Stay and the
lawsuit proceeds, there is a risk of inconsistent rulings because
eventually, the Court (or a jury) is likely to rule on the same
issue in evaluating Mr. Ferrare's claims. Any court or jury
determination of this question could conflict with a PUC ruling on
the same issue," Judge Brody said.

For the fourth factor, whether application to the agency has been
made, Mr. Ferrare acknowledged a prior application had been made
in June of last year.  Judge Brody explained because the PUC
Proceeding is currently pending, that component weighs in favor of
applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

"For these reasons, I will grant IDT's motion to stay and deny its
motion to dismiss without prejudice.  This action will be stayed
until the PUC decides whether IDT charged prices consistent with
its Disclosure Statement, and if there were any overcharges,
whether refunds are necessary," Judge Brody said.

The plaintiff is seeking "all actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory, treble, punitive and consequential damages"
to which all plaintiffs and class are entitled, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, injunctive relief plus any other relief
the Court deems proper in this case.

The plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- of Kohn Swift & Graf; Troy M. Frederick of
Marcus & Mack, all in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Marc A. Goldich, Thomas L. Allen
and Henry F. Reichner -- hreichner@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith,
in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case

INDIANA: BMV Must Face Overcharge Class Action
Tim Evans, writing for, IndyStar reports that a Marion County
judge on June 16 refused the Bureau of Motor Vehicles' request to
dismiss a lawsuit alleging the agency overcharged Hoosier
motorists millions of dollars.  Instead, Marion Superior Judge
John F. Hanley ordered the BMV to resume mediation efforts with
the attorney representing Indiana residents who allegedly paid too
much for services.

The two sides previously attempted to resolve the case through
mediation, but could not reach an agreement.  The state agency had
asked for a summary judgment in the case, which would basically
amount to a determination that the case is without merit, or
issues to be decided by the court.

A BMV spokesman referred questions about the June 16 ruling to
Carl Hayes, the private attorney the agency has hired to defend it
in the case alleging the BMV overcharged motorists by as much as
$40 million.

"While we are disappointed by the court's ruling denying summary
judgment, the BMV is receptive to mediation," Mr. Hayes said.
"However, mediation can only be successful if plaintiff's class
action attorneys come prepared to make a proposal that makes sense
for taxpayers.  In previous attempts at mediation, there was no
indication they were prepared to do so."

Indianapolis attorney Irwin Levin, who filed the lawsuit against
the BMV, said the state agency "argued it was above the law" in
trying to get out of the suit.

"But the court ruled the BMV is subject to the same laws as
everyone else in Indiana," Mr. Levin said.  "We are disappointed
that the BMV hasn't tried to work with us to get a fair resolution
for Hoosiers.  This is another opportunity for the BMV to do
what's right for Hoosiers."

If no resolution is reached through mediation, the case could move
to a trial.

The lawsuit is the second filed by Mr. Levin against the BMV
addressing alleged overcharges.  The state settled the first suit
and agreed in 2013 to refund motorists about $30 million.  The BMV
has since admitted to another $30 million in overcharges on other
fees, which is also being refunded.

The new lawsuit alleges up to $40 million in additional
overcharges going back to the early 2000s.  The BMV is fighting
that claim, but if true it would bring the total overcharges to
about $100 million.

An Indianapolis Star investigation earlier this year revealed the
overcharges had been known within the BMV for many years, but
didn't come to light publicly until the first class-action lawsuit
was filed in March 2013.  Only then did the BMV approve an audit
of its fees.  And it was months later, after the audit confirmed
that many fees were, indeed, higher than allowed by law, that the
agency finally fessed up to its price gouging and began to pay
back motorists.

Despite all of this, no one from the state or BMV has apologized
to customers.  No one has taken responsibility or offered a clear
explanation of what really happened. And no one has been publicly
disciplined or fired.  On the contrary, several of the agency
officials who knew about the fee errors remain at the BMV or in
other state jobs.

INSULET CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on June 16 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System against Insulet Corporation and
certain of its senior executives.  The action, which is captioned
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet Corporation, 15-cv-
12345 (D. Mass.), asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of investors in Insulet securities during the
time period of May 7, 2013 to April 30, 2015, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Insulet
misrepresented the success of the rollout of its new insulin
infusion system known as the OmniPod Eros.  The complaint also
alleges that the Company manipulated the way that it was reporting
the number of new patients that were using OmniPod, and inflated
its level of international sales in order to conceal Insulet's
declining growth.  When the truth regarding Insulet's problems
introducing the new OmniPod and slowing growth were ultimately
revealed, the price of Insulet stock declined from $29.85 per
share to $26.97 per share.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than July 6, 2015, which is
60 days from the date that notice of pendency of the filing of
Murphy v. Insulet Corporation, No. 15-cv-11782 (D. Mass. filed
May 5, 2015) was published.  Any member of the proposed Class may
move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the
proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Black Liquor Leak
Randy Hammons, writing for The Daily News, reports that City and
state officials say the general public was never in any danger
from June 10 black liquor release from the International Paper
Bogalusa Mill plant.  The mill experienced a leak in a process
unit that created a mist of diluted black liquor.  Mill officials
said most of the material spilled onto mill property.

Willis Avenue was blocked off to traffic on June 11 at the
intersections of Columbia Street and Avenue B so crews could clean
up the spill.  Hazmat crews from the State Police were on hand on
June 11 for the cleanup.  All of the release was cleaned up by
early afternoon.

It was reported a 72-year-old male fishing nearby in Bogue Lusa
Creek was taken to the hospital as a precaution and later
released.  Some of the black liquor came in contact with his
clothing.  Some of the black liquor was believed to have made it
into the creek.

"The public was never in danger," Bogalusa Fire Chief Richard
Moody said.  "It was a mixture of three different chemicals the
people at IP deal with every day.  It will irritate your skin if
you get enough on you.  You have to have a big concentration for
it to pose a danger."

Mr. Moody said his department basically was in support mode,
blocking off Willis Avenue as the cleanup unfolded.

"We basically stood by as Public Works crews put sand down on
Willis Avenue and spread it out," Mr. Moody said.  "It left an
oily surface on the road. It came out like a mist and covered the

Bogalusa Mayor Wendy Perrette said all agencies worked well

"I'm pleased with the fast response among all the agencies,"
Ms. Perrette said.  "IP notified us that they were on top of it.
We were very pleased with the response and we work well together."
Ms. Perrette visited the area on June 11 to view the cleanup.

"I went out and met with mill officials and checked on the men who
were securing the scene, I'm proud of the men from the Fire
Department, Police Department and Public Works who worked to clean
up this." Ms. Perrette said.  "We're confident there are no risks
to human health or to the environment."

Responders from the Department of Environmental Quality observed
no harmful effects from the black liquor release.

"DEQ emergency responders noted that there was no indication of
impact or discoloration to the creek or its receiving stream, the
Pearl River," DEQ Public Information Officer Tim Beckstrom said
via an email.

Despite the word from officials that the danger to the public from
the leak was minimal, scores of people in Bogalusa on June 12
added their names to a potential class action lawsuit over the

IRENE'S BAKERY: Faces False "All Natural" Advertising Class Suit
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that another class action was
filed in St. Clair County claiming food products sold at a
Fairview Heights grocery store as being "all natural" were found
to contain chemicals used to de-feather poultry.

Kathleen Hobbs filed a lawsuit on May 27 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Irene's Bakery and Gourmet Kitchen Inc. of
Bensalem, Pa., claiming false advertising.

According to the complaint, the defendant represents its Black &
White Cookies as "all-natural," but the cookies contain sodium
acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), a synthetic chemical.  The suit states
that SAPP "is used to remove iron stains in leather products, is
used as an oil drilling fluid, and is used to de-feather poultry--
and that the FDA has said [it] has no place in purportedly all-
natural products."

Ms. Hobbs claims she bought the product in March 2015 at Fresh
Thyme Farmers Market in Fairview Heights for $4.99.  The grocery
store opened in January and describes itself as offering "value-
priced fresh, healthy, natural and organic" items.  The suit
states that consumers would not be willing to pay a premium price
on a product if they knew it contained potentially harmful
synthetic ingredients; and that the defendant is exploiting a
growing market of health-conscious consumers by characterizing its
cookies as all-natural.

The lawsuit cites a precedent in a case filed against Middle East
Bakery LLC in 2014, wherein the defendant was accused of the same
infringement and regarding the same substance (SAPP).

Claiming false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, the
plaintiff alleges violation of state consumer law, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment.

This class action joins three similar ones filed in St. Clair
County in April.

Plaintiff Jamie Blankenship of St. Clair County brought two of the
cases -- one against 3 Fellers Bakery of Goochland, Va. over its
Coffee Cake Bars and another against Grecian Delights Foods of Elk
Grove Village over its Hand Stretched Naan flatbread.

Plaintiff Timothy Blankenship of St. Clair County is suing Dancing
Deer Baking Co. of Boston over its All Natural Gluten Free Oatmeal
Raisin Cookies.

They also made their purchases at Fresh Thyme Farmers Market.

Ms. Hobbs requests compensation for each class member not to
exceed $75,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs.  She is
represented by David Nelson of Nelson & Nelson in Belleville and
Matthew Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm in St. Louis.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-313.

ITAFOS MINERACAO: Faces Class Action Over Severance Payments
MBAC Fertilizer Corp. on June 15 disclosed that, following the
receipt of non-binding proposals disclosed previously, it has now
received revised proposals from third parties active in the
fertilizer and agriculture sectors.  The Company and its lenders
are currently evaluating the proposals and defining next steps.
Upon final settlement the chosen proposal is expected to address
MBAC's liquidity requirements together with all other issues
described below and result in the resumption of operations at its
Itafos Arraias Operations.

MBAC is conducting a strategic process in collaboration with its
senior lenders.  Options under consideration include, but are not
limited to, securing a strategic partner, the sale of the Company
or its assets as well as other potential value-maximizing
transactions.  There can be no assurances that the Company will
complete a business transaction or sale under its strategic
process nor that a business transaction or sale will provide any
value to all or any stakeholders.

MBAC also reports that two lawsuits have been filed against its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Itafos Mineracao Ltda. ("Itafos"), in
Brazil by the Labour Public Ministry and the Arraias City Hall,
respectively.  The Company wishes to advise that it is defending
its claims, that certain rulings rendered thus far are being
challenged and that protocols for the re-hiring of employees will
be followed once the strategic review process is completed.

The first lawsuit relates to a combination of a class action and
individual claims from former employees for severance payments
stemming from the Company's cost-cutting restructuring initiative
that resulted in the Itafos Arraias Operations being put on care
and maintenance.  The total value claimed by the class action and
the individual claims amounts to approximately US$13.1 million.
This amount includes the original outstanding severance amount of
approximately US$1.6 million and damages of approximately US$11.5

MBAC has already settled 120 individual claims heard to date using
a working capital facility of US$0.4 million obtained from one of
its senior lenders for this purpose.  Once all individual claims
are settled, MBAC expects to be able to significantly reduce the
total amount of penalties and damages that are being claimed.

In connection with the lawsuit, the labour judge of the State of
Tocantins has placed certain of Company's fixed and non-fixed
assets (valued at US$2.7 million) in escrow to cover payments
related to the claims and has ruled that the assets be sold by way
of auction on June 30, 2015.  These assets however are pledged to
Itafos' lenders as part of the security package under the
Company's project loan financing. As a result, the lenders are
working to stop the auction.

The second lawsuit relates to a notification received on June 10th
of a tax claim from the Arraias City Hall relating to Municipal
Services Taxes ("ISS").  The claim states that the ISS associated
with all services rendered to Itafos should be remitted to the
City of Arraias regardless of whether the services were rendered
locally or remotely.  The total ISS amount being claimed is
approximately US$1.9 million, plus penalties and interest of
US$1.6 million for a total of US$3.5 million. The Company believes
that it has remitted ISS correctly in the appropriate
jurisdictions, and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Company will provide updates on its strategic review process
and legal activities as material developments occur.

                          About MBAC

MBAC -- http://www.mbacfert.com-- is focused on becoming a
significant integrated producer of phosphate fertilizers and
related products in the Brazilian market.  MBAC has an experienced
team with significant experience in the business of fertilizer
operations, management, marketing and finance within Brazil.  MBAC
owns and operates the Itafos Arraias SSP Operations, which
consists of an integrated fertilizer producing facility comprised
of a phosphate mine, a mill, a beneficiation plant, a sulphuric
acid plant, an SSP plant and a granulation plant and related
infrastructure located in central Brazil ("Itafos Operations").
The Itafos Operations are estimated to have production capacity of
approximately 500,000 tonnes of SSP per annum. MBAC's exploration
portfolio includes a number of additional exciting projects, which
are also located in Brazil.  The Santana Phosphate Project is a
high-grade phosphate deposit located in close proximity to the
largest fertilizer market of Mato Grosso State and animal feed
market of Para State.

JAMES HARDIE: New Zealand Leaky-Home Victims File Class Action
Anne Gibson, writing for New Zealand Herald, reports that more
than 500 New Zealand leaky-home victims, whose places have been
clad in James Hardie materials, could lodge legal action in
Auckland in the next few weeks.

Auckland specialist construction lawyer Adina Thorn, who is
leading the Good Cladding class action against the ASX-listed
manufacturer, said assessments had been made of about 500 claims
which had been found to be eligible.  They were for repairs
ranging from $100,000 to $17 million each, she said.

"I would expect to file a statement of claim in the Auckland High
Court in about August.  So far, 1200 questionnaires have gone out
to people who have registered an interest in the case and we've
got more than 600 responses.  But not all have been found to be
eligible," she said.

A representative of materials company James Hardie in Sydney,
which made Harditex, Monotek and Titan board, said the company
would not comment on the potential lawsuit.

Ms. Thorn said the case was proceeding as planned.  "This could be
New Zealand's second-biggest class action . . . "

Ms. Thorn, based in Eden Cres, said one of the biggest successes
was to secure funding from one of Europe's largest litigation
specialists, although she could not say how much money was

Harbour Litigation Funding had agreed to back the case, Thorn

"With over 400 million [$891.68 million] of capital behind us, we
are the UK's largest litigation funder and have invested more
money, in more cases, than anyone else.  We have extensive
expertise in international funding as well as the UK and are
currently operating in 12 international jurisdictions and four
arbitral forums," Harbour says on its website.

Thorn said that gave her heart.

"People only fund things they believe in and they believe they're
going to succeed against James Hardie," she said.

Paul Grimshaw -- paul.grimshaw@grimshaw.co.nz -- of Auckland law
firm Grimshaw & Co, which acts for about 6000 leaky-home owners,
said that if the action succeeded, people overseas stood to
benefit financially.

"Owners will need to look carefully at the terms they are signing
up to.

"Litigation funders often take a percentage of any recovery.  So
if that is the case here, owners need to look at their net
recovery once the funder is paid," he said.

"In other words, cases like this are often high risk, high reward
for the funder -- a hefty fee if they are successful and nothing
if they lose."  Mr. Grimshaw predicted a tough battle through the
courts, saying the action would have to prove the cladding systems

In another matter, James Hardie and CSR reached confidential
settlements with the Ministry of Education in its $1.5 billion
class action involving 880 leaky school buildings.

The ministry's action was against Carter Holt, James Hardie
Industries and CSR to recoup the costs of a remediation program at
about 300 schools.

JD NURSING: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Wage Theft
Cole Stangler, writing for International Business Times, reports
that a class-action lawsuit was filed on June 16 that accuses JD
Nursing and four other local home care agencies of widespread wage
theft. Supporters say the companies could owe more than $100
million in back pay.  It's the third such lawsuit Washington home
care workers have filed since December 2014, putting a dozen
different firms on the hook for potential violations.

None of the five firms named in the suit -- Alliance Home Health
Care & Equipment Services, Inc., Berhan Home Health Care Agency,
Immaculate Health Care Services Inc., Divine Health Care Services
Inc. or JD Nursing -- immediately responded to requests for

Wage theft in the home care business isn't unique to the nation's
capital.  It runs rampant across the industry, says Caitlin
Connolly of the left-leaning National Employment Law Project.  A
2009 study from NELP and others found nearly 80 percent of home
care workers had experienced overtime pay violations; 90 percent
had experienced so-called off-the-clock violations, in other
words, provided free labor.  In part, that's driven by the nature
of the industry.

"The place of work is someone's house, and it's often isolating,"
says Connolly.  "It's hard to organize and communicate with other
workers about a potential violation."  Also, caring for seniors
tends to forge emotional ties between workers and clients.  While
rewarding, the bonds can drive employees to put in extra time,
whether or not they're properly compensated for it.  "Bad
employers," she says, exploit that sense of obligation to extract
unpaid labor.

There are nearly 2 million home care aides and personal care aides
in the United States.  As baby boomers retire and people live
longer, both jobs are expected to grow by about 50 percent in the
next decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, making
them the second- and third-fastest-growing occupations in the
country, respectively.  The workforce -- overwhelmingly women, a
majority of them ethnic minorities and a quarter of them foreign
born -- earns around just $20,000 annually.

The industry's low wages and attractive growth prospects have made
it, much like the fast-food sector, a beacon for labor unions
seeking a presence in the modern American economy.  Labor unions
have had some success organizing the industry, and some of the
thousands of care aides in Washington are trying to organize with
the Service Employees International Union.  In April, home care
workers joined fast-food employees in high-profile protests for
"$15 and a union."  But there's another big reason the suits have
flooded Washington -- rather than, say, Texas or South Carolina.

Along with only 15 other states, the District of Columbia extends
minimum wage and overtime protections to home care workers, most
of whom are exempt from such rules on the federal level.  An Obama
administration rule was supposed to end the exemption earlier this
year, but an industry-backed lawsuit struck it down, sending the
measure to an appeals court, where it lingers today.  Also, since
2008, Washington has mandated that employers provide paid sick
leave to workers.

Ann Temple has worked as a home care aide in Washington for more
than six years.  Five days and 40 hours a week, she attends to her
elderly client, preparing breakfast and baths, cleaning the house,
scheduling doctors' appointments and picking up medicine.

Like millions of others who make up one of the nation's fastest-
growing occupations, Ms. Temple, who is 60, has to make due with
low pay.  She earns $13.80 an hour and lives with her daughter and
grandson because she can't afford to rent alone in the city's
famously pricey housing market.

The financial stress is especially frustrating, Ms. Temple says,
because she knows she's entitled to more.  She says her employer,
JD Nursing and Management Services Inc., ignored local mandates to
increase the minimum wage, pay overtime and provide paid sick
leave.  As a result, she says the company owes her thousands of

"We deserve our money," Ms. Temple says.  "It's not something
they're giving to us. We worked for this."

But Ms. Temple -- like others in the lawsuit -- says her employer
never informed of her right to paid sick leave.  When she got
sick, she showed up to work anyway.  "I just had to put my mask on
and keep going," she says.

Nor has she received back pay.  Washington requires a special
"living wage" for employees of city contractors.  In January 2014,
the city extended that higher pay rate -- then $13.60 an hour --
to home care workers and called on employers to issue a year's
worth of back pay.  Ms. Temple, though, says she made only $10.50
until last April.

If she had the extra cash, Ms. Temple says the first thing she'd
do is take care of an overdue gas bill.  "It would be a blessing,"
she says.  "I could breathe again."

KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Kashi All-Natural Label
Andy Szal, writing for ChemInfo, reports that  Kellogg Co. could
pay nearly $4 million to settle a Florida class-action lawsuit
over "all-natural" claims on products under its Kashi brand.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the Kashi products
contained genetically modified ingredients that would not be
considered all-natural by a reasonable consumer.

The settlement could range between $2 million and $3.99 million.
The money would largely go toward fully refunding Kashi customers
with proofs of purchase, while providing $27.50 to those without
receipts.  The settlement also stipulates that Kashi labels will
not include "all-natural" or "nothing artificial" claims unless
its ingredients are approved by regulators.

Kellogg settled a similar case over Kashi labels in California
last year for $5 million.  A class-action lawsuit in California
recently alleged that Campbell Soup's Prego pasta sauces should
not be labeled "all-natural" due to its use of canola oil from GMO

Meanwhile, Karlin Foods, which produces food for private-label
brands, settled another false advertising lawsuit over cornstarch
sold by Walmart.

