CAR_Public/150709.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 136


                            Headlines


2 BROS PIZZA: More Workers Join Minimum Wage, OT Class Action
ACURA: Recalls 10,220 MDX SUVs Due to Injury Risk
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Settles 2013 Data Breach Class Action
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Data Breach Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
AGRI-FINE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors

ALBERTA, CANADA: Agency Faces Negligence Class Action Over Treadz
ALLIANTGROUP LP: Texas Forum Selection Clause Unenforceable
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settles Class Action Over Beck's Beer Advertising
ARCH COAL: Faces "Bush" Suit Over Imprudent Investment Option
AUTOCAR: Recalls 2015 Xpeditor Models

BARBER FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
BARCLAYS BANK: California Water Utility Files Class Action
BLUEMOUNTAIN CAPITAL: Receives Subpoena in Credit Swaps Lawsuit
BUDDYZ MCHENRY: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BURR & REID: Faces "Mamun" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

CAPITAL ONE: Lieff Cabraser Defends $75.5MM Robocall Settlement
CARPENTER CO: To Settle Polyurethane Price-Fixing Class Action
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Fed. Court Retains Subject Matter Jurisdiction
CENTURY SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
CHEETAHS: Strip Club Dancers File Minimum Wage Class Action

CHOICE CANNING: Recalls Shrimp Sorrentino and Shrimp Fried Rice
CHRYSLER: Aware of Leaky Sunroofs, Plaintiffs' Lawyers Claims
CHRYSLER: Recalls Cherokee & Durango Models Due to Injury Risk
CLUB LOCKSMITH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DELMARE QUALITY: Recalls Dips and Sauces Due to Mustard

DOTHAN, AL: Changes Jail Release Rules Amid Class Action
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Radiologists Sue Over UNC No-Hire Agreement
EAGLE I SECURITY: "Bighead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EJG MARKETING: Faces "Calse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ERIC CONN: Attorney Expands Class Action Over SSA Benefits Fraud

ETSY INC: July 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FEDERAL EXPRESS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Revive Overtime Class Action
GE SECURITY: Judge Rejects Plaintiffs' Vicarious Liability Theory
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sonic and Trax Models

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls H3T & H3 Models Due to Fire Hazard
GFS-MONTREAL: Recalls Bleu Cheese Dressing Due to Mustard
GOING NUTS: Recalls Going Nuts Brand Products Due to Sulphites
GOPHER RESOURCE: Faces "Droz" Suit in Fla. Over FCRA Violation
GRANDAD ELDERLY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Carlisle" Suit Claims
HARMAN INT'L: DC Circuit Court Reinstates Securities Fraud Suit
HOP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Chiropractors' Suit Gets Class Certification
HOUSTON, TX: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Drainage Fee

IBERIA PARISH, LA: Class Certification Upheld in Sugar Cane Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
IOOF: Head of Advice Research on Leave Amid Class Action
JAMP PHARMA: Recalls Piperacillin-Tazobactam Powder for Injection
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Perkins" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

KELLEY COLLISION: Faces "Salvarezza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KENNETH COLE: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over False Price Discount
KEYSTONE: Recalls 20 Travel Trailers Over Design Defect
KINGSWOOD DRAPERY: Recalls Roman Blinds Due to Strangulation Risk
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Suit Over Ex-Con Hiring Discrimination

LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Spaghetti Sauce Due to Glass
LOMBARDI BROTHERS: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli
LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Diesel Spill
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hobart Veteran Teacher Files Class Action
LTP SPORTS: Recalls Crossbar Clamping Wedges Due to Injury Risk

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Tops With Elastic Draw Cords
MAC FLORIDIAN: Faces "Dalfarra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MALONE STAFFING: Faces "Graham" Suit Over Illegal Wage Deduction
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Sued Over Minimum Interest Rate Annuities
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Wage Class Action in Ohio

MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 192 B-Class Cars Due to Crash Risk
MERCK & CO: Judge Tosses Vioxx Securities Class Action
MILIEU DESIGN: Faces "Cansino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Piperacillin-Tazobactam Powder
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Piperacillin-Tazobactam Powder

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Defense Department Funds Concussion Study
NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Class Suit Wins Historic Package of Reforms
NEWMAR: 8 Motorhomes Recalled in Canada Due to Parts Defect
NISSAN: Recalls 841 Cars Due to Defective Start/Stop Button
NORTH DAKOTA DEVELOPMENTS: Investors File Class Action

OLD FASHIONED: Recalls Polish Dried Sausages Due to Listeria
OPTIVER US: Settles Futures Trading Class Action for $16.75MM
PENNSYLVANIA: Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill Gets Bipartisan Backing
PETROBRAS: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action in New York
PFIZER INC: Berger & Montague Approved as Lead Counsel

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Probe Over California Beach Oil Spill
PLC INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx 12 Amp Electric Blowers/Vacuums
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
QRX PHARMA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in New York

RECOVERY ASSOCIATES: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RJ VALLEE: Faces Gasoline Price-Fixing Class Action
ROCKPORT, MA: Long Beach Residents File Class Action Over Leases
SCRIP INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Wilder Suit Claims

SEALED AIR: Faces Class Action Over Bonus Program
SEOUL SUPERMARKET: Faces "Bae" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHAKA ENTERTAINMENT: Music Festival Ticketholders Mull Class Suit
SOLAZYME INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Minister Calls Suit "Ambulance Chaser"

SPARTAN DEMOLITION: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SR SUNTOUR: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
STAMPEDE PRESENTATION: Recalls Mustang electronic Screens
SUBARU: Recalls 2012 Impreza Models Due to Defective Airbag
SUN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Gleevec Patent Suit

SUNRIPE FARMS: Recalls Salad Dressings Due to Mustard
SVB: Class Action Over Personal Care Budget Fiasco Mulled
TELEFLORA LLC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Court
THOMAS BUILT: Recalls 8,093 C2 School Buses Due to Injury Risk
THOMAS BUILT: Recalls 145 School Buses Due to Injury Risk

TOP RANK: July 30 Hearing on Consolidation of Class Suits
TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Faces "Codog" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
TRS RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hacker" Suit Claims
UNITED FURNITURE: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal

UNITED STATES: Vietnam War Veterans Finally Receive Benefits
UNITED STATES: Coal Miners Compile Signatures for EPA Class Action
UNITED STATES: Judge Approves Deal Over Pershing Park Arrest
UNITED STATES: VA Police Officers Sue Over Recording Devices
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Mo. Over Defective HVAC Compressor

US BANK: Judge Gives Tentative Approval to Peregrine Settlement
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VISONIC INC: Recalls PowerMax Express and Complete Control Panels
WESTERN POWER: Slater & Gordon Examines Bushfire Evidence
WEXFORD HEALTH: "Panem" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime

WHOLE FOODS: Sales Tax Class Action Partially Dismissed
WYETH CANADA: Settles Class Action Over Cancer-Linked HRT Drugs
ZORIA FARMS: Settles Sexual Harassment Case for $330,000

* 349 Side-By-Side UTVs Recalled in Canada Over Parts Defect
* 950 Vehicles Recalled in Canada Due to Airbag Defect
* CFPB Posts Grievances Against Financial Services Companies
* Marc Henzel Firm Announces Securities Litigation Class Periods
* Ted Frank Defends Acceptance of Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees

* Transfat Ruling to Spark PHO Regulation-Related Lawsuits


                            *********


2 BROS PIZZA: More Workers Join Minimum Wage, OT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown and Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily
News, report that the secret ingredient for 2 Bros.' dollar pizza
is underpaid workers, a lawsuit charges.  The class-action suit
says workers at the popular pizza chain worked 60- to 70-hour
weeks for less than minimum wage and no overtime.

"They built their dollar pizza empire on the backs of my clients
and other workers by grossly underpaying them," said their lawyer,
Adam Slater.  "It's just unfair."

Gabriel Bailon, who worked as a piemaker and cashier at the
chain's flagship pizzeria on St. Marks Place and saw 2 Bros.
become a citywide staple, said he and other employees were talked
into staying with phony promises about raises, but their bosses
never came up with the dough.  The cheap pizza chain did cut
workers' hours this year, "but they gave me less money, too," said
Mr. Bailon, who would typically work from 11 in the morning until
11 or 12 at night, six days a week.

Another longtime worker, Ruben Aca, worked 72 hours a week at the
eatery's Lexington Ave. locale, where he said he was paid a flat
$480 a week -- or $6.66 an hour -- for two years.  The suit says
he got a raise to $600 a week in 2014 -- but still works 60-hour
weeks.

Howard Davis, an attorney for the owners of 2 Bros., Eli and Oren
Halali, as well as their father, Joshua, said they would prevail
in court.  Mr. Davis said, "2 Bros. pays its employees in
compliance with city, state and federal law and categorically
denies the claims made by the plaintiffs."

The suit seeks back pay for hundreds of the chain's workers who it
says have "not been paid minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of
hours wages, (and) who had wages unlawfully deducted."

More than a dozen plaintiffs have joined the suit and more are
coming forward, Slater said. He estimated the damages owed the
workers will be in excess of $10 million.

Mr. Bailon, a 27-year-old father of two, said he quit this year.

"I found another job with less hours where they pay me good," the
Bronx man said.

The cheap slice chain is not the only well-known pizza joint to
face charges of underpaying workers.  In March, a judge ordered
the owner of five Papa John's locations in Harlem to pay $2.1
million to underpaid delivery workers.  And in April, state
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that four Domino's
Pizza franchise owners had agreed to pay $970,000 for a variety of
labor violations.


ACURA: Recalls 10,220 MDX SUVs Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory:  SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 10220
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015281TC
ID number: 2015281

On certain vehicles, some lots of A/C compressor clutch drive
bolts may be defective. If the A/C clutch drive falls off the
vehicle during operation while the vehicle is underway, the clutch
drive could strike another vehicle, stationary object, or
bystander, causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will replace the clutch drive bolt, and if necessary
install a new clutch plate.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  ACURA        MDX          2014


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Settles 2013 Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, Esq. of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that Adobe Systems, Inc. has agreed to settle the
proposed class action lawsuit filed against it following the
breach of its system in 2013.  The breach compromised personal and
payment card data of millions of its customers.  There were no
allegations of actual damage or identity theft as a result of the
security breach.

The settlement awards $5,000 to each named plaintiff and
attorneys' fees of $1.18 million.  Adobe has agreed to implement
additional security measures and to submit to an independent
security audit to ensure it has implemented the security measures.
Sounds like a lot of attorneys' fees for no claimed damages.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Data Breach Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jourdan Parkinson of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in August of 2013, four computers of
Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation were stolen from one of
its offices.  The computers contained the names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, health insurance information, diagnoses,
Medicare and Medicaid information and diagnosis codes of
approximately 4 million patients.

Several class action cases were filed against Advocate Health
following the breach and the cases were dismissed by the trial
courts for lack of standing as the plaintiffs had failed to
establish an injury in fact.  The dismissals were appealed.

On June 2, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the
dismissal of the suits stating "[H]ere, plaintiffs' allegations of
injury are clearly speculative, and, therefore, they lack standing
to bring suit."  The Court further held that the allegations of
injury set forth in the Complaints, including an increased risk of
identity theft are speculative and conclusory as the plaintiffs
did not allege that they actually were the victims of identity
theft.  Illinois law requires the showing of a "distinct and
palpable injury" in order to move forward with a claim.

This holding is consistent with other standing cases that have
been decided in both federal and state court cases, and expands
the precedent in this area.


AGRI-FINE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors
-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Amer, writing for DNAinfo, reports that Southeast Side
homeowners have filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
against Agri-Fine Corp., alleging that the animal feed
manufacturer damaged their property with noxious odors from its
plant.  In a suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court June 4, the
homeowners accused Agri-Fine of "causing material injury" to the
"use and enjoyment of their property" and of knowingly operating
its facility "without proper or best available odor-control
technology."

Chicago law firm Sneckenberg, Thompson & Brody LLP and Detroit law
firm Liddle & Dubin PC are representing the homeowners.

"We've been contacted by as many as 200 homes," attorney Steven
Liddle said on June 22.  "There are hundreds of people complaining
about it.  It's not just three irate neighbors."

The class action suit against Agri-Fine echoes allegations laid
out in a separate complaint brought by the Illinois Attorney
General's Office in November.  Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan accused Agri-Fine of violating the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act by spewing higher-than-permitted levels of sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from its Southeast Side facility.
Both gases correlate with increased levels of respiratory illness,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

DNAinfo Chicago found hundreds of complaints filed against the
company going back as far as 1993.

"What the state is addressing is the public trust -- the ambient
air," Mr. Liddle said.  "What these [plaintiffs] are looking to
address is their own personal property."

Liddle & Dubin specializes in class action environmental lawsuits
and previously won a $12 million settlement in Caines v. Marathon
Oil Co., a case of "chronic noxious odors and air pollution
released from an oil refinery," according to the firm's website.

Agri-Fine Chief Operating Officer Erik Hoelzeman declined to
comment on the pending suit.  Mr. Hoelzeman previously told
DNAinfo Chicago that his company had spent "millions" on odor-
control measures but thought that some complaints against his
company were made in error.

"We are at the tip of the industrial corridor," Mr. Hoelzeman
said. "We want to fix our issues but we have to make sure we
narrow them down to the complaints [about smells] actually coming
from us."

Agri-Fine was previously represented in the case of the Attorney
General's complaint by Chicago attorney Mark A. Stang, a former
partner at Chuhak & Tescon PC.  The firm filed a motion June 10 to
withdraw from the case, stating that Strang no longer worked for
the company.  Mr. Stang did not return calls for comment on
June 22.  A representative for Chuhak & Tescon said the company
does not comment on pending litigation or attorneys who have left
the company.

Meanwhile, Liddle & Dubin has invited residents of Jeffery Manor,
Veteran's Park and South Deering to meet with its attorneys at a
series of public information meetings scheduled for June 24.  The
firm has rented a room at Sacred Heart School, 2926 E. 96th St.,
and was set to conduct meetings at 6, 7 and 8 p.m.


ALBERTA, CANADA: Agency Faces Negligence Class Action Over Treadz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rusnell, writing for CBC News, reports that a C$5-million
class-action lawsuit alleges the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry
Council's negligence caused numerous car owners to lose thousands
of dollars to a failed auto-consignment company.

The lawsuit, recently filed in Calgary, claims the Alberta Motor
Vehicle Industry Council (AMVIC) failed to effectively regulate
the business practices within the auto industry, and alleges
Service Alberta failed to properly oversee AMVIC.

The allegations relate to the failure of Treadz, a Red Deer-based,
auto-consignment company.  The lawsuit claims Treadz, owned by
Sean Patrick O'Brien, failed to pay owners after their vehicles
were sold and failed, as promised, to remove liens from the
vehicles.  But the lawsuit makes the broader claim that Service
Alberta failed to properly oversee AMVIC by not ensuring AMVIC
acted to correct serious deficiencies in its policies and
operational conduct identified in two reviews.

As reported by CBC News in April, an internal Service Alberta
draft review of AMVIC, conducted in the fall of 2014, found so
many serious problems it recommended immediate action to maintain
public and industry confidence in the arm's length regulator.

The review also found AMVIC executive director John Bachinski
acted "as a tyrant and dictator who interprets any question of
decision, direction or process as disobedience and responds with
intimidation, veiled threats of firing, or general bullying and
belittling."

The council licenses and regulates both auto dealers and repair
shops.  It also investigates consumer complaints.  It is supposed
to serve as the self-regulating watchdog over the industry on
behalf of the public.  AMVIC operates under the purview of Service
Alberta, which appoints a board to oversee it.

Failure to investigate

The lawsuit claims that despite the scathing review, AMVIC "failed
to fully implement the recommendations" made by Service Alberta in
March 2009, February 2013 and August 2014, and "to date, Service
Alberta has failed to sanction AMVIC for its failure to implement
these recommendations."

Specifically in relation to Treadz, the class-action lawsuit also
claims AMVIC failed to properly and efficiently investigate the
concerns and/or claims made by its members and failed to
adequately compensate them from the compensation fund.  Because of
this alleged negligence, the class-action members claim AMVIC and
Service Alberta failed to protect them from unfair business
practices and failed to enforce legislation related to the same.
None of the allegations has been proven in court and no statement
of defense has been filed.

The organization has a long history of problems.  The draft
review, obtained by CBC News, found numerous serious issues,
including poor-quality investigations, low morale, an
extraordinarily high rate of staff turnover and the fact
Mr. Bachinski improperly involved himself in investigations.

Outside the legislature on June 22, Service Alberta Minister
Deron Bilous said he could not comment on the lawsuit because it
is now before the courts.  He also declined to say what, if any,
changes might be made to AMVIC by his department.

Mr. Bilous would only say AMVIC would be reviewed as part of the
new government's ongoing review of all the province's agencies,
boards and commissions.


ALLIANTGROUP LP: Texas Forum Selection Clause Unenforceable
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. McCoy, Esq. and Saundra L. M. Riley, Esq., in an article
for Lexology, report that in Verdugo v. AlliantGroup, L.P., a
California appeals court disregarded a forum selection clause
requiring a California employee to pursue her wage and hour claims
in Texas under Texas law, finding the clause violated California
public policy.  The plaintiff had signed an employment agreement
selecting Harris County, Texas as the exclusive forum for
resolution of employment disputes and designating Texas law as the
governing law.  When the plaintiff brought a class action in
California for unpaid overtime and other Labor Code violations,
the employer sought to enforce the contract.  The trial court
stayed the California action to allow the matter to proceed in
Texas.  The appellate court disagreed and lifted the stay, finding
the clause unenforceable as against public policy.  The court
concluded the Labor Code afforded California employees certain
unwaivable rights. Forcing the plaintiff to litigate her claims in
Texas, where the choice-of-law clause would require application of
Texas law (unless the Texas court were to decide to disregard it),
had the potential to diminish the employee's unwaivable
substantive rights.  The defendant had failed to prove -- or even
stipulate -- that California law would be enforced, so the Court
refused to enforce the forum selection clause.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settles Class Action Over Beck's Beer Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Anheuser-Busch has reached a
settlement in a lawsuit that alleged the brewer misled customers
to believe Beck's beer sold in the United States is brewed in
Germany.

Francisco Rene Marty, Seth Goldman, and Fernando Marquet sued A-B
in federal court in Florida in October 2013, alleging Beck's
advertising and packaging misled customers to pay more for beer
they incorrectly believed was an import.  The lawsuit contended
that Beck's produced in St. Louis used Missouri water that differs
from water from German rivers. Belgium-based A-B InBev's U.S.
headquarters is in St. Louis.

While the lawsuit was pending, A-B changed Beck's beer labels and
packaging brewed in the U.S. to prominently say "Brewed in the
U.S.A." or "Product of U.S.A."

A federal judge on June 23 gave preliminary approval for a
proposed class action settlement that includes a refund for Beck's
customers.  A final approval hearing is set for Oct. 20.

As part of the settlement, A-B denied any wrongdoing but agreed to
issue refunds to customers who bought Beck's beer brewed in the
U.S. beginning May 1, 2011.  Those who submit receipts from Beck's
beer purchases will be able to receive a refund of 50 cents per
six-pack, up to a maximum of $50 per household.  Reimbursement for
those without receipts is capped at $12.  Claims can be submitted
via a website that will be created, according to court documents.

Each of the three plaintiffs will receive up to $5,000 for
representing the class.  Additionally, A-B agreed to pay
attorney's fees in the case up to $3.5 million.

"We're pleased that the plaintiffs were able to resolve this
dispute and we look forward to the final approval hearing and
getting these benefits to the class of Beck's beer consumers,"
said Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- an attorney with Miami
law firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton who represents the customers
who sued A-B.

A-B says it reached a compromise in the labeling case.

"We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of Beck's have
always been truthful, transparent and in compliance with all legal
requirements," Jorn Socquet, vice president of marketing at A-B,
said in a press release.  "A-B brews Beck's to the highest-quality
standards, and is proud to employ some of the finest American
brewmasters to produce Beck's for the U.S. market."

Mr. Ronzetti's law firm also represented plaintiffs in another
recent lawsuit that alleged A-B deceived consumers by not clearly
stating on its packaging that Kirin Ichiban and Kirin Light
Japanese-style pilsners sold in the U.S. were brewed domestically
instead of Japan.  That class action lawsuit also resulted in a
settlement that included a refund for customers.


ARCH COAL: Faces "Bush" Suit Over Imprudent Investment Option
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Bush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARCH Coal, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01026 (E.D.
Mo., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty, specifically by continuing to
offer Arch Coal Stock as an investment option when it was no
longer a prudent investment for the Plan.

ARCH Coal, Inc. is a domestic coal company that derives
substantially all of its revenue from mining and selling coal to
power plants, steel mills, and industrial facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don R. Lolli, Esq.
      DYSART TAYLOR COTTER MCMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C.
      4420 Madison Avenue
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 931-2700
      Facsimile: (816) 931-7377
      E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com

         - and -

      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
      Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
      Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
      280 King Of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
              dmoffa@ktmc.com
              mgyandoh@ktmc.com
              jsjohnson@ktmc.com


AUTOCAR: Recalls 2015 Xpeditor Models
-------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 201
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 42
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015284TC
ID number: 2015284
Manufacturer recall number: ACX-1502

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with an incorrect
synchronization valve. If the driver were to release the park
brake without first firmly applying the service brake, the park
brake could subsequently engage unexpectedly while the vehicle is
in motion, at any speed. An unintended park brake application
without brake light illumination would result, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install a park brake
synchronization valve which will prevent the application of the
park brake under those circumstances.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  AUTOCAR      XPEDITOR     2015


BARBER FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barber Foods, a Portland, Maine establishment, is recalling
approximately 58,320 pounds of frozen, raw stuffed chicken product
that may be contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The Chicken Kiev item was produced on January 29, 2015; February
20, 2015; and April 23, 2015. The following product is subject to
recall:

  -- 2-lb. 4-oz. cardboard box containing 6 individually pouched
     pieces of "BARBER FOODS PREMIUM ENTREES BREADED-BONELESS RAW
     STUFFED CHICKEN BREASTS WITH RIB MEAT KIEV" with use by/sell
     by date of April 28, 2016, May 20, 2016 and July 21, 2016
     and Lot Code number 0950292102, 0950512101, or 0951132202.

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-
276" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was shipped
to Sam's Club retail stores in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The product subject to recall has not been available for retail
sales since June 26, 2015; however, FSIS suspects that consumers
may have this item in their freezers.

FSIS was notified of a cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses
on June 24, 2015. Working in conjunction with Minnesota State
Departments of Health and Agriculture, FSIS determined that there
is a link between the Chicken Kiev product from Barber Foods and
this illness cluster. Based on epidemiological evidence and
traceback investigations, four case-patients have been identified
in Minnesota with illness onset dates ranging from April 5, 2015
to June 8, 2015 that link to the specific Barber Foods product.
FSIS continues to work with the Minnesota Departments of Health
and Agriculture as well as the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on this investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure
to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be in
consumers' freezers. Although the product subject to recall may
appear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked (raw) and
should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in the
kitchen. Particular attention needs to be paid to safely prepare
and cook these raw poultry products to a temperature of 165ø F
checking at the center, the thickest part and the surface of the
product.

This frozen, raw, stuffed chicken product was labeled with
instructions identifying that the product was raw and included
cooking instructions for preparation. Some case-patients reported
following the cooking instructions on the label and using a food
thermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature was
achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises all consumers to treat this
product like a raw chicken product. Hands and any surfaces,
including surfaces that may have breading dislodged from the
product, should be cleaned after contact with this raw product.
Also, keep raw poultry away from other food that will not be
cooked. Use one cutting board for raw poultry and a separate one
for fresh produce and cooked foods.

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

Consumers with questions can contact the company directly at (844)
564-5555. Media with questions can contact Laura Phillips, Media
Relations Spokesperson, at (513) 381-8347.

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


BARCLAYS BANK: California Water Utility Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a California water utility filed a class
action lawsuit on June 23 to recoup losses in the electric market
that it blames on Barclays Bank Plc, which the U.S. government
fined $453 million in 2013 for manipulating electricity prices.


BLUEMOUNTAIN CAPITAL: Receives Subpoena in Credit Swaps Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Burne, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
allegations that banks and two swaps industry groups colluded
against would-be competitors in the credit-derivatives market are
rippling through the investment world again.

Three swaps participants, BlueMountain Capital Management LLC,
Citadel LLC and Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco,
received subpoenas in recent months under an investor lawsuit
alleging anticompetitive practices by the banks and industry
groups, according to people familiar with the matter.  No
wrongdoing is alleged on the part of the firms receiving the
subpoenas.

The investor lawsuit, brought in 2014 by a series of retirement
and pension funds in a federal district court in New York, accuses
12 banks, data provider Markit Group Ltd. and the International
Swaps and Derivatives Association, a trade group, of conspiring to
block competing providers and exchange trading in the credit-
default-swaps market.

Representatives for the banks, Markit and ISDA declined to
comment.

Credit-default swaps are insurance-like contracts designed to
compensate users for debt defaults.  The market as of December had
a notional value of $16.4 trillion, down from a peak of $58
trillion in 2007.

The subpoenas mark the latest attempt by investors to wring
damages out of banks dealing in credit-default swaps.  The Justice
Department confirmed in 2009 that it had opened a probe into the
trading practices and clearing and information services supporting
credit derivatives, but hasn't brought any charges.

Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., a Wall Street entity controlled
by big banks, also was subpoenaed in the investor lawsuit, some of
the people familiar said.  It isn't a defendant in the suit.

A spokesman for Citadel said, "Citadel is not under investigation
for anything and the subpoenas were sent to the firm because we
might have information that is useful to the investigation or
lawsuit."  Representatives for DTCC, BlueMountain and Pimco
declined to comment.