KINROSS GOLD: October 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,



Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01203-VEC

Judge Valerie E. Caproni

ECF Case




YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), that a hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on October 15,
2015 before the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, United States
District Court Judge, in Courtroom 443, at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, for
the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the Action for the principal amount of $33,000,000 in cash should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to
Class Members; (2) whether the Final Approval Order and Judgment
should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with
prejudice; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds ("Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Lead Plaintiff for attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in connection with this Action and reimbursement of
Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses directly related to
representation of the Class ("Fee and Expense Application") should
be approved.  In connection with the Fee and Expense Application,
Lead Counsel will request attorneys' fees of 30% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, plus expenses (exclusive of administration costs)
not to exceed $975,000, which includes fees and expenses incurred
by additional plaintiffs' counsel.

If you purchased Kinross common stock on the open market in the
United States (including, but not limited to, the New York Stock
Exchange or any other U.S. trading platform) between August 11,
2011 and January 16, 2012, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the settlement of the Action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion For an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Claims Administrator at City of Austin Police
Retirement System v. Kinross Gold Corp. Settlement, c/o Garden
City Group, LLC, PO Box 10165, Dublin, OH 43017-3165, or by
calling 1-877-940-5048, or on the Internet at
www.kinrossgoldcorpsecuritiessettlement.com or from Lead Counsel's
website at www.bernlieb.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form,
postmarked on or before September 17, 2015 establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by no later than September 17,
2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All Class Members who have not timely and
validly requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement dated March 26, 2015.

Any objection to the Settlement must be filed by no later than
September 17, 2015.

THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel:

U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 779-1414

DATED:  June 25, 2015


KROGER CO: "Rhodes" Class Suit Removed to Arkansas Federal Court
Legal Newsline reports that Kyle Rhodes, Wesley Atwood and
Samantha Hudon filed a lawsuit April 30 in Pulaski County Circuit
Court against The Kroger Company, Andrea Tyson and Patrick
Scherrey, alleging its Kroger Plus shopper's card program violates
state law by giving discounts only to card holders.  The
defendants removed the case to federal court on June 1.

The lawsuit targets all 32 Arkansas Kroger Stores, and alleges the
Kroger Card was instituted in order to allow Kroger to "track
personal purchases and build a valuable database and marketing
tool."  The suit says only cardholders would receive certain
discounts displayed on the grocery store shelves, and
"intentionally refused or failed to grant the same discounts to
buyers who did not present a [Kroger card] at the time of

The suit seeks class status for those who used a Kroger Store in
Arkansas within the last three years and didn't receive the
discounts. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages,
plus court costs.  The three plaintiffs are represented by
attorneys Gene A. Ludwig, Kyle P. Ludwig, Kale L. Ludwig and Ryan
K. Culpepper of the Ludwig Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas case

KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger
Tiffany Lytle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
11208 (Del. Ch., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin
the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to
Allergan plc for inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development,
and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic
medicine market in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290

LANDMARK EVENT: Faces "Hobdy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Felicia Hobdy, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. and Does I
through 50, Case No. RG15775752 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. provides staffing services
for a wide range of special events throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
      3555 Fifth Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
      Telephone: (619) 692-0800
      E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com

LANDRY'S INC: "Dvornikov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
Alexander Dvornikov, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Landry's, Inc. and CHLN, Inc. d/b/a Chart
House Boston, Case No. SUCV2015-01911 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 25,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Chart House restaurant located
at 60 Long Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617)607-3260
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

LINCOLN, NE: Sewage Backup-Affected Property Owners Mull Options
Riley Johnson, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that more
than 60 property owners and renters affected by the sewage backups
attended a meeting at Huntington Elementary on their legal

"We just want the problem solved," she said after the meeting
presented by Domina Law Group.

Attorneys for the firm advised attendants on their legal options
to getting financial relief after many had to overhaul their

Almost all in attendance were affected by both the October and May
backup incidents.

On Oct. 1 and May 6-7, two major rainstorms sent more water to the
Theresa Street Wastewater Treatment Facility than it could handle.

Wastewater that couldn't get into the treatment plant backed up
into nearby homes and apartments both times.

"Not only do you all have the oldest infrastructure," Brian Jorde
of Domina Law Group, told the group.  "You're also in the lowest-
lying area.

"It's kind of like a double whammy."

The city confirmed 174 properties that had sewer water backups
during the May storm.

On June 15, the Lincoln City Council approved a $1 million
disaster assistance fund aimed at providing some money to help
affected property owners and renters pay for sewer-backup cleanup

The fund provides $5,000 for each of the two sewer backup events
and is aimed at protecting the health of affected citizens, city
officials said.

Lawyers present on June 16 advised that if they have small costs
related to cleanup their best option might be to try the
assistance program.  Those with more damage but little financial
help might need to take the city to court.

The affected property owners can't bring a class action lawsuit
against the city because they all have different amounts of damage
in their basements.

But Mr. Jorde and Meg Mikolajczyk, also of Domina Law, outlined
how owners who sue might be able to find relief.  A large volume
of similar lawsuits might get the city to act, Mr. Jorde said.

Just this year, the citizens who sued the city of Gretna won a
similar case where sewage backed up twice in 2010, Ms. Mikolajczyk
said.  That case is now on appeal.

To sue, affected homeowners must first file tort claims with the
city, even if those claims are denied in most cases, the lawyers

City lawyers say the city isn't legally responsible for the sewer
backup damage because city staff were not negligent and the damage
was an "act of God," caused by a major rain event that overwhelmed
the city's sewer system.

Homeowners who agree to accept money from the disaster assistance
program cannot later sue the city, because they waive their right
to those claims and any future claims, Mr. Jorde said.

Jama Compton tore up her basement after the sewage backup in May.

For all of its 38 years, Compton has loved her house at 36th and
Madison streets, she said.

"Now I don't want to live there," she said.

LINKEDIN CORP: Pays $13MM to Settle Add Connections Feature Suit
Linn Freedman, Esq. -- lfreedman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that LinkedIn agreed to pay $13
million and change some of the site's features to settle a class
action lawsuit filed against it in 2013 alleging that it used the
Add Connections feature to access users' email contacts to send
invitations to users' contacts without their consent.

The allegations of the suit include that LinkedIn accessed and
collected email addresses from users' contacts, then sent out
emails that looked like they were from the user to the contacts
who were not LinkedIn users to persuade them to sign up to
LinkedIn.  LinkedIn argued that permission was granted by users
when the user signed up for LinkedIn.

In addition to the monetary settlement, LinkedIn has also agreed
to enhance the user permission process for the use of contact
information, including a new screen that states that LinkedIn will
"import your address book" if a user elects to use the service
which will "upload detailed information about your contacts to our
LinkedIn servers."

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MDL Panel Consolidates Formaldehyde Cases
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to
consolidate at least 10 actions filed over a line of Chinese wood
flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators that plaintiffs allege emit
"excessive levels" of formaldehyde.

The six-member panel issued its three-page transfer order on
June 12.

"After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the
actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and
that centralization in the (U.S. District Court for the) Eastem
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation," wrote Sarah S. Vance, chair of the panel.

"All actions involve common factual questions regarding whether
Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its Chinese-
manufactured laminate flooring complied with California Air
Resources Board standards and other legal requirements governing
the emissions of formaldehyde.

"Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid
inconsistent pretrial rulings (including on issues of class
certification and Daubert motion practice), and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary."

The plaintiffs in the class actions contend their flooring
purchases, which were installed in their homes, are now "markedly
less valuable."

The panel's order affects at least 10 class action lawsuits, but
more than 100 related, or tag-along, actions could be transferred
into the MDL.

Judge Vance, in the order, shot down the suggestion by some
plaintiffs, who supported transferring the actions to other
districts, that the MDL wasn't suited to the speed of the Eastern
District of Virginia's "rocket docket."

The term refers to a court or other tribunal that is noted for its
speedy disposition of cases, often by maintaining strict adherence
to the law as it pertains to filing deadlines.

"When pressed at oral argument, however, plaintiffs failed to
articulate precisely how proceeding at an expeditious pace would
prejudice the parties," Judge Vance noted, adding that the panel
has transferred "relatively few" MDLs to the federal court.

"Further, centralization allows for the coordination of this
litigation with a securities action against Lumber Liquidators
that was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia in November
2013, which has grown to include allegations concerning
formaldehyde emissions from Chinese-made laminate flooring."

District Judge Anthony Trenga will preside over the matter,
according to the panel's order.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Merchandising Exec Ousted Amid Class Action
Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that Lumber
Liquidators ousted its merchandising chief on June 15, just weeks
after he was fingered in a shareholder lawsuit as the "go-to guy"
for the company's controversial Chinese operations.

William Schlegel, who spent four years in the position, will work
his last day at the Toano, Va., operation on June 19, the company
said in a regulatory filing.

Shares of the retailer, down 69 percent since Feb. 25, when CBS
first announced its "60 Minutes" program would detail allegations
that some of the chain's laminate flooring contain dangerously
high levels of formaldehyde, closed on June 15 at $21.48, off
1 cent.

Mr. Schlegel was named the "go-to guy" by confidential witnesses
in a securities class-action lawsuit filed in Virginia federal
court on May 20.  The lawsuit alleges Lumber Liquidators execs
were engaged in a fraud to boost gross margins by buying cheaper
products that were either toxic or illegally obtained.

In addition to Schlegel, former CEO Robert Lynch, former CFO
Daniel Terrell and Chairman and acting CEO Tom Sullivan were named
in the suit.

Messrs. Lynch and Terrell have already left the company.

Undercover videos on "60 Minutes" showed Chinese workers claiming
the mills violated US standards under instructions from the

Lumber Liquidators is under investigation by multiple state and
federal authorities regarding the formaldehyde issue and faces
more than 100 consumer lawsuits.  All of Lumber Liquidators'
Chinese buyers reported to Schlegel, who was responsible for
quality assurance, the lawsuit alleged.

"Schlegel traveled to China frequently to oversee operations, find
new Chinese suppliers, and reported back his findings" to former
CEO Lynch, one confidential witness said.

Mr. Lynch left abruptly May 21 -- the day after the lawsuit was

MAKER's MARK: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Suit
The National Law Review reports on the recent class action lawsuit
filed against Maker's Mark, one of America's favorite whiskeys, by
two consumers who said the company falsely advertised its product
as "handmade."

The suit seized on the word "handmade" used in Maker's Mark
advertising, claiming consumers had been misled.  U.S. District
Judge Robert Hinkle ruled on behalf of Maker's Mark, stating that
"no reasonable person would understand 'handmade' in this context
to mean literally made by hand."

This case is representative of an increasingly common national
trend.  Similar suits have recently been filed against Tito's
Handmade Vodka and Jim Beam Bourbon.

Consumer advocates say that these class action lawsuits are the
most effective way to hold companies accountable for what they
allege to be misleading marketing. But real-life consumers, those
the litigation is supposed to protect, are often harmed as
defendants' legal costs and sometimes multimillion-dollar verdicts
or settlements are passed on in the form of higher prices and
fewer choices.

So all across the country, state policymakers are rethinking and
reforming their respective consumer protection acts (CPAs) to
their original mission of preventing and punishing truly deceptive
business practices.

Most state CPAs were modeled on the Federal Trade Commission Act
when they were first enacted in the 1960s and 1970s.  But since
then, many of these laws have come to include expansive amendments
and judicial interpretations that now allow lawsuits like the one
aimed at Maker's Mark.

Emory University law professor Joanna Shepherd's white paper,
Consumer Protection Acts or Consumer Litigation Acts?, was
published last year and demonstrates this devolution.  It begins
with the origins of the federal law a century ago when "Congress
first sought to define and deter" a "new class of consumer harms"
that arose as "the merchant-consumer relationship" evolved
rapidly, along with new products and services, retail models, and
credit-based payment systems.  "Unfair and deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce" were prohibited by the broadly
worded new law.

But to prevent litigious mischief, Congress purposely limited
enforcement of the law to its newly created FTC, prohibiting
private lawsuits out of fear that "a certain class of lawyers"
would otherwise "arise to ply the vocation of hunting up and
working of such suits," the number of which "no man can estimate,"
warned Sen. William J. Stone (D-MO) prior to the act's 1914

Fifty years later, the states were no longer willing to leave
consumer protection entirely to the federal government.
Eventually all 50 states and the District of Columbia adopted
their own consumer protection statutes and authorized state
attorneys general to enforce them.

By the 1980s, however, many state CPAs were being expanded well
beyond their original scope. No longer were these laws enforced
primarily by state attorneys general seeking injunctive relief in
the public interest.  Now they permitted and even promoted private
lawsuits seeking significant awards for sometimes theoretical
damages and inflated attorney's fees. Incredibly, some plaintiffs
no longer have to prove injuries, demonstrate that they relied on
allegedly deceptive representations, or even behaved reasonably in
order to prevail in lawsuits.

But here's to judges like Judge Hinkle who require plaintiffs to
explain precisely how they were misled by innocuous advertising
terms like "handmade."  And here's to those state lawmakers
working to refocus their consumer protection laws in the interest
of consumers who were truly misled into making a purchase and
suffered an actual injury as a result.

MARTHA STEWART LIVING: Sued Over Proposed Sequential Merger
Malka Raul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11214-VCN (Del. Ch., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of
the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.,
to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the
Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed
process and for an inadequate price.

Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing
consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality

Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018.
Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a
portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORT: Nixes "Honor Box" Parking System
Ed Donga, writing for The Enterprise, reports that commuters who
use the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's rail system
rejoiced on June 15 after the agency announced its decision to
eliminate the loathed "honor box" system at its parking

For years, commuters at some MBTA stations had to stuff folded
dollar bills into the honor box slots, which corresponded to their
numbered parking place. Riders would receive no receipt for their
payment, and parking attendants would collect the cash and issue
tickets for nonpayment throughout the day, the Enterprise
reported.  However, the boxes often drew the ire of customers,
many of whom alleged receiving tickets despite paying for their
parking spot.

Richard Meyer, a Brockton resident, who had grown frustrated with
the system after over a decade of using it, filed a federal class-
action lawsuit last summer, alleging that the system violated his
and other riders constitutional right to due process.  Without a
receipt, riders had no way to disprove the tickets that they were
given, Meyer and his attorney argued.

"There are many times, I've put money in and they have given me a
ticket claiming that I didn't pay," said Gloria Claiborne, at the
Montello Commuter Rail station in Brockton on June 15.

The frustration with the system led Claiborne to become an early
adopter of one of the payment systems that the MBTA is using to
replace the honor boxes.

Eight months ago, Claiborne started using the PayByPhone,
application, which allows customers to pay using their phone or
any Internet connected device.  According to a press release from
the MBTA, 75 percent of commuters who pay in an honor box parking
lot already use the application.

"I was surprised they hadn't gone to an electronic system a long
time ago," said Rob LaPierre, who commutes from Brookline to his
job in Brockton.  "It's much easier."

While Mr. LaPierre can pay for parking electronically in
Brookline, he said his family, who lives south of Boston, has been
stuck with the archaic honor box system, including his mother who
has been wrongly ticketed and lost money by placing it in the
wrong slot.

In addition to the PayByPhone option, riders can also purchase a
monthly parking pass, which ranges in price from $70 to $90.  In
August, the passes will become universal, meaning commuters will
be able to use them at any MBTA parking lot.

For customers who do not wish to use PayByPhone or purchase a
parking pass, a monthly invoice will be mailed to the address
listed on the vehicle owner's registration billing them for
transactions within the preceding 30-day period.  The invoice
method of payment costs 50 cents more per day than the PayByPhone

MAXLINEAR INC: Parties to Delaware Actions Entered Into MOU
MaxLinear, 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 to the
Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding a proposed settlement of the Delaware actions.

Beginning on February 9, 2015, eleven stockholder class action
complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v.
Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (filed Feb. 9,
2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall
v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP
(filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661-
VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No.
10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17,
2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A.
No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015))
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of a putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc.
stockholders. The complaints name Entropic, the board of directors
of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and
Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally
allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger
subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, an order declaring the
merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, in the event that the
proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to the class,
imposition of a constructive trust, damages, and/or attorneys'
fees and costs.

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and
Angelo Agosti filed an amended class action complaint. Also on
March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Martin Wohl and Jeffrey Park filed an
amended class action complaint. On April 1, 2015, plaintiff Mark
Respler filed an amended class action complaint.

On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc.
Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP (the
"Consolidated Action"). The April 16, 2015 order appointed
plaintiffs Rama Iyer and Jon Werbowsky as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ankur Saggar,
Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti as the operative complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, the Company,
Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC.
The Amended Complaint generally alleges that, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Entropic by the Company, the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic
stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to
maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders, engaging in a
purportedly unfair and conflicted sale process, agreeing to
allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger
agreement, and allegedly misrepresenting and/or failing to
disclose all material information in connection with the proposed
transaction. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the
Company and the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the
individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things: an order
declaring the merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, an
order rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger
agreement, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction, imposition of a constructive trust, and
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement
of the Delaware actions. The proposed settlement is subject to
negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject
to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is
provided to the proposed settlement class. There can be no
assurance that the parties will reach agreement regarding the
final terms of the settlement agreement or that the Court of
Chancery will approve the settlement.

MAXLINEAR INC: Court Dismissed Khoury and Krasinski Actions
MaxLinear, 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 Court has granted
plaintiffs' request to dismiss the Khoury and Krasinski actions.

Beginning on February 10, 2015, two stockholder class action
complaints (captioned Krasinski v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 37-2015-00004613-CU-SL-CTL (filed Feb. 10, 2015);
and Khoury v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-
2015-00004737-CU-SL-CTL (filed Feb. 11, 2015)) were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California County of San Diego on
behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders. The
complaints name Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic,
MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur
Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally allege
that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by
MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that MaxLinear and the merger subsidiaries aided
and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things,
an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, an order rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the proposed transaction or any of its terms, and
awarding plaintiffs costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
On March 16, 2015, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiff's request to dismiss the Khoury action without
prejudice. On March 19, 2015, the court entered an order granting
the plaintiff's request to dismiss the Krasinski action without

MAXLINEAR INC: "Badalato" & "Mouw" Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
MaxLinear, 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 Anthony
Badalato and Brad Mouw have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of the Federal Action without prejudice.

Beginning on February 25, 2015, two stockholder complaints
(captioned Badolato v. MaxLinear, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-
0426-BAS (filed Feb. 25, 2015); and Mouw v. MaxLinear, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-cv-0464-WQH (filed Mar. 2, 2015)) were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders
and, derivatively, on behalf of Entropic. The complaints name the
board of directors of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC as defendants, and name
Entropic as a nominal party. The complaints generally allege that,
in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by
MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that MaxLinear and the merger subsidiaries aided
and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things,
an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, an order rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the proposed transaction or any of its terms, and
awarding plaintiffs costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
On March 6, 2015, the Entropic and the individual defendants in
the Badolato action filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
forum non conveniens because Entropic's bylaws contain a mandatory
forum selection clause mandating that shareholder actions, such as
this, be brought in state court in Delaware.

On March 30, 2015, plaintiffs Badolato and Mouw filed an amended
complaint in the first-filed action, Case No. 15-cv-00426-BAS-KSC
(the "Federal Action"), and plaintiff Mouw voluntarily dismissed
the later filed action, Mouw v. MaxLinear, Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-0046, on March 30, 2015. The amended complaint names as
defendants Entropic Communications, Inc., the members of the
Entropic board of directors, the Company, Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The amended complaint
asserts claims against the individual defendants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of
Entropic to the Company pursuant to an allegedly unfair process
and for an allegedly unfair price and asserts claims against
Entropic, MaxLinear, and the merger subsidiaries for allegedly
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amended complaint asserts claims against all
of the defendants for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-
9 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the Form S-4
registration statement filed with the SEC on March 12, 2015 and
amended on March 25, 2015. The amended complaint also asserts a
claim for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants and the Company. The amended
complaint seeks a judgment declaring, among other things, that the
Form S-4 was materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, awarding plaintiffs and the
members of the putative class compensatory and/or rescisssory
damages, awarding plaintiffs and the members of the putative class
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, and costs, and granting equitable
and/or injunctive relief.

On April 6, 2015, the district court entered an order terminating
defendants' motion to dismiss the Badolato complaint as moot in
light of the filing of an amended complaint.  On April 22, 2015,
plaintiffs Anthony Badalato and Brad Mouw filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the Federal Action without prejudice.

MCKNIGHT'S: Medicare Review Class Action Can Proceed
Emily Mongan, writing for McKnight's, reports that six Medicare
beneficiaries whose appeal cases were delayed beyond 90 days will
have their challenges tried as one nationwide class action suit.