Chicago-based Citadel was subpoenaed because of the firm's attempt
to launch a trading platform for credit swaps called "CMDX" with
CME Group Inc. in 2008, the people said.  The lawsuit alleges that
effort was thwarted by the defendant banks in the case.
BlueMountain and Pimco were subpoenaed for their founding role in
the CMDX venture, the people said.  Six years ago, one of
BlueMountain's executives, Samuel Cole, sent a widely circulated
email accusing banks of "oligopolistic dominance" in the swaps
market.  Mr. Cole has since left the firm.

In the Justice Department probe, federal prosecutors sent civil
investigative demand notices to BlueMountain, DTCC, Citadel and
Pimco, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
CMDX and CME Group also were subpoenaed by the Justice Department
in 2009, the documents show.

That case remains open, a Justice Department spokesman said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs this month started taking hundreds of
depositions from parties in the suit, said Daniel Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan LLP and lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

He declined to specify the extent of damages that would be sought,
but said plaintiffs are seeking an amount in the billions of
dollars.  The investors plan to ask the court to certify the group
for class-action status by a late August deadline, he said.

The plaintiffs allege that banks, from 2008 to 2013, conspired to
block changes in the credit-derivatives markets, including
licensing of intellectual property that was necessary for new
entrants to compete, and the emergence of exchange trading in
credit swaps.

The defendants in court transcripts have said they intend to
develop evidence that exchange trading for credit-default swaps
wouldn't have taken off at the time because there was too little
demand.

The plaintiffs in the investor lawsuit are: the Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association; Salix Capital U.S. Inc.; Value
Recovery Fund LLC; Delta Institutional LP; Delta Onshore Ltd.;
Delta Offshore Ltd.; Delta Pleiades LP; Essex Regional Retirement
System; and Unipension Fondsmaeglerselskab A/S.

The defendant banks are: Bank of America Corp., Barclays PLC, BNP
Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank
AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, J.P. Morgan Chase
& Co., Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and UBS
AG.

The investor case regarding credit-default swaps is before U.S.
District Judge Denise Cote, who in May ruled that the U.S. unit of
Nomura Holdings Inc. misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when
selling them mortgage bonds before the financial crisis.


BUDDYZ MCHENRY: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Miller, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Buddyz McHenry, Inc., and John Beuckens,
Case No. 3:15-cv-50151 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant located at 1138
N. Green St., McHenry, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


BURR & REID: Faces "Mamun" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Mamun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Law Office of Burr & Reid, LLP, Frederick W. Burr,
and Marylynn A. Reid, Case No. 2:15-cv-03813-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      306 McCall Avenue
      West Islip, NY 11795
      Telephone: (631) 669-0921
      Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
      E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


CAPITAL ONE: Lieff Cabraser Defends $75.5MM Robocall Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Ted Frank of the
nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) requires his
clients to pledge in their retainer agreements that they're not
looking for financial payoffs in bringing objections to proposed
class settlements.  As Mr. Frank explained in an extraordinary
declaration at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the purpose
of the provision is to distinguish Frank and his nonprofit from
"professional objectors" -- lawyers and clients who file
objections to big class action settlements in the hope that class
counsel will pay them to go away.  Since founding the Center for
Class Action Fairness in 2009, Mr. Frank has said his motive is to
correct class action abuses for his clients and other class
members, not to help clients win extortionate payoffs.

But filings at the 7th Circuit, in the appeal of a fee award in a
$75.5 million settlement of allegations that Capital One violated
the Telephone Consumers Protection Act in debt collection
robocalls, reveal a closer business relationship than was
previously known between Mr. Frank and Christopher Bandas of the
Bandas Law Firm, a plaintiffs' lawyer and frequent class action
objector.  Beginning in 2013, Mr. Frank has received regular fees
from Mr. Bandas -- a total of about $250,000, according to Mr.
Frank's declaration.  At first, Mr. Frank contracted for a piece
of Mr. Bandas' share of proceeds from resolved cases in which Mr.
Frank was a consultant.  The two subsequently revised their
agreement to provide Mr. Frank with a minimum monthly payment for
his work on Mr. Bandas' behalf.

Mr. Frank said he made the deal with Mr. Bandas, with the approval
of his nonprofit's board, because he believed it was in the
Center's interests, especially after Mr. Frank argued and won a
7th Circuit appeal in Eubank v. Pella, one of Mr. Bandas' cases.
"I took a pay cut from the Center and the Center used the savings
to hire expert witnesses and attorneys to bring more ambitious
objections," Mr. Frank said in his declaration.  "Mr. Bandas
helped wrangle objectors in other CCAF cases to reduce cacophony
in oral arguments, and, until this case, did not interfere with
CCAF cases or clients.  I understood that my pay from Mr. Bandas
was made possible and would not have occurred without Mr. Bandas
profitably settling cases where I was not counsel of record, but
rationalized accepting that money because of the benefit to case
law of victories like Eubank that might not have occurred if I was
not assisting Mr. Bandas."

Messrs. Frank and Bandas have now parted ways, in a turn of events
Mr. Frank called "lurid, complex and Grishamesque" in a June 10
filing at the 7th Circuit in the Capital One case.  There's a more
important reason to write about the Capital One appeal: It exposes
secret dealmaking among plaintiffs' lawyers that pretty much
confirms the dark suspicions of class action detractors.

On June 19, Mr. Bandas filed a petition for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction against Mr. Frank in
state court in Texas.  The Nueces County court docket indicates
the TRO was granted but Mr. Bandas and his counsel didn't respond
to my requests to see the signed order.  Mr. Frank said in an
email that he planned to file a brief on June 22 addressing the
Bandas allegation.  He declined additional comment except to say,
"I'm quite confident that I've done nothing wrong."

Class counsel in the Capital One case, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, filed a brief on June 18 defending the $75.5 million
settlement and its $16 million fee award, but was expected to
respond specifically to Mr. Frank's allegations.  Lieff partner
Jonathan Selbin declined to comment in advance of that filing.

Mr. Frank's client in the Capital One case, Jeffrey Collins, was
one of a handful of objectors who appealed approval of the
settlement to the 7th Circuit.  Two objectors protested the entire
settlement.  Three, including Mr. Frank's client, objected only to
Lieff Cabraser's fee award.  The other fee objectors were
represented by Frank's business partner Bandas and another serial
objectors' lawyer, Darrell Palmer, who has retained Mr. Frank to
write briefs and present oral arguments.  Messrs. Bandas and
Palmer joined Frank's 7th Circuit brief protesting Lieff
Cabraser's fee award on May 4.

But then, according to Mr. Frank's June 10 motion to withdraw as
Collins' counsel, Mr. Bandas approached a Lieff Cabraser lawyer,
claiming he could settle all of the objectors' appeals.  On June
4, according to Mr. Frank's motion, Lieff Cabraser made a
settlement offer to Mr. Bandas, with whom the firm had previously
made a deal to settle objectors' appeals in another big TCPA case
in April.

Mr. Bandas told Mr. Frank that Mr. Frank's client would receive
$25,000 if he agreed to drop his appeal.  "I jokingly said to Mr.
Bandas that I wondered whether this was a settlement offer coming
from him, rather than from class counsel," Mr. Frank said in his
declaration.  "He became very defensive, but also said that if the
offer had been from him, he would have offered $100,000 to make
sure there was no chance Mr. Collins would decline the offer."
Mr. Frank said Mr. Bandas' comment led him to believe Mr. Bandas
"is being offered at least $200,000, and likely much more, to
dismiss his appeal."

Mr. Frank said he terminated his own consulting arrangement with
Mr. Bandas on June 4.  His relationship with Mr. Collins, he said,
was unraveling but after he received a written settlement offer of
$25,000 from Selbin of Lieff Cabraser, Mr. Frank conveyed the
offer to Collins. Frank called the settlement offer "repugnant"
and said it breached Collins' retainer agreement.  Mr. Collins,
however, wanted to take the money, and, according to Mr. Frank,
legal ethics required him to accept the offer on his client's
behalf.

Mr. Frank said when he wrote to inform Mr. Selbin of Mr. Collins'
decision, "I noted to Mr. Selbin that his offer to Mr. Collins was
unethical," Mr. Frank said in his declaration.  "He responded in
writing that 'I would be happy for every aspect of this to be
reviewed by the 7th Circuit or district court, as we have done
absolutely nothing wrong.' In response, I asked Mr. Selbin to
disclose what Lieff Cabraser had offered Mr. Bandas to settle his
appeal in this matter.  Mr. Selbin refused to disclose that
information to me."

Mr. Frank filed a motion at the 7th Circuit to dismiss
Mr. Collins' appeal, to withdraw as Mr. Collins' counsel, and to
be appointed as a guardian of the Capital One class.  The
following day, 7th Circuit Judge Michael Kanne ordered a response
from Lieff Cabraser.  Mr. Bandas, meanwhile, went to Texas state
court to restrain Mr. Frank.


CARPENTER CO: To Settle Polyurethane Price-Fixing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Carpenter Co.,
Leggett & Platt Inc., Mohawk Inc. and three other makers of
polyurethane foam agreed to pay as much as $128.5 million to
settle lawsuits accusing them of conspiring to fix prices.

The preliminary settlements with so-called indirect purchasers
were disclosed on June 19 in the federal court in Toledo, Ohio,
and require court approval.

Earlier settlements with other groups of plaintiffs in the
nationwide litigation totaled $433.1 million.

Polyurethane foam is used as cushioning and insulation to make
such products as automobile seats, carpet underlay and furniture.
Producers of such items accused foam manufacturers of violating
the federal Sherman antitrust law by conspiring to coordinate the
timing and size of price increases.

According to court papers, the latest settlements included:

             $63.5  million from Carpenter,
             $26.5  million from Leggett,
             $16    million from Mohawk,
  as much as $10.25 million from Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co,
              $9.5  million from Woodbridge Foam Corp and
              $2.75 million from Vitafoam Inc.

The accords cover purchasers of products containing flexible
polyurethane foam since Jan. 1, 1999.  These purchasers won class-
action status in April 2014.

Part of the litigation continues, and a trial is scheduled
to begin in October, court papers show.

Carpenter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Marvin Miller, a lawyer for the indirect purchasers, declined to
comment.

The case is In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Ohio, No. 10-md-02196.

                           *     *     *

John Reid Blackwell, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports
that Henrico County-based Carpenter, one of the world's largest
suppliers of foams and polyester fibers used in mattresses,
pillows, sofas, car seats and other durable goods, did not admit
any wrongdoing, according to documents filed in U.S. District
Court in Toledo, Ohio.

Carpenter and eight other makers of foam mattress and furniture
materials have agreed to pay nearly $400 million to settle the
lawsuits that accused the companies of conspiring to fix prices.
The privately held company's settlement is for cases related to
indirect purchasers of its foam products, industry publication
Furniture Today reported.

The company declined to comment, according to a spokesman for
Richmond-based McGuireWoods LLP, which is representing Carpenter.
The Chicago lawyer representing the buyers of the foam products
did not return phone calls.

Several lawsuits were filed in 2010 seeking class action status
and alleging price-fixing in the foam industry.  In July 2010, the
FBI raided offices of Carpenter and other manufacturers to obtain
documents.

It is the second time that Carpenter has agreed to a settlement as
a result of price-fixing allegations.  In November, the company
agreed to pay $108 million to settle a lawsuit brought by various
direct buyers who make products containing foam, federal court
documents show.

The new settlement with indirect buyers calls for each
manufacturer of foam to place millions of dollars in various
escrow funds that can be accessed by companies that purchased the
foam between Jan. 1, 1999, and July 30, 2010.

Carpenter agreed to deposit $20 million of its settlement amount
into an escrow account in May, court records show.  The company
also agreed to deposit the balance, $43.5 million, to an escrow
account within 10 days of the final approval of the settlement.
A final hearing is set for Oct. 9.

The settlement puts to rest claims brought by hotel chains and
other indirect buyers of polyurethane foam products such as
carpet, bedding and upholstered furniture, Furniture Today
reported.  That group will receive $128.5 million from six
polyurethane foam producers including Carpenter.

The other group, primarily foam fabricators and packaging
companies, will receive $266.5 million from six foam producers,
including three who also settled with the first group.

The plaintiffs accused Carpenter and other manufacturers of a
"conspiracy" to "raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices and
allocate territories or customers for flexible polyurethane foam
and flexible polyurethane foam products," court records show.
Carpenter agreed to the settlement "in order to avoid the costs,
expenses, risk, and burden of further litigation," according to
court documents.

The other manufacturers that agreed to settle are Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Co., Leggett & Platt Inc., Mohawk Inc., Vitafoam
Products Canada Ltd., Vitafoam Inc., Woodbridge Foam Corp.,
Woodbridge Sales & Engineering Inc. and Woodbridge Foam
Fabricating Inc.

Carpenter, founded in 1948, designs most of its sleep products at
a center off Jefferson Davis Highway in South Richmond.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Fed. Court Retains Subject Matter Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim J. St. George, David M. Gettings, Alan D. Wingfield and David
N. Anthony of Troutman Sanders report that in In Touch Concepts,
Inc. d/b/a ZCOM v. Cellco Partnership, the Second Circuit joined
the Seventh Circuit in holding that a federal court retains
subject matter jurisdiction over a case that had previously been
removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), even after the plaintiff amended the complaint to remove
the class action allegations.

In reaching this decision, the Second Circuit relied on cases such
as Rockwell International Corp. v. United States (2007), where the
Supreme Court held that the original complaint determines subject
matter jurisdiction in cases that had been removed on federal
question grounds.  The Second Circuit extended the logic of that
holding to cases that were removed under CAFA, holding: "After
proper removal to federal court, post-removal amendments generally
do not destroy statutory subject matter jurisdiction."

The decision in In Touch Concepts makes it clear within the Second
Circuit that class action plaintiffs cannot negate federal court
jurisdiction after CAFA removal simply by dropping the class
action allegations from a complaint.  This decision provides
litigants with additional certainty that their case, once removed
under CAFA, will remain in federal court for resolution on the
merits.  It also may provide support for analogous circumstances
where plaintiffs attempt to defeat removal in the first instance
by stipulating to damages below the CAFA jurisdictional threshold
of $5 million.  That issue, however, was not before the Second
Circuit.


CENTURY SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Y. Rodriguez a/k/a Claudia Yadira Mejia and all others
similarly situated v. Century Supermarket D & C, Inc., J & R
Century, LLC, Sonia Cruz, Danny Cruz, Rafael Rosario, Joaquin A.
Rosario, Case No. 1:15-cv-22466-PDG (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants are engaged in grocery stores business and
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CHEETAHS: Strip Club Dancers File Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that in a
class-action lawsuit filed June 22 against Kearny Mesa strip joint
Cheetahs, a former dancer says the club should be paying the
talent a minimum wage.

Jasmine Hayes, who worked at the club for over a year (from 2011
to 2012), accuses Cheetahs owner Suzanne Coe and staff of
violating the labor code by failing to pay standard minimum wages.

Cheetahs requires dancers to pay a "house fee" ranging from $40 to
$80 per night, depending on the shift.  Dancers must also tip the
deejay, the door person, and the floor manager a percentage of the
tips made from private dances.  If the tips don't cover the house
fee, dancers are asked to stay to clean the club after the doors
close.

The club, claims the lawsuit, skirts the labor-code requirements
by illegally calling dancers "independent contractors."  But,
according to Ms. Hayes's attorneys, the "independent contractor"
designation doesn't work because there exists an economic
relationship between the dancer and the club.

". . . [A]s a matter of economic reality, Hayes and all other
class members are not in business for themselves and truly
independent, but rather are economically dependent upon finding
employment in others, namely Cheetahs.  The dancers are not
engaged in occupations or businesses distinct from that of
[Cheetahs].  Rather, their work and presence is integral to [the
club's] success. [Cheetahs] obtains guests who desire exotic dance
entertainment and provide the workers who conduct the exotic dance
services on behalf of Cheetahs.  Defendants retain pervasive
control over the club operation as a whole, and the dancers'
duties are a core, vital function of the operation."

In addition to dancers and the club being "economically dependent"
on one another, dancers must follow strict guidelines,
characteristic of an employee-employer relationship.  Those
guidelines include locker use, tipping policies, and style of
dancing.  Managers at the club also impact the dancers' jobs by
setting prices on private dances and selecting the music and
overall theme.

"Hayes and class members' economic status is inextricably linked
to those conditions over which [Cheetahs has] complete control.
Ms. Hayes and other members of the class are completely dependent
on [Cheetahs] for their earnings.  In sum, the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the employment relationship between
[club] and the dancers . . . demonstrate that [the club] sets the
terms and conditions of the class members' work -- the hallmark of
economic dependence."

Ms. Hayes estimates loss of wages and attorneys' fees to be under
$75,000; that amount will increase if additional dancers join the
class-action lawsuit.

Cheetahs manager Rich Buontantony says, "The women are independent
contractors.  When we hire an entertainer, they are given the
choice of being an employee or a space lessee, much like a
hairdresser.  As an independent contractor, the girl comes and
goes as she pleases, basically does what she wants whereas, an
employee comes in set hours, dances who we tell them to dance for,
and so forth.  The women I have here prefer to be independent
contractors."


CHOICE CANNING: Recalls Shrimp Sorrentino and Shrimp Fried Rice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Choice Canning Company Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Possibly National, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9897

Choice Canning Company Inc. is recalling Tastee Choice brand
Shrimp Sorrentino and Shrimp Fried Rice from the marketplace
because they may contain milk and gluten which are not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to milk or sensitivity to gluten
should not consume the recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand   Common      Size    Code(s) on         UPC
  name    name        ----    product            ---
  -----   ------              ----------
Tastee    Shrimp
Choice    Sorrentino  680 g   All codes where    7 46167 84001 0
                              milk is not
                              declared on the
                              label.
Tastee   Shrimp
Choice   Fried Rice   680 g   All codes where    7 46167 84004 1
                              milk and gluten
                              are not declared
                              on the label.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/E1jwJe


CHRYSLER: Aware of Leaky Sunroofs, Plaintiffs' Lawyers Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com reports that "Chrysler has
known about its leaky sunroofs for years . . . Chrysler failed to
address the issue," write attorneys for six Chrysler owners in
response to the automaker's motion to dismiss a nationwide class
action lawsuit.  The owners have sued the automaker in the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey over alleged sunroof issues.

"Since at least 1999, Chrysler's factory installed sunroofs have
leaked inside the vehicles of plaintiffs and thousands of
purchasers and lessees. . . . It [Chrysler] has disseminated
company-wide technical service bulletins and rapid response
transmittals since 1999," according to court documents.  "However,
maintenance booklets, promotional material and other Chrysler sale
and lease documents failed to disclose that the sunroofs and other
components required inspections and special maintenance.  Chrysler
also failed to disclose that its substandard sunroofs would leak
even in the lightest rain shower."

Chrysler failed to address the issue with owners, plaintiffs say.

"When plaintiffs and others sought repairs during the warranty
period, Chrysler denied coverage, pointing to a 'maintenance
problem' or 'environmental issue' or advising not to 'park under
trees' or 'drive down dirt roads.'  When Chrysler attempted
warranty repairs, it provided at best, temporary and ineffectual
fixes to get the vehicles to limp past the three-year, 36,000-mile
warranty duration," according to court documents.  "Chrysler then
washed its hands, disclaiming liability and leaving plaintiffs and
others to bear their own repairs."

In response to Chrysler's motion to dismiss, attorneys write,
"Plaintiffs respectfully that the court deny Chrysler's motion to
dismiss in its entirety."


CHRYSLER: Recalls Cherokee & Durango Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 255
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015292TC
ID number: 2015292
Manufacturer recall number: R33

On certain vehicles, the rear suspension lower control arm(s)
could fracture due to incorrect heat treatment during
manufacturing. A fractured suspension lower control arm could
result in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing injury
and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if
necessary, replace the rear lower control arms.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  JEEP       CHEROKEE     2015
  DODGE      DURANGO      2015


CLUB LOCKSMITH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Rivera Jr., and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Club Locksmith & Towing, Inc., EZ Club Towing Inc., Doron Ben-
Hanan and Sharon Shafkaro, Case No. 0:15-cv-61362 (S.D. Fla., June
30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Florida corporations that provide locksmith and
towing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DELMARE QUALITY: Recalls Dips and Sauces Due to Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Delmare Quality Foods Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9908

  Brand      Common name    Size      Code(s) on         UPC
  name       -----------    ----      product            ---
  -----                               ----------
  Delmare    Burrito Sauce  4 x 2 kg  All codes where    None
  Quality                             mustard is not
  Foods Inc.                          declared on the
                                      label.
  Delmare    Shoeless Joe's 4 x 2 kg  All codes where    None
  Quality    Garlic Dill              mustard is not
  Foods Inc. Dip                      declared on the
                                      label.
  Delmare    Maple BBQ      4 x 2 kg  All codes where    None
  Quality    Mayonnaise               mustard is not
  Foods Inc.                          declared on the
                                      label.
  Delmare    Plucker's      3 x 2 kg  All codes where    None
  Quality    Mayonnaise               mustard is not
  Foods Inc. Dipping Sauce            declared on the
                                      label.


DOTHAN, AL: Changes Jail Release Rules Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
DothanEagle.com reports that the City of Dothan has implemented
changes to how inmates at the city jail can be released in the
wake of the recent filing of a class action lawsuit against the
city.

Federal court records show a filing made by Dothan City Attorney
Len White claims the city believes a recently filed class-action
lawsuit against the city is due to be dismissed or moot because
the issues were either already being addressed or are now being
addressed after recent changes implemented on June 19.

The class action lawsuit was filed by 56-year-old Anthony Cooper,
and his two lawyers, in connection to how the city's bail bond
system has been set up for people charged with misdemeanors and
traffic offenses and booked into the city jail. Records show Mr.
Cooper has challenged the use of fixed secured bail amounts used
to detain the poor on minor misdemeanor offenses.  The lawsuit was
filed by Mr. Cooper's two lawyers, Mitch McGuire, of Montgomery,
and Alec Karakatsanis, the co-founder of the Washington D.C. group
Equal Justice Under Law.

Mr. Cooper's lawyers also filed a temporary restraining order,
which the court granted in an effort to get their client released
from the Dothan City Jail.

"The judge has found there was a need to restrain the city from
keeping my client in jail," Mr. McGuire said.  "He ordered my
client's immediate release."

Mr. White filed a response to Mr. Cooper's lawsuit, which claimed
police arrested Cooper after he was found unconscious and
intoxicated at the Dothan Greyhound Bus terminal around 1:00 a.m.
on June 13.  Mr. White's filing said Cooper's $300 bail amount was
set within the state's schedule and guidelines.

Mr. Cooper was released from jail, per the federal judge's order
on June 18.

According to the City of Dothan's response to the lawsuit, the
city implemented several changes as of Friday, June 19.
As of June 19, the Dothan Municipal Court began holding hearings
within 48 hours for anyone who had not taken advantage of the
three bail options, which included property bond, bail bonding
(through a company) or a cash bond.

The Dothan municipal judge also issued a standing order allowing
offering additional options of release for people jailed on a
failure to appear in court charge.  People jailed on a failure to
appear can now post bail through a property bond and bail bond
(company), along with the previously required cash bond.

The municipal court also issued an order permitting access to the
courtroom.

Mr. White's filing also contended these changes, along with
actions already regularly taken by the municipal court, would
remedy any alleged constitutional violations raised by Cooper and
his lawyers.

Class-action lawsuit

Issues from the lawsuit were set to be heard in court at a hearing
on June 26 at the federal courthouse in Montgomery.

The lawsuit claimed Mr. Cooper was told he would not be released
unless he paid the standard $300 bail amount for public
intoxication charges.  The lawsuit also said Mr. Cooper was
indigent, is illiterate, survives solely on Social Security
benefits and could not afford to post his bail.  Mr. Cooper was
told the earliest he would be brought to court was nearly a week
after his arrest on Thursday, June 18 for its weekly court date.

The lawsuit said because of the City of Dothan doesn't deviate
from the secured bail system, anyone arrested who is too poor to
pay the pre-set secured bail could spend as many as seven days in
jail before their first possible court appearance.

The lawsuit said unlike many other cities, Dothan doesn't allow
people arrested to be released on their own recognizance or with
an unsecured bond, in which a person would be released by
promising to pay the scheduled bail amount if they fail to appear
in court.  The lawsuit alleged the city instead requires the
payment amount to be made up front, either in cash or through a
bail bonding company.

"We believe the City of Dothan is participating in flagrant,
unconstitiutional violations against the indigent," Mr. McGuire
said.

Mr. McGuire said several cities across Alabama already use the
unsecured or signature bail bonding system such as Birmingham.
Messrs. McGuire and Karakatsanis also both filed a similar lawsuit
against the City of Clanton.  As a result, the city agreed to
change how they do their bail bonding system for misdemeanor
crimes.

"If an individual like my client, who is indigent, can't afford
this small amount of bail money they must sit in jail for up to
seven days until the next court session," Mr. McGuire said.
"Meanwhile someone who has money can buy their way out of jail in
moments.  Indigent individuals must languish in jail until either
friends or family can come up with the money to bail them out or
until the next court date."

Mr. McGuire said they filed the lawsuit in an effort to get an
order from the court for the City of Dothan to change their bail
bonding procedures.

"There is very clear Supreme Court precedent that says that type
of activity is unconstitutional, keeping individuals on minor
misdemeanors in jail simply because they cannot afford to bond
themselves out," Mr. McGuire said.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Radiologists Sue Over UNC No-Hire Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Xie, writing for The Chronicle, reports that a radiologist
employed by Duke has filed a class action lawsuit against the
University and Duke University Health System regarding an alleged
no-hire agreement with the University of North Carolina.