A federal judge in Connecticut granted class certification to the
beneficiaries, saying a national class was appropriate because the
plaintiffs met the required factors for class certification, and
because the claims involved a nationwide program.  The judge also
rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs' claims
were invalid, since they all suddenly received hearings and
decisions at the administrative law judge level shortly after
their complaints were filed.

The beneficiaries, the majority of whom live in Connecticut and
are represented by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, filed
Medicare coverage claims for acute care that were denied by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  After submitting
requests for their appeals to be heard by an ALJ, the
beneficiaries waited to receive decisions for periods ranging from
194 to 626 days -- well beyond the 90-day waiting period. One
plaintiff, who appealed for coverage of a nursing home stay in
November 2013, died one day before his decision was received in
September 2014.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy noted beneficiaries and providers
are waiting too long on reviews. In similar cases brought by
medical providers around ALJ delays, the judges have granted the
government's motions to dismiss.

"Even though Medicare has recently been sending beneficiaries to
the front of the ALJ line so that they do not have to wait as long
as providers -- though still well beyond the mandated 90 days --
we have to remember that Medicare is all about beneficiaries,"
said Judith Stein, executive director for the Center for Medicare

MICHIGAN: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Insurance Issues
Darren Cunningham of The FOX 17 Problem Solvers sat down with two
state lawmakers, a Republican and a Democrat, who said if there's
a problem with the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA),
then they're willing to take a closer look.

"If I got a letter that said I owed $23,000, I'd have a heart
attack," said Rep. Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids.

That was his reaction to just one of the fines issued by the UIA.
But it doesn't stop there. Problem Solvers has seen people fined
more than $100,000, with some being penalized as much as four
times what they ever collected in benefits.

FOX 17's previous reports delved into many of the discrepancies in
addition to fraud allegations, apparent systemic computer flaws,
and hefty fines.  Many people tell FOX 17 they've been denied a
simple hearing with the state to defend themselves.  And if they
do get a hearing, they are told they don't qualify for free state-
appointed help.

"In fairness, I think your reporting on this and FOX 17's
reporting has really brought a lot of these issues that, frankly,
I was unaware of," Mr. Dillon said.  "The idea that if you are
accused of fraud and somehow you are unable to access the
assistance of somebody who is paid to advocate on behalf of people
who have disputes with Unemployment I think is extremely unfair.
That should be what those advocates are set up to do."

Issues range from a mistakes made by a new computer system to
people being unable to get answers and the help they need.

Dillon said the system as a whole needs a look.

"And we need to talk to the administration and find out what
they're going to do to address this problem and, if it takes a
legislative fix to be able to help people who've been burned by
this system, I would be very open to that," Mr. Dillon said.
"We've made it tougher for people in this state in the last four
years to get the benefits that they historically had."

While the governor's office and other state agencies aren't
willing to discuss these issues with FOX 17 Problem Solvers
because of pending litigation, it appears that leadership is
following our news coverage.

FOX 17 Problem Solvers filed a public records request for emails.
In early May, in response to our story on Joshua Coster of
Zeeland, Stephanie Comai, director of the Talent Investment told
the director of the Unemployment Insurance Agency's director "It
does not make a lot of sense to me to penalize people who actually
never collected any benefits."

Problem Solvers reported that UIA took Mr. Coster's $2,700 tax
refund over a discrepancy in his unemployment benefits
application, even though he never received a dime in benefits.
Mr. Coster said he never had a fair chance to fight it.  Problem
Solvers helped him get his money back.

"Based on what you've been learning, it's definitely triggered my
interest," Rep. Ken Yonker, R-Caledonia, told FOX 17.

Mr. Yonker said his office hasn't taken any action against the UIA
because it hasn't received many calls from people.  Problem
Solvers are hearing this from several lawmakers.  Mr. Yonker
agrees with Dillon about possibly questioning the agency and said
a deeper investigation is an option.

"[Lawmakers] can start communicating the issue and start watching
it and be able to put pressure on," Mr. Yonker explained, "because
ultimately our power is in the budget.  If a department doesn't
perform then the strongest arm we have is pull funding. Of course
no one likes that."

Mr. Dillon said the agency is doing its job by cracking down on
fraud.  "But the way we are doing it now seems to be totally
skewed towards hurting people who have either collected benefits
for a short period of time and are now being told that they should
have done that," ," Mr. Dillon said, "or making it just more
difficult for the average person to get through a tough time."

"That should not be the role of the state," Mr. Dillon added.  "It
should in fact be the exact opposite of that."

Each time FOX 17 Problem Solvers reaches out to the governor's
office and UIA for an interview, we're told no one can comment on
the issues because of pending federal litigation.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit said the state attorney
general's office recently requested a 60-day extension to formally
respond to the lawsuit.

The suit is not considered a class action lawsuit, but there are
seven plaintiffs in the case.  The Sugar Law Center is an
institutional plaintiff in the case and is taking phone calls at

MIDATECH PHARMA: Faces "Quinn" Suit Over Proposed DARA Merger
Matthew Quinn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midatech Pharma Plc, et al., Case No. 11217 (Del. Ch.,
June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
DARA BioSciences, Inc., to enjoin a proposed acquisition of DARA
by Midatech Pharma PLC, for an unfair price and inadequate

DARA BioSciences, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
primarily focused on the commercialization of oncology treatment
and supportive care pharmaceutical products.

Midatech Pharma Plc is a nano-medicine company focused on the
development and commercialization of multiple, high-value,
targeted therapies for major diseases with unmet medical need.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MILLERCOORS: Faces Class Action Over Blue Moon False Advertising
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit alleges a major
beer company falsely advertises that one of its beers is craft
brewed and charges a premium price for the product.

Evan Parent filed the lawsuit in May 30 U.S. District Court
Southern District of California against MillerCoors, alleging its
brand of Blue Moon beer isn't actually craft despite what the
company advertises.  The lawsuit said the Brewers Association
specifically defines craft breweries as "small, independent and
traditional." Additionally, to quality as a craft brewery, the
company must produce less than 6 million barrels of beer every
year, make beer with "only traditional or innovative brewing
ingredients, and be less than 25 percent owned by a non-craft
brewer, the suit says.  The suit says MillerCoors has eight major
breweries in the county and produces more than 76 million barrels
of beer each year.

The lawsuit seeks class status for all those who purchased Blue
Moon beer over the last four years.  Mr. Parent also seeks an
unspecified amount in damages, plus court costs.  He is
represented by attorneys R. Craig Clark and James M. Treglio --
jtreglio@clarklawyers.com -- of Clark & Treglio in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:15-cv-01204

MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
Monica Davey, writing for The New York Times, reports that in a
decision watched by officials in 20 states that hold some sex
offenders after they complete prison sentences, a federal judge
ruled that Minnesota's program for such offenders was

Judge Donovan W. Frank of Federal District Court in St. Paul found
that the state's program, which holds more than 700 people in two
secure facilities for indefinite periods, had failed to release
some who no longer met the criteria for being confined.

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that Minnesota's
civil commitment scheme is a punitive system that segregates and
indefinitely detains a class of potentially dangerous individuals
without the safeguards of the criminal justice system," Judge
Frank wrote.

While Judge Frank's ruling, released on June 17, does not directly
affect civil commitment programs in other states, officials
elsewhere were paying close attention to the outcome, largely
because questions about the constitutionality, costs and
effectiveness of holding sex offenders beyond their prison terms
have long been debated.

Since the 1990s, when Minnesota began involuntarily committing sex
offenders deemed "sexually dangerous" or "sexual psychopathic
personalities" to the treatment program after they finished prison
terms, no one has been found to have improved enough to be fully
discharged.  State records show that only three people have been
released with tight restrictions.

"The stark reality is that there is something very wrong with this
state's method of dealing with sex offenders in a program that has
never fully discharged anyone committed to its detention
facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter since its inception in
1994," the judge wrote, adding that given the structure of the
program and its history, "no one has any realistic hope of ever
getting out of this 'civil' detention."

The judge's finding in the class-action lawsuit, filed in 2011 by
14 people who were being held, leaves state officials and
lawmakers to try to come up with suitable repairs to the program
during a second phase of the case this summer.  The ruling does
not mean that the centers, which resemble prisons in many ways,
will immediately close.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, defended the program, and suggested
that further legal action is possible.  "We continue to believe
that both the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and the civil
commitment statute are constitutional," he said.

Along with the federal government, Minnesota and 19 other states
have civil commitment laws that allow hundreds of pedophiles,
rapists and other sexual offenders to be treated and detained
beyond their criminal sentences, usually in special treatment
centers.  A series of shocking and highly publicized crimes in the
1980s and 1990s led states to write the current set of laws
permitting commitment for such offenders.

Since then, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the
constitutionality of the laws in part because their intent was to
provide intense treatment, not more punishment.  The results,
though, have been mixed.  Experts said that some states, like New
York and Wisconsin, have a record of releasing offenders once they
have undergone treatment and meet certain criteria, but in many
states only a fraction of those committed ever finished treatment
to the point where they were sent home, free and clear.

In Minnesota, the lawsuit claimed, the situation has been
particularly extreme.  The judge found that the state has the
highest per capita population of sex offenders being held through
civil commitment in the nation.

The price tag of commitment is significant, in part because of the
costs of treatment.  A civilly committed person costs Minnesota
nearly $125,000 a year -- at least three times the cost of housing
a prisoner, the judge found.  Over all, the program cost the state
$80.9 million this budget year, state officials said.

State officials, who oversee the program, emphasized that the
judge had not ordered the release of anyone and that any changes
would not be immediate.  In an interview, Lucinda Jesson, the
state's human services commissioner, said she agreed that
improvements could be made but said that slow, steady progress had
occurred in recent years, with more people in a final phase of
treatment than ever.

"The program does serve an important service to the people of
Minnesota," Ms. Jesson said.  "There are people in this program
you don't ever want living next to you."

But Dan Gustafson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the suit, said
Minnesota treated those committed essentially as prisoners.  He
said there was no annual process for determining whether someone
had improved to the point where they no longer were dangerous; the
treatment itself and the required sequence of steps for moving
toward release shifted repeatedly; and some of those being held
could well have functioned in less restrictive settings.

"It is fundamental to our notions of a free society that we do not
imprison citizens because we fear that they might commit a crime
in the future," Judge Frank wrote in his 76-page finding.

MISSISSIPPI: Aug. 10 Hearing Set for Foster Care Contempt Motion
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that the
latest report by an independent federal court monitor says
Mississippi doesn't have the capacity to meet many of the court
order's basic requirements to improve the state's foster care

"The evidence shows that in most instances defendants did not meet
Period 4 performance requirements," said Grace Lopes, the
Washington, D.C.-based monitored appointed by a Mississippi
federal judge.  "Based on the history of defendants' performance
since 2008 when the remedial stage of this lawsuit began, it
appears that defendants do not have the capacity to meet many of
the MSA's most basic requirements. Defendants' ongoing failure to
meet these requirements has a substantial and continuing impact on
the safety and well being of the thousands of children in
defendants' custody every year and their timely placement in
permanent and nurturing homes."

Ms. Lopes said the parties and the court must confront reality and
determine a course that will protect the children in defendants'
custody on an urgent timeline.

Marcia Robinson Lowry, head of New York-based A Better Childhood,
Inc., said the monitor's report that was issued on June 15
reinforces the organization's petition to seek to hold the
Mississippi Department of Human Services in contempt of court for
allegedly failing to implement a more than seven year settlement

Ms. Lowry said the court order in the Olivia Y lawsuit was entered
in 2008 to resolve the original lawsuit filed more than a decade
ago claiming widespread constitutional failings in the state
foster care system.

"The contempt motion will include the issues that are in this
report," said Lowry, an attorney who was part of the initial group
filing the lawsuit.

The contempt citation was already filed and will now be updated to
include the latest monitor's report, according to Lowry.

Ms. Lowry was with another New York-based organization, Children's
Rights, when the lawsuit was filed in 2004.  The suit asserted
widespread violations of the constitutional rights of children in
the Mississippi foster care system.

The class action, originally known as Olivia Y. v. Barbour, cited
dangerously high caseloads, untrained caseworkers, a shortage of
foster homes, and a widespread failure to provide basic health

In 2008, a settlement was approved by the federal court. But in
2010, the plaintiffs asked the state to be found in contempt for

The court found that the state was in noncompliance with
"virtually all areas covered by the agreements" but declined to
hold the state in contempt. Instead, the court directed the
parties to renegotiate the agreement and to "establish realistic

A modified settlement was approved in July 2012.

According to Ms. Lowry, the modified settlement contained an
action plan to address the state's consistent failure to meet
court-ordered performance standards.

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee has set Aug. 10 for an evidentiary
hearing on the contempt motion.

The Mississippi Department of Human Services has refused to
comment, citing pending litigation.

During state budget hearings last year, Mississippi Department of
Human Services Executive Director Rickey Berry said the state
needs to spend an additional $12 million to meet requirements of
the lawsuit.

He also said then that the state had seen an increase of 450
children in foster care in the past year, with many of the
children entering foster care because of drug use by their
biological parents.  Also, he said the state had a vacancy of
about 150 social workers.

MONTREAL MAINE: Judge Reserves Decision on Train Crash Settlement
Allison Lampert, writing for Reuters, reports that a Quebec judge
reserved his decision on June 17 on whether to grant a motion that
would clear the way for a settlement between victims of the 2013
Lac-Megantic oil train disaster and dozens of companies and
individuals linked to the crash that killed 47 people.

Patrice Benoit, the lawyer representing the defunct railway at the
center of the disaster, appeared in court to ask that parties who
have agreed to pay into a C$431 million compensation fund be
protected from further lawsuits.

Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., which unlike other companies
targeted by a class action lawsuit has not agreed to the
settlement, asked the court to shield it from future litigation as
well and challenged the provincial court's jurisdiction.

CP transported the tank cars of oil involved in the accident to
Montreal before handing them over to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic,
which was operating the train at the time of the crash. That
railway is now insolvent.

Left unattended, the train rolled into Lac-Megantic at high speed,
derailed and exploded, flattening the center of the town. CP did
not own the rail cars or the track. Because of their special
status as common carriers, railways are generally not allowed to
refuse to ship hazardous goods.

"We are being asked to align ourselves with parties responsible
for this tragedy, and to accept blame even though CP was not
involved in the derailment," spokesman Martin Cej said in an

CP's opposition could block or delay the settlement. If the
settlement is approved and CP is not shielded from future
lawsuits, it could be the only defendant at trial.

Joel Rochon, the lawyer behind the class action on behalf of
Lac-Megantic residents, threatened to target the railway's
directors and officers -- including billionaire investor William
Ackman -- as well as the company itself, if the settlement is not

"If it fails we will sue CP and the officers and directors for
C$431 million," he said outside the court room in Sherbrooke,
south of Montreal.

Court documents showed that General Electric, Shell Oil Company,
ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil and Canada's federal government are
among the parties that have agreed to the settlement.

                           *     *     *

The Quebec Superior Court began hearing arguments regarding
approval of the settlement on June 15.  Giuseppe Valiante, writing
for The Canadian Press, reports that lawyers for Canadian Pacific
Railway -- the sole firm accused of responsibility in the rail
disaster not to participate in the settlement offer -- were to
argue the process is illegitimate and unfair, according to court
documents and lawyers representing the victims.

CP spokesman Martin Cej said in an email while families of the 47
victims of the July 6, 2013 tragedy deserve compensation, CP is
not one of the companies responsible for what happened when the
runaway train owned by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway Limited
(MMA) derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic's downtown.

Lawyer Jeff Orenstein -- jorenstein@clg.org -- of Consumer Law
Group, helped launch a class-action against about 25 companies --
including MMA and CP -- accused in the derailment.  The class
action was put on hold, however, pending the result of the
settlement process.

If the Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas approves the settlement
fund, all the companies who together offered the combined $431.5
million will be released from legal liability in the U.S. and
Canada and permanently removed from the class-action.

Court documents state CP is arguing the bankruptcy protection
process currently underway in Canada -- which is tied to the
settlement offer -- should not be heard in Quebec Superior Court
but in Federal Court.

CP argues the MMA was a railroad -- under federal jurisdiction --
and therefore not subject to Quebec bankruptcy proceedings.  If CP
is successful, the victims and creditors of the train disaster
could have to go through years of expensive and time-consuming
litigation before seeing any money, says the court-appointed
monitor of the Canadian bankruptcy proceedings for the defunct

"CP is effectively trying to have the whole Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings terminated and bring the
settlement process to a halt," said Andrew Adessky with Richter
Advisory Group.

MMA, which operated as different companies in the U.S. and Canada,
didn't have anywhere near enough insurance to pay damages to
victims and therefore went into bankruptcy protection on both
sides of the border.

Almost 4,000 people launched a class-action lawsuit against about
25 companies accused of responsibility for the derailment. All
agreed to compensate victims in exchange for being released of any
legal liability for the tragedy, except CP.  The $431.5 million
offer was accepted unanimously by creditors and victims in Lac-
Megantic on June 8.

Mr. Adessky said "the settlement fund is predicated on people
contributing money in exchange for releases (from legal liability)
and the releases have to come through the (bankruptcy) process."

That's why it's important for victims of the train disaster to win
against CP's motion, he said.

CP also argues the settlement process is unfair because if the
other companies are released from legal liability, it will no
longer be able cross-sue them if they elect to take CP to court to
recoup the money they gave to the settlement fund.

"This compensation fund should not be used to free those parties
responsible for the derailment from future liability and legal
action," Mr. Cej wrote.  "CP contends that it is not among the
parties responsible for the incident as the train was not operated
by CP employees or travelling on CP tracks, nor were our
locomotives, railcars or product involved in the derailment."

The train carrying crude from the U.S. was handed off from CP to
an MMA-controlled rail network for its final journey to a New
Brunswick refinery.

Before it arrived in the East Coast it derailed in the Quebec town
of Lac-Megantic and destroyed part of its downtown.

The victims say CP should have known the crude was not labelled
properly as well as that MMA was allegedly taking risks in its
transportation of the highly volatile substance.

Mr. Orenstein said his case was authorized by a judge in May but
has been put on hold pending the outcome of the June 15 hearing.

The class-action against CP will go forward if the railway company
refuses to be part of the settlement fund, he said.

"CP has been in the courtroom for over a year sitting there and
they have not stood up and said (they objected to the settlement
process) until now," Mr. Orenstein said.

MONTREAL MAINE: Canadian Pacific Challenges Settlement
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
lawyer for the defunct railroad at the centre of the Lac-Megantic
train derailment said Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. is acting
deplorably and offensively by attempting to shut down proceedings
to distribute over $430 million to victims and creditors of the
2013 tragedy.

Patrice Benoit told Quebec Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas on
June 15 if he accepts arguments by the railway, the settlement
fund for victims of the train disaster "and everything else we did
for two years would end in failure."

More than 40 lawyers attended the hearing in a large courtroom in
Sherbrooke, Que.

Most of the roughly 25 companies accused of responsibility in the
July 6, 2013, derailment in Lac-Megantic, Que. that killed 47
people, have agreed to pay money into a settlement fund.
The $431.5 million offer was accepted unanimously by creditors and
victims on June 8.

Canadian Pacific is the only company accused in the tragedy that
has refused to participate in the fund and argued on June 15 the
current settlement process is illegitimate.

CP's lawyer, Andre Durocher, told the court bankruptcy proceedings
should not have been authorized in the first place because
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway Ltd., the rail company that
owned the train that derailed, was under Federal Court

"(Bankruptcy laws) are black and white," Mr. Durocher said.  "The
laws exclude banks and railroad companies" from provincial
insolvency proceedings, he said.

Ms. Benoit argued that jurisprudence states general-charter
railroads -- as MMA used to be -- are under the jurisdiction of
provincial courts for bankruptcy proceedings.

MMA didn't have enough insurance to pay damages to victims and
creditors, so it filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and Canada.  As
part of the insolvency proceedings, MMA -- as well as the other
companies accused in the derailment -- are offering money to
victims in exchange for releases from liability.

The $431.5 million settlement fund is tied to the insolvency case
currently before the Quebec Superior Court.

Ms. Benoit told the judge that Canadian Pacific has been involved
in the bankruptcy proceedings in Quebec for almost two years and
for the railway company to object now is "deplorable, offensive
. . . and an abuse of court process."

"I can't imagine a worse example of laying in the weeds for almost
two years without saying anything," Ms. Benoit said.