Dr. Danielle Seaman, an assistant professor of radiology since
2011, claims she was denied a parallel position as an assistant
professor at the UNC School of Medicine due to an illegal
agreement between Duke and UNC prohibiting the lateral hiring of
each other's medical staff and faculty.  The suit -- filed June 9
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina -- contends that the no-hire agreement had the
"intended and actual effect" of suppressing competition and
employee wages, therefore violating federal and state anti-trust
laws.

According to the case file, the agreement prevented employees of
each medical school from getting equivalent jobs at the other
school -- with the only exception being if the faculty or staff
member would receive an immediate promotion at the other
university.  For example, an assistant professor at Duke could not
be hired into a similar position at UNC unless promoted to the
higher "associate professor" rank, and full "professors" already
at the highest rank could not be hired by the other university at
all. The suit claims that the alleged agreement was formed several
years ago by Nancy Andrews, dean of the Duke School of Medicine,
and William Roper, dean of the UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine.
It also alleges the involvement of unspecified senior
administrators and deans at Duke and unnamed co-conspirators from
UNC.

Ms. Seaman had been in email communication with UNC's Chief of
Cardiothoracic Imaging beginning in 2011, when she expressed
interest in a radiology position at the UNC School of Medicine,
and the chief of the division encouraged her to apply, the case
file describes.  In 2012, Ms. Seaman was invited to visit the
campus and toured the radiology department at UNC.

When Ms. Seaman expressed interest in the assistant professor
position again in early 2015, however, the chief responded in an
email by saying he had just received confirmation that "lateral
moves of faculty between Duke and UNC are not permitted" as per a
"guideline" set by the schools' deans.

In a later email, the chief also described to Ms. Seaman the
reason the agreement was created -- Duke had tried several years
ago to recruit the entire bone marrow transplant team from UNC,
and UNC was forced to pay them a large retention package to keep
them.

In the suit, which cites these email exchanges, the UNC Chief of
Cardiothoracic Imaging is unnamed. The current chief is Dr. Paul
Molina.

Ms. Seaman also states that she received confirmation of the no-
hire agreement's existence from a colleague in the UNC radiology
department.

In this antitrust lawsuit, she is being represented by Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, the law firm that also
prosecuted Google, Inc., Apple, Inc., Intel Corp. and other
prominent California tech companies in a high-profile class-action
suit.  The firm secured preliminary approval of a $415 million
settlement with several of the tech companies in March.

The tech case, which began in 2011, found that the companies had
reached similar agreements in which no cold calling -- or active
soliciting -- of each other's employees was allowed, although
workers could still apply for jobs at the other companies.
Although these antitrust cases are similar, the alleged agreement
between Duke and UNC puts stricter limits on their medical
employees because lateral movement between the schools would be
prohibited.

Ms. Seaman has filed the lawsuit with proposed class-action
status, therefore filing it on behalf of all faculty members,
physicians, nurses and other skilled medical employees who have
worked for Duke and UNC from Jan. 1, 2012 to the present.  She is
seeking an injunction declaring the no-hire agreement illegal and
restitution three times what all the employees have lost in the
absence of competitive hiring between the institutions.

Representatives from both Duke and UNC declined to comment on
pending litigation.


EAGLE I SECURITY: "Bighead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Samuel Bighead, Jr., on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Eagle I Security, LLC and John Shelley, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00710-HE (W.D. Okla., June 30, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security service company in
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dorothy E. Heim, Esq.
      DOROTHY E. HEIM PLLC
      4816 N Classen Blvd
      Oklahoma City, OK 73118
      Telephone: (405) 843-9923
      Facsimile: (405) 848-4223
      E-mail: dheim033@yahoo.com


EJG MARKETING: Faces "Calse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miosotti Clase, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EJG Marketing Group, LLC d/b/a Health
Solutions and Matthew Gernstadt, Case No. 0:15-cv-61358-WPD (S.D.
Fla., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants online and offline medical marketing company with
its principal place of business located at 6245 Powerline Road,
Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Odato, Esq.
      Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: jodato@ffmlawgroup.com
              dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


ERIC CONN: Attorney Expands Class Action Over SSA Benefits Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSAZ reports that an attorney fighting to keep Social Security
benefits for hundreds in the Tri-State is taking more action.
Dozens gathered on June 22 at the Mountain Arts Center in
Prestonsburg, Kentucky.  Attorney Ned Pillersdorf is expanding his
class action lawsuit to include all 1,500 people involved in a
case of suspected fraud.

The lawsuit is against Attorney Eric C. Conn of Floyd County.
Hundreds lost their Social Security disability benefits because of
suspected fraud with medical evidence in their cases, which were
handled by Conn.

The Social Security Administration sent out letters in May to 900
of Conn's clients, notifying them that their disability benefits
were suspended.  Those benefits have since been temporarily
reinstated, but 1,500 could still face hearings and potentially
lose their benefits.

On top of the expanded lawsuit, Mr. Pillersdorf filed a new
lawsuit on June 22 against Eric Conn and his law office on behalf
of a woman who committed suicide.  Mr. Pillersdorf said the woman
took her own life after receiving the notice that her benefits
would be cut off.

He said she is the second person to take her own life as a result
of the actions of Conn and the Social Security Administration.

"In our view, it was foreseeable when they sent these letters out
to so many vulnerable people that suicides would occur,"
Mr. Pillersdorf said.  "And tragically, we've had two suicides,
several attempted suicides and at least one nervous breakdown."

Mr. Pillersdorf's legal team has also filed a complaint against
the Social Security Administration on the behalf of the woman's
estate.  As for potential hearings, Mr. Pillersdorf said he had a
"combative" and "unproductive" meeting with the Social Security
Administration and received no answers about when these hearings
would be.  Those who face hearings will need their medical records
and lawyers.

Mr. Pillersdorf said approaching hearings, his clients are facing
difficulty finding their medical records, or being forced to pay
$1 per page for copies of extensive medical reports.  He is also
working with other legal teams to provide the 1,500 with
representation.

Under Social Security regulations, Mr. Pillersdorf said, lawyers
can't collect fees in this kind of case -- making it difficult to
find attorneys who will take on these clients.  In an effort to
keep the hearings fair, Mr. Pillersdorf said his legal team has
amended the pending federal lawsuit to ask the federal judge to
provide potential compensation to attorneys.

The Floyd County Bar Association, the Kentucky Bar Association and
the Appalachian Regional Defense Fund (AppalReD) are also pitching
in to provide cost-free attorneys.

A representative from AppalReD joined Mr. Pillersdorf on stage on
June 22 and asked the clients to be patient as they get back to
the hundreds who requested representation. He continued to
encourage people to call AppalReD if they have not done so yet.

Meanwhile, Conn remains under a temporary restraining order,
limiting the attorney's spending and banning him from destroying
evidence.

Mr. Pillersdorf said the restraining order is important to retain
whatever assets Conn has and any medical evidence in his
possession.

Mr. Conn's attorneys argued the case against him was unwarranted,
calling it "guesswork."

The June 19 hearing was cut short and was set to resume at 11:00
a.m. on June 24 in Floyd County Circuit Court.


ETSY INC: July 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Etsy, Inc. between April 16, 2015 through May 10,
2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Etsy, Inc. securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015,
your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to:

HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/ETSY-ETSY

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the class period Etsy failed to
disclose that: (a) more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on
Etsy's website were counterfeit or constituted trademark or
copyright infringement; (b) brands are increasingly pursuing
sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright
infringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees and
commissions; and (c) as a result, Etsy's public statements were
materially false and misleading.

If you suffered a loss in Etsy you have until July 13, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting
securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing
investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder
lawsuits.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Revive Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, report that
the Ninth Circuit refused on June 22 to revive a putative class
action alleging Federal Express Corp. violated California overtime
laws, finding enough evidence that it didn't have a policy
limiting what an employee could do with their time when they were
"clocked-in" but not on-shift.

Affirming a lower court's denial of plaintiff and hourly employee
Yvette Green's motion for class certification, the appeals judges
said FedEx designees had testified that employees could leave the
FedEx premises after clocking in as long as they returned and were
ready to work by the time their shift started.

The district court in April 2013 determined there was no
companywide policy requiring employees to punch in before the
start of their shift and stay at the worksite without payment for
their preshift time.

The appeals court on June 22 held that, while some workers at the
Los Angeles branch allegedly thought they couldn't leave the
premises after clocking in, employees at the San Diego office
testified they were free to leave the premises after clocking in.

"Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that the district
court's conclusion, that FedEx did not have a uniform policy that
automatically placed all of the potential class members under
FedEx's control as soon as they 'clocked in,' was not clearly
erroneous," the Ninth Circuit ruled.

FedEx employee Daniel Forrand first lodged a federal complaint
against the company in September 2007, claiming FedEx had withheld
overtime wages and denied meal breaks to thousands of employees
across the state.

Along with Ara Karamian and Eugene Colon, Ms. Green joined the
case when it was transferred to the Central District of California
in February 2008.

The case already has been denied class certification once.  In
February 2009, Judge Fischer ruled that the case wasn't suited for
class status, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling a few
months later.

The appeals court said the case should have been stayed until the
California Supreme Court ruled on the then-pending Brinker
Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court case.  That case was disposed
in April, allowing the FedEx lawsuit to resume.

Earlier this month, during oral arguments in front of the Ninth
Circuit, Gwen Ellen Freeman -- gf@kpclegal.com -- of Knapp
Petersen & Clarke PC contended that the district court abused its
discretion by going directly to the merits of the case.

FedEx attorney Jeff Kelsey countered that the judge correctly
found that there were too many individual factors at work to show
FedEx had control over each and every worker during the disputed
time, saying there was no written policy and statements from
workers indicated it was "a mixed bag."

The Ninth Circuit on June 22 ruled that, absent a policy that
prevented FedEx employees from using the time for their own
benefit, Green couldn't show classwide control by FedEx.  And
without demonstrating classwide control, individual fact inquiries
over whether FedEx controlled each employee would predominate over
any common question, according to the June 22 decision.

The appeals judges further ruled that the district court also
didn't abuse its discretion by refusing to certify a proposed
class of workers who were allegedly owed pay for working during
unpaid meal breaks.  They said Green's common method of proof --
electronic scans of packages during designated meal breaks --
didn't show that FedEx knew or should have known that its
employees were working during their break periods.

"FedEx had no obligation to sift through the volumes of electronic
data produced by the scanning devices to determine whether its
employees were actually taking their authorized breaks," the
opinion said.

Circuit Judges Milan Smith and N. Randy Smith along with U.S.
District Judge Humphrey Lefkow, sitting by designation, sat on the
panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Ms. Green is represented by Gwen Ellen Freeman and Andre Emilio
Jardini of Knapp Petersen & Clarke PC.

Federal Express Corp. is represented by in-house counsel Sandra C.
Isom, Robert Jeffery Kelsey, Patrick Daniel Riederer, David Sydney
Wilson, III, and Emily C. Pera.

The case is Yvette Green v. Federal Express Corp., case number 13-
56093, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


GE SECURITY: Judge Rejects Plaintiffs' Vicarious Liability Theory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Blynn, Esq. of Venable LLP, in an article for Law360,
reports that while plaintiffs' attorneys seek to streamline the
filing of class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a recent court decision serves as a reminder that there are
clear limits to a plaintiff's ability to recover statutory damages
under a theory of vicarious liability.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California awarded summary judgment to defendant UTC Fire &
Security Americas Corporation Inc. in a putative TCPA class
action, finding that the security equipment manufacturer could not
be held vicariously liable for the actions of its authorized
dealers under any theory of agency.  The decision marks a victory
for companies that operate using a dealer or retailer network to
distribute their products in a legal area that is a noted favorite
for class action attorneys and provides an example for how
companies may avoid vicarious liability under the TCPA by
carefully structuring the way in which they authorize resellers to
use and advertise their products.

In Makaron v. GE Security Manufacturing Inc.,[1] the plaintiffs
brought a class action against UTC, a manufacturer of residential
and commercial security equipment, and Security One Alarm Systems,
a reseller of UTC's products.  The class action alleged that UTC
was vicariously liable for unlawful autodialed and prerecorded
voice message calls placed to the plaintiffs by SOAS in violation
of the TCPA.

The court closely examined the relationship between UTC and SOAS
to determine whether there was a principal-agent relationship
between the manufacturer and reseller.  UTC sold its equipment
through independent distributors and "authorized dealers," who,
then, resold to other businesses and consumers.  It only marketed
its products to other businesses.  SOAS, acting as a home security
dealer and retailer, carried and sold UTC equipment and equipment
from other brands.  SOAS entered into a "dealer agreement" to
become an "authorized GE security dealer."  UTC owned its own
brand, Interlogix, and a license from GE trademark leasing, under
which it could grant limited licensing rights to resellers for the
purposes of selling GE-branded security equipment.  Under this
program, authorized dealers, such as SOAS, received a limited
license from UTC to use certain GE logos and trademarks but were
subject to certain contractual limitations, including the
following:

Complying with all applicable telemarketing laws.

SOAS was "not permitted to market as or 'on behalf of GE or
Interlogix.'"

SOAS acknowledges and agreed "that it is not a spokesperson for GE
security and that dealer shall not take any actions, or fail to
take any reasonable actions, that indicate to any third parties
that dealer is authorized to speak on behalf of GE security."

The authorized dealers were described as independent contractors
and the agreement stated they "shall have no right or authority to
assume or create any obligation or responsibility, express or
implied, on behalf of, on account of, or in the name of GE
security, or to legally bind GE security in any manner
whatsoever."

While the supposedly unlawful phone calls were made by SOAS to
advertise UTC's products specifically, the court found that UTC
had neither actual nor apparent authority over the marketing of
its security equipment after the equipment had been sold to
distributors.  The court first emphasized that UTC did not have
actual authority over the sales tactics of its third-party
distributors and dealers, as its licensing agreements did not
permit them to market "on behalf of" GE.  Further, UTC's
involvement in the marketing process ended with the sale to
distributors.  UTC was not liable under apparent authority because
it did not directly communicate with the end-consumers who
actually put the products to use.  The court also found it
unreasonable to conclude that the manufacturer had "manifested" to
consumers that SOAS was making calls on UTC's behalf.  Any
potential "manifestations" were made to SOAS and other authorized
dealers; UTC did not communicate directly to consumers.

Makaron represents the most recent case in a line of decisions and
guidance analyzing federal common law principles of agency.  In
2013, the Federal Communication Commission issued a declaratory
ruling, finding that a seller only may be held liable for
violations committed by third parties that are agents of the
seller under federal common law principles.  Last year, in Thomas
v. Taco Bell Corp.,[2] the Ninth Circuit similarly found that in
addition to traditional agency principles, the federal common law
principles of ratification and apparent liability could trigger
vicarious liability.

In Thomas, a text message was sent by a vendor engaged by an
advertising firm, which in turn had been hired by the Taco Bell
franchisors within the Chicago area.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed
the lower court's decision that neither the local franchises, the
advertising firm, nor the vendor was an agent of Taco Bell, and as
a result, like UTC in Makaron, Taco Bell could not be held liable
for the marketing actions of any of the aforementioned entities.

The FCC historically has levied hefty penalties for TCPA
violations.  However, Makaron shows that companies, especially
those that operate through authorized dealer networks, can help
steer clear of TCPA liability by carefully controlling the manner
in which they authorize resellers and licensees to use their
products.  For example, at a minimum, the relationship between the
seller and third-party dealer should be formalized in a written
contract that requires the dealer to comply with all applicable
telemarketing laws and regulations, and any dealer
marketing/telemarketing guidelines that the seller may provide.
(It is a good idea to require that the dealer comply with relevant
FCC and Federal Trade Commission telemarketing guidance as well.)

Further, while not determinative of the agency issue, the contract
also should state explicitly that the dealer is not an employee or
agent of the seller, but, rather, is acting as an independent
contractor.  There also should be limits placed on how the dealer
may represent itself and its relationship to the seller in its
telemarketing calls.  Beyond contractual requirements and
limitations, companies should consider implementing a
telemarketing compliance monitoring program.  A strong, proactive
compliance program can do much to ensure that the seller avoids
regulatory scrutiny or receipt of a class action complaint in the
first instance.

While it is often difficult for companies to ensure that its
products are marketed and telemarketed appropriately by its
authorized third-party dealers without exerting so much control
that those dealers become de facto agents, Makaron provides a very
good starting point.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 36302
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015280TC
ID number: 2015280
Manufacturer recall number: 15240

On certain vehicles equipped with a power liftgate system, the
gas-filled struts (which help to raise and support the liftgate)
may prematurely wear. These vehicles have a Prop Rod Recovery
system intended to accomplish a controlled, slow return of the
liftgate to the closed position if the liftgate's gas struts are
no longer capable of supporting the weight of the liftgate. The
vehicle would provide audible warnings and flash the tail lamps to
indicate there is a problem. However, the liftgate's Prop Rod
Recovery system software may be unable to detect/stop a liftgate
with prematurely worn gas struts from falling too quickly after
the liftgate is opened. This could allow the liftgate to drop
suddenly, placing anyone beneath or near the gate at risk of
injury. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the power liftgate
actuator motor ECU with a new software and will verify power
liftgate operation following the reprogram.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  GMC          ACADIA       2007
  SATURN       OUTLOOK      2007
  BUICK        ENCLAVE      2008
  CHEVROLET    TRAVERSE     2009


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sonic and Trax Models
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 4583
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015279TC
ID number: 2015279
Manufacturer recall number: 15504

Certain vehicles may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway
Protection, and CMVSS 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. The radio
may become inoperative, causing a no-chime condition and disabling
the audible warning if the key is in the ignition and the driver's
door is opened, or if a front outboard seat belt is not buckled. A
loss of the seat belt audible warning may increase the likelihood
of a front outboard occupant being unbelted, increasing the risk
of injury in a crash. Similarly, the loss of an audible warning
when a key is left in the ignition may increase the risk of
vehicle theft. Correction: Dealers are to program the radio with
updated software.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  CHEVROLET    SONIC        2015, 2014
  CHEVROLET    TRAX         2015


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls H3T & H3 Models Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Heater And Defroster
Units affected: 5189
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015286TC
ID number: 2015286
Manufacturer recall number: 15042

On certain vehicles, the connector module that controls the blower
motor speed in the heat/vent/air conditioning (HVAC) system could
overheat under extended periods at high or medium-high blower
speed. If this were to occur, it could result in the plastic
around the connector module melting by the heat generated,
increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace the female connector
and harness.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  HUMMER       H3T          2009
  HUMMER       H3           2006


GFS-MONTREAL: Recalls Bleu Cheese Dressing Due to Mustard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: GFS - Montreal
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9914

  Brand    Common name     Size   Code(s) on      UPC
  name     -----------     ----   product         ---
  -----                           ----------
Girard's   Classic Chunky  1 gal  All codes where 034629 553579
           Bleu Cheese            mustard is not
           Dressing               declared on the
                                  label.


GOING NUTS: Recalls Going Nuts Brand Products Due to Sulphites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Going Nuts Inc.
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9907

  Brand      Common name    Size      Code(s) on         UPC
  name       -----------    ----      product            ---
  -----                               ----------
Going Nuts  Chocolate      1 count   All codes where    None
             Coconut Date             sulphites are not
             Bar                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut        600 g     All codes where    None
             Quinoa                   sulphites are not
             Granola                  declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut        285 g     All codes where    None
             Curry Peanuts            sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut        330 g     All codes where    None
             Curry Peanuts            sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut        210 g     All codes where    None
             Almonds                  sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut        425 g     All codes where    None
             Peanut Butter            sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Chocolate      130 g     All codes where    None
             Coconut                  sulphites are not
             Hazelnuts                declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Honey Sunrise  1 count   All codes where    None
             Granola Bar              sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Chili Lime     215 g     All codes where    None
             Pepitas                  sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut Cashew 425 g     All codes where    None
             Butter                   sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut Crunch 400 g     All codes where    None
             Granola                  sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Coconut Hemp   1 count   All codes where    None
             Date Bar                 sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.
Going Nuts  Crunchy Hemp   600 g     All codes where    None
             Granola                  sulphites are not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.


GOPHER RESOURCE: Faces "Droz" Suit in Fla. Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Droz, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Gopher Resource, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01548 (M.D.
Fla., June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRANDAD ELDERLY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Diaz v. Grandad Elderly Corp. and Julia D. Cardero, Case No.
1:15-cv-22467-WJZ (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Grandad Elderly Corp. is a Florida assisted living facility
licensed to provide room, board and personal assistance to the
elderly and frail.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GREEN TREE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Carlisle" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Carlisle on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02332-ODE
(N.D. Ga., June 30, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of making calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company
that is engaged in the business of collecting on promissory notes
in default for creditors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harlan Stuart Miller III, Esq.
      MILLER LEGAL, P.C.
      3646 Vineville Avenue
      Macon, GA 31204
      Telephone: (478) 216-8529
      Facsimile: (866) 704-3161
      E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com


HARMAN INT'L: DC Circuit Court Reinstates Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC on June 23 disclosed that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action against
Harman International Industries, Inc., and remanded it to the U.S.
District Court for further proceedings.  The Lead Plaintiff in the
case is Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS), which
is represented by Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The ruling issued on June 23 is significant in that it determines
the scope of protection afforded by the so-called "safe-harbor"
for forward-looking statements in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995.  Generally, forward-looking
statements are insulated from liability when they are accompanied
by "meaningful" cautionary statements.  The D.C. Circuit held that
cautionary statements are not "meaningful," however, when, as in
the case of certain of Harman's cautionary statements, they warn
against risks that have already transpired or are misleading in
light of historical facts.  This holding is a significant win for
investors, since it means that defendants cannot invoke the
protection of the PSLRA's safe harbor when, despite boilerplate
cautionary language, their statements nonetheless mislead
investors.

The D.C. Circuit also held that contrary to defendants' arguments,
their use of the words "very strong" to describe sales at Harman
were plausibly understood by investors to be important and to
describe a "historical fact rather than unbridled corporate
optimism, i.e., immaterial puffery," and thus was actionable.

"We are pleased that the Circuit Court reversed the dismissal of
this case and believe that it is the result Congress intended in
enacting the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act," said Cohen
Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll, who argued the appeal.
"Companies should not be allowed to use the PSLRA's safe harbor to
misrepresent facts with impunity, and the Circuit's opinion on
June 23 recognizes that."

Gail Stone, Executive Director of the Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System, added, "Protecting APERS' financial assets is a
key priority and we are pleased that the D.C. Circuit's ruling
will allow us to continue to pursue these fraud claims on behalf
of our beneficiaries and all the investors in the class.  We also
commend Cohen Milstein attorneys on their effective advocacy and
perseverance on behalf of Harman investors."

The case now returns to U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. For more information about In re: Harman Industries
International, Inc., Securities Litigation, visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=780

                   About Cohen Milstein

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- is a national leader in
plaintiffs' class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the
premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, Cohen
Milstein, with 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New
York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver,
Colo.


HOP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Peralta Candia, Leonel Peralta Candia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hop Enterprises Inc.
d/b/a Jimbo's Burger Palace Case and Constantine C. Kreatsoulas,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05122 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hamburger restaurant located at
2048 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10032.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Chiropractors' Suit Gets Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
James J. Ferrelli, Esq. of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for
Law360, reports that on June 1, 2015, the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted class certification in DeMaria
v. Horizon Healthcare Inc., d/b/a BlueCross BlueShield of New
Jersey, No. 11-7298 (WJM) (D.N.J. June 1, 2015).  DeMaria was
brought by participating and nonparticipating chiropractors who
treated patients insured by defendant Horizon Healthcare Services
Inc., d/b/a BlueCross BlueShield of New Jersey and Horizon HMO.
The plaintiff chiropractors allege that Horizon systematically
denied payment of insurance benefits for certain chiropractic
treatments provided by the plaintiffs.  The district court held
that the complaint satisfied the elements for class certification
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), as well as Rules
23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3), and granted class certification.  DeMaria
sets forth a blueprint to class action certification for health
care providers seeking to challenge policies by health care
insurers that may systematically deny or reduce benefits paid.

The DeMaria plaintiffs alleged that the class members regularly
provided three types of chiropractic treatment: (1) chiropractic
manipulative therapy ("CMT"); (2) evaluation and management
services ("E/M"); and (3) ancillary physical therapy ("PT").

Horizon allegedly paid the plaintiffs for CMT, but denied all
claims for E/M and PT on the grounds that its "bundling" practice
incorporated payments for all chiropractic treatments into a
"global fee" for CMT.  Horizon's denial of these claims was
automatic, as was its denial of all appeals.  Horizon's
explanation of benefits ("EOB") stated that the claims for E/M and
PT were denied because chiropractors were "not eligible" for
payment for those services.  Plaintiffs sought relief for
Horizon's denial of E/M and PT claims on the ground that Horizon's
bundling practice violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act and breached its contracts.

Beginning its analysis, the court stated that the class
certification motion posed a simple concrete question: Can the
court fairly and efficiently determine whether the bundling policy
violated the rights of the proposed classes, or do the individual
inquiries that will be required to ultimately determine what, if
any, actual damages each class member gets, pose such an
overwhelming problem as to make class certification impractical
and unfair?

Granting class certification, the court explained that all of the
claims arise from common evidence, which began with the uniform
definition of "therapeutic manipulation," a covered treatment
under all Horizon plans that included E/M and PT.  The court noted
that it was undisputed that Horizon's plan documents did not
reference its bundling policy, which was only revealed only on EOB
statements as a payment made for CMT and a denial of claims for
E/M and/or PT in instances when the provider administered CMT at
the same time.  Not only was Horizon's denial of claims and
appeals automatic and systematic, but it was also unrelated to any
medical criteria.

Plaintiffs alleged two ERISA theories of liability: (1) Horizon's
denial of claims on the basis that chiropractors were not eligible
for reimbursement for E/M and PT is false; and (2) Horizon's
denial of all appeals violated the "full and fair review" of
appeals required by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1133.  Plaintiffs'
contract claims, based upon the same evidence, allege that the
bundling policy violated Horizon's contractual obligation to pay
for "therapeutic manipulation," as defined in Horizon's plans.

Turning first to the Rule 23(a) analysis, the court found the four
elements of commonality, typicality, adequacy and numerosity were
satisfied because all class members suffered the same injury as a
result of being subjected to an improper claims denial practice,
with a common question of whether the automatic denial under the
bundling policy violated ERISA and/or New Jersey contract law.

Plaintiffs' claims are typical, the court explained, because all
class members submitted the same Form 1500 for CMT, E/M, and PT,
and were paid for CMT only but denied payment for PT and E/M on
the grounds of chiropractor eligibility.  As to Horizon's defenses
that its bundling policy was a "reasonable practice" consistent
with its legal obligations and supported by Horizon's provider
manuals, the chiropractic industry literature and chiropractic
industry practice generally, the court noted that these defenses
applied to all of plaintiffs' allegations that the bundling policy
violated ERISA and state law, and were therefore consistent with
class adjudication.  There was no doubt that the plaintiffs were
adequate representatives or as to the numerosity of the class.

Moving to the predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3), the court
rejected Horizon's contention that individualized issues would
predominate over the central and common question of the legality
of Horizon's bundling policy.  The court noted that the varying
language of the assignment of benefits forms obtained by
individual chiropractors from their patients was irrelevant,
because all class members seeking payment submitted a Form 1500 to
Horizon, which contained identical assignment language stating
that the patient "authorizes payment of medical benefits to the
undersigned physician or supplier for the services described
below," and Horizon accepted all Form 1500 assignments.  The court
noted that the Form 1500 "creates a derivative right to sue for
payment under both ERISA and New Jersey contract law," and also
that any anti-assignment clauses in Horizon's contracts with its
insureds had been waived by Horizon because it accepted
assignments and made claims payments to the providers based upon
the submission of a Form 1500.  The court stated, "It would be
patently unfair to allow the patient to assign his rights to
payment to a provider but not let the provider sue for breach of
the assigned contract for payment."

Further, Horizon's argument that claims might be denied for
reasons other than the bundling policy was undermined by the
limited scope of relief sought on a classwide basis: an order that
Horizon reprocess the class members' claims, which the court found
necessary in order to keep the class manageable.  The court held
that Horizon's proffered possible reasons for denying the claims
were all subordinate to the question of the bundling policy's
legality, and could be addressed in subsequent litigation.  The
court also held that the ERISA classes could be certified under
Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because the determination of the bundling
policy's legality for the named plaintiffs would have the effect
of determining its legality for all proposed class members, even
in the event of ruling in Horizon's favor.

What Are DeMaria's Takeaways?

First, a health care provider seeking to challenge an insurer's
repeated denials of its claims for treatment or services rendered
must be seeking payment for services covered by the express
definitional terms of the insurer's plans.  That is a given.  If
the claims that are systematically denied are not within the
language of the insurer's plans, there is no basis for the health
care provider to challenge the systemic practice.

Second, to the extent that a health care insurer's claims review
policy is unrelated to claim-specific medical criteria, but is
instead based upon a systematic interpretation of defined terms of
covered treatment under its plans, such a policy may be subject to
challenge under ERISA on a classwide basis by health care
providers whose claims are denied.  A uniform policy that
systematically denies claims without regard to an individualized
application of medical criteria has the potential to impact
participating and/or nonparticipating providers on a uniform
basis, irrespective of the medical issues arising with respect to
individual patients.  A claim challenging such a policy is
appropriate for handling on a classwide basis in order to avoid
the potential for inconsistent adjudications and to efficiently
adjudicate an issue that has a uniform adverse impact on similarly
situated providers.

Third, DeMaria clarifies that a key issue relating to the validity
of a health care insurer's uniform claims handling policy is
whether the policy is included or articulated within the insurer's
plan documents.  The court specifically noted that Horizon's
bundling policy "appeared nowhere in any plan documents," but
instead was unilaterally implemented by Horizon sometime in the
1990s, and disclosed on Horizon's EOB statements when it made
payments for CMT but denied payments for E/M and/or PT when the
provider administered CMT along with E/M and/or PT at the same
time.  The fact that the challenged policy was not articulated in
the plan documents provided the basis for plaintiff's allegations
that the defendant violated ERISA and state law.

Fourth, DeMaria supports the argument that health insurers'
denials of claims based upon CPT codes may be invalid where the
services reflected in the CPT codes are within the policy coverage
as set forth in the health insurers' plans, and the services
provided, along with the corresponding CPT codes, fall within the
defined coverage.  In DeMaria, the insurer sought to limit payment
for chiropractic treatment to one type of CPT-coded "therapeutic
manipulation" per patient visit, a limitation that was
inconsistent with the plan document definition of "therapeutic
manipulation" that included the three different types of
chiropractic services regularly provided by the class members.
Whether through the practice of "bundling" or otherwise, an
insurer's rejection of payment for covered services would be
subject to challenge under DeMaria where the coverage defined by
the plan documents includes multiple kinds of services as defined
by separate CPT codes.  The insurer's attempt to impose additional
limitations on claims not expressly set forth in the plan remains
subject to challenge under DeMaria.

Fifth, the possibility of future individualized damages issues
does not undermine class certification under DeMaria.  Class
certification is appropriate to address the legality of a health
insurer's uniform policy that results in the denial of benefits
without regard to individual medical or other issues, and any
individual issues as to damages may be addressed in subsequent
proceedings.  Therefore, provided that a plaintiff health care
provider can define the class question presented as the legality
of the insurer's uniform application of its claim policy, there
can be a cognizable claim for class certification under Rule 23.

Finally, DeMaria establishes that the differing anti-assignment
clauses in contracts between a health insurer and its insureds
will not be an impediment to standing for the health care
provider.  Where an insurer has accepted Form 1500 assignments, it
has engaged in a course of dealing or waiver that precludes the
insurer from contesting the health care provider's standing to
challenge the insurer's systematic denial of claims.

DeMaria establishes a blueprint for health care providers to
obtain class certification in order to challenge policies by
health insurers that may systematically deny or reduce benefits
paid.  Given the clear definition of the legal and factual issues
raised by the class question in DeMaria, it appears that the
court's analysis rests on solid ground under Rule 23. Accordingly,
health care providers seeking to challenge health insurers' claims
policies may want to consider and follow DeMaria's approach to
obtain class certification.


HOUSTON, TX: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Drainage Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Price, writing for TexasGOPVote, reports that a Texas lawyer
has filed a lawsuit, and is attempting to have it declared a class
action against the City of Houston, for the possibly illegal
collection of drainage fees.  The fees are one of the results of
the 2010 Prop 1 "Rain Tax" charter amendment election, which is in
danger of being thrown out after a recent Texas Supreme Court
ruling.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the Texas Supreme Court's
opinion that the city misled voters about the drainage fee in
ballot language.  The State's highest court sent the original
lawsuit against the City on this matter back to the district court
in Houston for another hearing.  In an article about this
decision, Breitbart Texas reported a possible sharp financial
downfall" for the city if the court rules against the city as is
expected.

In the newest lawsuit, Houston attorney Andy Taylor is seeking to
force the City of Houston to reimburse residents who have been
paying the possibly illegal drainage fee, according to the Houston
Chronicle. Those fees have been reported to have totaled an
estimated $500 million since the inception of the ReBuild Houston
program.

Houston CPA Elizabeth Perez is the named plaintiff in the new
lawsuit.  Ms. Perez was also the named plaintiff in the original
lawsuit against the City.  Houston Mayor Anise Parker and Public
Works and Engineering Director Dale Rudick are listed alongside
the City as co-defendants.

Current Houston Mayoral candidate, Council Member Stephen
Costello, a civil engineer by profession, was one of the primary
proponents of the Prop 1 charter amendment in 2010.

"With a mayor's race underway," Texas State Senator Paul
Bettencourt (R-Houston) said in a prior interview with Breitbart
Texas, "it will now fall onto Council Member Stephen Costello and
others that supported this tax how they would implement the
Court's ruling or follow the Parker Administration in trying to
kick the can down the road.  I don't see how that can possibly
serve the public at all with such a strong ruling from the Texas
Supreme Court." Senator Bettencourt was one of the primary
opponents of the Prop 1 "Rain Tax" issue.

"Under the arrogant leadership of Mayor Parker, City Hall has
collected over $500 million in tax dollars illegally from innocent
Houston taxpayers," Mr. Taylor said in the Chronicle.  "The
lawsuit not only seeks to halt the continuation of this illegal
rain tax but it also requests reimbursement of every single penny
of tax illegally assessed."

The original lawsuit was sent back to the trial court after an
extremely rare rebuke of the City by the Supreme Court of Texas.
In the unanimous 8-0 opinion, the Court said, "The City did not
adequately describe the chief features -- the character and
purpose -- of the charter amendment on the ballot.  By omitting
the drainage charges, it failed to substantially submit the
measure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not
be misled.  Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been
granted in the City's favor.  We reverse the judgment of the court
of appeals, and, because only the City moved for summary judgment,
remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion."

Mr. Taylor said he expects a quick victory in the district court
on the original lawsuit and the Chronicle reports that legal
experts agree the lower court will likely honor the Supreme
Court's ruling.


IBERIA PARISH, LA: Class Certification Upheld in Sugar Cane Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Taylor, writing for The Advertiser, reports that not
everyone claiming they were affected by tear gas disbursed during
a 2006 Sugar Cane Festival block party will remain part of a class
action lawsuit, an appeals court ruled.

In a decision published June 24, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court
of Appeal agreed that the 16th Judicial District Court was correct
in certifying a class action lawsuit against Iberia Parish Sheriff
Sid Hebert and five deputies.

But the appeals court sent the case back to the 16th Judicial
District Court with instructions to redefine the "class" to
include only those meeting certain requirements.

On Sept. 24, 2006, deputies with the Iberia Parish Sheriff's
Office used tear gas three times to disperse a crowd gathered for
a block party in the vicinity of Hopkins and Robertson streets
during the Sugar Cane Festival.

The incident allegedly began with complaints that the crowd was
blocking traffic along Hopkins Street, which is in New Iberia's
predominantly black West End area.

Sheriff's Office representatives at the time said deputies tried
to disperse the group peacefully with announcements over a public
address system but used tear gas when some in the crowd refused to
leave and began to throw bottles at police cars.

According to the appeals court, plaintiffs fall into different
categories: Those who claimed not to have heard the police
warnings but left after the first tear gas was disbursed, those
who heard the warnings but refused to leave, and those who may or
may not have heard the warnings but reacted with criminal behavior
towards the police.

Because the plaintiffs were in various locations and claim injury
due to any of three tear gas disbursements, there is no common
evidence, the appeals court decision states.

The Daily Advertiser reported in September 2007 that a Lafayette
attorney filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of at least
160 people who claim the Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office used
unnecessary and illegal force in dispersing a crowd of about 500
people during a block party at the close of the 2006 Sugar Cane
Festival.

The plaintiffs include parents and their children, some claiming
to have suffered injuries from being struck by tear gas cylinders
and the stampede that followed.  Their attorney, James MacManus,
said in 2007 that he found no one among his 160 plaintiffs who
recalls hearing either a warning or seeing someone throw a bottle
before the tear gas was used.

The lawsuit names more than 30 officials, including Sheriff Sid
Hebert, several of his deputies, Mayor Hilda Curry and every
member of both the city and parish councils.

The Sheriff's Office conducted its own investigation into the
incident but found that deputies acted within their boundaries
when dealing with the crowd.


ICONIX BRAND: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, representing investors of Iconix
Brand Group, Inc., disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") comprising
purchasers of Iconix securities between February 20, 2013 and
April 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire or Lesley Portnoy, Esquire at
(310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.  If you inquire by email, please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Iconix is a brand management company and owner of a diversified
portfolio of global consumer brands across women's, men's,
entertainment and home.  The Complaint alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) that the Company had underreported the cost
basis of its brands; (2) that the Company engaged in irregular
accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture
revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3)
that, as a result, the Company's earnings and revenues were
overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Iconix's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On March 30, 2015 after the market closed, the Company announced
that its Chief Financial Officer Jeff Lupinacci had resigned
effective March 30, 2015.  Following this news, shares of Iconix
fell $2.72 per share, or 7%, to close on March 31, 2015, at $33.67
per share on unusually high volume.

On Friday, April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconix
announced that the Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO")
Seth Horowitz had resigned after serving for approximately one
year. The Company stated that it did not intend to name a new COO.
Then, on Monday, April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners, published
an Equity Research Note, criticizing the Company's alleged
accounting irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting,
organic growth, and gains on licensing fees.  Following this news,
shares of Iconix declined $6.62 per share, over 20%, to close on
April 20, 2015, at $25.41 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, or Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire via email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This Notice may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


IOOF: Head of Advice Research on Leave Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson and Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that IOOF head of advice research Peter Hilton is
"on leave until further notice" after the company was rocked by
explosive allegations of serious misconduct by a number of senior
staff, sparking the prospect of a class action.

As IOOF's top brass spent its fourth day locked in meetings about
the scandal shrouding the company, sources said a class action
could also be on the cards.

Sources said the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
had already met with IOOF executives to discuss the allegations
raised by Fairfax Media.  ASIC confirmed it was investigating
IOOF.  It came as a Greens push for a royal commission into
misconduct in the finance sector looks set to fail after Labor and
the Abbott government refused to back the motion.

The industry has been rocked in the past couple of years by
scandals inside CBA's financial planning division, NAB, Macquarie
Private Wealth and now IOOF, the former friendly that manages more
than $150 billion of customer money and has 650,000 clients.

With the company is in crisis mode, IOOF chief executive
Chris Kelaher told staff and financial planners in the company's
network in an email sent on June 22 that Mr. Hilton was "on leave
until further notice".

Mr. Kelaher's note came in the wake of revelations by Fairfax
Media that IOOF senior staff had engaged in a range of
wrongdoings, including insider trading, front running,
misrepresentation of performance figures and cheating on exams.

Mr. Hilton was at the centre of allegations about getting staff to
cheat on compliance and training modules on his behalf and an
internal investigation into possible front-running on behalf of a
relative.

Internal documents seen by Fairfax Media show Mr. Hilton received
a final warning in 2009 and another final warning in 2014 for a
password breach.  His responsible manager status was revoked after
an internal investigation found he had instructed direct reports
to complete his Kaplan and compulsory e-training modules.

The minor recovery followed the release of broker notes from CLSA,
Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Macquarie Bank.

Macquarie Bank issued a note on June 22 saying it expected IOOF's
earnings to be affected by the fallout of the allegations,
according to media reports.  It predicted some advisers could
leave the group to avoid being stained by the scandal surrounding
IOOF.

Goldman Sachs issued a note saying it believed the market over-
reacted and maintained its "buy'' recommendation.

But it said it was concerned about "indirect" implications.
"These include: the brand/reputational damage from such high-
profile press coverage of the allegations; possible pressure on
IOOF to increase its expenditure on systems/processes; and/or the
heightened possibility of an investigation into "vertically
integrated" financial institutions."

The email from Mr. Kelaher described the incidents as isolated and
said they were not systemic.

"The incidents were isolated and are not reflective of the
behavior of our employees or advisers. Irrespective of this, Peter
Hilton is on leave until further notice," Mr. Kelaher said.

IOOF made no mention of Mr. Hilton being on leave in its
announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange on June 22.

"The issues raised in these articles are largely historic in
nature [2008 and 2009] and, as expressed in the company statement,
were dealt with as considered appropriate at the time,"
Mr. Kelaher said.

Several internal whistleblowers have come forward to Fairfax Media
to shine a light on IOOF's culture.  One whistleblower who spoke
out had gone to the company's human resources department with a
series of allegations.  He went on stress leave and lodged a
complaint with Fair Work over bullying and harassment.  In May the
company fired him.  He then came to the press.

Mr. Kelaher said the suggestion that a whistleblower had been
poorly or inappropriately treated was "incorrect and misleading".

"The individual concerned at no time initiated the IOOF
whistleblower policy.

"Finally, we should all understand these are not adviser nor
financial advice related issues and to link them to financial
advice is mischievous."

Fairfax Media also revealed that IOOF financial planning
subsidiaries have had a number of run-ins with ASIC over the
years, with a number of planners banned and at least one sentenced
to prison.

IOOF refused to detail how many clients had been affected and how
much compensation had been paid to victims of poor financial
advice.

IOOF has also been rocked by allegations its IT systems are
riddled with issues, an allegation the company strongly denies.

One former IOOF employee told Fairfax Media on June 23 that the
company's digital process were "sloppy and under resourced".  The
former staffer described the culture as "old school and way behind
the times" and that the company needed to "progress with digital
and there is a lot of manual work for the unit prices which leaves
room for error".

On June 23, it was revealed IOOF's cash management unit had
experienced at least 16 breaches between 2012 and late 2013.  The
Australian Securities and Investments Commission has also
confirmed it is investigating the allegations raised by Fairfax
Media.


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

Reason: Potential presence of particulate matter.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and pharmacies

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

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

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Perkins" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Debra M. Perkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and John Does 1-25 Case
No. 3:15-cv-04727-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., June 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


KELLEY COLLISION: Faces "Salvarezza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel L. Salvarezza and all others similarly situated v. Kelley
Collision Center Corporation, Michael Moran, and Grant
Fitzwilliam, Case No. 1:15-cv-22465-UU (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto repair shop in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KENNETH COLE: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over False Price Discount
------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
05107-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2015), asserts that the Defendant
use false price representations and falsely advertised price
discounts on its merchandise sold at Kenneth Cole Outlets.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. operates retail outlet stores with
its principal place of business at 603 West 50th Street, New York,
NY, 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER
      303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 956-2136
      Facsimile: (212) 956-2137
      E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com

         - and -

      Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com


KEYSTONE: Recalls 20 Travel Trailers Over Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 20
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015287TC
ID number: 2015287
Manufacturer recall number: 15-232

On certain travel trailers, windows which are identified as
emergency exits may not be designed for this purpose, or may be
blocked by rear roof access ladders. This could prevent egress
from the vehicle in an emergency situation, increasing the risk of
injury. Correction: On Mountaineer models, a different style
window will be installed if the existing window is blocked by the
ladder. On the Montana models, owners will be given instructions
on how to inspect windows. Depending on the availability of
alternate exits, labels may be removed, or exit windows replaced.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  KEYSTONE     MONTANA      2013
  KEYSTONE     MOUNTAINEER  2014


KINGSWOOD DRAPERY: Recalls Roman Blinds Due to Strangulation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53890

This recall involves the Roman blinds sold by Kingswood Drapery
Service Ltd.  The products are custom made and are available in
various colours/models/sizes. The products were ordered from
Kingswood Drapery Service Ltd by interior designers and installed
in consumer's homes.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by having a
hazardous loop on the back of the Roman shades. Strangulation can
occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner
cord and the fabric on the backside of the shade, or when a child
pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck.

The Roman shades also do not have the required hang tag warnings,
bottom rail labelling, company information or year of manufacture
listed on the product.

Neither Health Canada nor Kingswood Drapery Service Ltd has
received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the
use of these blinds.

For more information on the hazard, see Blind Cord Safety.

Approximately 47 units of the recalled products were sold mainly
in Ontario, and possibly a few across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from January 2015 to June 2015.

Manufactured in Canada

Manufacturer: Kingswood Drapery Service Ltd
              75 Dolomite Drive, M3J 2N1
              Toronto
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blinds and
contact Kingswood Drapery Service Ltd at (416) 633-1103.

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

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

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


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Suit Over Ex-Con Hiring Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that dozens of
companies that use popular recruiting websites violated a New York
City law by refusing to hire anyone with a felony record,
impacting mostly black people, according to a new lawsuit.

In a state court in Manhattan, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on June 25 sued a class of
companies it said were breaking city and state laws that bar
businesses from refusing to consider former convicts for jobs.

Since New York's prison population was more than half black, the
suit said, such policies had served to keep many black people out
of the workforce.

Only four companies are named in the June 25 lawsuit: electronics
maker Koninklijke Philips NV, pest control company Advance Tech,
data management firm Recall Holdings Ltd, and IT consulting firm
NTT Data.

But the NAACP said in the complaint it intended to add more than
100 defendants. Philips, the lawsuit said, recently posted a
listing on the website tweetmyjobs.com seeking a network engineer
with "zero felony convictions."

The suit also names job-posting sites Monster, ZipRecruiter and
Indeed as defendants because they would be required to remove such
posts if the NAACP wins the case.

Laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of
criminal histories vary by city and state, with New York City's
law providing particularly strong protections to job applicants.

The number of lawsuits claiming employers have violated those laws
has risen dramatically in recent years, according to the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Other cases, including a proposed class action filed against
Amazon in Washington State in April, claim companies broke the law
by failing to provide job applicants with copies of background
checks before making hiring decisions.

The companies and job-posting sites named in the lawsuit did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan Council
of Branches v. Philips Electronics North America Corp, New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, case number not immediately
available.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Spaghetti Sauce Due to Glass
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9912

Loblaw Companies Limited is recalling Loblaws (store-made) brand
Spaghetti Sauce from the marketplace due to possible glass
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products were made and sold at Loblaws Longueuil,
1150 rue King-George, Longueuil, Quebec.

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

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

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

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

  Brand      Common name   Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  name       -----------   ----     product         ---
  -----                             ----------
Loblaws      Spaghetti     500 mL   Best before    0273305 804998
(store-made) Sauce                  28.JN2015
Loblaws      Spaghetti     1 L      Best before    0273304 307995
(store-made) Sauce                  28.JN2015
Loblaws      Spaghetti     1.5 L    Best before    0273303 010995
(store-made) Sauce                  28.JN2015

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


LOMBARDI BROTHERS: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli
-------------------------------------------------------
Lombardi Brothers Meats, a Denver, Colo. establishment, is
recalling approximately 26,975 pounds of tenderized steak and
ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The tenderized steak and ground beef products with generic
labeling were produced between June 12 and June 30, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF BALL TIP STK CAB"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF TOP SIRLOIN STK CAB"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF TOP SIRLOIN STK CAB BASEBALL"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF COUNTRY CLUB SIRLOIN CAB"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF TOP SIRLOIN CHATEAU CAB"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 85/15 2/1R"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND CAB 75/25"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND CAB"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND CAB 80/20"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND CAB 90/10"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND CAB 75/25"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 85/15 2/1R"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 3-1 RND"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF GROUND 80/20  EMP"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 75/25"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 2-1 RND"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 2-1 THK"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 8-1"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 3-1 THK"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 4-1 RND"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 4-1 NO U
     BOARDS"
  -- Various catch weights of "BEEF PATTY CAB 80/20 2-1 NO
     UBOARDS"

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
772" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were shipped
for hotel, restaurant and institutional use in Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

The problem was discovered June 30 when the firm received a
positive result for E. coli as part of its in-house sampling
program. Some products made from the same source material as the
positive sample were shipped into commerce.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism. While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can
occur among persons of any age but is most common in children
under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef
products that have been cooked to a temperature of 145ø F for
steaks and roasts and 160ø F for ground product. The only way to
confirm that beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill
harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Jeff
Harvey, company general manager, at (303) 458-7441, ext. 231.
Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Robert
Glass, company sales manager, at (303) 458-7441, ext. 231.

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


LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Diesel Spill
-------------------------------------------------------
Damon Van Der Linde, writing for Financial Post, reports that for
the first time in Quebec's history, members of a class action are
trying to directly intervene against the lawsuit representing
them.

Yves Theriault is one of almost 300,000 residents in Longueuil on
Montreal's South Shore who weren't able to consume their tap water
for about 36 hours on January 15, after 28,000 litres of diesel
fuel leaked into a municipal pumping station.

On January 19, a motion to authorize a class action was filed on
behalf of a resident, Robert Ouimet, for damages of $100 per
resident, totalling about $29 million.  Though no one got sick as
a result of drinking the contaminated water, Ouimet argues the
city waited too long before issuing the ban, which exposed the
population to health risks and stress among citizens.  And Mr.
Theriault sees the lawsuit as local ratepayers essentially suing
themselves.

When Mr. Theriault heard about the case being discussed on the
radio, he and his partner decided it wasn't in their interest as
citizens, since it would cost the city a lot of money to hire
lawyers and pay for other expenses during the legal process.

"Our reaction was that it's really stupid," said Mr. Theriault.
"If the city is ordered to pay the damages, it's sure that the
City of Longueuil will pass on the bill to taxpayers."

Mr. Theriault says he is also concerned that the city is
withholding information gathered in the investigation following
the spill, because it could potentially be used against the
municipality in the lawsuit.

"The public has the right to know what happened and what measures
can be taken to stop it from happening again," he said.

Mr. Theriault sent an email to the lawyer in the case, Jacky-Eric
Salvant, asking that the class action be dropped.

"People drank the water and people bathed in the water, which was
contaminated," Mr. Salvant said in January after filing papers at
the Longueuil courthouse.  "It was badly managed."

When Mr. Theriault didn't receive a reply from Mr. Salvant, he set
up a Facebook page titled "Recours imbuvable" (Undrinkable Action)
that gathered 2,500 "likes" in the space of a few days.

"It snowballed from there and we saw that there were lots of
people in Longueuil who felt like us," said Mr. Theriault.

Mr. Salvant told the Financial Post that the lawsuit targets not
only the City of Longueuil, but also the private company that
manages the pumping station, and in future, perhaps even the
Canadian government.  He also says the provincially funded "Fonds
d'aide aux recours collectifs" program helps to pay for lawyer
fees in class action lawsuits such as this one.