He added that Justice Dumas has ruled on roughly 40 motions since
the start of the proceedings and Canadian Pacific only voiced its
objection to the jurisdiction of the court recently.

Mr. Durocher countered the company is within its legal rights to
call the competency of the court into question as it only
recognized recently its rights would be infringed.

While Canadian Pacific doesn't dispute that families of the
victims deserve compensation, the company argues it is not one of
the companies responsible for what happened when a runaway train
owned by now-defunct MMA derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic's

The train carrying crude from the U.S. was handed off from CP to
an MMA-controlled rail network for its final journey to a New
Brunswick refinery.

Court documents state CP had the contract to deliver the fuel, but
sub-contracted the final leg of the journey to the defunct
railroad.  Before it arrived in the East Coast it derailed in the
Quebec town of Lac-Megantic and destroyed part of its downtown.

The victims say CP should have known the crude was not labelled
properly and that MMA was allegedly taking risks in its
transportation of the highly volatile substance.

"I'm a little disappointed by the way CP has handled this
proceeding," said Jeff Orenstein, a lawyer with the Consumer Law
Group, which launched a class-action lawsuit against the 25

"(CP has) taken the position they aren't going to enter into (the
settlement fund) and to go further now they are contesting the
plan.  We aren't necessarily pleased," he said.

Mr. Orenstein's lawsuit against the 25 companies has been put on
hold pending the approval of the settlement fund.

If the fund is approved, the companies that have contributed money
to the settlement fund will be released permanently from his

On June 17, Justice Dumas was set to hear arguments for and
against the approval of the $430 million settlement fund.
CP intends to argue that the fund is unfair because by freeing
other firms of legal liability, it won't be able to counter-sue
them if those companies decided to take Canadian Pacific to court
to recoup the settlement sums they gave.

Justice Dumas is expected to rule on CP's court-jurisdiction
motion and on whether or not to accept the settlement fund at a
later date following the June 17 hearing.

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
With the Stanley Cup Playoffs concluded, all National Hockey
League fans can now get excited about viewing next season's games,
thanks especially to a proposed settlement agreement granted
preliminary approval by Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin in the
United States District Court.

"The parties have successfully reached a compromise that will
create more consumer choice and lower prices," said Ned Diver --
ndiver@langergrogan.com -- a partner at Langer, Grogan & Diver,
the Philadelphia firm that is serving as lead class counsel.
Under the proposed settlement, consumers outside a team's home
market will have the option of purchasing only their favorite
team's games.  "For the first time in any major league sport in
the U.S., consumers will be able to choose between the full,
league-wide package and individual-team packages," Mr. Diver said.

The class action lawsuit, originally filed in 2012, challenged the
NHL's broadcast practices.  The complaint, brought on behalf of
Comcast and DIRECTV customers and purchasers of the NHL's
streaming service, GameCenter Live, alleged that the NHL had
carved up the broadcast market into exclusive territories in order
to protect each team's television partner from competition.

Langer Grogan & Diver's team included Ned Diver, Howard Langer,
John Grogan, and Peter Leckman.  The class is also represented by
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP;
Motley Rice, LLC; Pomerantz, LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and
Boni & Zack, LLC.

The case is Laumann, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al., 12-
cv-1817 (SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C. (LGD) -- http://www.langergrogan.com
-- is a nationally recognized complex commercial litigation law
firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  LGD obtained one of the
largest ever consumer class action recoveries when it reclaimed
over $150 million dollars on behalf of victims of telemarketing
fraud.  The firm's attorneys also obtained the largest antitrust
settlement ever within the Third Circuit.  LGD is widely
recognized for its significant commitment to law in the public
interest, through both pro bono representation and financial

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
Legal Newsline reports that a mortgage lender is being sued over
allegations the company gouged consumers and illegally enhanced

City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System filed
the lawsuit June 2 in U.S. District Court in Florida against
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, claiming the company overstated its
ability to profit from servicing loans.  The lawsuit claims the
company is the second largest non-bank subprime mortgage servicer,
and stated in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it was improving profitability.

However, the lawsuit claims management deficiencies prevented the
company from complying with laws and regulations, and that it was
gouging borrowers by charging for "repeated, unnecessary
inspections."  The company is also accused of pressuring
mortgagors to refinance their mortgages and complete expensive

The company was eventually named in a federal racketeering
lawsuit, and its stock fell 13 percent.  The lawsuit is seeking
class status for all stockholders between Feb. 27, 2014, and May 4
of this year.  The plaintiffs are also seeking an unspecified
amount in damages plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul J. Geller, Jack Reise and
Elizabeth A. Shonson -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP in Boca Raton, Fla.; Samuel H. Rudman and Mary
K. Blasy of the same law firm in Melville, N.Y.; and Thomas C.
Michaud of Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C. of Detroit.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case
number 15-cv-61170

NESTLE PURINA: National Campaign Launched Amid Beneful Action
NBC News reports that pet food giant Purina launched a national
campaign in support of its Beneful brand -- just as an ongoing
lawsuit against the brand expanded its allegations that the
popular feed is making dogs sick.

The amended complaint against Nestle Purina PetCare Company's
Beneful dry kibble dog food was filed on June 8 in California
federal court, adding 26 additional pet owners from states
spanning coast to coast.  The lawsuit now alleges that Beneful
contains toxins and that Purina has been offering cash settlements
in exchange for silence from those who voice complaints about the

The amendments to the suit come on the heels of a national
campaign recently launched by Purina defending its products.  The
"I Stand Behind Beneful" campaign features a full-page
advertisement in the New York Times and a TV commercial showing
workers who both make Beneful and feed it to their own pets, the
company said.

"This really boils down to the fact that we're really proud of the
Beneful product and there are no issues with the quality,"
Keith Schopp, vice president of corporate relations for Purina,
told NBC News.  "We thought one of the best ways to show that
pride would be actually through the men and women who make Beneful
and feed it to their own pets."

The company featured a second full-page in the New York Times on
June 14.

Plaintiff and pet owner Frank Lucido, who claims one of his dogs
died and two others became ill after eating Beneful, initiated the
original lawsuit against Purina in early February of this year.

Jeffrey B. Cereghino, the lawyer spearheading the case against
Purina, said he and the law firms participating in the suit have
been contacted by thousands of people who believe Beneful may have
poisoned their dogs.

"The immediacy of folks willing to participate was really quite
extraordinary," he said.

The amended suit includes 26 additional plaintiffs with similar
stories and claims that Purina failed to disclose that the brand
contains substances toxic to animals -- including Industrial Grade
Glycols (IGG), lead, arsenic and mycotoxins.  The suit is seeking
class-action status and $5,000,000 in damages.

Purina has continued to deny the allegations in the suit,
publishing an extensive statement on its website on June 9 in
response to the amended complaint.

"We're really disturbed by the ongoing false and unsubstantiated
allegations," Mr. Schopp told NBC News.

The company said in the statement that Beneful is not formulated
with IGG, but rather "high-quality human food-grade levels" of
propylene glycol.  While Industrial Grade Glycols are not approved
for use in food by the FDA, food-grade propylene glycol is
approved as safe for use in human and dog food.  The original
lawsuit listed propylene glycol in its complaint, instead of IGG.
The Purina statement also says the company tests "for well over
150 substances," including mycotoxins, lead and arsenic as part of
its food safety and ingredient surveillance programs.

Dr. Kurt Venator, director of veterinary strategy and programs at
Purina, said the strict testing standards extend to their
ingredient suppliers as well.  Purina products "meet or exceed
food quality and safety standards," he said.

The pets listed in the lawsuit vary in age and in length of time
consuming Beneful before becoming ill, but the consistent
symptoms, according to the suit, include: vomiting, diarrhea, loss
of appetite, liver or kidney malfunction and failure, seizures,
and even death.

Plaintiff Rob Benham, of Versailles, Indiana, told NBC News he and
his family believe Beneful is responsible for the death of Sadie,
a 7-year-old Miniature Fox terrier, and the ailing health of their
5-year-old Shih Tzu Willie.  Mr. Benham, 47, began feeding his
dogs Beneful in June 2013, partially for financial reasons, he

"Purina is a household word, we felt very safe in doing that," he

Within a month, Sadie began losing weight dramatically, Mr. Benham
said.  When they took her to their veterinarian, they were
informed Sadie had developed problems with her liver and would
need medication.  But the vet was unable to find the cause of the

"He was baffled," Mr. Benham said.  "He could think of no reason
for it."

The symptoms only got worse.

"She started having trouble with her vision and was staggering
everywhere," he said. "She had always been very healthy."

"On October 19 of 2013, we lost her," Mr. Benham said through

Mr. Cereghino said there was a disconnect between the company's
new campaign and how Purina has treated concerned customers.

The amended suit claims that Purina has been contacting consumers
who post negative experiences with Beneful to social media,
denying liability while offering them cash settlements in exchange
for restrictive confidentiality agreements.  The lawsuit claims to
include a copy of a non-disclosure agreement for a complaint
involving Beneful.

Mr. Schopp, the Purina spokesman, said any customer service
agreements and compensation were "good-will gestures" by the
company and a common practice in many industries.

"Anytime consumers have questions they can contact us, whether
validated or not we have at times responded to them and offered
compensation as a good-will gesture," he said.  "The notion that
this is something we just started or there is some sort of a
negative motive here is nonsense."

The dry kibble variations named in the suit include Purina Beneful
Healthy Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful
Incredibites, and Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies,
Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta,
Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance, and Purina Beneful Playful Life.

NISKA GAS: Faces "Barringer" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger
Eddie Barringer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 11210
(Del. Ch., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
unit-holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Niska by Brookfield Infrastructure
Partners L.P., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC provides commercial, industrial,
and retail natural gas marketing services via Access Gas Services
in both British Columbia and Ontario, and also provides agency
services to natural gas end-users in Eastern Canada through
EnerStream Agency Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NTN DRIVESHAFT: Law Firm to Add Plaintiffs to OT Class Action
Julie Mcclure, writing for The Republic, reports that a New Jersey
law firm is seeking to add plaintiffs to its class-action lawsuit
against NTN Driveshaft Inc., alleging some workers have not been
paid for all hours worked, including overtime.  The lawsuit
against one of Columbus' largest industrial employers has been
pending since Jan. 2, 2014, in U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Indiana.  It was filed by Stefan Hartford, an NTN
Driveshaft employee from 2013 to 2014.  NTN employees have until
July 7 to opt into the lawsuit, said Nicholas Conlon, an attorney
with JTB Law Group LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey, who represents

OCEAN VIEW: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
Percianna Wayne v. Ocean View Gardens, LLC, E.P.M.I. A Bayside
Company, Jackie Mitchell and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15775631 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants
who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of
rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants'
failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to
the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (51 0) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510)834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com

PEPSI CO: Judge Allows Carcinogen Class Action to Proceed
Noel Brinkerhoff and Danny Biederman, writing for AllGov, report
that Pepsi is headed to court in California, where a federal judge
has ruled it must confront allegations that its popular soft
drinks contain unhealthy levels of a carcinogen.

The civil case, representing nine class action lawsuits combined
together, claims Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One have levels of
the carcinogenic 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI) that exceed what's
allowed under California Proposition 65.  That law established a
maximum allowable limit of 4-MeI at 29 micrograms a day.  Drinks
containing the chemical at higher levels have been proven to
produce a significant risk of cancer.

The plaintiffs, however, say that Pepsi's products contain 4-MeI
at levels above this safety threshold. They cite a 2014 Consumer
Reports study that showed the levels of 4-MeI in Pepsi beverages
were higher than in other soft drinks tested and, in fact,
exceeded more than 29 mcg per can or bottle.

Lead plaintiff Mary Hall claims that, according to Pepsi's annual
reports, the company has known that their drinks breached the
safety level.  When Proposition 65 was passed in California, Pepsi
gave the public the impression it had complied with the new
chemical requirement when, in fact, it had not, states the
complaint.  The soft drink maker intentionally misled the public,
said Hall.

Additionally, the lawsuit argues that many consumers drink more
than one 12-ounce serving of Pepsi a day, putting them at an even
greater risk from unhealthy exposure to the chemical.

Chemical 4-MeI is produced as a byproduct in the sodas as a result
of the caramel coloring that gives them their distinct look.  The
chemical has been shown to cause lung tumors in laboratory

PERFECT WORLD: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Perfect Peony Merger
Prodosh Aich, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Perfect World Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 652287/2015 (N.Y. Sup
Ct., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stock holders
of Perfect World Co., Ltd., to enjoin the prosed acquisition of
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company by
Perfect Peony Holding Company Limited, for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

Perfect World Co., Ltd. is a Cayman Islands corporation that
develops online games based on proprietary game engines and game
development platforms.

Perfect Peony Holding Company Limited is a privately held holding
company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands with its
headquarters at 19/F Perfect World Plaza, Tower 306, 86 Beiyuan
Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      240 Mineola Boulevard
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-4977
      Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Nears Settlement of Civil-Forfeiture Claims
Julie Shaw, writing for Philly.com, reports that changes could be
coming to the way Philadelphia seizes property under its civil-
forfeiture program.  The program -- aimed at stopping drug
activity -- has caught innocent people in its net, violating their
constitutional rights, critics say.

Lawyers on both sides of a federal civil lawsuit on June 15 told
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno that the parties are close to
settling the first two of the plaintiffs' six claims in the

A status report filed by lawyers for the city and the District
Attorney's Office -- the defendants in the lawsuit -- also said
three more claims could be settled.

Chief Deputy City Solicitor Craig Straw, in the Civil Rights Unit
of the city's Law Department, and Assistant District Attorney
Bryan Hughes said afterward they could not comment on specifics of
the ongoing talks.

Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute
for Justice and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said that a
settlement of the first claim in the suit would mean that the
D.A.'s office would "no longer kick people out of their homes
without giving notice or a hearing unless there are exigent
circumstances," or a situation in which immediate action is

As for the other claim that's close to being resolved, she said a
settlement would "mean they [the D.A.'s office and the city]
cannot impose unconstitutional conditions with property owners."

Hughes said while he could not comment, "our position throughout
this lawsuit is we dispute liability as to [those] two counts of
the complaint . . . We still maintain that the district attorney
is not liable. At the same time, we're evaluating our forfeiture
program. We're addressing issues as we see them arise."

The lawsuit filed in August by the Institute for Justice, and the
Center City firm Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg, claims that
Philadelphians' constitutional rights are being violated under the
city's civil-forfeiture program.

The suit has four named plaintiffs, but is intended to benefit all
property owners in the city if the suit takes on class-action
status.  The likely changes under a settlement would impact
procedurally how the D.A.'s office handles its civil-forfeiture
program.  The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary compensation
(except a nominal award of $6 total for the class).

Under civil forfeiture, homes and other assets can be seized and
subjected to forfeiture if the property is connected to alleged
drug activity.  But critics have noted that property has been
seized from owners even when a property owner is not himself or
herself involved in the alleged drug activity.

The three other claims in the lawsuit that could reach settlement
would deal with the court proceedings for property owners after
property is seized.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have contended that property owners do
not receive prompt hearings before a judge, have to return
multiple times to a courtroom where they speak to a prosecutor,
not a judge, and that owners could lose their properties if they
don't appear in court for each listing.

While civil-forfeiture court proceedings begin in City Hall, they
are resolved in the Criminal Justice Center, making them quasi-
civil/quasi-criminal in nature.

In the status report filed on June 15 by Assistant City Solicitor
Michael R. Miller and Hughes, of the D.A.'s office, the lawyers
indicated that the D.A.'s office and city "are working with the
First Judicial District on transferring forfeiture actions to the
civil court system, a step which should lead to the settlement of
three of the plaintiffs' claims.

One issue that remains in dispute is where the proceeds of
forfeited property end up.  Now, they are shared by the D.A.'s
office and the Police Department.  The plaintiffs contend this
creates a financial incentive for the D.A.'s office to seize and
retain property.

"What's driving Philadelphia's aggressive use of civil forfeiture
is their direct financial incentive in keeping and seizing
property, and . . . that's the heart of this lawsuit," Ms. Sheth

The city's civil-forfeiture program has also come under criticism
by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.  In a
report earlier this month, it contended the program takes $1
million in cash from innocent Philadelphians every year.

D.A. Seth Williams has said in response in a statement: "[U]nlike
the ACLU, we are not willing to ignore the true innocent parties
here -- the underprivileged residents of drug-plagued
neighborhoods.  They . . . are entitled to expect the justice
system to shut down drug houses and take guns and cash out of the
hands of criminals."

The D.A.'s office in December dismissed forfeiture actions against
the homes of two of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Besides the court system, there is also a movement afoot in the
state Legislature to change the civil-forfeiture program.  State
Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, introduced a bill this month
requiring that a property owner be convicted of a crime before
prosecutors may seize money, homes or other property.  The bill
would also require that cash and proceeds from the sale of
forfeited property be deposited into the general fund of a city or
the state.

PITTSBURGH WATER: Customers File Class Action Over High Water Bill
WPXI.com reports that Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority
customers have filed a lawsuit against the company after receiving
monthly bills for thousands of dollars.  The lawsuit claims that
PWSA customers have been getting "outrageously high bills" linked
to water meter and billing problems.

"The thing that was getting me also was they skipped a bill,"
Daniel Houck, who owns several properties served by PWSA, said.
"There has never been an issue until just recently."

Mr. Houck said he received a bill for $1,100 for one month's
service.  Mr. Houck said he checked for leaks when he saw the
spike in charges.  When he found no issues on his properties, he
called PWSA customer service.

"One time they tell me there's a leak, and it turns on and it
turns off.  The next thing they're telling me the bills have been
estimated for nine months, and they're trying to catch up, so the
story changes.  I'm not exactly sure what is going on," he said.

Mr. Houck said he thinks some of the problems involve radio-
controlled water meter interface units, and according to the
recently filed lawsuit, he isn't alone.

The lawsuit targets PWSA, Jordan Tax Service and Veolia Water
North America with claims that those "systems have
catastrophically failed, and customers have received grossly
inaccurate, and at times, outrageously high bills," including one
for more than $2,800 and another for close to $10,000.

"If you're a senior citizen and you receive a certain amount of
fixed income a month and your bill goes from $40 to $300, you
decide whether you get water or you eat that month," said lawsuit
attorney John Corcoran.

On June 16, customers affected by the claims in the lawsuit
gathered in Greentree to discuss the problem and a plan of action,
with the hope that the lawsuit can help get them back money they
were incorrectly charged and get PWSA to change its practices and

Mr. Corcoran said the next step is to get the case certified as a
class-action lawsuit.

When contacted for comment on June 16, PWSA issued the following

"Our mission at the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority is to
provide the highest quality water at the best possible price for
our customers.  Customer satisfaction is our highest priority, and
we strive to work with customers to resolve any issues they may
encounter.  Recently, customers have expressed concern regarding
what they feel are inaccurate PWSA bills and service terminations,
and we want to assure our customers that we will work diligently
to resolve any issues.

"Because of current litigation, we cannot comment on specific
claims or comments being made, but we are working to resolve any
problems that our customers are having.  If a customer feels they
received an inaccurate bill and/or an incorrect termination
notice, they should call PWSA customer service Monday through
Friday from 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. at (412) 255-2423. Customers always
have the option to request an exoneration appeal, by writing to
the PWSA.

"PWSA was formed in 1984 as a municipal authority, which is
governed by a board of directors."

POWER AND LIGHT: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Suit
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit filed by two African-American men who claimed
there was a pattern of racial discrimination at a downtown Kansas
City entertainment district.

The Kansas City Star reports U.S. District Senior Judge Ortrie
Smith on June 15 threw out the second count of the two-count
lawsuit filed on behalf of Dante A.R. Combs, of Overland Park,
Kansas, and Adam S. Williams of Edmond, Oklahoma. The other count
was dismissed last year.

Messrs. Combs and Williams claimed they were victims of
discrimination while visiting the Kansas City Power & Light
District in 2010 and 2011.

In his order filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Smith
said he found no evidence to support their claims against Power &
Light owner Cordish Co. and its affiliates.

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Approval of Deal in Open-End Funds Case Sought
Regions 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 approval of
settlements in the open-end funds class action are being sought.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
were named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain
Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders
of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into class-actions
and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end
Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment
Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions
Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were
transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion")
in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by
Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including
claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the
Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. The U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee has granted final approval of a settlement in the
closed-end Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case as
well as final approval of a settlement in a consolidated class
action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.
Approvals for settlements in the open-end Funds class action and
shareholder derivative case and for investors represented by the
Trustee Ad Litem are also being sought. Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and
proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with
Raymond James.