"The people of Longueuil were wronged and they have a right to
make their claim in court," Mr. Salvant said.

Mr. Theriault's lawyer Marie-Helene Beaudoin says its the first
time a member of the class action lawsuit has directly intervened
against the case in the province.

"It's a really important case in class action matters because
often people who are the members of the group are voiceless except
for the representatives," said Ms. Beaudoin.  "I think it's
important to recognize that they have a voice and they should be
heard."

Though Ms. Beaudoin has taken on the case pro bono, Mr. Theriault
set up a fundraising website and has collected $600 to cover
administrative costs.

So far, Ms. Beaudoin has filed a motion to the courts to obtain
permission to intervene in the case, though it has not yet been
heard.

If it is rejected, she says the next step will be to challenge the
constitutionality of the article in the Code of Civil Procedure,
which allows member to intervene only to support an action.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Hobart Veteran Teacher Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Zahira Torres, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports that
Attorney Mark Geragos, who is representing Rafe Esquith, launched
the first salvo on June 22 in the dispute over the allegations of
misconduct against the veteran teacher, filing a formal claim
against Los Angeles Unified School District, a precursor to a
lawsuit.  The claim gives notice of a class-action suit that
Mr. Esquith's attorney plans to file against the district arguing
that hundreds of teachers in similar situations have been denied
due process rights.

From his modest classroom at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School in
Koreatown, Mr. Esquith became an education superstar.  His
teaching techniques brought him world-wide recognition, and his
books became models for how to engage young students.  But for
about the last two months, Mr. Esquith has been sidelined as the
LA Unified investigates allegations of misconduct against the
popular teacher.  Mr. Esquith and his attorneys said the
investigation is related to comments about nudity that he made to
students.  They also said that L.A. Unified is looking into Mr.
Esquith's nonprofit, the Hobart Shakespeareans.

The decision to put him on leave -- and keep him there for so long
-- has outraged his supporters.  But the district has not backed
down, saying that regardless of his celebrity, they won't send him
back to school until their investigation is over.

The debate comes as the school district struggles to recover from
a series of scandals involving teachers and administrators accused
of sexual misconduct with students.  L.A. Unified last year paid a
record $139 million to the victims of a Miramonte Elementary
School teacher who was allowed to stay in the classroom even after
complaints about his behavior with students.

Some see the Esquith case as part of the district's effort to
strengthen its response to allegations of misconduct, but whether
it is an over-correction remains a matter of debate.

In his first interview since he was pulled from his fifth-grade
class, Mr. Esquith acknowledged on June 22 that he quipped with
students that if he could not raise enough money for the annual
Shakespearean play they would all have to perform their parts
naked like the king in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

After another teacher complained, he said he explained the context
of the joke to his principal at Hobart Boulevard Elementary.  The
principal, he said, told him he had nothing to worry about.  But
Mr. Esquith was removed from the classroom in April.

"We overreact to everything.  That's the American way and I'm a
victim of that overreaction," Mr. Esquith said.  "I want to fix
this system.  I want to make sure that teachers do not have to go
through the same thing that I went through."

Leaders of the teachers union, who have roundly criticized the use
of so-called teacher jails, said the number of instructors pulled
from classrooms after allegations of misconduct exploded after the
abuse scandal at Miramonte.

Since last June, 89 teachers and others have been taken out of the
classroom pending an investigation.  District officials declined
to provide details of the investigation.  But L.A. Unified General
Counsel David Holmquist said the school system will not sacrifice
student safety or a thorough investigation because the public and
employees want a quick resolution.

"When it comes to student safety, we're going to choose students
over adults every time," Mr. Holmquist said.


LTP SPORTS: Recalls Crossbar Clamping Wedges Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Posting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Specialized Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Improper Safety Mechanisms
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53876

This recall involves crossbar clamping wedges on Yakima Q Tower
roof racks.  The affected crossbar clamping wedges are identified
by model numbers 8000124 and 8000135 with a date code range of
5026 to 5146.  In addition, the affected units do not have dimples
on the top or identification ribs on the side. This is noted by
the red thumbs down symbol in the second image.

The recalled crossbar clamping wedges could slide on the crossbars
during installation causing a loose fit on the vehicle.  Q Towers
sliding on crossbars can cause difficulties installing and/or
compromise installed rack integrity.  A compromised fit could
result in a rack ejection, causing a crash or personal injury to
persons outside the vehicle.

Neither Health Canada nor Yakima Products has received any
consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 25 units of the recalled product were sold in
Canada.

The recall products were sold from January 2015 to May 2015 at
various independent specialty bicycle dealers.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Yakima Products, Inc.
              Beaverton
              Oregon
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: LTP Sports Group Inc.
             Port Coquitlam
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Product that is affected by this recall has no identification ribs
on the side of the product. Product that is not affected has
dimples on the top of the product or identification ribs on the
side of the product.

Consumers should immediately remove the product from their vehicle
and contact Yakima customer service where they will be provided
with a repair kit at no charge.

For more information, consumers can contact Yakima customer
service by telephone at 1-888-266-3085, email or visit the
company's recall website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/q8Hqyn


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Tops With Elastic Draw Cords
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Posting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53603
Joint recall with Health Canada, the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (US CPSC) and lululemon athletica

Select styles of lululemon athletica tops with elastic draw cords
primarily sold prior to 2014

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

When the elastic draw cord with hard plastic or metal tips in the
neck area of certain lululemon athletica tops is accidentally
pulled or caught on something and released, it can snap back and
make contact with the face area and result in injury.

Health Canada has received 5 reports of consumer incidents and
injuries related to the use of these tops.

lululemon athletica has received 5 reports in Canada and 1 reports
in the United States of consumer incidents and injuries related to
the use of these tops.

About 133,288 in the United States and 185,191 in Canada at
lululemon athletica stores, online at www.lululemon.com and
through select sales partners prior to 2014.

Primarily sold prior to 2014.

Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Peru

Manufacturer: lululemon athletica
              Vancouver
              British Columbia
              CANADA

Consumers should stop wearing the tops with the elastic draw cord
and either remove the draw cord or contact lululemon athletica to
request a new, non-elastic draw cord with written instructions on
how to replace the draw cord.

Consumers should contact lululemon athletica's Guest Education
Centre toll free at (877) 263-9300, by email or visit firm's
website.

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

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

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

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


MAC FLORIDIAN: Faces "Dalfarra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alba Dalfarra and all others similarly-situated v. MAC. Floridian,
LLC and Saverio Macaluso, Case No. 1:15-cv-22464-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
June 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Primo Trattoria Italiana restaurant
located at 2216 NE 123 Street, Sans Souci, North Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claudio R. Cedrez, Esq.
      1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 868-7177
      Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
       E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


MALONE STAFFING: Faces "Graham" Suit Over Illegal Wage Deduction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judith M. Graham, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Malone Staffing Georgia LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01027 -
SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind., June 30, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged illegal wage deductions from its employees' pay checks for
the costs of drug screens, uniforms and uniform deposits, safety
glasses, and employee badges.

The Defendants own and operate an industrial recruitment agency
with locations in multiple states including Kentucky, Indiana,
Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio and Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Sued Over Minimum Interest Rate Annuities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Aronstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. and
C.M. Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-12864-MGM (D. Mass.,
June 30, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of
the Defendant's bait and switch scheme, specifically by
advertising, marketing, and selling fixed annuities and receiving
and retaining funds, on the basis that they had a Minimum
Guaranteed Interest Rate, but then unilaterally reducing that rate
below the guaranteed rate.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. operates a mutual life
insurance corporation with its principal office located at 1295
State Street, Springfield, Massachusetts.

C.M. Life Insurance Company operates a stock life insurance
company with its principal place of business in 100 Bright Meadow
Boulevard, Enfield, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
      Caroline B. Curley, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
              ccurley@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin B. Love, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Ste 515
      South Miami FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com

         - and -

      Timothy O'Conner, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY J. O'CONNOR
      29 Wards Lane
      Albany, NY 12204
      Telephone: (518) 426-7700
      E-mail: tjo@tjolaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Wage Class Action in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
Ann Marie Miani, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
that a woman alleges that her employer failed to pay her and other
employees through regular channels or during regular time periods.

Melissa Sheridan has filed an action against her employer, Maxim
Healthcare Services Inc., on June 5 in Ohio Circuit Court on
behalf of all employees who were discharged in the last five years
and not paid their wages "within the period of time required by
law and . . . through their regular pay channels."

Ms. Sheridan was terminated from her job on Dec. 12, 2014, and did
not receive all her wages until on or after Dec. 19, 2014.  She
says that although she usually received her wages via direct
deposit, her last check was issued as a paper check that she had
to pick up from her employer.

Ms. Sheridan is asking that each member of the class action be
awarded the damages of no more than $75,000.  As well as pre- and
post judgment interest as provided by law, attorneys' fees and
costs, injunctive relief and any relief that the court may deem
just.

The plaintiff is represented by Rodney A. Smith --
rsmith@baileyglasser.com -- Jonathan R. Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- and Tony L. Clacker II --
tclackler@baileyglasser.com -- of the Bailey & Glasser LLP and
Todd S. Bailess and Joy B. Mega of Bailess Law PLLC, both of
Charleston.

Ohio Circuit Court case number 15-C-171


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 192 B-Class Cars Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 192
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015295TC
ID number: 2015295

On certain vehicles, fuses in the passenger side interior fuse box
might have been installed incorrectly during assembly. This could
result in one or more fuses losing electrical contact, which could
affect different system functions, such as front passenger seat
occupancy recognition, passenger side airbag indicator lamp, the
instrument cluster and the windshield wipers. Should the front
passenger seat occupancy recognition system be disabled, and the
passenger side airbag indicator lamp be affected, there would be
no visual warning that the passenger frontal airbag is not
operating correctly. Failure of the passenger frontal airbag to
deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could
increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant. Also, instrument
cluster and windshield wiper malfunction could increase the risk
of a crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the installation
position and orientation of the fuses in the passenger side
interior fuse box, and replace the fuse box if necessary.

  Make            Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----        ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ   B CLASS      2014, 2014, 2014


MERCK & CO: Judge Tosses Vioxx Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed 157 overseas stock funds
as plaintiffs in securities claims against Merck & Co. over its
alleged misrepresentations relating to the drug Vioxx, finding the
funds in question suffered no losses.

But U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of New
Jersey denied Merck's bid for summary judgment against seven
institutional investors, rejecting the defendant's argument that
they lacked standing to sue.

The ruling involves institutional investors who opted out of a
long-running shareholder class action against Merck over its
statements to shareholders about Vioxx, a painkiller that was
taken off the market in 2004 over concerns that it caused heart
problems in users.  The latest ruling follows another in May in
which Judge Chesler denied Merck's motion to dismiss the entire
multidistrict securities litigation, which also includes class
actions on behalf of shareholders.

Merck's motion to dismiss the 157 funds cited the findings of a
plaintiff's damages expert who said those funds suffered no
economic damage from the conduct at issue.  The 157 funds are
groups of stocks, some focusing on specific categories such as the
drug industry or on North American companies, which are managed by
the institutional investors.  Whether other funds besides the 157
remain in the suit is unclear because many of the court documents
in the case are filed under seal.

The institutional investors include government and private
entities in Germany, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands
and other nations.

The institutional investors conceded that their expert calculated
no losses for those funds but argued that summary judgment was
improper because all but one of them had sustained damages for
other funds they owned.  They cited case law to support an
argument that summary judgment cannot be granted where it would
dispose of only a portion of a claim.

But Merck noted that the case law cited by the plaintiffs predated
a 2010 revision to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which authorizes summary judgment as to part of a claim
or defense, and Judge Chesler agreed.

Merck also argued that the seven institutional investors lacked
standing because they suffered no injuries related to Merck's
conduct.  The company cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Sprint
Communications Co. v. APCC Services Inc., in which the court held
that the assignee of a legal claim had standing to bring the claim
where it agreed to remit the proceeds of the claim to the
assignor.  Merck also cited a 2008 decision from the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, W.R. Huff Asset
Management Co., v. Deloitte & Touche, which held that Sprint made
clear that the minimum requirement for an injury-in-fact in
securities litigation is that the plaintiff have legal title to,
or a proprietary interest in, the claim.

Merck argued that the seven institutional investors presented the
same situation identified in Sprint and Huff as insufficient to
demonstrate injury in fact for standing.  Merck also maintained
that the plaintiffs did not have assignments at the time the suits
were filed in 2007, which was before the Sprint or Huff rulings,
and that the plaintiffs' post-filing assignments fail to confer
standing.

Judge Chesler said courts in the Third Circuit have routinely
recognized standing of investment advisors without assignment from
shareholders. Merck's position that the court should reject post-
filing assignments "appears to elevate technicalities over
substance," Judge Chesler said.

Merck's argument "misses the reality of the situation: as to each
challenged plaintiff, an allegedly harmed shareholder exists, but
the lawsuit was not filed in its name.  In other words, there is
no absence of a case or controversy; rather the pursuit of
securities fraud claims against Merck has been undertaken in the
wrong name," Judge Chesler said.

Judge Chesler said he would adopt the solution used by the Second
Circuit in a similar case in 2009, In re Vivendi Universal S.A.
Sec. Litigation.  In that case, where a group of foreign
investment entities brought individual actions related to a
securities class action, the Second Circuit issued the Huff
decision while a summary judgment motion was pending.  The Vivendi
court opted to allow the real parties in interest to join the case
or substitute for the current plaintiffs. Chesler said allowing
complaints to be amended would not prejudice Merck but terminating
the claims would cause "severe" harm to shareholders.

The lead counsel for the direct action plaintiffs, Salvatore
Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman in New York, did not return a call about the
ruling.  Evan Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, and James Fitzpatrick of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed,
both in New York, representing Merck, also did not return calls.
A Merck spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.


MILIEU DESIGN: Faces "Cansino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federico Cansino, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Milieu Design, LLC and
Milieu Group, Inc., and Peter Wodarz and Brian Frank, Case No.
1:15-cv-05793 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping
design, construction, maintenance, and lighting and snowplowing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

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


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Piperacillin-Tazobactam Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Dear Healthcare Professional Letter
Subcategory: Drugs
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Important Safety Information
Audience: Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-53910

Health care professionals working in hospitals and clinics.

Please distribute to relevant Departments: Pharmacy, Paediatrics,
Geriatrics, Internal Medicine, Nursing, Intensive Care and/or
other Departments as required, affiliated clinics and other
involved professional staff and post this notice in your
institution.

A recall has been initiated for one (1) lot (lot 7103985) of
Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 3 g/0.375 g and one (1) lot
(lot 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 4 g/0.5 g
by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, due to the potential presence of
particulate matter.

If infused, particulate matter could potentially lead to patient
harm including phlebitis and thrombo-embolism, which could result
in death.

Vials of the affected lot should not be used and should be
returned as outlined in the Recall Notice issued by Mylan on June
23, 2015. Health care professionals are advised to remain vigilant
in their follow up with patients who have been administered the
impacted lots.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC has initiated a recall due to the
potential presence of particulate matter in vials from affected
lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection (see table below).

The presence of particulate matter could pose the following risks,
if injected: local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response
and/or embolization in the body and infection.

The products impacted are:

  Product           DIN No.   Lot No.   Distribution    Exp. Date
  -------           -------   -------   Date            ---------
                                        ------------
Mylan-Piperacillin  02391538  7103985   Aug.27, 2014    Feb. 2016
and Tazobactam for
Injection 3 g/
0.375 g
AJ-Pip/Taz          02391546  7103921   Dec. 1, 2014    Nov. 2015
(Piperacillin and
Tazobactam for
Injection) 4 g/
0.5 g

Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection is indicated for the
treatment of systemic and/or local bacterial infections caused by
piperacillin-resistant, piperacillin/tazobactam susceptible,
B-lactamase-producing strains.

The recent inspection of retention samples of two lots (lots
7103985 and 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g, and
4 g/ 0.5 g, respectively) revealed the presence of particulate
matter in some of the vials inspected.  These are the only lots
within expiry distributed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC to the
Canadian market to date.

The two (2) affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g
and 4 g/ 0.5 g) for injection are being recalled.

The root cause of this issue is currently under investigation by
Mylan Pharmaceuticals. No complaints or adverse event reports have
been received in relation to this product from these lots.

Consumers should contact their health care professional for more
information.

Vials of the affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam should not
be used and should be returned as outlined in the Recall Notice
issued by Mylan on June 23, 2015.

Please inform other health care professionals in your organization
of this recall notification. Health care professionals should also
notify affiliated staff administering this product in a clinic
setting.

If your institution or pharmacy has distributed the affected
product lots further, notify recipients that they may have
received the product lots identified above and ask them to return
the affected product as indicated in the Recall Notice.

Health Canada is communicating this important safety information
to health care professionals and to the public through its
MedEffect Canada website. Health Canada is also monitoring the
recalls and the implementation of necessary corrective and
preventive actions.

Managing marketed health product-related side effects depends on
health care professionals and consumers reporting them. Any case
of serious local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response and/or
embolization in the body or other serious or unexpected infection
or unexpected side effects in patients receiving Piperacillin-
Tazobactam for Injection 3 g/0.375 g, and 4 g/0.5 g, respectively,
should be reported to Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC or Health Canada.


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Piperacillin-Tazobactam Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Dear Healthcare Professional Letter
Subcategory: Drugs
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Important Safety Information
Audience: Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-53910

A recall has been initiated for one (1) lot (lot 7103985) of
Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 3 g/0.375 g and one (1) lot
(lot 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection, 4 g/0.5 g
by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, due to the potential presence of
particulate matter.

If infused, particulate matter could potentially lead to patient
harm including phlebitis and thrombo-embolism, which could result
in death.

Vials of the affected lot should not be used and should be
returned as outlined in the Recall Notice issued by Mylan on June
23, 2015. Health care professionals are advised to remain vigilant
in their follow up with patients who have been administered the
impacted lots.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC has initiated a recall due to the
potential presence of particulate matter in vials from affected
lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection (see table below).

The presence of particulate matter could pose the following risks,
if injected: local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response
and/or embolization in the body and infection.

  Product           DIN No.   Lot No.   Distribution    Exp. Date
  -------           -------   -------   Date            ---------
                                        ------------
Mylan-Piperacillin  02391538  7103985   Aug.27, 2014    Feb. 2016
and Tazobactam for
Injection 3 g/
0.375 g
AJ-Pip/Taz          02391546  7103921   Dec. 1, 2014    Nov. 2015
(Piperacillin and
Tazobactam for
Injection) 4 g/
0.5 g

Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Injection is indicated for the
treatment of systemic and/or local bacterial infections caused by
piperacillin-resistant, piperacillin/tazobactam susceptible,
B-lactamase-producing strains.

The recent inspection of retention samples of two lots (lots
7103985 and 7103921) of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g, and
4 g/ 0.5 g, respectively) revealed the presence of particulate
matter in some of the vials inspected.  These are the only lots
within expiry distributed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC to the
Canadian market to date.

The two (2) affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam (3 g/ 0.375 g
and 4 g/ 0.5 g) for injection are being recalled.

The root cause of this issue is currently under investigation by
Mylan Pharmaceuticals. No complaints or adverse event reports have
been received in relation to this product from these lots.

Consumers should contact their health care professional for more
information.

Vials of the affected lots of Piperacillin-Tazobactam should not
be used and should be returned as outlined in the Recall Notice
issued by Mylan on June 23, 2015.

Please inform other health care professionals in your organization
of this recall notification. Health care professionals should also
notify affiliated staff administering this product in a clinic
setting.

If your institution or pharmacy has distributed the affected
product lots further, notify recipients that they may have
received the product lots identified above and ask them to return
the affected product as indicated in the Recall Notice.

Health Canada is communicating this important safety information
to health care professionals and to the public through its
MedEffect Canada website. Health Canada is also monitoring the
recalls and the implementation of necessary corrective and
preventive actions.

Managing marketed health product-related side effects depends on
health care professionals and consumers reporting them. Any case
of serious local inflammation, phlebitis, allergic response and/or
embolization in the body or other serious or unexpected infection
or unexpected side effects in patients receiving Piperacillin-
Tazobactam for Injection 3 g/0.375 g, and 4 g/0.5 g, respectively,
should be reported to Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC or Health Canada.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Defense Department Funds Concussion Study
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that more than 35,000 college
athletes and cadets at U.S. service academies are helping
researchers write a new, extensive and groundbreaking chapter in
the study and tracking of concussions.

With about $22 million in funding from the NCAA and Department of
Defense, the college students have agreed to be monitored over a
period of years, even decades, to determine the frequency,
severity and cumulative effects of head injuries in their
respective activities.  Though the project, run by a group of
investigators who make up the Concussion Assessment, Research and
Education (CARE) Consortium, is less than a year old, the
information that scientists have already collected shows the
potential.  Baseline data has already been gathered on 6,500
students, about 225 of whom have suffered concussions and been
evaluated.

"A year ago, if someone had said, 'I've got a data set with 20 to
25 concussions,' you'd say that's pretty good," said
Steve Broglio, associate professor at Michigan's School of
Kinesiology and director of the NeuroSport Research Laboratory.
"To now say, 'I've got tenfold of that in Year 1,' you're looking
at the possibility of having so many numbers by the end that we'll
be able to answer any question."

Mr. Broglio is overseeing a branch of the study that looks at
clinical effects of concussions -- headaches, balance and memory.

Michael McCrea, the director of brain injury research at the
Medical College of Wisconsin, is taking a subset of the athletes
-- about 270 -- and doing more extensive testing.  Testing in the
"Advanced Research Core" will include bloodwork, MRIs and other
scanning techniques, and athletes will also be equipped with head-
impact sensors to give the scientists a better gauge of the
magnitude and location of the hits.

Though the researchers will begin drafting papers in the next six
months, the real-world effects of such a large study could take
years to tease out.  For instance, a key point in the recently
settled class-action lawsuit against the NFL is that there is no
way to diagnose the concussion-related disease Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy (CTE) until a patient is dead.

If a way to definitively diagnose CTE in living patients were
found, it could dramatically change the landscape of that lawsuit.

"We might tap into that," Mr. Broglio said.  "I think we'll get
there."

Part of getting there, though, will be keeping the funding alive
past three years.  The researchers are hardly complaining about a
$22 million grant, but they know the work could take decades.

"I think five years down the road, we'd immediately have a much
clearer understanding of what the natural time course of recovery
is after this injury, both clinically and physiologically,"
Mr. McCrea said.  "More importantly, we'll know what the factors
are that predict prognosis and outcome."

That would lead to improved injury management techniques, which
could conceivably improve recoveries.

Athletes and military personnel are subject to similar head
injuries, which is why both the NCAA and Department of Defense are
chipping in on the project.

Among the 21 schools signed up are Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware,
UCLA, Azuza Pacific and the service academies.  Mr. Broglio is
hoping to bring the total to 30 colleges.

Mr. McCrea said "it takes a small army" of athletic trainers and
others at each university to keep track of the testing.
Thomas McAllister, chair of the Indiana School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry, is overseeing the administrative part of
the consortium, managing the paperwork and results.

The end result for all the data these scientists collect may not
be known for decades.

"It's a daunting number," Mr. McCrea said of the thousands
enrolled in the program.  "But it will give us a never-before
level of understanding" of the effects of concussions.


NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Class Suit Wins Historic Package of Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Goldensohn, writing for DNAinfo, reports that lawyers for a
group of former Rikers inmates won a package of "historic" reforms
for the city's jails in a settlement, the city said on June 22.

The package of reforms includes federal oversight of violence at
Rikers Island, a new use-of-force policy that limits when officers
can use physical violence to subdue jail inmates, and expanded
video surveillance to monitor corrections officers' behavior.

"This agreement is historic in scope, putting in place landmark
reforms that the parties all believe will make the city jails
dramatically safer," Mary Lynne Werlwas, a Legal Aid lawyer who
helped spearhead the 2012 case, said in a statement.

The class-action case that brought the now widely acknowledged
"culture of violence" at Rikers to light involves Mark Nunez, one
of a group of inmates who was assaulted by jail staff without
provocation.

Mr. Nunez was brutally attacked -- maced, beaten by officers in
riot gear, stripped naked and taunted -- all because a correction
officer was upset that other workers had left food in a pantry
fridge overnight, according to court documents.

New York's federal prosecutor Preet Bharara joined the class
action in 2014.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said the changes are a major shift for Rikers
after years of "abuse and neglect."

"The agreement represents another strong step toward our goal of
reversing the decades of abuse on Rikers and building a culture of
safety for officers and inmates alike," Mr. de Blasio said in a
statement.

The reform package also includes new anonymous reporting protocols
for use of force incidents and experimental measures like body
cameras for officers, according to a letter from Mr. Bharara.

                           *     *     *

According to The New York Times Editorial Board, brutality is a
decades-old problem in Rikers Island jail complex in New York
City. Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, was
on the mark last year when he said that ending it would require
new policies that would be monitored and enforced by a federal
court instead of being allowed to fade when public attention
inevitably waned after the latest lawsuit or headline.

Mr. Bharara delivered on that promise on June 22, when the city
agreed to sweeping policy changes to settle a long-running legal
battle over abuses at the jail.  Mr. Bharara documented some of
the mistreatment of adolescents at Rikers in a report last summer
that depicted a deep-seated culture of violence in which inmates
were battered for minor infractions and often seriously injured by
poorly trained and supervised officers who routinely used force
for the purpose of inflicting pain -- and got away with it because
other officers covered up for them.  The report also noted that
correction officers bent on vengeance against inmates were able to
carry out the beatings in areas of the complex they knew were free
of security cameras.

Beyond that, the investigation found that regulations requiring
officers to promptly report either using force or witnessing its
use by others were routinely ignored.  Mr. Bharara's office
pointed to a horrific instance of this problem when it charged one
current and two former correction officers this month in
connection with the 2012 beating death of an inmate and a
conspiracy to make it seem that the violence used against the
inmate was justified.

Instead of suing the city itself, the federal Justice Department
last year joined a pending class action that charged the
Department of Correction with failing to supervise officers who
committed acts of brutality. The suit, Nunez v. City of New York,
was well along in the litigation process, having been filed in
2011 by the Legal Aid Society and two law firms, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady and Ropes & Gray.

After months of negotiations with the city, the parties announced
on June 22 that they had reached a settlement agreement containing
a broad package of reforms that will be overseen by an independent
monitor who will closely assess compliance and submit periodic
reports to the court.  Among other things, the agreement requires
the jail system to develop new policies for how force is used,
reported and investigated; install thousands of new surveillance
cameras; and improve staff recruitment and screening.

The agreement pays special attention to adolescents on Rikers
Island, who were shown to be especially poorly treated in last
summer's Justice Department report.  For example, the officers who
work with adolescents will need to be better trained to handle
this age group.  The disciplinary procedures used with them will
need to be revamped from top to bottom -- and solitary
confinement, which is particularly harmful for the young, will no
longer be allowed for inmates under the age of 18.

The need for such a policy was underscored this month when a young
former inmate who had spent nearly two years in solitary
confinement at Rikers hanged himself at his family's home. Most
important, the city, with the help of the monitor, will try to
find a place away from Rikers Island to house young inmates.

The settlement agreement is an important first step.  But given
the city's past inability to stay focused on this problem, the
courts and the Justice Department will need to stay involved until
the reform job is done.


NEWMAR: 8 Motorhomes Recalled in Canada Due to Parts Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 8
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015283TC
ID number: 2015283

On certain motorhomes, the rear drive axle stay rod may not have
been fastened properly. This could cause the fastener to loosen
and allow the stay rod to disconnect from the rear drive axle
causing vehicle instability, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
tighten fasteners to specification and apply thread locker.

  Make         Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----               ----------------------
  NEWMAR       LONDON AIRE CLASS   2016
               A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR       ESSEX CLASS A       2015
               MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR       KING AIRE CLASS A   2015
               MOTORHOME


NISSAN: Recalls 841 Cars Due to Defective Start/Stop Button
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 841
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015282TC
ID number: 2015282
On certain vehicles, due to a manufacturing defect the start/stop
button could stick inside of its housing. If this occurs,
vibration could cause the electrical components inside the button
to contact repeatedly in quick succession and initiate the
emergency engine shut off procedure while the vehicle is in
motion. This could result in increased steering and braking
effort, a loss of motive power and would disable the supplemental
restraint systems (SRS), increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect
and repair defective start/stop switch.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  NISSAN       VERSA        2014
  NISSAN       JUKE         2013


NORTH DAKOTA DEVELOPMENTS: Investors File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm on June 25 disclosed that North
Dakota Developments investors have filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm, together with the Hudson Mallaney
& Shindler law firm and North Dakota co-counsel represent the
North Dakota Developments ("NDD") investors.

The NDD investors are seeking compensation for money they lost in
the NDD allegedly fraudulent investment scheme, from a North
Dakota law firm that, they allege in their complaint, played an
instrumental role in their investment process.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has recently sued NDD and
alleged that the NDD organizers orchestrated a fraudulent
investment scheme that defrauded investors from all over the
world.

NDD solicited investments to raise money for the construction of
short-term housing in North Dakota and Montana near the Bakken
shale formation that would be utilized by oil-workers in need of
lodging.

NDD offered investors the opportunity to purchase housing units
that were going to be part of a larger complex.  Investors were
promised significant returns for their investments if they allowed
an NDD-related managing entity to manage the units purchased by
investors.

In reality, those returns never materialized, and the SEC has
alleged that the NDD perpetrators misused and converted investor
money.

If you are an NDD investor and wish to obtain additional
information about this matter, please visit www.nddinvestors.com
or contact Alan Rosca or James Booker toll free at 888-998-0520 or
via email at arosca@prwlegal.com or by filling out the contact
form on our website, www.nddinvestors.com


OLD FASHIONED: Recalls Polish Dried Sausages Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Old Fashioned Meat & Deli Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9913

Old Fashioned Meat & Deli Ltd. is recalling Polish dried sausage
from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product was sold at Old Fashioned Meat & Deli Ltd.,
532 Cleveland Crescent S.E., Calgary, Alberta.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand   Common   Size      Code(s) on    UPC   Additional
  name    name     ----      product       ---   info
  -----   ------             ----------          ----------
  None    Polish   Variable  Sold from     None  Please note that
          dried              June 10, 2015       this product was
          sausage            up to and           sold clerk-
                             including June      served without a
                             24, 2015            label or coding.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact the retailer.


OPTIVER US: Settles Futures Trading Class Action for $16.75MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Trader reports that Optiver US and two related companies
and three former employees agreed in July 2014 to settle class
action litigation related to Optiver US's March 2007 energy
futures trading activity.

In July and August 2008, three groups of private plaintiffs
brought class action lawsuits alleging that Optiver US and the
other defendants had manipulated the market for certain energy
futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange on certain
days in March 2007.

After six years of litigation, Optiver and the other defendants
decided it was in their interest to settle these cases rather than
continue expensive litigation. In settling, Optiver did not admit
any wrongdoing, but decided that it was better to put this matter
behind it through settlement and to move forward.

Under terms of the settlement, which the court approved on
June 22, Optiver US paid $16.75 million into a settlement fund to
resolve this litigation against all defendants.


PENNSYLVANIA: Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill Gets Bipartisan Backing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Wilson, writing for WITF50, reports that a proposal to end
civil asset forfeiture in Pennsylvania has bipartisan backing
among state lawmakers.

House and Senate plans would halt a practice that allows law
enforcement to seize property from someone accused, but not
convicted, of certain crimes.

Supporters of the bills repeatedly equated the policy to theft.
Rep. Jim Cox (R-Berks) said civil asset forfeiture is falling more
heavily on the poor because most seizures are small sums of cash,
far outweighed by the costs of going to court to retrieve seized
belongings.

"To hire an attorney for thousands of dollars to get back my $200,
you say, 'eh, it's not worth it,'" Mr. Cox said.  "The principle
of the thing is worth it, obviously."

The legislation would require law enforcement to first get a
conviction before seizing any property.  Under the House and
Senate bills, any money generated from the seizure or sale of
those items could not go straight into the coffers of the law
enforcement unit.

The effort faces fierce opposition from prosecutors, some of whom
use civil forfeiture to help fund their investigations.  The
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association calls the policy is an
important public safety tool and a way to take the profit out of
drug crimes.

At a press conference on June 23, several supporters hastened to
add that they are not "anti-police."

"We support law enforcement, we support our district attorneys,"
said Rep. Tim Krieger (R-Westmoreland).  "But no one should have
their property taken from them without being charged."

"We support the D.A.s," added Sen. Tony Williams (D-Philadelphia,
"but we don't support robbery represented in government, wrapped
in the flag."

The city of Philadelphia, along with its police department and
district attorney's office, is facing a class-action lawsuit from
property owners over its use of civil asset forfeiture.


PETROBRAS: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
MercoPress reports that Brazil's state-run oil company Petrobras
urged a U.S. judge on June 25 to throw out an investors' class
action lawsuit claiming a multibillion-dollar bribery scandal
overvalued it for years.  Speaking at a hearing in federal court
in New York, Petrobras lawyer Roger Cooper said the company itself
was a victim of the fraud, which he said was orchestrated by a
handful of individuals.

But the investors filing the case, who claim 98 billion dollars of
its stocks and bonds were artificially inflated by Petrobras
overstating the value of some of its major projects, argued there
is no way company executives could have been in the dark.

"This is a vast fraud taking place possibly over two decades, and
everyone is asking the court and the public to believe, 'We didn't
know,'" said Jeremy Lieberman, a lawyer for the investors.  "The
question we would ask is: can they be serious?"

The hearing on the lawsuit, filed in December, came amid the
largest corruption investigation in Brazilian history into what
authorities say was a years-long scheme involving price-fixing,
bribery and political kickbacks.

Prosecutors have charged dozens of senior executives at a number
of Brazilian companies sending shockwaves through the country's
economy and sending President Dilma Rousseff's popularity to all-
time lows.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff did not rule on Petrobras' request
but said he would do so within two weeks.  The judge asked several
questions during the hearing but did not indicate how he was
leaning.

Mr. Cooper told Judge Rakoff that the company was unaware of the
alleged fraud, even if a few high-ranking employees were involved.
"The knowledge of those co-conspirators cannot be imputed to the
company," he said.

The probe has continued to widen, with a prosecutor in Brazil
saying on June 23 it could extend to utility Eletrobras and
several foreign companies.

Brazilian authorities detained the head of construction company
Odebrecht SA, and the CEO of builder Andrade Gutierrez.
A British pension fund, Universities Superannuation Scheme, is
leading the plaintiffs, who seek to bring claims on behalf of
anyone who purchased U.S. shares or bonds in Petrobras from
January 2010 to March 2015.

Petrobras in April took a $17 billion write-down partially related
to the bribery scandal.  Ms. Lieberman said the investors remain
skeptical that the losses tied to the scheme have been fully
divulged.  The company's value has collapsed to approximately $60
billion, after nearing $300 billion in 2008.


PFIZER INC: Berger & Montague Approved as Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that a
federal court judge approved both a lead plaintiff and his
selection of lead counsel in a class action lawsuit alleging stock
options for a large pharmaceutical company were manipulated
illegally.

On June 16, Judge Gerald S. McHugh of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion from
plaintiff Stephen Rabin seeking to name himself as lead plaintiff
and to appoint Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum of Berger &
Montague (along with the firm of Bragar Eagel and Squire) as lead
counsel for this market manipulation case.

Mr. Rabin initially filed the litigation against "John Doe Market
Makers" on Feb. 5, alleging the defendant market makers illegally
pre-arranged options trades for Pfizer stock on the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, during a class period of Feb. 6, 2010 to the
present.

The original version of the lawsuit didn't name specific market
makers as defendants due to an inability to ascertain their
identities from public sources, but Judge McHugh granted a motion
on for expedited discovery on April 2. This motion allowed Mr.
Rabin's counsel to identify 20 defendants from NASDAQ records --
an action usually not permitted until motions to dismiss are
resolved, per the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1994, but
nonetheless granted.

An amended complaint filed on May 19 named the following
businesses and individuals as defendants: NASDAQ OMX PHLX, NASDAQ
OMX Group., Bedrock Trading, Bluefin Trading, Consolidated Trading
ELM Trading, First Derivative Traders, HAP Trading, Keystone
Trading Partners, Largo Trading, Summit Securities Group, Sumo
Capital, Susquehanna International Group, SIG Holding, Michael
Patrick Doherty, Alan Barry Goldberg, Robert Christopher Sack,
Brian Patrick Sullivan, TSR Associates and V Trader-CG.

The suit alleges they "inflated the size of the options open
interest pool for Pfizer stock by flooding the market with over a
million additional option contracts one day before the ex-dividend
date of (Pfizer) common stock."

The result, the lawsuit claims, is that the bulk of dividend
payments would go to market makers rather than to the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges the actions of market makers have damaged
other investors by "hundreds of millions of dollars."

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, court costs
and other equitable relief in this matter.

The plaintiffs are represented by Deutsch, Switzenbaum and Phyllis
Parker of Berger & Montague and Deborah R. Gross of The Law
Offices of Bernard M. Gross, all in Philadelphia; and Jeffrey
Squire and Lawrence Eagel of Bragar Eagel & Squire, in New York,
N.Y.

The defendants are represented by Stephen J. Kastenberg --
kastenberg@ballardspahr.com -- Lisa B. Swaminathan --
swaminathanl@ballardspahr.com -- and Paul Lantieri III of Ballard
Spahr in Philadelphia; David C. Bohan -- david.bohan@kattenlaw.com
-- and Hannah O. Koesterer -- hannah.koesterer@kattenlaw.com -- of
Kattin Muchin Rosenman in Chicago; Richard L. Scheff --
rscheff@mmwr.com -- K. Carrie Sarhangi -- csarhangi@mmwr.com --
and Sidney S. Liebesman of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads in
Philadelphia; Amy J. Greer -- agreer@morganlewis.com -- and Laura
Hughes McNally -- lmcnally@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis
Bockius in New York City and Philadelphia, respectively; Kyle
David Rettberg -- krettberg@ngelaw.com -- and Phillip L. Stern --
pstern@ngelaw.com -- of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg in Chicago; and
Lisa B. Wershaw and Michael D. Lipuma of the Law Offices of
Michael Lipuma in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:15-cv-00551


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Probe Over California Beach Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Blood and Brian Melley, writing for Daily Journal, report
that firefighters investigating a reported petroleum stench at a
California beach last month didn't take long to find a spill --
oil was spreading across the sand and into the surf. Tracing the
source, they found crude gushing from a bluff like a fire hose
"without a nozzle," records show.

But critical time would elapse before the operator of a nearby
pipeline confirmed that it had ruptured and spewed the oil.  An
employee at the scene for Plains All American Pipeline initially
suggested to firefighters that the spill "was too big to be from
their pipeline," according to the documents obtained by The
Associated Press.

The description of what firefighters found May 19 at Refugio State
Beach was detailed in records Santa Barbara County firefighters
filed with state officials.  It indicates that firefighters who
arrived just before noon quickly recognized that "some sort of
leak or spill had occurred."

A Plains company spokeswoman would not comment on June 25 on why
it took until later in the afternoon for its workers to confirm
the line was cracked and spilling thousands of gallons of oil onto
the sand and water west of Santa Barbara.

Plains is facing scrutiny from federal regulators and lawmakers
over the spill, which washed up goo on beaches as far as 100 miles
away.  The failed pipeline released up to 101,000 gallons, and an
estimated 21,000 gallons reached the water.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee opened an
investigation on June 25 and asked the company for detailed
information on maintenance of the line, including how it addressed
corrosion.  The panel also wants the company to explain what it
did in the hours leading up to the break and how it reported the
problem.

A key issue has been how long it took the Texas-based company to
relay information on the break to the federal government.
Internal planning documents stress the importance of notifying the
government of a leak as quickly as possible.

Federal regulations require the company to notify the National
Response Center, a clearinghouse for reports of hazardous-material
releases, "at the earliest practicable moment."  State law
requires immediate notification of a release or a threatened
release.  Company employees at the scene did not confirm a leak
until about 1:30 p.m., and it would be nearly 3 p.m. before the
company would contact the response center.  By then, the federal
response led by the Coast Guard was underway.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
is investigating the cause of the accident, and state prosecutors
have been considering potential charges against the company.  The
federal agency released preliminary findings earlier this month
that the break occurred along a badly corroded section that had
worn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness.

At a state legislative hearing on June 26 in Santa Barbara, Mark
S. Ghilarducci, director of the Governor's Office of Emergency
Services, was asked if the company met state requirements for
prompt notification.

State prosecutors have been considering potential charges against
the company.

In a separate letter on June 25, the House committee asked the
pipeline administration for an update of what it called long
overdue pipeline safety rules.  The panel said the California
spill raised questions about the agency's oversight of pipeline
safety and added that the agency had failed to complete 17 of 42
requirements Congress outlined in 2011 to help prevent spills.

Cleanup costs have reached $92 million.

Federal elected officials released records from Plains All
American on June 24 that provided a look inside a company trying
to contend with what became the largest coastal oil spill in
California in 25 years.  Those records said that once company
workers confirmed oil was in the ocean, two employees rode along
the pipeline to look for a source.  "It was not readily apparent
from their vantage point near the beach that the oil originated"
from the company pipeline, they said.  It was later determined the
oil traveled to the beach down a culvert near the break.  By the
time company employees confirmed the spill, it was at least an
hour after firefighters reported oil on the beach.

Plains spokeswoman Meredith Matthews said on June 24 that company
personnel were on the beach with firefighters around the same time
local officials alerted the response center to the spill.  "The
response was not delayed," she said.

Popular campgrounds have been closed, nearby commercial fishing
has been prohibited and nearly 300 marine mammals and birds have
been found dead after the spill.

At the legislative hearing, Janet Wolf, chair of the county board
of supervisors, said county officials were concerned the pipeline
company was exerting too much influence on operations following
the spill, while local officials were being excluded.  She said
Plains All American executives were allowed "to make whatever
statements or representations they wanted" at news conferences
following the spill, while the county's statements were vetted.

"They are embedded in every aspect of operations and meetings that
even I, a local elected official . . . was not permitted to
attend," Ms. Wolf said.


PLC INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Daniel Hernandez Rodriguez, and all others similarly
situated v. PLC International, Inc. and Carlos Huerta, Case No.
1:15-cv-22449-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

PLC International, Inc. operates a telecommunications solutions
company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx 12 Amp Electric Blowers/Vacuums
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53880

This Recall involves the Worx 12 Amp Electric blower / vacuum. The
recalled products are black in colour, measure 28 centimeters (11
inches) by 50 centimeters (19.5 inches) and have the "Worx" logo
printed on the side of the motor housing.

The following model number and serial numbers are included in this
recall:

  Model     Serial Number Ranges      Certification Authorization
  Number    --------------------      Number
  ------                              ---------------------------
  WG507     201418008609 through      ETL 3025736
            201418013996
            201418021386 through      ETL 3025736
            201418023006

The model and serial number can be found on a label on the top
part of the motor housing on the opposite side of the "Worx" logo
and near the unit's handle.

The grounded and ungrounded wiring in the affected electric blower
/ vacuums could be reversed, posing an electrical shock hazard to
consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Positec Tool Corporation has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this product.

Approximately 370 units were distributed at RONA stores in Canada
and 24300 units in the United States.

The affected units were sold from January 2015 through May 2015 in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China

Manufacturer: Positec Machinery (China)Co Ltd
              Dongwang Road, Loufeng District
              Jiangsu
              CHINA

Distributor: Positec Tool Corporation
             Charlotte
             North Carolina
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower/vacs
and return them to the place of purchase for a replacement or full
refund.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Ntn4Lz


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" or
the "Company") between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Puma shareholders may, no later than August 3, 2015, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Puma and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/pbyi

Puma is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on in-licensing
cancer drug candidates that have already undergone or completed
clinical testing.  The complaint alleges that Puma made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in
violation of the securities laws that: (1) the Company's NDA
filing would be for a positive early stage breast cancer
indication, instead of the previously announced metastatic breast
cancer; (2) Puma would need to submit additional safety data from
preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which
Puma did not have; (3) the additional studies required would push
the timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016;
(4) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET
Trial; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Puma lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements concerning the
Company's outlook, as well as the ongoing ExteNET trial. When the
truth was revealed, the stock dropped causing damage to investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 3,
2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/pbyi

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website:
www.rmclasslaw.com

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


QRX PHARMA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on June 23 disclosed that it
filed a securities class action complaint against QRx Pharma, Ltd.
("QRx" or "the Company") and the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") John Holaday in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of QRx American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") between January 24, 2011 and April 23, 2014, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that QRx issued false and misleading public
statements and omitted material facts concerning the commercial
prospects for its experiment drug Moxduo.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that QRx failed to disclose to investors that it
received a "no agreement letter" from the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regarding its Moxduo trials and further
misrepresented and concealed other material facts concerning its
attempts to get Moxduo approved.  Upon the disclosure of an FDA
memorandum which denied QRx's application to get Moxduo approved,
the price of QRx ADRs plummeted over 83% on April 23, 2014.

You can view a copy of the complaint filed by Scott+Scott at:
http://www.scott-scott.com/cnt/cp/qrx_pharma_complaint.pdf

If you purchased QRx ADRs during the Class Period, you may move
the Court no later than August 24, 2015 to serve as lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the investor 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 Michael Burnett, Esq. at
Scott+Scott (mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-
5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website --
http://www.scott-scott.com-- for more information.  There is no
cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, with
offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California.  The firm
has been directly responsible for the recovery of hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of its clients through the
prosecution of major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan class action lawsuits.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, businesses, and other entities
worldwide.


RECOVERY ASSOCIATES: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Recovery Associates, Inc., Jerry M. Zarin, and Mineola
Medical Lab, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03814 (E.D.N.Y., June 30,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      306 McCall Avenue
      West Islip, NY 11795
      Telephone: (631) 669-0921
      Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
      E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Regions Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOCAL 703, I.B. OF T. GROCERY AND FOOD
EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND, et al., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

   vs.

REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.


Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02847-IPJ
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED REGIONS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION ("REGIONS FINANCIAL") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 19, 2009

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, that a hearing will be held on September 9, 2015, at
10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, Northern District
of Alabama, Southern Division, Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse, 1729
Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the Action for the amount of $90,000,000.00 plus interest, should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
("Judgment") should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action
with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the
Plan of Distribution of Settlement Proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses and Lead Plaintiffs' expenses should be
approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED REGIONS FINANCIAL COMMON STOCK DURING
THE TIME PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING
JANUARY 19, 2009, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT
OF THIS ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS
YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF
REGIONS FINANCIAL COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and
a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Regions Financial Securities Litigation,
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808012,
Petaluma, CA 94975-8012, or on the Internet at
www.regionsfinancialsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail or online so that it is postmarked (if mailed) or
received (if filed electronically) no later than September 9,
2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired Regions Financial common stock during
the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no
later than August 19, 2015, in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice referred to above.  If you submitted a request
for exclusion in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action you received in March 2015, do not submit another one.  All
members of the Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Distribution, or the
fees and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
August 18, 2015:

CLERK OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division
Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse
1729 Fifth Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ANDREW J. BROWN
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
MAIBETH J. PORTER
1901 Sixth Avenue, North
2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
Birmingham, AL 35203

SIROTE & PERMUTT, P.C.
JULIAN D. BUTLER
305 Church Street, S.W.
Huntsville, AL 35801

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK 'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: May 27, 2015               BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION


RJ VALLEE: Faces Gasoline Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
WCAX News reports that a driver from Franklin County wants
gasoline distributors in Northwestern Vermont to pay up for fixing
prices.  Jacob Kent filed a class action suit against the four
main gas suppliers in the area -- RJ Vallee, which owns
Maplefields; Weco, which owns Champlain farms; Champlain Oil
Company; and SB Collins, which owns Jolley Marts.  Mr. Kent's
attorney alleges the companies work together to keep gas prices
artificially high, making this part of Vermont one of the ten most
profitable in the country for gasoline dealers.  He says that
gives the dealers an unfair advantage.  Mr. Kent's lawsuit aims to
recover money overpaid by drivers along with financial damages.

No response yet from the companies being sued.


ROCKPORT, MA: Long Beach Residents File Class Action Over Leases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitra Lavrakas, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that a
group of Long Beach residents have filed suit against the town
over their leases, and a hearing will be held to decide whether
the class action suit is viable.

Long Beach resident Steve Sheehan is the lead plaintiff in the
class action lawsuit filed against the Town of Rockport on June 15
over escalating lease fees.  The suit also claims a clause in the
new lease breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment guaranteed by
Massachusetts law by allowing residents to access others' property
to get to their own and allowing public pedestrians to use
tenants' property to access the beach.

The plaintiffs also say the town is attempting to contract away
its responsibility as landlord.  An estimated 154 Long Beach
property owners are included in the class for the suit.

"The residents had a meeting and a formal vote was taken
overwhelmingly to go forward with the suit," said Mr. Sheehan.
Saying the members of the class action suit are "united in
purpose, highly organized and exceptionally well prepared, and
sufficiently funded," Mr. Sheehan said that claimants lament this
adversarial step after residents have enjoyed a "mutually
beneficial and long-standing relationship for well over 100
years," with the town and fellow Rockport residents.

"We have presented ourselves as the most reasonable party,"
Mr. Sheehan said.  "We've asked for dialogue, but the town refused
to hold constructive dialogue, even though we tried for 18
months."

Rubin and Rudman LLP, a Boston-based law firm, was hired in 2012
to represent the group of residents when lease negotiations were
completed, and will represent the class in Lawrence Superior Court
on June 30, Judge Robert Cornetta presiding.


SCRIP INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Wilder Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. d/b/a Madison Chiropractic-West,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Scrip, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-05778 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Scrip, Inc. operates a chiropractic supply & equipment company
servicing chiropractors and other health care providers with its
principal place of business in Bolingbrook, IL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEALED AIR: Faces Class Action Over Bonus Program
-------------------------------------------------
GoUpStates.com reports that two people employed with Sealed Air
Corp.'s Spartanburg facility have filed a class action lawsuit in
federal court in New Jersey.

The employees claim that the corporation did not pay bonuses to
them and thousands of other employees.  According to the lawsuit,
Sealed Air pays eligible employees "incentive-based compensation"
along with a salary, but changed the performance rating of the
employees.  The plaintiffs assert that they met work performance
goals during 2012 that made them eligible to receive a bonus
before a "company-wide decision to retroactively exclude 15
percent" of participants from receiving bonuses under a new rating
system.  The plaintiffs have asked for unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and an injunction that would stop Sealed Air from
continuing the policy that they argue is illegal.

Sealed Air denied the allegations in its response to the lawsuit.

The company asserts that eligible employees may be entitled to
participate in its annual bonus program.  It also claims that the
plaintiffs received all salary and wages due to them and asks that
the suit be dismissed and that the defendants receive legal fees
and other damages.  Plaintiffs have until July 6 to respond.

Sealed Air announced in July 2014 that it would invest $57 million
to relocate its corporate headquarters from Elmwood Park, N.J., to
Charlotte, N.C.

The maker of packaging and cleaning products for the health and
food industries operates a plant in Duncan near the intersection
of Highway 290 and Interstate 85 that it acquired in 1998. At
least 600 jobs are expected to be relocated from Duncan to
Charlotte.