REGIONS FINANCIAL: November Trial in Stockholders' Class Action
Regions 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 trial is set for
November 2015 in the class-action lawsuit filed by Regions'

In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions'
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain
former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including
allegations that materially false and misleading statements were
included in filings made with the SEC. The plaintiffs have
requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. In
June 2011, the District Court denied Regions' motion to dismiss
the 2010 Claim. In June 2012, District Court granted class

In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
certification in part and remanded the 2010 Claim to District
Court for further consideration of the class certification issue.
Following recertification in the District Court, Regions filed a
petition for permissive appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals concerning the class certification, which was denied, as
was a request for reconsideration. Trial is set for November 2015.

REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed a joint stipulation allowing
the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in the case
captioned MELISSA FONG, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees and all aggrieved employees of Defendants in
the State of California, Plaintiff, v. REGIS CORPORATION d.b.a.
MINNESOTA REGIS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 13:CV:004497-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff wishes to amend her First Amended Complaint to amend
previous allegations and assert new allegations, class action
claims, causes of action, to add Christina L. Salas as an
additional Plaintiff, and to add Regis Corp. as an additional

The Defendant has reviewed Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended
Complaint and contends that Plaintiff's new allegations, class
action claims, and causes of action are without factual or legal
merit, but agreed, in the interests of efficiency, to the
Plaintiff's filing of her proposed Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation dated June 12, 2015
is available at http://bit.ly/1LQIsNgfrom Leagle.com.

GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- Graham
S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- San Diego, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA FONG.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com --
Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Ari Hersher --
ahersher@seyfarth.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for

ROYAL PINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
Zayra Santoyo, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Dalia
Melendez v. Judith Guilliat, Gary Guilliat, Domonick Crisafi,
Patti Crisafi, Richard Parasol, Gun Parasol, Royal Pines
Apartments and Townhomes and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15775635 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants
who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of
rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants'
failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to
the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (51 0) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510)834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com

SAKUMA BROTHERS: Washington Berry Pickers Call for Union Contract
Liz Jones, writing for NPR, reports that the farm lately has faced
lawsuits, worker strikes and consumer boycotts, which have largely
yielded victories for its workers.  The disputes have caught the
attention of farm owners and labor groups across the county.  And
a pending Washington State Supreme Court ruling on how Sakuma
handles rest breaks could prompt farm workers to bring similar
lawsuits against their employers elsewhere.

Sakuma Brothers runs fruit operations in Washington state and in
California, selling berries to top brands like Driscoll's, Haagen-
Dazs and Yoplait.  The four-generation family farm is an
institution in this part of the state.

Some workers at Sakuma Brothers say that what's needed is a union
contract.  They're asking for a legally binding agreement on
wages, and for a flat rate of $15 per hour for all harvesters,
instead of the current system that pays workers by the pound for
how much they pick -- what's called a piece rate.

They also want the contract to define a grievance system, medical
coverage and payment of transportation costs for seasonal workers
who migrate every year from California.

Ramon Torres, president of Familias Unidas Por la Justicia
(Families United for Justice), says about 460 current and former
Sakuma workers have joined this movement.

"We have families that have worked 10 to 11 years for Sakuma.
Season after season, the same families come back to work here,"
Mr. Torres says.  Those families want to keep working here -- but
with a guarantee of fair conditions and wages, he says.

Rosalinda Guillen, a longtime labor organizer, grew up in these
fields and has helped Torres's group push for a contract.

The labor unrest flared up a few years back, when, for the first
time, Sakuma brought in guest workers through the federal H-2A
visa program.  Local workers claimed the foreign crew displaced
them and was paid better. The company disagreed.  But the
relationship became fraught, and longtime workers said they wanted
to lock in some job security.

"This company has ruined a lot of the trust and the goodwill that
they used to have," Ms. Guillen said.  "In order to build trust
with workers again, they have to sign a union contract."

Historically, farm worker contracts are difficult to achieve.
Only about 2 percent of farm workers in the county are part of a
union. California is the only major farm state that offers a legal
framework for this type of union to operate.  Which means that
Familias Unidas in Washington state is charting an unusual path.

Mr. Torres and Ms. Guillen say they're hopeful Sakuma will
eventually come around.

"They say that they are a good neighbor and have been here as part
of the Skagit Valley for five to six generations," Ms. Guillen
says. "So have we."

Danny Weeden, Sakuma's new CEO, has inherited this labor dispute
at Sakuma and says he's heard the workers' message.  As the first
non-Sakuma ever at the helm, he's one of the biggest changes at
the farm this season. He came on to help the company at a
turbulent time.

"For the most part we were doing the right things," Mr. Weeden
says.  "We needed to change some things, too.  And we've done
that. And we've addressed that. And we're going to continue to get
better and better and better."

They fired some managers and intensified training workshops.  They
added new benefits, including a housing stipend for workers who
don't live on the farm.  They also plan to bring in more mobile
health clinics and expand recreational programs.  And -- here's
the big one -- they revamped how field workers get paid.

Mr. Weeden said Sakuma will still pay based on production, but
more than before.  Everyone will earn at least $10 an hour; faster
berry pickers could make up to $27 an hour.  They will also now
pay for rest breaks, which is an issue in yet another pending
court decision.

"Our most valued resource on our farm are our people and our
workers," Mr. Weeden says.  "So that's why our mantra is caring
and compliance.  That's what's going to get us for the long-term
success of this company."

Legal action prompted some of these changes.  A federal class-
action lawsuit forced Sakuma to pay out workers who said the farm
shorted their wages. That settlement last year cost $850,000 and
marked a rare win for farm labor.  Familias Unidas has also won
legal victories on claims that Sakuma retaliated against them in
the company housing and in hiring practices.

As for the union, Mr. Weeden appears uninterested in further
talks.  He said that hit a dead end.  And he says he believes the
company is headed in a good direction.

Walking through the berry fields, Mr. Weeden and other managers
say they rely heavily on the bilingual supervisors to help with
worker issues.  But they aim to get more directly involved, too.

On the walk, Rich Brim, company vice president, pulls out his

"We believe in caring and compliance," he says, parroting a
company mantra.

The phone interpreted into Spanish: "Creemos en el cuidado y el

"I'll practice that one," Mr. Brim says.  "And that's a

SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Katzoff" Suit Over Planned Company Sale
Cindy Katzoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. arises from
the proposed acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for
inadequate consideration in negotiation and structure, price, and

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com

SMARTHEAT INC: Settles All Claims in US Securities Class Action
Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has entered into an
agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, our
President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief Financial
Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not
officers of the Company during the alleged class period. A second
amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption
Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014
the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead
plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification.  On
September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff
filed a response on October 20, 2014.  By Opinion and Order dated
January 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion, finding that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy and predominance.
Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs' theory of liability
required a trade-by-trade inquiry as to whether the sale of the
locked-up shares resulted in price inflation of the company's
stock, and that, as a result, the injury to all class members
could not be established by common proof.  In addition to finding
a lack of predominance of common issues, the Court expressed
substantial concerns about the adequacy of the class
representative, and that his claims were typical of other class
members.  The Court also expressed doubts as to how plaintiffs
would establish damages.  The Court's denial of class
certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs
until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous, and a far
more convincing submission . . . ".  The pleadings and court
orders are publicly available.

The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US
securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings
were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or
director of Smartheat or any of the defendants, and the Company
and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing.  The
default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was
vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into
the settlement in order to avoid further cost of defending any of
the purported actions. According to the settlement, the Company
paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return, the plaintiffs dismissed
all claims against the Company and all of the individual
defendants with prejudice.  As a result of the settlement, the
case will not be allowed to be re-filed.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants.  The
Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in
the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever
asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated
lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in
order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter
behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and
shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and
strengthening its business.

SONY PICTURES: Ex-Employees' Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that a group of
ex-employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment will be allowed to
proceed with their class action lawsuit's claim that the studio
was negligent in failing to maintain adequate security measures.

In a ruling on June 15, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner
dismissed other portions of their lawsuit, including breach of
implied contract, violation of the California Customer Records Act
and violation of consumer laws in Virginia and Colorado.  He also
tossed the portion of the plaintiffs' negligence claim as it
applied to breach of duty to timely notify the ex-employees of the
breach.  But his ruling keeps alive litigation that was filed in
the wake of the data breach, with ex-employees alleging that their
personal information was compromised and that Sony failed to take
adequate measures to protect it.

SPE had challenged the employees' standing, contending that they
failed to allege a current injury or one certainly impending.

Judge Klausner, however, noted that the plaintiffs claim that
their information has been used to send threatening emails to
employees and their families.  They also contend that their
information has been posted on file-sharing websites.

"These allegations alone are sufficient to establish a credible
threat of real and immediate harm, or certainly impending injury,"
he wrote.

Judge Klausner also said that the plaintiffs could pursue claims
of violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, violation of the unfair competition law and
declaratory judgment.

The first lawsuit was filed by Michael Corona on Dec. 15, and his
cases were later consolidated with claims from eight other ex-

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Mull Earthquake Class Action
Georgina Stylianou, writing for Radio New Zealand News, reports
that about 250 Southern Response policy holders attended a meeting
in Christchurch on June 16 to discuss a potential class action
against their insurer.

Lawyer Grant Cameron said Southern Response had used delay, deny
and defense tactics for more than four years and said cost savings
were the most likely explanation for how the insurer has handled
claims.  The Government bailed out Christchurch insurer AMI --
which then became Southern Response -- after the earthquakes to
the tune of $1 billion over 10 years.  Mr. Cameron said the repair
or rebuild figure the homeowner received was, in many cases,
vastly different to the dollar figure on the insurer's files.  He
said Southern Response customers had been under "immense stress"
since the earthquakes and said people's lives were on hold until
their claims were settled.

The meeting included videos from Southern Response policyholders
talking about their dealings with their insurer.  Among them was a
man who had been given a repair figure of $255,000.  An
independent engineer then found the property's foundations would
likely need replacing and subsequently, a quantity surveyor
estimated the cost of reinstatement would be upwards of $1.25

Mr. Cameron believed by lowballing claim amounts, Southern
Response could end up making about $2 billion in savings.  He said
it would take nine years for Southern Response to settle all
claims at its current progress rate.

The class action has received the backing of a litigation funding
company, Litigation Lending Services.  Participating homeowners
would only pay a fee if the litigation was successful.

Francis Cooke QC told homeowners that while many may be concerned
with their own situation, many shared common problems.  He
believed the prospects of success were good.

"It seems to me that the insured is on the better side of the
argument than the insurer."

           Earthquake Class Action May Burden Taxpayers

TVNZ reports that taxpayers could face a billion dollar bill if
disgruntled Christchurch customers of Southern Response insurance
are successful in a unique class action case.

Lawyer Grant Cameron, who is gathering home owners for the action,
says policy holders are "basically being misled" as to the true
cost of their property.

Maria De Vries was given an initial assessment by Southern
Response of $290,000 for her quake-damaged Redcliffs property, but
the office-use-only-version puts the figure at $366,000

"I thought that was ridiculous," she told ONE News.  "The
difference was so ridiculous."

Government-backed Southern Response says it removes the costs the
company would incur to manage the repair or rebuild from what it
shows a policy holder, so there is no confusion about what the
payout would be.

However Mr. Cameron is using that hidden sum as a string in a bow
he is aiming at the company.  He is trying to gather enough of its
3000 plus unsettled policy holders into a class action to seek
damages for years of delay.

"If you took the whole group that remains unsettled and those in
the EQC system, we're very definitely talking hundreds of millions
but probably well in excess of a billion dollars," he says.

The Government is standing its ground, however.

"They have I think been doing a good job in honoring contracts
that actually were defunct at the time the Government took them
over," Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee

ST. JUDE HERITAGE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
Isela Valle-Valdez, as an individual and on behalf of all
Aggrieved Employees v. St. Jude Heritage Medical Group, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00795457 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 25, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for providing paystubs that did not
accurately reflect the Plaintiff's total hour worked, net wages
earned, gross wages earned and actual applicable wage rate.

St. Jude Heritage Medical Group is a California corporation that
provides healthcare services throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Pedersen, Esq.
      Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
      17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 105
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-1181
      Facsimile: (949) 260-1185

TENNESSEE: Seeks Dismissal of TennCare Class Action
Travil Loller, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Tennessee is asking a federal appeals court to throw out a class-
action lawsuit that claims the state left thousands of TennCare
applicants in indefinite limbo, with their applications neither
approved nor rejected.

With the rollout of the Affordable Care Act in October 2013, the
government changed the method used to determine financial
eligibility for Medicaid.  But in Tennessee, a new computer system
designed to accommodate the change was behind schedule.  So the
federal government agreed temporarily to accept applications for
TennCare -- Tennessee's version of Medicaid -- on behalf of the

The switch was followed by long delays in which many TennCare
applicants could not get any response to their requests or even
find out the status of their applications.  By law, applications
for most forms of Medicaid should be processed within 45 days.
Applications based on disability are allowed 90 days.

In July 2014, 11 people filed suit against Tennessee agencies and
officials.  The suit claimed Tennessee was violating the law by
failing to rule on applications in a timely manner and refusing to
provide hearings to explain those delays.

Plaintiffs included a prematurely born infant whose application
was not processed for more than four months and who missed
critical treatments as a result.

In September, a federal judge granted the case class-action
status, meaning that anyone in a similar situation to the original
plaintiffs could also be considered a plaintiff.

The judge also issued a preliminary injunction, a sort of
temporary ruling that is in effect while the lawsuit works its way
through the courts.  The injunction required the state to provide
anyone whose application process was not completed on time with a
fair hearing to explain the delay.

The state appealed the district court's decision.  In a brief to
the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, attorneys
for Tennessee argue the whole lawsuit should be dismissed.  That's
because the 11 original plaintiffs were able to enroll in
TennCare, with the state's help, before the judge ruled.

In the view of the state, once the original plaintiffs no longer
had a grievance, the case was moot, and it should not have been
later certified as a class action.

Attorneys for the TennCare applicants argue that in similar cases,
class action lawsuits have been allowed to move forward.  And,
they say, Tennessee still does not know when its new computer
system will be in place.

Attorney Samuel Brooke, with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said
"There are about 100 people a day requesting hearings.  That means
people are still having problems."

But Michael Kirk, who represents Tennessee in the case, says those
problems are being resolved without the need for hearings.

"What's changed between now and the time this lawsuit was filed is
that at the time, the state didn't even know the problem existed,"
he said.  Now the state is getting information from the federal
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the cases where
there are problems and helping to resolve them.

"If this case goes away, we think there's a very good chance
nothing more will ever happen," Mr. Kirk said.

Oral arguments in the case were set to take place on Thursday,
June 18, at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Repossessed Vehicle Lease
San Diego, California based consumer protection attorney, Michael
R. Vachon, Esq., on June 15 disclosed that he has filed a class
action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation alleging
that the auto-finance lender has a practice of violating
California's laws governing the repossession of leased
automobiles.  The lawsuit was filed in California's Los Angeles
County Superior Court on June 8, 2015, and is titled Thomas v.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, et al. (Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC584530).

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a San Rafael, California
consumer who leased a Toyota Camry automobile in mid-2014 only to
have it repossessed in February 2015 by Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation (which the complaint alleges does business under the
fictitious business names "Toyota Financial Services" and "Lexus
Financial Services").  The lawsuit's complaint alleges that Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation illegally inflated the charges included
in the notice that it sent to the plaintiff announcing its
intention to sell the Toyota Camry, and also inflated the balance
of the final account statement that it sent to the plaintiff after
the Toyota Camry had been sold at auction.

The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff is not the only
consumer who received inaccurate post-repossession notices from
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and that the lender has an
illegal pattern and practice of inflating lessees' post-
repossession deficiency balances.  The complaint goes on to assert
that because Toyota Motor Credit Corporation allegedly failed to
send accurate post-repossession notices to lessees whose
automobiles it repossessed, the company is prohibited under
California law from attempting to collect lease deficiency
balances from the plaintiff and the class members.  The complaint
seeks elimination of the plaintiff and the class members'
deficiency balances, and a court order compelling Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation to refund any lease deficiency balance amounts
that it has already collected from the class members.

More details of the lawsuit against can be found on the Vachon Law
Firm's website.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court has not yet made any rulings
regarding whether the complaint's allegations are true or whether
the defendant violated applicable laws.

UBER TECH: Drivers Are Employees, Calif. Labor Commission Rules
The New York Times' Mike Isaac and Natasha Singer and The Boston
Globe's Dan Adams report that in what could prove to be a ruling
with serious implications for the on-demand economy, the
California Labor Commission has ruled that an Uber driver should
be classified as an employee, not an independent contractor.

The ruling, made June 3, came to light after Uber filed an appeal
on June 16.  The ruling ordered the company to reimburse Barbara
Ann Berwick, a former Uber driver, $4,152.20 in expenses and other
costs for the period when Berwick worked as a driver.

Uber has long positioned itself as a "logistics company" -- saying
that drivers and passengers use its app merely to facilitate
private transactions -- and not as a transportation fleet with
tens of thousands of employee drivers.  The company argues it does
not exert any control over hours its drivers work or require
drivers to complete a minimum number of trips, according to the
court filing.

But the Labor Commission cited many instances in which it said
Uber acted more like an employer.  The ruling noted that Uber
provided drivers with phones and had a policy of deactivating its
app if drivers were inactive for 180 days.

"Defendants hold themselves out as nothing more than a neutral
technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and
passengers to transact the business of transportation," the ruling
says.  "The reality, however, is that defendants are involved in
every aspect of the operation."

In a statement, Uber said "the California Labor Commission's
ruling is nonbinding and applies to a single driver."  The
commission did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail
requests for comment.

Classifying Uber's drivers as employees may turn out to be an even
bigger roadblock to the company's business than regulatory changes
because it could change Uber's cost structure, requiring it to
offer health insurance and other benefits, as well as to pay
salaries.  On-demand companies are premised on the idea that
people who find piecemeal work through these online marketplaces
are freelancers, not employees entitled to costly benefits.

Uber has faced legal action in the past over the status of its
workers.  Drivers have filed class-action lawsuits against the

"Uber has been fighting very hard against any decisions like this
coming out, and when a fact-finder sat down and looked at the
situation, they determined that Uber is an employer," said
Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston employee and labor rights lawyer
who is involved in class-action lawsuits on behalf of drivers
against Uber.

However, Liss-Riordan said the ruling is unlikely to affect a
lawsuit she brought on behalf of Massachusetts Uber drivers that
has been transferred to federal court in San Francisco, where Uber
is based.  The federal judge in California rebuffed an attempt by
Uber to have the case dismissed, she said.

Uber has appealed the California commission's ruling, and the
outcome of that case could end up affecting a second lawsuit
Ms. Liss-Riordan has filed on behalf of Uber drivers, also in
federal court in San Francisco.  The appeal could end up extending
the employee designation to many more Uber drivers, she said.  The
lawsuit had sought to include drivers across the country but the
judge limited it to California.

The federal suit led by Ms. Liss-Riordan argues Uber drivers are
essentially employees and therefore should be reimbursed for gas,
maintenance, and other expenses.  The lawsuit claims Uber owes
drivers tips, since it tells consumers that tips are included in
fares but does not pay drivers an extra sum.

UC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Fugitive Spine Doctor
Andy Brownfield, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that two of Cincinnati's largest hospitals and the UC Health
system are accused of fraud and negligence in four new lawsuits
involving surgeries performed by fugitive spine surgeon
Dr. Atiq Durrani.

These latest four lawsuits were filed May 29 against UC Health,
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and West Chester
Hospital -- which is operated by UC Health -- as well as
executives of UC Health and West Chester Hospital by the Deters
Law Firm.  That firm also is representing more than 500 plaintiffs
in separate law suits against Dr. Durrani, who allegedly performed
millions of dollars worth of medically unnecessary procedures.
Three class action lawsuits were filed in Hamilton County Court of
Common Pleas and a separate suit was filed in Butler County Court
of Common Pleas.

The four suits involve different claims against the different
hospitals.  Two are class action lawsuits filed in Hamilton County
involving the use of a specific treatment at both Children's
Hospital and West Chester Hospital respectively.  Another class
action suit filed in Hamilton County involves the use of a
treatment at West Chester Hospital.  The final suit, filed in
Butler County, asks the court to hold the members of the board and
executives at UC Health and West Chester Hospital responsible for
Durrani's actions and is intended to be consolidated with multiple
existing suits involving Durrani based on new information found
over the last year.

UNILEVER UNITED: Falsely Marketed Iced Tea Products, Suit Says
Momo Ren and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Pepsico, Inc.
and The Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership, Case No. 156463/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., June 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the New York
consumers who purchased Pure Leaf(TM) Iced Tea ready-to-drink tea
products that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as "All
Natural" and free of preservatives.

The products at issue are not "All Natural" because they contain
citric acid, a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient
regularly used as a preservative in ready-to-drink tea products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNION PACIFIC: New Mexico Landowners File Class Action
Russell Hubbard, writing for Omaha.com, reports that Union Pacific
has been sued by landowners along railroad property in a complaint
seeking class-action status that cites federal laws going back to
the administration of President Abraham Lincoln.

The Omaha-based freight railroad was sued in U.S. District Court
in New Mexico by landowners there.  The suit says Union Pacific,
as the corporate successor to Southern Pacific Railroad, has for
decades been improperly renting out land to a petroleum pipeline
company, one now owned by Texas-based Kinder Morgan.  Union
Pacific, the second-largest U.S. freight railroad by ton-miles,
acquired Southern Pacific in 1996.

The land was rented for pipeline use underneath the rail right of
way long ago by Southern Pacific, the suit says.  It is an
impermissible intrusion onto private property because the railroad
never had legal authority over the property's underground, the
suit contends.  The complaint seeks class-action status for all
other New Mexico landowners in similar circumstances, back rent, a
share of the rent-derived profits and unspecified punitive

Some serious money could be at stake.  A California state court in
2004 set the annual rent at $14 million after a dispute between
the railroad and the pipeline, with back rent owed by the pipeline
to the railroad pegged at $82 million.

Union Pacific spokesman Aaron Hunt said on June 15 the company is
reviewing the lawsuit.  Kinder Morgan spokesman Richard Wheatley
said the company views the case as primarily between Union Pacific
and the landowners after a California appeals court ruled against
the railroad, saying it had no right to collect rent for most of
the land in question.  Mr. Wheatley said Kinder Morgan "intends to
vigorously defend its interests."

The suit's claims have their roots in the nation's westward
expansion during and after the Civil War.  That's when the U.S.
Congress passed laws allocating vast tracts of land west of the
Missouri River to railroads.  An 1875 law expanded the policy,
granting railroads rights of way through public lands in the West,
the suit says.

And that's where things get sticky.  The suit says the railroads
were given no right to use the land they were allowed to build
tracks upon for any purpose other than railroading.

"The railroads were given no fee interest in the property itself,"
the suit says.  "Moreover, the railroad's use and occupation of
the surface of the land created no right of possession in the

But Southern Pacific behaved as though it had the right to do as
it pleased with the lands under its control, the suit says.  For
starters, the complaint says, the railroad and the pipeline were
once sister companies, part of the same corporate structure in the
1950s.  That's when, the suit says, Southern Pacific first began
renting space below its rights of way to the pipeline, then known
as Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines.

That, the complaint reads, was despite U.S. Supreme Court rulings
as recent as 1942 that said railroads merely had authorization to
use the surface of the land, and that title to the subsurface
remained with the federal government.

"Despite acknowledging the ramifications of attempting to give
away property rights it did not own, the railroad decided to
continue to grant purported easements to the pipeline," the suit

By 2005, according to the suit, there were about 1,871 miles of
pipeline running through California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico,
Texas, and Oregon underneath the railroad's rights of way.

"The pipeline, without compensation or permission, used the
plaintiff and class member subsurface land by installing its
pipeline on their property," the suit says.

Southern Pacific Railroad and the pipeline company eventually went
their separate ways, parting in 1983 after a corporate breakup.
A few years later, the railroad was acquired by Union Pacific for
$5.4 billion.  Union Pacific is the largest U.S. railroad by
operating revenue, with about $24 billion of it last year, but
trails Berkshire Hathaway-owned BNSF Railway in ton-miles.

UNITED STATES: Pro-Bono Lawyers Sought for SSA Appeals
John Rosenberg, writing for The Courier-Journal, reports that
by now, most citizens in Eastern Kentucky and many around the
state are familiar with the "Eric Conn clients" and how in late
May the Social Security Administration sent payment suspension
notices to about 900 Social Security Disability (SSD) recipients
and about 500 who received Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

The notices stated that the benefits would be suspended because
"there was reason to believe fraud was involved in certain cases
including evidence" from four named doctors used by Conn.  The
notices simply showed up in recipients' mailbox, and informed the
SSD recipients that they would receive no more payments until they
could prove anew from other medical records that they were
disabled as of the date of the initial determination, some years
in the past.  Although payments would continue until there was a
final resolution of the SSI cases (being a program for the
disabled poor), the 900 SSD recipients were going to simply stop
getting payments.  They were given no prior opportunity to contest
the suspensions, which one would think was a pretty basic due
process right.

The SSD recipients were given only 10 days to respond with
additional medical evidence, which would be considered, but more
likely they would be forced to appear at a hearing before an
administrative law judge sometime in the future to prove their
disability.  This news was disastrous to the SSD recipients, many
of whom depended on the monthly payments to meet the basic
necessities of life.  Indeed, within only a few days, at least two
suicides were reported, linked to the suspension notices.

Fortunately, after the filing of a class action lawsuit
challenging SSA's action, and following the suicides, U.S. Rep.
Harold Rogers, to his credit, convinced Social Security to reverse
course.  Now the payments have been restored and the recipients
will have an opportunity to contest SSA's actions before further
action is taken.

By sending all these notices out at once, SSA created an
additional enormous problem.  Not enough lawyers or other
qualified representatives are available to represent the
recipients at the hearings that will determine whether their
benefits will continue.  The issue of representation for these
recipients is huge.  There are no provisions for paying attorneys
who represent recipients at these hearings, and the majority of
these clients cannot afford to hire an attorney.

These are complex and time-consuming cases to prepare.  The
Appalachian Research and Defense Fund of Kentucky's legal aid
lawyers in Eastern Kentucky and those of the other legal services
programs in Kentucky can take some of these cases, but they are
already overburdened and turning down potential clients.

Relatively few members of the private bar traditionally handle
Social Security cases.  So, we are hopeful that members of the
Kentucky Bar will be willing to be trained in this area of the law
and to volunteer to represent these recipients without charge
(unless some way can be found to compensate them, an unlikely
possibility).  The Kentucky Bar Association, at its annual
convention in Lexington, together with Appalred will make a strong
effort to encourage lawyers to sign up to help with these cases.

The Courier-Journal learned at a Floyd County hearing that
Eric Conn had a "four day burn" in which he had his staff burn the
records of folks he had represented, so those records have been
destroyed.  Furthermore, we have heard that hospitals that may
have some of the old medical records are charging as much as $1
per page to make the records available.  The records are
voluminous, and many of these recipients cannot afford to pay for

With Rep. Rogers' urging, the time for obtaining new evidence has
been extended to 30 days, a helpful extension, but perhaps still
not enough to gather this evidence.  So, almost an insurmountable
task for a lay person.  They will need representation.  Let's hope
we get the volunteers.

Lawyers wishing to volunteer to help with appeals should contact
Mary Going at Appalachian Research and Defense Fund at (606) 886-
8136 ext.1315.

UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Medicare Delays Can Proceed
Don Michak, writing for Journal Inquirer, reports that a federal
judge in Bridgeport, Connecticut, says a lawsuit alleging
"unlawful delays" in the Medicare coverage appeals process brought
against a top government official by a half dozen beneficiaries,
including four from Connecticut, can proceed as a class action.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer ruled that the
plaintiffs' claims against U.S. Health and Human Services
Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell weren't "moot" simply because
they had received administrative hearings and decisions after
their complaint was filed.  Judge Meyer rejected the argument made
by lawyers for Matthews that the plaintiffs were "atypical" among
a class of individuals who have not received such decisions,
saying it "ignores the revolving-door nature" of the complaint.

UNITED STATES: O&G Leaseholders Get Favorable Ruling in Appeal
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that successful
bidders, including Houston-based Schlumberger, in a 2007 auction
of Bakken Shale oil and gas rights conducted by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and related to tribal land, recently won in
an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The law firm of Baker Botts represented the leaseholders in the

The appeal was brought by several Native American mineral owners
in North Dakota who claimed that the United States had breached
its fiduciary duty owed to Native Americans by approving the
leases for the oil and gas development rights and that the
defendant-appellee bidders aided, abetted and induced the U.S. to
breach that duty.

Plaintiffs-appellants Ramona Two Shields, Mary Louise Defender
Wilson, and the other plaintiffs in the class action are Native
Americans with interests in land allotted to them by the U.S.
under the Dawes Act of 1887, according to the Eighth Circuit's
recent opinion.  Such land is held in trust by the government, but
may be leased by allottees.  The opinion states that the
defendants leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to
defendant companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed
bid at the BIA auction in 2007.

Plaintiffs later filed this class action on Nov. 26, 2012.  The
complaint alleged that defendants ultimately leased roughly 85,000
acres of land, bundled the leases together for sale and then sold
the leases in 2010 to a third party for $925 million, according to
the opinion.  The complaint also claims that while defendants
received over $10,000 per acre from their own sale, they paid some
putative class members lease bonuses of only $200 per acre or

The district court concluded that the U.S. was a required party
that could not be joined, but without which the action could not
proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case,
according to the opinion. Plaintiffs challenged that dismissal in
the district court, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling.

Van Beckwith, a partner and practice group chair in the Dallas
office of Baker Botts, led the trial team for the defendants and
argued the case before the Eighth Circuit.

"In their class action complaint, the plaintiffs complained about
what they claimed was a breach of fiduciary duty by a United
States agency [the Bureau of Indian Affairs] without joining the
United States as a defendant," Mr. Beckwith said.  "The district
court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims against all defendants,
finding that the case would put on trial the government's actions
'behind its back' and force the private companies to defend the
government in its absence.  The Eighth Circuit . . .  held that
the district court reached the proper conclusion and upheld that

Mr. Beckwith explained that many of the leases were fully approved
under a published auction and bidding process paying royalty rates
allowed by statute.  He also pointed out that the process is
governed by statute and regulations, which are carefully followed.
Kenneth McNeil -- kmcneil@susmangodfrey.com -- a partner in the
Houston office of Susman Godfrey who represented plaintiffs in
this case, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

UNITED STATES: Court Revives Immigrants' Post-9/11 Detention Suit
Adam Liptak, writing for The New York Times, reports that, saying
that high-ranking Bush administration officials may have taken
part in grave constitutional violations after the Sept. 11
attacks, a federal appeals court in New York on June 17 revived a
long-running lawsuit brought by immigrants, most of them Muslim,
who said they were subjected to beatings, humiliating searches and
other abuses in a Brooklyn detention center.

"The suffering endured by those who were imprisoned merely because
they were caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately
following 9/11 is not without a remedy," Judges Rosemary S. Pooler
and Richard C. Wesley wrote in a joint opinion for a divided
three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

"Holding individuals in solitary confinement 23 hours a day with
regular strip-searches because their perceived faith or race
placed them in the group targeted for recruitment by Al Qaeda
violated the detainees' constitutional rights," the judges said.

The case, filed as a class action in 2002, was the first broad
legal challenge to the policies and practices that swept hundreds
of mostly Muslim men into the Metropolitan Detention Center in
Brooklyn on immigration violations in the weeks after the Sept. 11

The defendants include John Ashcroft, the former attorney general,
and Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said the ruling sent a powerful

"Punishing low-level perpetrators is necessary but hardly
sufficient to prevent future abuse," said Rachel Meeropol, a
lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights.  "Orders came
from officials at the highest levels of government.  Now we have
the chance to ensure that they are held accountable and not
treated as if they are above the law."

"We are reviewing the court's decision," said Nicole A. Navas, a
spokeswoman for the Justice Department.

The roundups after Sept. 11 drew criticism from the inspector
general of the Justice Department, who in 2003 issued reports
saying that the government had made little or no effort to
distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with
minor visa violations.  The reports also documented widespread
abuse at the Brooklyn detention center.

The eight named plaintiffs in the case, Turkmen v. Ashcroft, said
they had been humiliated, beaten, and denied sleep and edible food
or religious materials. Their detentions lasted three to eight

In 2009, in a related case called Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme
Court ruled that another detainee, Javaid Iqbal, could not sue
Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller because he had not supplied enough
detail about what they were said to have done wrong.  The decision
on June 17 said the plaintiffs had cleared that hurdle.

In dissent, Judge Reena Raggi said the majority had erred in
allowing a lawsuit against "the nation's two highest-ranking law
enforcement officials" for "policies propounded to safeguard the
nation in the immediate aftermath of the infamous Al Qaeda
terrorist attacks."

"It is difficult to imagine," she wrote, "a public good more
demanding of decisiveness or more tolerant of reasonable, even if
mistaken, judgments than the protection of this nation and its
people from further terrorist attacks."

In their joint opinion, Judges Pooler and Wesley said that the
evidence in the case could ultimately show that the defendants
"are not personally responsible for detaining plaintiffs in these

"But we simply cannot conclude at this stage," they said, "that
concern for the safety of our nation justified the violation of
the constitutional rights on which this nation was built."

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Answers to Consolidated Complaint Filed
Vocera Communications, 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 have
filed answers to the consolidated complaint in the securities
class action lawsuit.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.  On
November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.   The consolidated complaint
names certain current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in
communications regarding its business and financial results. The
suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and
seeks compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as
other relief.

On November 3, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion
as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on
that basis. On April 27, 2015, Defendants filed answers to the
consolidated complaint.

WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Ruling in Mental Health Suit
Martha Bellisle, writing for Associated Press, reports that the
state of Washington is appealing a portion of a federal judge's
ruling that sought to ensure timely competency services for
mentally ill defendants.

Health officials said they are only appealing the portion that
mandates competency evaluations within seven days of a judge's
order.  They said one week was not enough time to allow some
defendants who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs to
stabilize.  Evaluators send people to hospitals before their
mental state is fully understood, officials said.

"We have concerns about false-positives," said Jane Beyer,
assistant secretary for the Behavioral Health and Service
Integration Administration.  When evaluations are done too
quickly, more defendants are found to be incompetent than actually
suffer from a mental illness, Ms. Beyer said.

The federal lawsuit was filed by mentally ill criminal defendants
who were forced to wait weeks or months in jails for competency
evaluations.  If those defendants were found incompetent to help
with their defense, it could be weeks or months before they were
moved to one of the state's two forensic hospitals to receive
treatment to have their competency restored.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled in favor of the
defendants, saying the state's Department of Social and Health
Services was violating their constitutional rights.  Judge Pechman
issued a permanent injunction in April that requires the state to
conduct evaluations and restoration treatment within one week of a
judge's order.

"Our jails are not suitable places for the mentally ill to be
warehoused while they wait for services," Judge Pechman said.
"Punitive settings and isolation for 23 hours each day exacerbate
mental illness and increase the likelihood that the individual
will never recover."

Judge Pechman said the agency has been hampered in providing
competency services because the state has failed to adequately
fund its mental health system.  She also blamed the department for
failing to change its procedures "to respond to this ongoing
crisis."  The judge appointed a monitor to track the state's
efforts to fix the problem and set a nine-month deadline for full
implementation of the changes.

But on June 5, the state Attorney General's office filed notice
that it is appealing Judge Pechman's order and the health services
department posted a news release explaining why.  The state's
lawyers have not yet filed their opening brief.  Lawyers with
Disability Rights Washington who filed the class action lawsuit
could not immediately be reached for comment on June 12.

Ms. Beyer made clear in an interview with The Associated Press on
June 12 that they are not asking for a stay of the judge's order,
but instead are focusing on the seven-day deadline for
evaluations.  She said they support the one-week timeline for
restoration services.  She said they're basing the appeal on data
collected from other states that have been forced to provide
timely competency evaluations.  One study from Hawaii found that
"some defendant who may have appeared incompetent immediately
after incarceration appeared competent after a few weeks," the
Groundswell report said.

"If an evaluator has to rush to make an evaluation, the person
could still be under the effects of drugs or alcohol," Ms. Beyer
said.  "And then they're stigmatized, labeled mentally ill.  We
don't want to stigmatize people who may not be mentally ill."
"We are basing our appeal on the experience we have for the
percentage of people found incompetent under a seven-day rule."
As of June 5, there were 195 people on the waitlist for competency
services at Western State Hospital, with 57 of those people
waiting in jail for more than seven days, according to the
department.  Another 168 people were waiting to get into Eastern
State Hospital for evaluations or treatment, officials said.

WASHINGTON: Didn't Violate Sex Discrimination Law, 9th Cir. Rules
Kevin McGowan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the
Washington state corrections department didn't engage in unlawful
sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights by
designating 110 close-contact jobs in its women's prisons as
available to female guards only, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled June 12.

Affirming summary judgment for the Washington Department of
Corrections in a lawsuit filed by International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Local 117 on behalf of male correctional officers, the
court said no Title VII violation occurred because sex is a bona
fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the positions at issue.
The defense requires an employer to prove sex is "a bona fide
occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal
operation of the particular business or enterprise."

Seeking to curb problems that included sexual abuse and misconduct
by male prison guards against female inmates, the state reasonably
designated a limited number of female-only correctional positions,
when those jobs involved strip searches and other situations in
which guards viewed inmates unclothed, the court said.

In the wake of a state court class action by female inmates that
unveiled documented incidents of sexual assault and invasions of
privacy, the corrections department developed the plan that
designated as female-only certain correctional officer jobs that
involved pat downs, strip searches and supervision of partially
dressed or unclothed inmates.  Earlier court decisions had
established female inmates' rights in non-emergency situations to
be patted down or strip-searched only by female guards.

The state's "individualized, well-researched decision to designate
discrete sex-based correctional officer categories was justified
because sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for those
positions," the court said.  It found that the union's "thin
evidentiary submissions," which included expert claims that "were
largely unsubstantiated or missed the point," were insufficient to
raise a material factual issue for trial.

The corrections department was "well-justified in concluding that
rampant abuse should not be an accepted part of prison life and
taking steps to protect the welfare of inmates under its care,"
Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote.

Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and Richard C. Tallman joined in the

Targeted Response Passes Muster

The court's decision is "a vindication" of the corrections
department's "careful consideration" of the competing issues of
protecting inmates and maintaining a fair employment system, said
Peter Gonick, the state's deputy solicitor general in Olympia,

The department was careful not to designate more positions as
female-only than was necessary to advance its safety, security and
privacy goals, he told Bloomberg BNA June 12.

In comparable Title VII cases challenging gender-specific staffing
in prisons, the court's decision often turns on how carefully a
corrections department looks at the issues and considers
alternatives to reserving jobs for one sex only, Mr. Gonick said.

Courts including the Ninth Circuit have found sex discrimination
when a law enforcement agency doesn't consider the competing
interests or consider alternatives, he said.

But in this case, the court said the department followed an
"exhaustive process" before implementing a targeted response to
its prison staffing issues and their effects on female inmates.

The decision also is "a great victory" for female inmates in the
state's two women's prisons, said Melissa Lee, a staff attorney
with Columbia Legal Services in Seattle.

The legal aid group represented an intervenor class of female
inmates who earlier had sued the department over state prison
conditions and spurred the state to change its staffing practices.
The inmates' state court lawsuit was settled in 2009, shortly
after the department implemented sex-specific staffing, among
other changes to address sexual abuse, security and privacy

The Ninth Circuit decision means the sex-specific staffing for the
110 designated jobs at the two prisons remains in place, Ms. Lee
told Bloomberg BNA June 12.

Teamsters Local 117 didn't respond to a request for comment
June 12.

WESTVIEW SERVICES: Faces "Darmawati" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
Anak Darmawati, as an individual and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. Westview Services Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2015-00795449 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Westview Services, Inc. is a California corporation that provides
day programs for retirement homes and communities throughout
Orange County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Pedersen, Esq.
      Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
      17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 105
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Facsimile: (949) 260-1185
      Telephone: (949) 260-1181

WILLIS GROUP: Defendants' Sur-Reply Due in "Troice" Case
Willis Group Holdings plc 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 had until
June 4, 2015 to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the
motion for class certification in the case, Troice, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al.

Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-
CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among
others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third
Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a
putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision and (ii) dismissing without prejudice
those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint
on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court
entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. That motion has now
been fully briefed by the parties and awaits disposition by the

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provides for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants have
until June 4, 2015 to file a sur-reply in further opposition to
the motion.