SEOUL SUPERMARKET: Faces "Bae" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eun Joo Bae, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated known and unknown v. Seoul Supermarket, Inc. and Suk Hui
Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-05782 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW PC
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      E-mail: ryan@inseedlaw.com


SHAKA ENTERTAINMENT: Music Festival Ticketholders Mull Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Namata, writing for KHON2, reports that the June 20 music
festival fiasco angered thousands of ticket-holders and now the
state is taking action.  At least 2,000 ticket-holders
anticipating Paradise Music Festival were stunned when organizers
moved the Kahuku concert.  In a last-minute change, the concert's
lineup was split between three separate club venues.

Shaka Entertainment, the company behind the festival, promised
refunds, but ticket-holders said they were denied refunds from
Flavorus, the online ticket website.

The state consumer office has now opened an investigation.  When
asked if the state has ever handled similar cases,
Stephen Levins, executive director for the state Department of
Commerce and Consumer Affairs, said "Not to this magnitude.  We've
had cases over the years where shows have been canceled and in
most instances, consumers get their money back."

Longtime concert promoter Tom Moffatt has brought the likes of
Janet Jackson and Elvis Presley to Hawaii.  He says Shaka
Entertainment's last-minute venue change for Paradise Music
Festival was a "flub" Hawaii hasn't seen before.

Mr. Moffatt, who is not affiliated with Shaka Entertainment, says
he believes the intentions were good, but it was a costly mistake
for the new company.

"You have an entrance to a venue, and you had access to it -- so
you thought -- and come the day of the show, you didn't," he said.
"It was a sad mistake."

"Anyone can call themselves a promoter.  That's why its important
for people . . . to the best of their ability, look into who is
promoting a concert," Mr. Levins said.

KHON showed Mr. Levins an email a ticket-holder received from the
website.  The email stated the "terms of purchase" clearly state
"ticket holder is aware the venue and talent are subject to
change."

Since the event turned into a bar crawl, Flavorus could not issue
refunds.

"Just because a vendor or merchant tells you this is the way it
is, that doesn't mean that is the way it is," said Mr. Levins.
"That may be they're saying, but their representation may in fact
be unreasonable.  If someone purchased a ticket, for instance,
with the idea the concert was in town and all of a sudden the
concert is going to be on the North Shore -- to give you a
hypothetical question -- we would the position that it's totally
unreasonable and the consumer should not be burdened with that
kind of situation, so it depends on the facts."

KHON2 learned that the incident has also prompted plans for a
class-action lawsuit against Shaka Entertainment by hundreds of
unhappy ticket holders.

On Shaka Entertainment's Facebook page, the company apologized for
the "turn of events" and said Flavorus, the ticketing website,
will issue refunds to anyone who did not attend the event.

"We currently are working with Flavorus and all online tickets
that weren't used at the clubs can be refunded through them.
Everyone that contacted Flavorus should either already be refunded
or receiving a refund shortly. If you didn't attend and haven't
contacted Flavorus yet make sure to contact them by [June 25].
For everyone with physical tickets, all promoters have been
notified and are giving refunds.  We truly do apologize to
everyone that had to endure this mess, so we have decided to give
everyone that pushed through and attended a 50% discount for our
next event."

Shaka Entertainment says it is planning another event later this
year.


SOLAZYME INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on June 24 filed a securities class action
lawsuit on June 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of all persons or entities who, between February 27, 2014 and
November 5, 2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Solazyme, Inc. including certain
securities issued by Solazyme pursuant and/or traceable to either
of two registered public offerings on or about March 27, 2014.

If you purchased or acquired publicly traded Solazyme securities
during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California no later than August 24, 2015.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Natalie M.
Mackiel, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email
at nmackiel@labaton.com

You can view a copy of the complaint online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

Solazyme is a bioproducts company that produces oils from
renewable sources.  The Company's technology focuses on the use of
algae as part of a fermentation process that transforms plant
materials into oils for use in a range of products, including
skincare, food goods, and industrial applications.  Solazyme
maintains its principal executive offices in South San Francisco,
California.

The complaint charges Solazyme and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges that certain Defendants made false and misleading
statements and concealed material information relating to the
construction progress, development, and expected production
capacity of the Company's renewable oils production facility
located in Moema, Brazil.  Specifically, Defendants caused
Solazyme securities to trade at artificially inflated prices by
improperly concealing ongoing construction delays due to
insufficient access to electricity and steam utility services.
These challenges prohibited the Moema Facility from scaling its
capacity production as projected.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Solazyme, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Offerings
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  The complaint alleges that certain Defendants made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
information in offering documents filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the issuance of (i)
approximately $149.5 million in convertible notes on or about
March 27, 2014, and (ii) 5.75 million shares of common stock on
the same day at $11.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of
approximately $63.25 million.

The truth regarding the construction delays at the Moema Facility,
and resulting diminished production capacity, was revealed on
November 5, 2014, when the Company disclosed that it would "narrow
[its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value
products" due to continued issues generating consistent power and
steam.  In reaction to this disclosure, Solazyme's stock price
declined $4.35 per share, or 58.08 percent, to close at $3.14 per
share following the next trading session on November 6, 2014.
Similarly, the market price of Solazyme's notes declined by
$235.00 per note from the prior reported trade on November 4,
2014, or 30.32 percent, to close at $540.00 per note following the
next session in which the notes traded on November 7, 2014.

The plaintiff is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Minister Calls Suit "Ambulance Chaser"
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wright, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Earthquake
Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says a lawsuit against Southern
Response over insurance settlement delays is part "ambulance
chaser".

The claims management company, which handles AMI Insurance's
cases, is the target of a class action from customers claiming it
took too long to process claims and frequently undersettled them.

Commenting on Southern Response's move to offer customers free
legal advice about the class action, Mr. Brownlee labeled the
lawsuit opportunistic.

"You do get these sort of actions often coming out of a disaster
like this.  There's an element of the ambulance chaser here."

Southern Response's offer was "quite appropriate", he said.

"They want people to know fully independently what joining the
class action might mean for them.  I don't think that's
unreasonable.

"It's no more desperate than the lawyers who are putting the class
action together in the first place."

The lawyer leading the class action, Grant Cameron, said the offer
showed "great concern" on Southern Response's part.

"[They're concerned] that they may be held to account to pay
policy holders what they're entitled to.

"We're very happy for people to bring those questions to us so we
can discuss them."

Mr. Cameron refused to say how many Southern Response customers
had joined the class action.  He expected proceedings in the case
to be filed next month.

A Southern Response spokeswoman said the company was "genuinely
concerned" about the risks for customers joining the class action
case.

"[This] is to ensure that all our customers have access to a
lawyer . . . for the purpose of reviewing any class action
contractual documents, so that they can gain a full understanding
of what they could be signing up for."

Customers could engage any New Zealand lawyer not involved in the
class action, she said.  Southern Response would pay for a two-
hour.


SPARTAN DEMOLITION: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shreal Douglas, Eric Dupree, Joe Smith, Shaheem Jones, and Michael
Bautista, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Spartan Demolition Company LLC, Marc
Alleyne, AJS Construction & Renovation Inc., and John Does #1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05126 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a demolition services company, with
its principal place of business at 121-07 234th Street, Rosedale,
N.Y. 11422.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


SR SUNTOUR: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53872

This recall involves SR Suntour N.A. bicycle forks that have been
incorporated into finished bicycles under the following brands:
GT, Giant, INA International, Scott and Trek bicycles. Cannondale,
Diamondback and Schwinn brands with the potentially affected forks
were not sold in Canada.

The following bicycle forks are included in this recall:

  Model Number   Size   Manufacturing     Serial Number Range
  ------------   ----   -------------     -------------------
  M3010          24     11/01/2014 -      K* 141101 to K* 150127
                        01/27/2015
                 26
  M3020          24
                 26
  M3030          26
                 27.5
                 29
  NEX            700c
  XCT            20
                 26
                 27.5
                 29

The model number, serial number range and size are vertically
etched on the bicycle fork crown. A detailed list of the specific
model numbers included in the recall is on the firm's website.

If the fixing bolt breaks, the bicycle fork may not properly
function as a shock absorber. The top part of the fork can
separate from the bottom part of the fork if the fork is lifted
from the ground, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor SR Suntour N.A. has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
bicycle forks in Canada.

In the United States, SR Suntour N.A. has received 2 reports of
consumer incidents involving minor injuries, such as scrapes.

Approximately 33,644 recalled forks were sold in Canada, and
approximately 67,863 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold at authorized GT, Giant, INA
International, Scott and Trek dealers from November 2014 to June
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: SR Suntour Machinery (Kunshan) Co. Ltd.
              Kunshan
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles equipped with
these forks and contact their retailer for a free inspection and
repair if necessary.  The repair will consist of replacement of
the fixing bolt, if needed.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iZYnx8


STAMPEDE PRESENTATION: Recalls Mustang electronic Screens
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 25, 2015
Posting date: June 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53914

This recall involves Mustang electronic projection screens.  The
following model numbers are included in this recall: SC-E84D43,
SC-E100D43, SC-E120D43, SC-E92D169, SC-E106D169, SC-E120D169 and
SC-E135D169.

The affected products did not have the necessary electrical
certification to be sold in Canada.

Neither Health Canada nor Stampede Presentation Products (Canada)
Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of these products.

Approximately 3,407 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from June 2005 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Dongguan Aoxing Audio Visual Equipment Co Ltd.
              Tangxia Town, Dongguan
              CHINA

Distributor: Stampede Presentation Products Inc.
             Amherst
             New York
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Draper, Inc.
             Spiceland
             Indiana
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Stampede Presentation Products (Canada) Inc.
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected products and
contact the supplier from whom they purchased the screen to return
the product and receive a refund.

For more information, consumers with affected products may contact
Stampede Presentation Products (Canada) Inc. by telephone at 1-
855-498-0034 or visit the Mustang website.

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

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

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


SUBARU: Recalls 2012 Impreza Models Due to Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 5182
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015285TC
ID number: 2015285
Manufacturer recall number: WQT-55

On certain vehicles, the Occupant Control Unit (OCU) of the ODS
(Occupant Detection System) may incorrectly identify a front
passenger occupant when seated in the front passenger seat if the
passenger touches a metal part of the vehicle that is electrically
grounded (i.e. forward/reward seat adjustment lever) while using
an IPod or cell phone plugged into the accessory power outlet.
This may result in the deactivation of the ODS, and cause the Air
Bag Warning Light to illuminate and the Passenger Air Bag
Indicator would illuminate "OFF", providing a visual warning that
the air bag system is not operating properly. Failure of the
passenger frontal airbag to deploy during a crash (where
deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal
injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the
Occupant Control Unit (OCU) with a revised one.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  SUBARU       IMPREZA      2012


SUN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Gleevec Patent Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed in
federal court alleges that a patent infringement lawsuit filed by
multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis against generic
maker Sun Pharma simply was a delay tactic.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund, or UFCW, and the Laborers Health and
Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California filed the lawsuit on
behalf of a class of all purchasers of Novartis' Gleevec drug in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
June 22.

The employee welfare benefit plans, according to their filing,
have paid some or all of the price of 100 mg and 400 mg Gleevec
tablets on behalf of their plan participants.

Both argue they will pay more for the drug -- used in treating
patients diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia, a cancer of the
blood and bone marrow -- than they would have absent Novartis'
"unlawful scheme" to prevent and delay its generic entry.

Gleevec, which costs about $9,000 a month, was expected to go
generic effective July 5.

The Food and Drug Administration already has cleared two generic
applications, but Novartis has barred Sun Pharma from releasing
its generic version of Gleevec for at least an additional seven
months by way of a "sham" patent infringement lawsuit.

According to the 82-page proposed class action, Novartis
unlawfully listed invalid follow-on patents in the FDA's Orange
Book.

The publication "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations," commonly known as the Orange Book,
identifies drug products approved on the basis of safety and
effectiveness by the FDA under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act.  In particular, at issue is Novartis' U.S. Patent No.
6,894,051. The '051 patent, which expires in November 2019, is
among those alleged invalid follow-on patents.

The class action contends that the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office mistakenly issued the patent.

"But in the stark light of patent litigation alleging infringement
of the '051, Novartis knew that if a court were to eventually rule
on the validity issue after deliberative proceedings, the '051
patent would be held invalid," the class action alleges.

Sun Pharma, in June 2013, sued Novartis in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment
that Sun Pharma was not infringing the '051 patent and/or that the
'051 patent was invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

A month later, Novartis filed counterclaims against Sun Pharma,
alleging infringement of the '051 patent and also seeking a
declaration that the '051 patent was valid and enforceable.

"Novartis had enormous incentives to settle the patent
infringement litigation and avoid competition," the class action
alleges.  "By 2013, Gleevec was a roughly $2 billion drug. Losing
a substantial portion of that revenue stream -- as Novartis would
have if the patents were held by a court to be invalid,
unenforceable, or not infringed -- would have drastically affected
Novartis' profits in 2013 and subsequent years."

Last year -- less than a year into the underlying litigation --
Novartis and Sun Pharma agreed to settle the patent lawsuit.

The terms were not revealed, except that both parties announced
that under their agreement Sun Pharma would be permitted to launch
its generic version of Gleevec as of Feb. 1, 2016.

The class action contends that if Novartis had never "brandished"
the '051 patent against Sun Pharma, there never would have been
the need for the litigation between the two companies, there never
would have been a settlement between them and there never would
have been the agreement to delay the generic's entry.

"Novartis should rightly enjoy exclusivity for Gleevec through the
expiry of the original compound patent in early July 2015 (having
grossed over $13.5 billion in U.S. sales over the years from the
drug, which now yields about $2 billion per year)," the class
action states.

"But patent gamesmanship and frivolous litigation undertaken
solely for the purpose of extracting settlements that delay
generic entry violate basic principles of antitrust law, and
should be enjoined."

UFCW and Laborers, in their class action, are seeking a permanent
injunction to allow generic competition.

"If Novartis played by the rules, a generic version of Gleevec
would be available for cancer patients this July, but Novartis
wants to illegally reap benefits from its sham of a patent
infringement suit," Thomas M. Sobol, a partner at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.  The consumer rights class action law firm is
among those firms representing the proposed class of plaintiffs.

The firm notes that the lawsuit marks the first time purchasers of
prescription drugs have sought injunctive relief to try to prevent
antitrust overcharges or damages stemming from delayed launch of
generic drugs.

Novartis, in a company statement, said it believes the claims are
"unsubstantiated."

"The patents covering Gleevec remain legally in force and are
covered by a statutory presumption of validity," it said.  "The
patents are clearly directed to our marketed product and are
properly listed in the FDA's Orange Book and the settlement with
Sun Pharma is a lawful settlement agreement resolving the
declaratory judgment action filed by Sun Pharma challenging the
validity of one of the Gleevec patents.

"We will vigorously defend our patent rights and litigate these
improper allegations."

Pointing to the settlement with Sun Pharma last year, Novartis
said patents are "vital" to the ability of companies such as
itself to invest in high-risk research to advance breakthrough
treatments for patients without treatment options.

"This settlement validates the Novartis patents while allowing Sun
Pharma's subsidiary to enter the market with its generic product,"
the company said.  District Judge Allison Burroughs is presiding
over the case.


SUNRIPE FARMS: Recalls Salad Dressings Due to Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sunripe Farms Produce (509334 Ontario Inc.)
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9745






  Brand    Common name      Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------      ----     product       ---
  -----                              ----------
  Sunripe  Ingrid's Caesar  250 ml   All codes     4 304304-
           Dressing Creamy           where mustard 304304
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.
  Sunripe  Ingrid's Country 250 ml   All codes     0 201106-
           Caesar Dressing           where mustard 03993
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.
  Sunripe  Salad Sun of     250 ml   All codes     0 201242-
           Ceazar with               where mustard 6990
           Salad                     is not
           Preparations              declared on
                                     the label.


SVB: Class Action Over Personal Care Budget Fiasco Mulled
---------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reports that care providers whose payments have been
delayed by the chaos surrounding the personal care budget are
being invited to join a class action against the social insurance
bank SVB.  The new system for administering the personal care
budget (pgb) was introduced in January.  To avoid fraud, payments
are no longer made to the patient.  Carers are now paid by the SVB
but are receiving payment too late or not at all.  Recently, a
carer won a court case for compensation for late payment from the
SVB.  The judge decreed that the same employment law applies in
this case as in the relationship between an employer and an
employee, and gave the woman an increase of 25%.

Her lawyer, Eric van der Goot, has now set up the site PGB-claim
and is inviting other carers to join in a class action against the
SVB.  The administrative chaos at the SVB has been the subject of
a parliamentary debate six times this year and junior health
minister Marten van Rijn is under great pressure to deal with the
situation.


TELEFLORA LLC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Harold M. Hoffman, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Teleflora LLC, Case
No. BER-L-18-00015, was removed from the Superior Court of Bergen
County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04810-CCC-JBC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
      240 Grand Avenue
      Englewood, NJ 07631
      Telephone: (201) 569-0086
      Facsimile: (201) 221-7890
      E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net

         - and -

      Raphael Mark Rosenblatt, Esq.
      ROSENBLATT LAW PC
      Court Plaza South
      21 Main Street, #305
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (551) 444-8100
      E-mail: Raphael@rosenblattlegal.com


THOMAS BUILT: Recalls 8,093 C2 School Buses Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 8093
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015291TC
ID number: 2015291
Manufacturer recall number: FL-685

On certain school buses, the stem which joins the outside
emergency door handle to the emergency door opening mechanism may
potentially corrode. Excessive material loss of the stem due to
corrosion could result in the outside handle separating from the
door mechanism while trying to open the door from the exterior of
the bus. In the event of an emergency, this could delay evacuation
of the vehicle and increase the risk of injury to occupants.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the stems and either replace or
protect them against further corrosion.

  Make            Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----           ----------------------
  THOMAS BUILT    C2 SCHOOL BUS   2001


THOMAS BUILT: Recalls 145 School Buses Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 145
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015290TC
ID number: 2015290
Manufacturer recall number: FL 685

On certain buses, the stem which joins the outside emergency door
handle to the emergency door opening mechanism may potentially
corrode. Excessive material loss of the stem due to corrosion
could result in the outside handle separating from the door
mechanism while trying to open the door from the exterior of the
bus. In the event of an emergency, this could delay evacuation of
the vehicle and increase the risk of injury to occupants.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the stems and either replace or
protect them agianst further corrosion.

  Make           Model                   Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----                    ----------------------
  THOMAS BUILT   MVP-EF NON-SCHOOL BUS   2001, 2001, 2001, 2001,
                                         2001, 2001
  THOMAS BUILT   FS-65 NON-SCHOOL BUS    2001
  THOMAS BUILT   SAF-T-LINER C2          2001
                 NON-SCHOOL BUS
  THOMAS BUILT   ER NON-SCHOOL BUS       2001
  THOMAS BUILT   SAF-T-LINER HDX         2001
                 NON-SCHOOL BUS


TOP RANK: July 30 Hearing on Consolidation of Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than 40 class actions have been filed over the highly
publicized fight between Floyd Mayweather and Emmanuel "Manny"
Pacquiao, alleging that the boxers, their promoters and the cable
networks airing the match misled viewers about the "Fight of the
Century."

Just after the May 2 fight, loser Pacquiao revealed that he had
suffered a pre-existing torn rotator cuff prior to stepping into
the ring at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas.  The suits, filed on
behalf of individuals in 14 states, most of whom paid $89.95 to
watch the fight on HBO and Showtime pay-per-view, claim that the
promoters duped viewers into buying the program. Each boxer made
more than $100 million from the fight.

"By failing to disclose that Pacquiao was injured prior to the
fight, while still promoting and advertising the fight to
plaintiffs and members of the classes and the public as a fair and
honest sporting event between two healthy and uninjured
participants, plaintiffs and the members of the classes
represented in the related federal actions were deprived of what
they paid for and injured financially," wrote Hart Robinovitch, a
plaintiffs lawyer who moved on May 8 to consolidate all the cases
in the Central District of California given that Pacquiao injured
his shoulder and was treated by doctors in Los Angeles prior to
the fight.  Mr. Robinovitch, a partner in the Scottsdale, Arizona,
office of Minneapolis-based Zimmerman Reed, did not return a call
for comment.

The suits name various defendants including the fight's promoter,
Top Rank Inc., and two of its principals, Robert Arum and Todd
DuBoef; Pacquiao and his adviser, Michael Koncz, and trainer
Frederick Roach; and Mayweather and his promoter, Mayweather
Promotions LLC.

Some of the suits also named producers Home Box Office Inc. and
Showtime Networks Inc., both based in New York.  HBO, which is
part of Time Warner Inc., along with Pacquiao and those affiliated
with him, filed a combined June 4 court paper supporting
coordination in the Central District of California.

"The lawsuits contain no legally valid claims, and we look forward
to their prompt dismissal," Daniel Petrocelli --
dpetrocelli@omm.com -- chairman of the trial practice committee at
O'Melveny & Myers, who represents the defendants, wrote in an
email.

Showtime, which is part of CBS Corp., argued in a separate June 4
filing for consolidation in Nevada, citing Pacquiao's failure to
report the injury to the Nevada Athletic Commission.  Its
attorney, Yehudah Buchweitz -- yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com -- a
partner at New York's Weil, Gotshal & Manges, declined to comment.

In another June 4 filing, an attorney for the Mayweather
defendants also argued that the cases should be consolidated in
Nevada.  Mayweather's attorney, Ruth Bahe-Jachna --
baher@gtlaw.com -- co-chairwoman of the class action litigation
group and a shareholder in the Chicago office of Greenberg
Traurig, did not respond to a request for comment.

Other plaintiffs attorneys have pushed for venues in New York,
New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and Illinois.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled
to hear arguments on consolidating the cases at its July 30
hearing in San Francisco.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Faces "Codog" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Delia Codog, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-04897 (D.N.J., June 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 22 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Trinity
Industries, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
between February 16, 2012 and April 29, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 28, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/trinity/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Trinity and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Trinity manufacturers transportation, construction and industrial
products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Trinity's business and prospects,
and specifically about the safety of its highway guardrail
systems.  As a result of these false and misleading statements
and/or omissions, Trinity securities traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, with its stock price
reaching a high of over $50 per share.

On April 21, 2015, an article was published on Bloomberg News,
stating that the U.S. Justice Department ("DOJ") was conducting a
criminal investigation into the Federal Highway Administration's
continued support of Trinity's highway guardrail system and that
the Company had engaged in cost-cutting alterations to its ET-Plus
System guardrails, which compromised the safety of the units,
which were linked to at least eight deaths.  As a result of this
news, the price of Trinity stock fell $3.43 per share to close at
$32.82 per share on April 22, 2015, a one-day decline of over 9%.
Subsequently, on April 24, 2015, Trinity confirmed that it was the
target of a DOJ investigation.  On this news, the price of Trinity
stock fell $4.66 per share, to close at $28.70 per share, a one-
day decline of nearly 14%.

Then, on April 29, 2015, Bloomberg News reported that Trinity had
received a subpoena from the DOJ regarding "its allegedly
defective guardrail safety system" and that the DOJ sought
"documents from 1999 and later regarding Trinity's guardrail end
terminals."  As a result of this news, the price of Trinity stock
dropped another $0.98 per share to close at $27.09 per share on
April 30, 2015, a one-day decline of 3.5%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Trinity publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


TRS RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hacker" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hacker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01025-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind., June 30, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

TRS Recovery Services, Inc. is Colorado Corporation that operates
a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect
debts from consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              angiekrobertson@aol.com

         - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5218 S. East Street, Suite E1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Telephone: (317) 780-8300
      Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
      E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


UNITED FURNITURE: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joan M. Young, Esq. -- joan.young@mcmillan.ca -- of McMillan LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that the British Columbia
Court of Appeal, in Marshall v. United Furniture Warehouse Limited
Partnerships, upheld a chambers judge's decision denying
certification to a proposed complex class action proceeding
involving a consumer "cash-back" voucher program.1 The Court of
Appeal dismissed the appeal solely on the basis that the claim
lacked commonality of issues between its class members.

Background

The "cash-back" voucher program was offered to businesses by
Consumers Trust.  A business participating in this program gave
its customers a voucher if they purchased specific products.  The
business would in turn pay a portion of the revenue to Consumers
Trust.  A voucher was eligible to be redeemed by a customer from
Consumers Trust for up to three years, as long as the customer
complied with all the conditions on the voucher.  The program
relied on the theory that most customers would forget to submit
their vouchers for redemption or else not comply with the
conditions and be ineligible to redeem the voucher, thereby
allowing the program to be profitable.

The plaintiffs were customers who received vouchers for their
furniture purchases from the defendants.  However, before they
could redeem the vouchers, Consumers Trust filed for bankruptcy.
At this juncture, United Furniture sent a notice to its customers
that United Furniture and Consumers Trust are separate entities
and that the vouchers were contracts solely with Consumers Trust,
not with United Furniture.  To mitigate the situation, United
Furniture instituted an in-store credit program for customers who
had been issued vouchers.

In response to these events, the plaintiffs sought certification
to proceed as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act
against United Furniture and its related companies.  The
plaintiffs claimed (1) breach of warranty or collateral contract,
(2) deceptive acts or practices or unconscionable acts or
practices under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act
(BPCPA), (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) negligence.

The Initial Decision

The chambers judge denied the application for certification
because the pleadings did not disclose reasonable causes of action
and there was not enough evidence to support many of the
allegations.  She also found that there were insufficient common
issues between the purported class members.  With respect to the
claims under the BPCPA and in negligent misrepresentation, the
court focused on the significant variables in this case.  A court
would be required to consider various individual documents and
especially individual oral representations made by different sales
representatives to the plaintiffs in different stores, not just
one representation, as was the case in a previous action involving
the same voucher program. The plaintiffs appealed this decision on
multiple grounds, including the judge's reliance on the necessity
of the oral representations in making her decision that the case
lacked the required commonality.