WILLIS GROUP: July 20 Class Certification Submission Date Vacated
Willis Group Holdings plc 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 vacated
the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the
original scheduling order in the case, Janvey, et al. v. Willis of
Colorado, Inc., et al.

Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 in the Northern District
of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his
capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership
Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC')
against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide
class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc.
Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common
law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the
putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and
common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages and costs.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with
Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions were granted in
part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5

On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion
to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court
granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary,
reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

YAHOO INC: Class Suit Over E-Mail Scanning Practices Can Proceed
Inquisitr reports that Yahoo! Mail users since 2011 will be able
to join a class-action lawsuit, a California judge has determined.

According to the Express, Yahoo! Mail users may have been subject
to Yahoo! Mail personnel gaining information from individual
emails to be used for advertising purposes.  United States
District Judge Lucy Koh, on the bench in San Jose, California,
determined as much.  Judge Koh ruled that people who sent mail to
Yahoo! Mail subscribers and those who received mail from Yahoo!
Mail subscribers, since October 2, 2011, can sue as a group under
the Federal Stored Communications Act for possible privacy

Yahoo! Mail has been accused of scanning emails sent to Yahoo!
Mail subscribers in an effort to glean information to better
target advertising towards its 275 million Yahoo! Mail

Non-Yahoo! Mail users are making a similar claim, which include
keywords and attachments, for similar advertising purposes, in
addition to look for malware or spam.

Last year, 80 percent of Yahoo! Mail's profits came from its
search and display advertising.  Now, Yahoo! may be facing a
class-action lawsuit because litigants can collect larger sums of
awards at a lower cost.  However, the more litigants, the smaller
the amount each litigant will receive.

The Huffington Post is reporting that litigants are requesting an
injunction halting the practice, as well as damages because of the

Yahoo! spokesperson Rebecca Neufeld told reporters that Yahoo!
could not comment on pending legal issues.

Judge Koh rejected Yahoo's argument that people sending emails to
Yahoo! Mail subscribers implied consent by sending the emails,
even after the non-Yahoo! Mail subscribers learned of Yahoo!
Mail's practices.  Judge Koh also rejected Yahoo's claim that the
injuries were too disparate to be considered for a class-action

Judge Koh differentiated between the Yahoo! Mail case and a case
against Google she heard back in March 2014.  In that case,
Judge Koh said it was more difficult to determine who consented
and who did not, whereas Yahoo! Mail simply assumed all users fell
under a blanket agreement whereby using the service was implying

"Yahoo may have to, as a practical matter, adjust its scanning
practices on an individual basis," Judge Koh wrote.  "That does
not, however, change the fact that plaintiffs seek uniform relief
from a common policy that Yahoo applies to all class members."

Daniel Girard, the plaintiff's attorney, declined comment.  The
forthcoming lawsuit will affect only Yahoo! Mail subscribers in
the United States.  Subscribers outside the United States have no

YINGLI GREEN: Faces "Knox" Investor Class Action in California
Legal Newsline reports that a Chinese solar energy company is
facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it made false
statements about the viability of its business.

Kevin Knox filed the lawsuit May 28 in U.S. District Court in
California against Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., claiming the
company failed to disclose to investors that it was
inappropriately recognizing revenue.

The company manufactures and sells solar energy products in China,
and is reportedly the largest producer of those products in the

The lawsuit said the company announced an $88.7 million loss near
the end of March.  On the news of the net loss, Yingli's stock
fell about 15 percent, or 35 cents per share, and closed at $1.99
per share.  Later in May, the company filed a report with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that there was "substantial
doubt" that the company could "remain solvent."  On that news, the
stock fell another 12 percent, or about 21 cents, to close at
$1.49 per share.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those who held stock in Yingli
between March 18, 2014, and May 15 of this year.  The suit also
seeks and unspecified amount in damages plus court costs.

Knox is represented by Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert v. Prongay of
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP of Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:15-cv-04003

ZAGG INC: No 10th Cir. Decision Yet in Securities Case Appeal
Zagg 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 U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the appeal in the
consolidated cases, James H. Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al.,
U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; Ryan
Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District
of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.

On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as
Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and
Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the
Company's Board of Directors. These lawsuits were subsequently
amended by a complaint filed on May 6, 2013.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock between October 15, 2010 and August 17, 2012. The
plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged
December 2011 margin account sales, the defendants initiated a
succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with
Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either the succession plan or
Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in violation of Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
(the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and
assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and
on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July
5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. On June 17,
2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief appealing the
Courts decision with respect to some of their claims. The U.S.
Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal
on January 22, 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, has
not yet entered a decision on the appeal.

ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
Paul Williams, Esq. -- pwilliams@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in granting a
motion to dismiss a data breach putative class action lawsuit, the
District of Nevada joined the majority of federal district courts
in holding that plaintiffs whose personal information was stolen
lack Article III standing to sue in federal court.  The case
derived from a 2012 breach of Zappos.com, Inc.'s servers in which
hackers stole 24 million customers' personal information.

Zappos moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing because, it
alleged, there were no actual damages resulting from the data
breach and thus no injury to its customers.  The plaintiffs
advanced several theories to prove injury: (a) damage to the
intrinsic value of their data, (b) an increased risk of identity
theft, and (c) costs to mitigate future risk of identity theft.
The court rejected each argument.

Focusing primarily on the increased risk argument, the court
followed Ninth Circuit precedent in Krottner v. Starbucks Corp.,
628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) to hold that there was no credible
threat of harm which was both real and immediate since "not one"
of the plaintiffs alleged any actual injury from the data breach.
Out of the 24 million customers affected by the data breach, only
12 sought damages in the case, of whom only three purchased credit
monitoring services for fear of future identity theft.  The
possibility that identity theft or other fraud could occur at some
undetermined future time "relegate[d] Plaintiffs' injuries to the
realm of speculation," and therefore precluded standing.  The
passage of nearly 3.5 years since the breach without any harm
materializing only buttressed the court's opinion.  The court also
discarded plaintiffs' mitigation theory because, under Clapper, a
plaintiff cannot "manufacture standing" by incurring mitigation
costs against hypothetical future harm.

In dismissing this putative data breach class action for lack of
standing, the Nevada federal district court departed from the
views of California federal district courts, which have allowed
data breach class actions to proceed notwithstanding Article III
challenges.  This opinion suggests that, even in the favorable
Ninth Circuit, data breach plaintiffs may face significant
standing hurdles.

In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No.
12-00325 (D. Nev. June 1, 2015).

* 35 Firms Plead Guilty of Auto Parts Price-Fixing, Bid-Rigging
Rubber & Plastic News reports that to date, 35 corporations have
pleaded guilty in the ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice's Antitrust Division into alleged price fixing, bid
rigging and market allocation by auto parts manufacturers.

These companies have paid more than $2.5 billion in criminal
fines.  However, with the multi-district litigation facing them in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the
real financial damage may be yet to come.

Since the first filing on Feb. 7, 2012, to the latest on June 5,
2015, a total of 993 documents have been filed so far in the
price-fixing MDL before U.S. District Judge Marianne O. Battiani.

Suits were filed against 51 companies, of which eight -- including
such big names as Panasonic, TRW and Autoliv -- have settled,
according to Hollis Salzman -- HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com --
assistant managing partner in the New York office of law firm
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Ms. Salzman is co-lead counsel for the "end payor" settlement
class of the MDL--i.e. U.S. citizens who purchased vehicles that
contained the parts in question.

There are two other settlement classes in the litigation--one for
auto dealers who sold the vehicles, and one for auto makers who
purchased the parts directly from the accused companies.

Of the 43 companies that have yet to settle, Ms. Salzman said,
four are manufacturers of rubber auto parts -- Bridgestone Corp.,
Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd., Yamashita Rubber Co. Ltd. and Tokai
Rubber Industries Inc.  In 2014, Tokai Rubber changed its name to
Sumitomo Riko Co.

In February 2014, Bridgestone pleaded guilty in Toledo federal
district court to one count of conspiracy to fix prices for rubber
anti-vibration parts.  Bridgestone paid a fine of $425 million.

Three months earlier, Toyo also pleaded guilty to price fixing in
rubber anti-vibration parts and agreed to pay a $120 million fine.
Yamashita pleaded guilty to price fixing in September 2013 and
paid an $11 million fine.

Tokai Rubber and Sumitomo Riko did not appear on a search of the
DOJ Antitrust Division website.  However, a search of "Tokai
Rubber" on the website turned up the November 2012 price fixing
guilty plea of an executive of the Ohio subsidiary of a Japanese
anti-vibration parts manufacturer based in Saitama, Japan.
Sumitomo Riko has a subsidiary in Saitama, TRI Saitama Ltd., which
makes and sells rubber products, according to the Sumitomo Riko

The reason for there being three settlement classes in the auto
parts price fixing MDL instead of one unified class, is simple,
according to Eugene A. Spector -- espector@srkw-law.com --
founding partner in the Philadelphia law firm of Spector, Roseman,
Kodroff & Willis.  Mr. Spector is interim co-counsel for the
direct purchaser plaintiffs in the MDL.

The 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick Co. v.
Illinois, he said, established the doctrine that only direct
purchasers of goods and services may recover damages from
antitrust violators.  Under Illinois Brick, only the auto makers
have standing to sue the auto parts makers for alleged price
fixing, he said.

However, many states have antitrust laws that explicitly reject
the Illinois Brick ruling and allow indirect purchasers to sue for
antitrust damages.

The website for Cuneo Gilbert & La-Duca L.L.P., the Washington law
firm that serves as interim co-counsel for the dealer class in the
MDL, said it represents plaintiffs in 31 states and the District
of Columbia in that action.

To date, the end-payor class in the MDL has obtained $172.1
million in settlements, Ms. Salzman said.  Jonathan W. Cuneo,
founding partner in Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, said he didn't
immediately have an exact figure on settlements for the dealer
class, but he estimated it in the $55 million range.  The website
for Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis said the direct purchaser
class won approximately $50 million in its first three

The next court dates, Ms. Salzman said, are status conferences
scheduled for Sept. 9, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2016.

Bridgestone and Toyo declined comment on the MDL, saying they do
not comment on current litigation.

In its latest fiscal year annual report, however, Toyo said, "in
addition to a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. and Canada brought
against the company and its subsidiaries, there have been
negotiations on damages with some auto manufacturers, which as a
result may have an impact on the company's operating results.
However, at this stage it is difficult to make a reasonable
prediction of the result of such impact."

* Class Action Lawyers to Target Food Cos. After Transfat Ruling
Helena Bottemiller Evich and Jenny Hopkinson, writing for
Politico, report that the Obama administration is making good on
its pledge to all but ban trans fat nationwide.

The FDA issued a final decision on June 16 that gives the food
industry three years to phase out partially hydrogenated oils, the
main source of trans fat, which are still used in a wide variety
of products from microwave popcorn to cake frosting.

The government's goal is to prevent cardiovascular disease and
advocates are cheering the move as a historic win for public
health.  But class-action attorneys are eager to use the ruling --
before it takes effect -- to file lawsuits against deep-pocketed
food companies that have continued to use trans fat, even as the
rest of the industry has masterfully reduced its use of trans fat
by some 85 percent.

Food industry lawyers are poring over the document to see if FDA
said anything that could help shield them from litigation.

"The class action lawyers have got their forks and knives out,"
said Stefanie Fogel -- stefanie.fogel@dlapiper.com -- partner and
co-chair of the food and beverage practice at DLA Piper.  Ms.
Fogel wants to read the entire FDA ruling before weighing in on
what exactly it means for the industry, but in general, she said,
the agency is making it much easier for plaintiffs to claim that a
food product is adulterated for containing trans fat.

But the food industry has a good head start.

Most snacks, frozen foods and baked goods have already moved away
from using partially hydrogenated oils.  You will no longer find
trans fat in Doritos or Oreo cookies, Jolly Time microwave popcorn
or most Dunkin Donuts.  There are plenty of alternatives to the
ingredient, which grew in favor over the past five decades as
consumers shunned saturated fats and as food companies learned
that partially hydrogenated oils were great for extending shelf
life, improving mouth feel and keeping food coloring stable in a
variety of products.

Palm oil, fully hydrogenated oils and other modified oils have
slowly taken hold in many processed foods that used to contain
trans fat, but many companies still make products with partially
hydrogenated oils, including General Mills, Nestl‚ and ConAgra.

FDA's decision rescinds the "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS
status for partially hydrogenated oils.  The status does not
require FDA's approval but is supposed to be grounded in
scientific consensus.  The oils have been considered generally
recognized as safe since the late 50s when they started to come
into vogue as an alternative to saturated fats.

The FDA, in November 2013, dropped something of a regulatory bomb
on trans fat by issuing a tentative decision that partially
hydrogenated oils are not GRAS -- a move that blindsided many in
the industry.  FDA's final ruling gives the food industry until
June 2018 to stop using partially hydrogenated oils and shift to
only very limited uses that are proven to be safe.

The FDA's final ruling gives the food industry until June 2018 to
stop using partially hydrogenated oils and shift to only very
limited uses that are proven to be safe.  The decision does not
apply to naturally occurring trans fat found in small amounts in
some dairy and meat products, but is aimed at the artificial or
industrial trans fat added to processed foods.

"Our goal is to minimize trans fat intake as much as possible,"
said Susan Mayne, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, on a call with reporters on June 16.

Public health advocates are thrilled with the Obama
administration's move, part of a broader agenda to nudge Americans
toward healthier eating in the face of an obesity and diabetes
epidemic.  Phasing out trans fat could prevent up to 20,000 heart
attacks and 7,000 premature deaths each year, FDA has estimated.
The American Heart Association on June 16 called the ruling "truly
a historic victory for the nation's health."

"After years of advocating for the removal of industrially
produced trans fat from the country's food supply, we couldn't be
more gratified that this day has finally come," said Nancy Brown,
the association's CEO.

Democratic lawmakers also cheered the move.  Connecticut Sen.
Richard Blumenthal lauded FDA for its decision that will "save
lives and make future generations healthier."

Former White House chef and senior nutrition policy adviser
Sam Kass, who worked on the policy before leaving his post in
December, called it a "massive win for American families."

FDA isn't the first to limit trans fats.  New York City, in 2006
under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, passed a ban that applied to
restaurants, and California followed suit in 2008.  Cooking times
and recipes had to be changed, but doughnut makers and other
restaurants reported making the adjustment.

The local bans set the precedent for FDA's move, but the federal
government's decision has much broader implications, especially if
it can be interpreted to mean there is no safe level of trans fat,
said Michael Reese, an attorney and partner at Reese LLP, a firm
that regularly sues food companies for misleading consumers.

FDA's ruling on trans fat is likely to change the legal landscape
and "really open up the floodgates on strict liability claims," he

Mr. Reese, who has already sued a handful of food companies,
including Wendy's and Unilever over their use of trans fat, said
the plaintiffs' bar may first target products containing the
ingredient if they have the aura of being healthy or are marketed
to children.  He contends that food companies have known for
decades that partially hydrogenated oils are linked to
cardiovascular disease and there's "really no excuse" for keeping
them in food products when alternatives exist.

Nestle and General Mills have already been slapped with class
action suits along these lines by the Weston Firm, the same law
firm representing Fred Kummerow, a longtime researcher who's been
raising alarm bells about trans fat and cardiovascular disease for
decades.  Mr. Kummerow sued FDA in 2013 for not taking action to
ban partially hydrogenated oils.

Greg Weston, the lead attorney on the case against FDA, said
Mr. Kummerow "is happy the FDA is taking action, but it should
have taken place at least 20 years ago, and there is no
justification for any sort of further delay or phasing."

Mr. Weston declined to comment on any broader litigation strategy.
"Litigation is not looming, it is a reality," said one food
industry lawyer, pointing to the fact that the Weston Firm has
already filed trans fat lawsuits and to a recent Washington Legal
Foundation article that called FDA's trans fat decision "a gift to
the litigation industry."

The food industry has been preparing for the trans fat crackdown
for months.  As POLITICO reported, the Grocery Manufacturers
Association has led a behind-the-scenes effort to craft a petition
asking FDA to allow "very limited" uses of partially hydrogenated
oils going forward.

The details of the industry's food additive petition have not yet
been released.  FDA officials told reporters on June 16 they
expect to be able to review the petition within the three-year
compliance window.  In the meantime, food companies are bracing
for lawsuits.

* Class Action Litigation Funders Pose Risk for New Zealand Cos.
Christopher Adams, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports
that New Zealand companies face an increasingly risky legal
landscape as professional litigation funders bankroll class action
lawsuits and emboldened regulators flex their muscles, says a
major law firm.

In a new report, Chapman Tripp said such trends were gaining
intensity and needed "careful and thoughtful management" by
businesses.  The arrival of litigation funders on the local legal
scene was both a symptom and a cause of a rise in class action
lawsuits - claims launched by a group of people, the report said.

Funders provide financing for litigation in return for a cut of
any damages from successful claims.

Representative proceedings, such as class actions, tended to be
expensive, particularly when expert witnesses were required, the
report said.

Chapman Tripp partner Edward Scorgie said litigation funders had
"changed the nature of the game".

"There will be a set of claims that may or may not have got off
the ground, for economic reasons, which have access to a different
funding source now," Mr. Scorgie said.

More than 500 New Zealand leaky-home victims are expected to
launch a claim against Australian building materials firm James
Hardie in the next few weeks.  British-based Harbour Litigation
Funding is understood to be gearing up to fund that.

Harbour also helped to finance an unsuccessful class action
against the promoters and directors of failed carpet maker Feltex,
which resulted in the funders being ordered to pay the successful
defendants' costs and disbursements that reportedly totalled
around $5 million.

Those costs included more than $800,000 for the services of US
Professor Bradford Cornell, a senior consultant at Compass

Meanwhile, the report said companies were exposed to heightened
regulatory risk as a result of reforms that bolstered the powers
and reach of regulators including the Financial Markets Authority
and Commerce Commission.

Chapman Tripp said the FMA had largely finished its post-global
financial crisis legacy work and had a big, well-resourced
enforcement team.

"Market participants should prepare for increased scrutiny across
the board, as regulators demonstrate their resolve and test their
pre-enforcement powers of monitoring and investigation," the
report said.

"How well this scrutiny is handled will likely dictate who will be
first off the blocks in formal enforcement actions."

BusinessNZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said the changes required
an alert response from businesses.

Companies would face more scrutiny and might need specialist
professional advice, he said, adding that upskilling around
governance and management would also be required.

* Courts Tackle Ascertainability Issue in Cy Pres Awards
Charles M. Hart in an article for Duane Morris Appellate Review,
reports that about the increasing disfavor with which federal
courts regard cy pres awards in class action settlements. Cy pres
awards, and the related "fluid recovery," are structures in which
some class members receive no actual award, but are deemed to have
benefited indirectly.  For example, in consumer class actions with
low individual value the device may be used to distribute any
remainder of a common fund that is left unclaimed by the class.
How it usually works is, after awards are made to the class, a
donation is made to a third party charity or some group that is
identified as similarly situated to the class members.

There may be many reasons why cy pres or "fluid recovery" is
proposed in any given class action.  In some class actions,
individual distributions might be so small that mailing them out
make no economic sense.  In others, an individual award viable,
but if the parties do not have good address information, some or
all individual class members must make a claim before they can
receive anything.  In cases involving such a claims process, it is
almost certain that only a relatively small percentage of the
class will file a claim.  Counsel on both sides know this from
experience.  One side has an interest in basing a fee award on the
total projected liability (or the total amount of a settlement
fund) regardless of how many class members actually make claims.
The other side -- beyond the obvious incentive to limit the total
amount paid -- might seek to benefit from the positive public
relations value in a cy pres award to charity, and, at the same
time, bind the largest possible number of persons to the judgment.
Federal courts have criticized class action resolutions that
provide funds to non-class-members unconnected to the plaintiff
class, especially when fee awards to counsel are based on funds
that the class does not receive.  It has also been observed that
the cy pres mechanism can test the virtue of class counsel,
because it tempts counsel to bargain away potentially greater
direct benefit to class members.  The cases generally hold that
binding a class member who receives no award to a judgment is
acceptable, as long as that person had notice and an opportunity
to opt out of the class action and preserve his or her claim.
Recently, federal courts have asked whether it is fair to the
defendant to certify a class when membership cannot be ascertained
except perhaps by an individual's "say so."


The leading case on the so-called "ascertainability" question is
Carrera v. Bayer, 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).  In Carrera, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals observed that "[a] defendant in a
class action has a due process right to raise individual
challenges and defenses to claims, and a class action cannot be
certified in a way that eviscerates this right or masks individual
issues." Id. at 307 (citing McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522
F.3d 215, 231-32 (2d Cir. 2008)(rejecting a "fluid recovery"
method of determining individual damages)).  The Third Circuit
explained that a "rigorous analysis" of class certification
motions must include a determination of "how the class is to be
ascertained" and the representative plaintiff "does not satisfy
the ascertainability requirement if individualized fact-finding or
mini-trials will be required to prove class membership." Id.
(citation omitted).  According to Third Circuit (and no other to
date), a class action defendant "has a similar, if not the same,
due process right to challenge the proof used to demonstrate class
membership as it does to challenge the elements of a plaintiff's
claim" Id.

There is tension between the holding of Carrera and the concept of
"fluid recovery."  When names and addresses of putative class
members are ascertainable, a "fluid recovery" plainly violates the
due process rights of the class members unless, perhaps, the
individual damages are less than the value of a postage stamp.
When class members' identities are not ascertainable, Carrera
states that due process rights of the defendant are violated.
This cannot be so, it would seem, if a "fluid recovery" is
constitutionally permissible and payment may flow from the
defendant to persons or entities that are not even class members.
If Carrera is correctly decided, and the Constitution mandates a
right to challenge proof of class membership, then it makes sense
to decide before certifying a class, whether the identities of
class members can be determined with reasonably accuracy.  If,
however, the "fluid recovery" device is constitutionally firm,
even when none of the class members are known, it makes much less
sense to tackle this issue at the class certification stage of the
case -- or to tackle it at all.

A recent New Jersey case, Daniels v. Hollister Co., A-3629-13T3,
2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 77 (N.J. Super., App. Div. May 13, 2015),
sharply criticizes the holding of Carrera.  Although the Daniels
court did not draw distinctions between federal and New Jersey
class action procedure based upon the availability of "fluid
recovery," it might have done. This is one aspect of class action
law that differs under federal and New Jersey procedural rules.

The Background of Daniels

Vincent Daniels, seeking to represent a class of similarly
situated consumers, sued the clothing chain Hollister in New
Jersey Superior Court alleging that Hollister, as part of a 2009
promotion, gave him a $25 gift card for future purchases.
Although the gift card itself apparently bore no expiration date,
Hollister refused to honor the card when Daniels presented it.

Hollister argued in the Superior Court that a class should not be
certified because the members could not be ascertained, given that
Hollister stores kept no record of who got the cards.  The leading
case in the developing law of "ascertainability" is Carrera v.
Bayer, in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained that
a "rigorous analysis" of class certification motions must include
a determination of "how the class is to be ascertained." 727 F.3d
300, 307 (3d Cir. 2013).  The Third Circuit held that
"ascertainability" is embedded in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3)'s requirement that a class action be superior to other
methods of adjudication.  A representative plaintiff "does not
satisfy the ascertainability requirement if individualized fact-
finding or mini-trials will be required to prove class
membership." Id. (citation omitted).  In Daniels, the Superior
Court rejected Hollister's "ascertainability" argument and
certified a class.

The Daniels Decision

The New Jersey Appellate Division granted Hollister leave to
appeal, then soundly rejected the idea that New Jersey Court Rule
4:32-1 contained, or had ever contained, a requirement that class
membership be "ascertainable."  The appeals court concentrated its
analysis on the distinction between the need for a clear class
definition, which New Jersey precedents support, and a requirement
that the individual members of the class be identifiable at the
class certification stage, for which it found no New Jersey
precedent.  Daniels contains a detailed discussion of the
development of the "ascertainability" doctrine in the federal
courts and ultimately detects in federal decisions more recent
than Carrera a "rollback of the doctrinal wave." Daniels, at *10.
The court concluded its analysis by observing that identification
of individual class members could wait until the administration
phase of any judgment or settlement.  In fact, under New Jersey's
rules, identification of all individual members of the class might
not even be needed at that later stage.

Although the court does not refer to it, New Jersey Court Rule
4:32-2(c), unlike its federal counterpart, explicitly adopts the
"fluid recovery" principle: "In any class action, the judgment
may, consistent with due process of law, confer benefits upon a
fluid class, whose members may be, but need not have been members
of the class in suit."  While the New Jersey class action rule
does not condone the use of cy pres to avoid proving class
members' damages, it explicitly allows "fluid recovery," including
distribution to non-class members, when the identities of all
class members are not known. See Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.
Super. 13, 53-54, 851 A.2d 799 (App. Div. 2004).  In other words,
New Jersey's class action rule supports directly the proposition
that a class may be certified and a judgment awarded when the
identity of all class members cannot be ascertained and implicitly
the proposition that such a result is "consistent with due process
of law," at least some of the time.

Bottom Line

In Daniels, the Appellate Division confirmed a stark difference
between class certification procedure in New Jersey's state and
federal courts and stressed that consumer class actions in New
Jersey's state courts are to be "liberally" certified when class
members' individual claims are small in dollar value.  Moreover,
in a footnote, the Daniels court announced a prospective
relaxation in the standard for interlocutory appeal of class
certification rulings that will make it more likely that denials
of consumer class actions are immediately reviewed on appeal.  See
Daniels, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 77 at n.1. As a result, defendants
in putative consumer class actions brought in New Jersey Superior
Court who can take advantage of the liberalized removal provisions
of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-2. 19 Stat.
4-14, will probably decide that removal is the wise choice.

* Employers Need to Reassess Background Checking Processes
Mark McGraw, writing for Human Resource Executive Online, reports
that these days, it seems as if U. S. courtrooms are full of
class-action cases involving alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Consider these recent claims:  In April, Gregory Williams sued
online retailer Amazon.com Inc. and staffing firm Staff Management
Solutions after being turned down for a warehouse job at Amazon.
Mr. Williams claims the companies violated FCRA by allegedly
failing to provide job candidates with background-check results
before making hiring decisions.  According to court documents, Mr.
Williams -- who was rejected on the basis of a felony cocaine
possession conviction that turned out to be erroneous -- claims
Amazon and the staffing agency systematically denied potential
employees the results of their background checks before hiring
decisions were made, which denies applicants the opportunity to
correct any mistakes that may be contained in the record.

The suit seeks class-action certification to include all
individuals rejected for positions at Amazon over the past five
years who did not receive copies of background checks done by any
consumer reporting agencies used by Amazon in that five-year span.

A $3 million settlement was recently reached in Jeneen Brown v.
Delhaize America, LLC et al., in which the plaintiffs claimed Food
Lion and its parent company Delhaize America violated the FCRA
requirement for "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" or "stand-
alone disclosure" when a background-check report is obtained for
employment purposes.

In March, plaintiff Colin Speer filed a motion in a federal
Florida court, seeking class certification for another lawsuit
involving a grocery chain.  In the suit, Mr. Speer, a former Whole
Foods employee, alleges the company's disclosure that it may
procure a consumer report for employment purposes wasn't included
as a stand-alone document when he applied for a job and completed
an online background-information form.  Speer also claims the
company required him to authorize the procurement of the report on
another page, and asserts that the forms -- while both are single-
page documents -- don't comply with the law because they must be
read and analyzed together.

And, there are numbers suggesting such class-action suits centered
around claims of FCRA violations are on the upswing -- and are
likely to keep increasing.  For example, labor law firm Littler's
recent report, The Swelling Tide of Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) Class Actions: Practical Risk-Mitigating Measures for
Employers, found at least 27 nationwide FCRA class actions were
filed against employers as of August 2014.  That number, according
to Littler, roughly tripled from the year before.

There may be a few factors driving this spike, says Veena Iyer, a
labor and employment attorney in the Minneapolis office of Nilan
Johnson Lewis.

With respect to FCRA, the statute "has a lot of technical
requirements," says Ms. Iyer.  "This means there are lots of
technical ways to violate the statute, and there a lot of
plaintiffs' attorneys who recognize that."

Some of the most common complaints, the report noted, include
claims that employers' background check disclosure forms contained
language not limited to the disclosure required by the statute,
the employer failed to provide a pre-adverse action notice, and
the employer did not wait the right amount of time before taking
final adverse action against an individual.

With respect to potential FCRA violations, where many
organizations trip up -- as evidenced in the aforementioned cases
and the Littler report -- is in how they handle adverse action

Nevertheless, this part of the FCRA compliance process doesn't
have to be especially difficult to understand or carry out, says
Doug Kauffman, a Birmingham, Ala.-based partner in Balch &
Bingham's labor and employment group.

First, he urges ensuring any and all forms provided by consumer
reporting agencies are FCRA compliant, adding that employers must
follow all the necessary steps in providing individuals with the
required notices and information in the event a consumer report
influences an employment decision.

"Do not assume that no one will challenge the information in the
consumer report," continues Kauffman.  "Employers who become too
mechanical in the application of providing the notice of a
potential adverse action, wait seven days, and then automatically
send the final adverse action, may effectively skip a key
requirement under FCRA to provide a meaningful opportunity to the
applicant to correct any misinformation."

In terms of assessing how the organization discloses these
decisions to job candidates, HR leaders frequently serve as the
point person, says Rod Fliegel, a San Francisco-based shareholder
and co-chair of Littler's hiring- and background-checks practice
group.  He advises clients to keep things simple.  "I say less is
more. We need to strip these forms down to just what they have to
say, and present the information in a way that satisfies the
stand-alone disclosure requirements," he says. "Getting that part
of your house in order is critical in my mind."

As the Amazon case illustrates, involving a staffing agency can
add a degree of difficulty for employers, says Ms. Iyer.

"It's an age-old conundrum for employers," she says.  "You don't
want to be too involved in the process, because that's why you
went to a staffing firm in the first place."

On the other hand, "you can be on the hook for what they do, so
you have to have oversight of what [the staffing agency] is

The employer organization must make its expectations crystal clear
to the staffing firm, she says.  "Make sure the agency knows what
FCRA is, make sure it has a method for compliance, and make sure
it's going to be sending the same notices to everyone," says Ms.
Iyer, who recommends regular audits of the adverse-action-
notification process as well.

"Pick a few people who were rejected, select a few who were hired,
look at your process and see if everything was done properly."

Of course, employers can be held responsible for the actions of
the staffing agencies and background-check vendors they engage.

It's a "buyer beware situation," says Mr. Kauffman.

As such, FCRA compliance "is something that an employer should
review with any vendor that is involved in the employment
process," he says.  "In addition, employers should consider having
appropriate language in their contracts with vendors, whereby the
vendors represent that their processes are compliant with FCRA,
and employers will be indemnified for any liability resulting from
their vendors' failures."

In Kauffman's experience, employers often start with a compliant
process, "but, over time, forget the reasons why forms were
drafted a certain way or why processes were set up."

Companies may subsequently start making decisions based solely on
administrative burden, such as combining forms and adding further
language, he says, noting that the aforementioned cases are "a
wake-up call for employers to go back to the basics of FCRA

Once that happens, says Kauffman, "plaintiff's attorneys will have
less ammunition to fuel their claims."

In the meantime, however, expect to see the number of FCRA class-
action cases to continue at a steady clip "until employers go back
and review FCRA requirements and make sure they are in

* European Ministers Draft New Data Protection Laws
Jennifer Baker, writing for The Register, reports that European
ministers were expected to reach some sort of agreement on new
data protection laws on June 15, according to reports and sources,
although discussions before a final decision are set to continue
for months yet.

Justice and Home Affairs ministers from across the EU were meeting
on June 15 in Luxembourg and the main item on the agenda is the
proposed Data Protection Regulation.  Proposed by the European
Commission in 2012, the new regulation would replace the current
outdated Data Protection Directive from 1995.

As a regulation, the law would need to be applied the same
throughout the 28 member states, whereas the current directive
allows the rules to be interpreted differently state to state,
leading to what some have called patchwork protection.

The proposed law has already been agreed by the European
Parliament, but now national representatives from the Council of
Ministers (the EU's main decision-making and legislative body)
have labored long and hard, and have re-written large chunks of
the text.

"Some of the Council's proposals gut data protection of all
meaning. For example, the Council suggests that internet browser
settings (failing to change the default to prevent tracking) could
constitute consent for being tracked and profiled online," said
Privacy International, EDRi, Access and Panoptykon Foundation.

This is at odds with the European Commission's original draft,
which required "explicit consent" for tracking.

The latest draft of the law also removes the possibility of class-
action for breaches of data protection and requires NGOs to
complain to regulators, not challenge via the courts.  However,
the new law will allow for larger fines than the current
directive, with figures up to EUR100m being discussed.

The famous one-stop-shop that was supposed to simplify citizens'
right to redress if their privacy had been breached has also been
mangled by the council and now resembles a tri-part-multi-stop-
hyper-market rather than a single entity.

Even if ministers do reach a common position on June 15, the
European Parliament will have to approve the final text before it
can become law, and there will undoubtedly be more arguments.

The first so-called trialogue meeting between the Council, the
Commission and the Parliament was scheduled for June 24.  Council
representatives believe a final agreement can be reached by the
end of the year, but that may be overly optimistic.

* Non-US Companies Face More Securities Suit in 2015
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that securities lawsuits filed in 2015 have disproportionately
involved non-U.S. companies, which is a big switch, notes
Kevin LaCroix in his blog, The D&O Diary.  "Historically, non-U.S.
companies listed on U.S. exchanges were sued in securities class
action lawsuits less frequently than were listed U.S. companies,"
he says.

Mr. LaCroix bolsters his assertion with statistics from economic
consultancy NERA, which indicate non-American companies represent
about 16 percent of all companies listed on U.S. exchanges,
whereas Cornerstone Research says these foreign firms are involved
in just 11 percent of securities class actions.  "While the
longer-term average suggests that foreign firms have a lower
likelihood of being involved in a securities suit than listed U.S.
firms, in several recent years this relationship reversed," he

In particular, lawsuits against Chinese companies are increasing.
In his own tallying of the securities lawsuits filed so far this
year, LaCroix says there have been 82, with 18 involving companies
outside of the U.S., nine against companies based or organized in
China, and another against a Hong Kong company.  "In other words,
12.2 percent of 2015 year-to-date securities suit filings involve
companies based or organized in China or Hong Kong," he says.
This information not only is pertinent to foreign companies listed
on U.S. exchanges, he explains, but also to underwriters outside
of the U.S.

* State AGs Express Concerns Over Data Breach Class Actions
Rich Steevees, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that a panel,
"No Harm, No Foul? Standing and Damages in Plaintiffs' Data Breach
Class Actions," at the Mid-Year Cybersecurity and Data Protection
Legal Summit, featured Michelle Kisloff, partner at Hogan Lovells
and Donald Aplin, senior legal editor, Privacy & Security Law
Report, Bloomberg BNA and adjunct professor of law at Washington
College of Law at American University.

Ms. Kisloff spoke about enforcement matters conducted by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has taken on dozens of cases
in recent years, focusing on the challenges put forth by Wyndham
World Wide.  Wyndham has put forth a jurisdictional challenge to
FTC's actions.  At the same time, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) is also taking an interest in data breaches,
including a recent settlement with AT&T.

Aside from federal regulators, Ms. Kisloff pointed out that state
attorneys general are concerned with data breaches.  Most states
have data breach notification laws and data security laws, and
Mr. Aplin pointed out that these state AGs often work together on
these matters.  California, Illinois and Connecticut are often
leaders in these initiatives.  Since data security is a non-
partisan issue, it leads to more collaboration among state
attorneys general.

Because there are 47 different state laws, it's important to know
the commonalities, though many states do have different standards.
Mr. Aplin notes that complying with the strictest one is tempting,
but it may not give you the coverage you hope for.  Scope,
triggers, timing and notification protocols vary from state to

Settlements can range from $100,000, like in the case of Zappos,
to upwards of $10 million, like the settlement faced by TJX.
Ms. Kisloff noted that companies can interface with regulators, to
let them know what steps are being taken in response to questions
presented by government officials.  She recommends being as
cooperative when possible when dealing with regulators, providing
information on a voluntary basis before you are served with a

In class action litigation, the issue of standing comes up.
Plaintiffs are nervous and stressed out, but are they out of
pocket? On the other hand, regulators don't need to show injury.
A class action litigation will begin with the public notice of a
breach, followed by allegations that you have violated statutes,
been negligent and breached privacy.  Where plaintiffs are able to
get past the motion to dismiss phase, there have been large
settlements, says Ms. Kisloff.

The issue of standing, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution,
requires a three-part test to show standing: an actual injury
traced to the challenged action and redressable by a favorable
union.  Most breach cases are dismissed for lack of injury, but
when there is standing, most companies settle.  On future case to
watch, the panelists said, is the Target case, but another is the
Spokeo case, a Federal Credit Reporting Act case which the Supreme
Court is considering, and which could have implications for
privacy and data security actions.

* US Insurers More Likely to Face Class Action Threats
James F Jorden of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for
The Global Legal Post, report that insurers in the US are more
likely to face class action threats -- as new research from
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt shows.

Data breach - cause of claims

Insurance companies are increasingly battling class action
lawsuits, according to the fourth annual class action survey in
the US recently published by law firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt.
This marks the first year that insurance was listed among the most
common types of class actions.  Data privacy also made its first
appearance on the list.  While health insurers have faced news-
making data breaches and resulting class actions, other types of
insurers are also likely targets due to the amount and nature of
the consumer data they possess.


The survey, which draws on 360 in-depth interviews with general
counsel and chief legal officers at leading corporations, found
that 6 percent of class actions filed in 2014 were insurance
matters and that they accounted for 5.5 percent of class action
spending.  These findings are unsurprising, as the percentage of
insurance-related class actions filed roughly corresponds with the
7 percent, or $1.1 trillion, that insurance companies now
contribute to the gross domestic product.  Similarly, the 5.5
percent spent on defending insurance-related class actions tracks
the overall percentage of these matters filed.

Types of actions

Insurers are likely to see continued class action activity.  For
life insurers, class action lawsuits have traditionally related to
sales practices and policy provisions.  The past 20 years have
seen a spate of life insurance and annuity sales practice class
action cases.  These include "vanish premium" life insurance cases
in the 1990s, and "senior citizen" annuity cases beginning in
early 2000.  Although most of these cases have either been
resolved or are in their final stages, it is a fair prediction
that we will see class actions asserting variations on these
themes in the future.

New types of action

In addition, entirely new and different causes of action may
emerge.  For example, on the sales practice front, life insurers
are facing a potential increase in litigation attributable to the
Department of Labor's proposed rule designed to redefine and
broaden the concept of a fiduciary relationship in the ERISA and
IRA markets.  The proposed rule would define the rendering of
"investment advice" to include the sale of annuities and
securities products.  It will impose a fiduciary "best interest"
standard accompanied by an exemption that will permit continuing
"sales compensation practices" but require entering into a
fiduciary contract relationship between the sales agent/broker and
customer -- specifically to enable new potential causes of action.

Life insurance funds

Another series of relatively new cases related to both life
insurance and mutual funds, pertains to fees charged by insurance
company-affiliated investment advisers to the mutual funds
underlying their variable insurance products.  Most of these cases
were filed in 2013 and are in their early stages of discovery.
Although these cases would seem to face a steep uphill battle,
given recent Supreme Court precedents in this area, in the event
they gain traction, additional filings could result.


On the policy provision front, life and annuity insurers may see
an expansion of recent novel theories alleging that company
reserving or pricing practices result in misrepresenting the
financial strength or value of the annuity or life insurance
company and its products, resulting in the sale of a product that
is "worth less" than as represented.  Several of the recent cases
involve allegations that the use of captive reinsurance is
improper under New York insurance statutes, citing reports from
the New York Department of Financial Services.  Similar "worth
less" theories have been asserted in other types of annuity class
actions attacking commission structures or other pricing

Claims reviews

Property and casualty insurers are likely to see the normal flurry
of cases related to the construction of policy provisions such as,
for example, cases involving argument over the proper method for
determining "actual cash value" under the replacement cost
calculation.  Cases, now pending, that attack a company's claims
review processes or patterns can be expected to continue, and

Data breaches

Finally, as noted above, and consistent with the findings of the
class action survey, both life and property and casualty insurers
can be expected to confront a growing number of lawsuits stemming
from data breaches as the threats from hacktivists, criminal
elements, state sponsors, terrorists and insiders continue to


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  * * *