Commonality of Issues

Despite the plaintiffs advancing multiple grounds of appeal, a
unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal, determined that the
application for certification turned on a single issue: the lack
of commonality.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada in Western Canadian Shopping
Centres Inc. v. Dutton, the Court of Appeal emphasized that
commonality is central to a class proceeding.  A common issue is
an issue that must be resolved in order to resolve each class
member's claim, and success for one class member on a common issue
means success for all class members.  Essentially, a common issue
is the ingredient that unites the class members in a class action.

Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that this particular class
action could proceed by only considering the written brochures
received by the plaintiffs.  The Court of Appeal was not swayed by
this argument and found that that the written material in
combination with the oral representations received by the
individual plaintiffs were "inextricably intertwined" with the
question of the defendants' liability.  Thus, the litigation could
not proceed without considering the oral representations.  The
Court's key concern was that if the case proceeded as a class
action and the oral representations were to be considered, a court
would be forced to embark on an individual inquiry for each and
every member of the purported class.  This clearly would be
unworkable, and demonstrated that a class proceeding was not the
preferable procedure.

Since each customer had a different experience in a different
store owned by the defendants and received, one assumes, different
oral representations regarding the voucher program, this matter
was ill-suited to be heard as a class action. The appeal was
dismissed.

Commentary

While claims based on a specific representation made to an entire
class have been certified in the past, this case illustrates the
general rule that claims based on individualized representations
made by different individuals to different individual class
members at different times in different places are, not
surprisingly, unlikely to raise common issues and are thus
unlikely to be certified as a class action.  While there was
commonality in some significant aspects the Plaintiffs' claims,
there was not enough to overcome the hurdles that inevitably would
be presented to the court in adjudication.


UNITED STATES: Vietnam War Veterans Finally Receive Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Bernstein, writing for FoxCT, reports that for the first time
in 45 years, Vietnam War veteran and New Haven resident Conley
Monk feels vindicated.

"I didn't think this day would come, but I'm thankful for all
those involved with supporting me," said Mr. Monk.

Mr. Monk is finally receiving military benefits after winning a
federal lawsuit.

Mr. Monk received a bad discharge from the military while
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder because PTSD was not
a medical diagnosis until 1980.

Many service members who struggled with the disorder, like
Mr. Monk, received "bad papers" instead of a medical discharge,
and these wounded veterans were left out to dry.

"I didn't have any benefits at all," said Mr. Monk, "so I had to
work two jobs to go to school to get the education that I did
get."  Monk went on, "I was unable to buy a house that I wanted to
buy through the GI bill."

It's estimated 80,000 Vietnam-era vets suffered from PTSD.

Last year, Mr. Monk and four others filed the class-action
lawsuit.

"Our nation is keeping faith with Conley Monk," said Sen. Richard
Blumenthal, "but it owes the same justice to tens of thousands of
other veterans whose fate has been similar."

Righting this wrong isn't over.

Mr. Monk has a message to fellow veterans who feel they've been
left behind.

"I will continue to fight for other veterans and if any other
veterans are watching this show," said Mr. Monk, "that they know
now it's possible that they can get their discharges upgraded."

Mr. Blumenthal stressed this avenue is available to other
veterans, but they must step forward.


UNITED STATES: Coal Miners Compile Signatures for EPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
WOWKTV reports that laid off coal miners, and some still employed,
are compiling signatures for a class-action lawsuit against the
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act.  The petition
currently has thousands of signatures.

Those coal miners from West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and
Pennsylvania met on June 21 at the Moundsville Eagles Hall from
noon to 6:00 p.m. to show their support for the lawsuit against
the EPA for violations that occurred during the process of
enacting legislation.

"This is a provision that can be challenged now.  It is an
administrative and legislative error.  It doesn't have to do with
the final rule and we are not attacking the rule in its entirety.
We'll let the states and the coal companies do that at a later
date," said one of the plaintiffs, Kurtis Armann.

Mr. Armann said officials found serious problems that occurred
during the legislative process, specifically the lack of peer
review.  He adds the pending regulations are destroying economies
and a way of life for people in West Virginia.

Mr. Armann anticipates the class to exceed 2,000 plaintiffs and if
Indiana and Illinois get involved, it'll reach between 4,000 to
5,000 plaintiffs.


UNITED STATES: Judge Approves Deal Over Pershing Park Arrest
------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing The Washington Post, reports that ending a
13-year legal struggle, a federal judge gave final approval on
June 22 to a settlement in which the federal government agreed to
new terms of engagement with demonstrators in the nation's capital
and agreed to pay $2.2 million to almost 400 protesters and
bystanders swept up by U.S. and local police during a September
2002 demonstration against the World Bank.

The District in 2010 agreed to pay $8.25 million to the same
class-action litigants, who were picked up in a mass arrest at
Pershing Park, and also agreed to overhaul police practices to
protect the First Amendment rights of protesters.

In approving the deal, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
called the settlement "historic" and said it could guide police
agencies nationwide.

The settlement came in the wake of unrest prompted by the injuries
and deaths of unarmed black men in custody in cities such as
Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, as the Justice Department reviews
whether local authorities have engaged in a pattern of
unconstitutional policing.

"It is significant this agreement is with the federal government,
because the Department of Justice is reviewing the practices and
the policies of local law enforcement agencies," Judge Sullivan
said.  "I hope this agreement will serve as a model for local
jurisdictions across the country."

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for
Civil Justice Fund, the nonprofit group that brought the case,
said the agreement disproves the belief that the free speech and
assembly rights of protesters "have to be constricted for the sake
of security and order."

"There is simply no basis by which any other jurisdiction's police
department can legitimately claim it cannot enact these procedural
standards that conform to fundamental constitutional
requirements," Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Braswell told the court that the
settlement, which concerned the U.S. Park Police and incidents
involving other agencies -- D.C. police in the Pershing Park case
-- could help shape policies for other law enforcement agencies
called in to provide such inter-agency assistance.

The agreement settles complaints that federal and local
authorities violated the constitutional rights of 386 people
arrested without warning Sept. 27, 2002, in Pershing Park, leaving
some tied wrist to ankle and detained as long as 24 hours.


UNITED STATES: VA Police Officers Sue Over Recording Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Jordan, writing for Military.com, reports that twenty-four
current and former Veterans Affairs Department police officers
have filed a lawsuit against the VA alleging their boss spied on
them using hiding cameras and microphones, including in rooms used
by officers for changing clothes at the VA Medical Center in
Washington, DC.

But with the officers seeking class action status to cover
everyone who has had access to or used the rooms since the bugging
began about two years ago, the number of workers potentially
recorded could go well beyond the two dozen cops.

"In the two years prior to the filing of this action, literally
dozens of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs have
used the rooms where the undisclosed recording equipment was
maintained," the suit contends.  "These include police officers,
cleaning staff, doctors, nurses, and maintenance personnel.  The
class, therefore, could potentially involve more than 100
employees."

The police officers are demanding compensatory and punitive
damages and the expunging of all disciplinary actions taken
against them in connection with the recordings.

Named as defendants are hospital Chief of Police Jerry Brown, who
they claim ordered the surveillance devices installed without
legal authority, hospital Director Brian Hawkins, VA Secretary
Bob McDonald, and the Milwaukee-based company that installed the
equipment.

The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Brown "acted on the information he
recorded through the use of these recording devices to discipline
employees, including termination and to create an atmosphere of
utter distrust amongst all employees."

MICROPHONE FOUND

The lawsuit states that on Jan. 19, 2014, one of the officers told
colleagues that Mr. Brown might have secretly installed cameras to
monitor their activities.  Some five days later a number of
officers in the Police Control Room found a camera with a
microphone mounted to a support bracket for the closed-circuit TV
monitors.  Though the devices had indicator lights, these were
covered with black tape, the suit claims.

The officers in the room covered up the microphone while the group
discussed what they should do about it, according to the lawsuit.
As they were talking, Mr. Brown came into the room demanding to
know what they were doing there and ordered them all to draft
statements explaining what was happening, according to the
lawsuit.

About two months later, on March 14, another hidden camera and
microphone were discovered in a second room, this one used
primarily for writing reports and as a break room.

Just a week later, on March 22, video and audio captured by the
devices was used by Mr. Brown to discipline an officer by imposing
a two-week suspension without pay.

Yet another camera and microphone were found in a third room in
January 2015 -- this time in the office of the Watch Commander,
the suit claims.

This room is used, in part, as a changing room for both male and
female officers.  According to the officers' lawsuit, this camera
and microphone remain in place at the hospital, with "the video
and audio feeds . . . delivered on a real-time basis to Defendant
Brown's office where they are recorded."

The alleged illegal bugging of the rooms may go back as far as
May 29, 2013, according to the suit.  That's the start date given
the court for including employees who may have been recorded by
the equipment.

VA officials and the attorney representing the 24 current and
former officers, Ken Gauvey of Hyattsville, Maryland, said they
could not talk about the case, though Mr. Gauvey did provide
Military.com with a copy of the complaint and photos of the
devices.

In a brief statement the VA said it "remains vigilant in
maintaining a workplace environment that protects employees.
However, we cannot comment on this case due to pending
litigation."


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Mo. Over Defective HVAC Compressor
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Ryan Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United Technologies Corp. and Carrier Corp., Case No.
2:15-cv-04144-KNL (W.D. Mo., June 30, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all consumers who purchased the Defendants' heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, Bryant model
numbers 698B, 598B, 286A, and 187A and Carrier model numbers
38YDB, 38TDB, 25HNA6, and 24ANA7, with compressor failure defect.

The Defendants are manufacturers of heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning products, with their principal place of business in
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Edgar, Esq.
      Matthew J. Limoli, Esq.
      EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
      1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 531-0033
      Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
      E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
              mjl@edgarlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. H. Brill, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. BRILL
      8012 State Line Road, Suite 102
      Leawood, KS 66208
      Telephone: (913) 677-2004
      E-mail: brillkc@gmail.com

         - and -

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN,MILLER &SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


US BANK: Judge Gives Tentative Approval to Peregrine Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that
an Illinois federal judge on June 23 gave tentative approval to a
$44.5 million settlement to resolve a class action accusing U.S.
Bank NA of facilitating the $215 million theft of customer funds
at now-bankrupt futures merchant Peregrine Financial Group Inc.
U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis gave preliminary approval to the
settlement, filed on June 18, and also approved certification of
the class for purposes of the settlement, according to court
records.

The deal resolves claims brought by futures account holders and
customers of Peregrine accusing U.S. Bank of breach of fiduciary
duty and fraud by omission surrounding the activities of former
depositor Peregrine and its now-imprisoned CEO Russell Wasendorf.

Plaintiffs said they will ask the court to approve attorneys' fees
of no more than 31 percent of the settlement fund, or
approximately $13.8 million, and service awards for named
plaintiffs of $5,000 each, according to the motion for preliminary
approval.

A fairness hearing is set for Oct. 13.

Peregrine's public woes began in July 2012, when the National
Futures Association took action against the firm, and
Mr. Wasendorf was found unconscious in a car outside the firm's
offices in Cedar Falls, Iowa, in an apparent suicide attempt.

Mr. Wasendorf's statement said that he was the only person in the
company with access to Peregrine's U.S. Bank accounts and that he
consistently gave the accounting department counterfeit statements
he often made within hours of receiving the original versions.

Efforts by Mr. Wasendorf's son to confirm the accuracy of his
father's apparent admissions led him to a U.S. Bank statement for
Peregrine's segregated account showing a balance of a little more
than $6 million as of December 2011, compared with an apparently
falsified statement he found at Peregrine's accounting department,
reflecting a balance of more than $220 million.

Peregrine filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy the following day, just
hours after the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued it
for fraud.  Criminal charges against Mr. Wasendorf followed, and
in September 2013 he pled guilty to embezzling at least $100
million in investor funds and overstating the amount of customer
funds by at least $210 million.

In January 2013, an Iowa federal judge sentenced Mr. Wasendorf to
50 years in prison, the maximum term allowed.

The futures-account class action claimed that it was "commercially
unjustifiable" not to investigate Mr. Wasendorf's use of a
segregated account to determine whether Mr. Wasendorf was
improperly moving customer money around, citing numerous
suspicious circumstances surrounding the maintenance of the
account.

The suit had also targeted JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which reached a
$15 million settlement in March 2014 with Peregrine's bankruptcy
trustee.  U.S. Bank objected to the deal but said if the instant
settlement is approved it would drop its appeal, according to
court documents.

In April, U.S. Bank settled a similar class action brought by
Fintec Group Inc. on behalf of commodities brokers who did
business with Peregrine.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Daniel C. Girard --
eak@girardgibbs.com -- told Law360 on June 23 that they were
pleased with the resolution of the case but declined to comment
further.

A U.S. Bank spokeswoman said on June 23 they were also satisfied
with the deal and noted that the settlement will not have an
effect on the company's second-quarter results.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel C. Girard, Amanda
Steiner, David Stein -- dks@GirardGibbs.com -- and Elizabeth A.
Kramer of Girard Gibbs LLP, Michael Dell'Angelo and Jennifer
MacNaughton -- jmacnaughton@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC,
Jeffrey Michael Salas  -- jsalas@salaswang.com -- of Salas Wang
LLC, Norman E. Siegel -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP and Christopher Jon Gray.

U.S. Bank is represented by Peter W. Carter --
carter.peter@dorsey.com -- and Eric R. Sherman --
sherman.eric@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Steven Levy
-- steven.levy@goldbergkohn.com -- Kenneth S. Ulrich --
kenneth.ulrich@goldbergkohn.com -- and Kerry D. Nelson of Goldberg
Kohn Ltd.

The case is In re: Peregrine Financial Group Customer Litigation,
case number 1:12-cv-5546, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vipshop Holdings Limited, Eric Ya Shen and Donghao
Yang, Case No. 1:15-cv-05097-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Vipshop Holdings Limited is an online, discount retailer whose
business and operations are primarily based in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Robert D'Agnenica, Esq.
      STULL STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: jasondag@ssbny.com


VISONIC INC: Recalls PowerMax Express and Complete Control Panels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 24, 2015
Posting date: June 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue:  Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53882

This recall involves the Visonic PowerMax Express and PowerMax
Complete control panels with software version 15.  The control
panels are professionally installed, and have an LCD display and
icon-based keypad.

The following affected units can be identified by the abbreviated
product name and serial number which can be found on the back of
the control panel unit:

  Catalog   Product Name   Serial Number   Dates of      EAN Code
  No.       ------------   Range           Manufacture   --------
  -------                  -------------   -----------

  0-101312  PMAX EXPRESS   5109005125      March 2012 -  7290103-
            (315) 211      through         June 2013     301828
            PRE-ENR GSM    2312020274
            KIT
  0-101342  PMAX EXPRESS   14209044412     March 2012 -  7290103-
            (315) 211      through         August 2013   302313
            PRE-ENR KIT    2113A06254
  0-101473  PM EXRESS      4012016495      October 2012- 7290103-
            (315)          through         March 2013    303686
            SURVEILLANCE   4012016497
            PL QF KIT
  0-101692  PM COMPLETE    1411025864      July 2012     7290103-
            USA (315) GSM                                306472
            3-1-1 KIT
  0-101693  PM COMPLETE    1411025774      March 2012 -  7290103-
            USA (315)      through         January 2013  306465
            3-1-1 KIT      113016311

Visonic has become aware of an issue affecting PowerMax Express
PowerMax Complete panels with software version 15 used in these
devices.  The external memory in these devices, which contains
panel configuration, LCD texts and predefined SMS messages, can be
eventually overwritten by the device's event log file. This
condition takes approximately one to three years to occur
(depending on daily levels of system activity).  The resulting
impact on the panel's operation is that false events, such as
power failure and zone trouble, will be displayed on the panel and
will be reported to the central monitoring station; and panels
that are configured to send SMS messages, will send corrupted SMS
messages.  Eventually, real alarm events will not be sent to the
central monitoring station, and periodic tests done by the end
users will fail.  Safety detectors such as smoke, gas, etc. are
unaffected and will sound a local alarm if an event occurs.

Neither Health Canada nor Visonic has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 69 units were sold in Canada through professional
alarm installers.

The recalled panels were sold from February 2012 to February 2014.

Manufactured in Israel.

Manufacturer: Visonic Ltd.
              Kiryat Gat
              ISRAEL

Distributor: Visonic, Inc.
             Westford
             Massachusetts
             UNITED STATES

Consumers with affected units should contact their
dealer/installer/distributor or contact Visonic to receive
instructions for repair of their panel.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/T3viFN


WESTERN POWER: Slater & Gordon Examines Bushfire Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------
Communitynews.com.au reports that law firm Slater and Gordon has
examined evidence since the Parkerville, Stoneville and Mt Helena
bushfires on January 12 last year and is encouraging a class
action against Western Power.  It intends to seek compensation for
anyone affected by the bushfires, which destroyed 57 homes and
damaged 257 other properties.

Stoneville, Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg Jones
said it was a good opportunity for people to seek compensation for
their losses including any gaps between insurance payouts and
actual losses.  But it is having great difficulty in contacting
everyone who may be eligible to join such an action.

"We do not have access to any official contact address lists and
we need to ensure that everyone affected by the bushfire is
contacted and advised by Slater and Gordon so they may make an
informed decision regarding their legal rights and options about
joining a group legal action or not," Mr. Jones said.

"Many persons have either moved away from the area or; they have
sold their demolished property and moved on or; they may be
confused that the pending legal action is only for those who have
lost their homes or; they do not know about the pending legal
action and how they may benefit from this process."

Slater and Gordon lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith said due to the
sensitive nature of the discussions the meetings are only open to
those affected by the bushfires but he hoped people who may have
moved away from the area would be aware of the meetings.

A special sub-committee known as the Bushfire Claimants
Consultative Committee has been formed and a meeting was scheduled
June 30 at the Parkerville Pavilion.


WEXFORD HEALTH: "Panem" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Panem, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00397 -JES-CM
(M.D. Fla., June 30, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Wexford Health Sources, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
provides nursing services in correctional facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 967-5377
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


WHOLE FOODS: Sales Tax Class Action Partially Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam P. Beckerink, Esq., Jack Trachtenberg, Esq., Douglas A. Wick,
Esq., and James L. Rockney Esq. of Reed Smith report that on
June 15, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, partially granted Whole
Foods' motion to dismiss in the case of Wong v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc.  In that case, the plaintiff, Mr. Wong, sued Whole
Foods for allegedly over-collecting sales tax on a purchase for
which he used a coupon, leading to a purported over-collection of
$1.39.  Based on this one instance, Mr. Wong's class action
complaint accused Whole Foods of consumer fraud, common law fraud,
and unjust enrichment.  Mr. Wong requested compensatory damages,
punitive damages equal to 1% of Whole Foods' Illinois revenue for
each year the purported violations occurred, an injunction against
Whole Foods, and attorney's fees.  Recently, U.S. District Court
Judge Kennelly dismissed Mr. Wong's unjust enrichment charge for
failure to state a claim.

Motion to Dismiss Whole Foods moved to dismiss Mr. Wong's case,
arguing that (1) the Voluntary Payment Doctrine barred the suit,
(2) the claim failed to adequately allege a consumer fraud action
under Illinois law, (3) the claim failed to allege the elements of
common law fraud with the required particularity, (4) the unjust
enrichment claim failed as a matter of law, and (5) the claims for
punitive damages were unsupported by the complaint.

Court's Order Judge Kennelly dismissed the unjust enrichment claim
because Mr. Wong failed to allege that Whole Foods retained any
part of the overpaid sales tax.  Illinois law requires a plaintiff
to allege that the defendant retained the unjust benefit for a
valid unjust enrichment claim.  Mr. Wong's non-pleading of such a
fact meant that the unjust enrichment claim must fail.

Judge Kennelly ruled that Mr. Wong's consumer fraud and common law
fraud claims were adequately pleaded and thus not dismissed.
Furthermore, Judge Kennelly held that the Voluntary Payment
Doctrine did not bar Mr. Wong's claims against Whole Foods.  In
the sales tax context, the Voluntary Payment Doctrine generally
holds that a person who voluntarily pays a tax is on notice about
the amount of tax collected, and was not forced or otherwise
compelled to make the purchase creating the tax liability, and
thus, cannot recover the amounts paid.

Longstanding Illinois authority has held that when a retailer
collects sales tax that is later determined erroneous, the
customer may not bring a refund suit against the retailer as long
as the retailer remitted the sales tax to the state.  However, a
question still may be raised as to the Illinois vendor discount,
also known as the vendor collection allowance.  The vendor
collection allowance is the 1.75% portion of the sales tax
collected on each transaction that an Illinois retailer is allowed
to retain as reimbursement for the retailer's costs of serving as
the state's sales tax collector.  As an example, if a customer
purchases $200 of goods and the state tax of 6.25% is applied, the
retailer is allowed to keep $0.22 on this transaction (1.75% of
the $12.50 in tax collected on the $200).

The Coupon Case Chronicles The crux of the issue in the Whole
Foods case and similar cases around the country is whether, when a
customer uses a coupon to attain a discounted price, sales tax
should be collected on the full retail price or the discounted
price.  The 44 states (plus the District of Columbia) that levy
sales taxes deal with this issue differently.  Some states mandate
that sales tax always be collected on the discounted price. A more
common rule is to allow for collection of sales tax based on the
discounted price when the coupon originates from the retailer
itself.  In most cases, when the coupon is a manufacturer's
coupon, i.e., a coupon issued by a third-party for which the
retailer is reimbursed after it sells the product at the
discounted price, sales tax must be collected on the full retail
price.

Key terms such as "manufacturer's coupon" are rarely defined in
states' statutes or regulations. Some coupons for which the
retailers are reimbursed are distributed by wholesalers or other
third-parties, not manufacturers. And not all manufacturers
reimburse retailers for 100% of the discount allowed under their
coupons.  Furthermore, the reimbursement may not come in the form
of cash; for instance, the manufacturer might agree to stock its
product on the retailer's shelves, saving the retailer labor
costs.  Hence, it will not always be clear whether a given coupon
should be treated as a manufacturer's coupon for sales tax
purposes.

Even when the rules themselves are clear, it can be difficult in
the real world to differentiate between retailers' coupons and
manufacturers' coupons. Some states, like New York, require a
notation on the face of the coupon explaining whether it was
distributed by the manufacturer or the retailer.  Many others have
no such notice requirements. Moreover, it is impractical to expect
a sales clerk, upon being handed a pile of coupons, to quickly
differentiate between manufacturer and retailer coupons, and
charge sales tax accordingly.

It is often suggested that computer software can make compliance
easier, but the sales tax rules around coupons still cause thorny
compliance problems.  Software, in order to correctly apply sales
tax, needs the proper inputs.  Determining the proper inputs
requires, among other things, determining what a particular
jurisdiction's sales tax rules are, and differentiating between
manufacturers' coupons and retailers' coupons.  So there is no
getting around the fundamental factual and legal problems that
plague sales tax rules that differentiate between manufacturer and
retailer coupons.

With almost 10,000 state and local sales tax jurisdictions,
multistate businesses face a Herculean compliance task.  The
coupon cases allege fraudulent activity and unjust enrichment, but
since the retailers remit the collected sales tax to the state,
these assertions defy both logic and common sense.  The truth is
that a combination of vague sales tax laws and the growing
administrative burden of multistate taxation conspire to cause
well-meaning businesses to, in some cases, inadvertently collect
the wrong amount of tax on certain discounted sales.

Retailers Should Be Proactive In the Whole Foods case, Mr. Wong is
claiming he was overcharged $1.39.  But the law firm representing
him hopes to make millions from the suit.  Plaintiff's law firms
looking for a big payday are actively targeting large retailers.
Such businesses should consider being proactive in light of the
new tax risks posed by plaintiff's law firms.  Obtaining counsel
experienced in litigating State Tax matters is the first step.
Lawyers experienced in this area can examine your business
practices for vulnerabilities, and offer advice for mitigating any
risks before a lawsuit occurs.  If such a suit does occur, an
experienced State Tax lawyer or law firm can defend against the
suit with the greatest efficacy.


WYETH CANADA: Settles Class Action Over Cancer-Linked HRT Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Wood, writing for CoastReporter, reports that the class
action lawsuit launched by a Sechelt woman against Wyeth Canada
Inc. for selling hormone replacement therapy drugs linked to
breast cancer is now settled and a $13.65 million payment has been
awarded by the B.C. Supreme Court.

A large portion of that settlement, about 43 per cent, will go to
legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action suit.  The
approximately 1,100 plaintiffs themselves will split what's
remaining based on medical costs incurred to date and the ability
to prove they took the hormone replacement drug Premarin or
Premplus between 1977 and 2003.

Sechelt resident Dianna Stanway, who launched the class action
suit, said that while the payout may be minimal in the end for the
many women involved, she was "satisfied with whatever they can get
us."

"As long as everybody knows it can cause cancer. That was the main
object of the court case, because people didn't know it did at the
time but now they do," Ms. Stanway said.

"I'm quite pleased with the outcome of it all."

Ms. Stanway started the class action suit in 2004 after taking the
drug Premarin and subsequently being diagnosed with ductal and
lobular breast cancer.

Ms. Stanway became the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
because she had all the receipts and printouts from 2003 to prove
she took the drug before her cancer diagnosis.

"I'm one of these people that keep everything and I had every
receipt and every printout from the drugstore," Ms. Stanway said.

Plaintiffs in the case will now have to each prove they took the
drug between 1977 and 2003 and that they developed breast cancer
after taking the drug before they can receive any payout from
Pfizer, which now owns Wyeth Canada.

Ms. Stanway said the best way to prove eligibility is to "go back
to your doctor or go back to your drugstore to get proof.  That's
the only way I know to do it, unless you have your own receipts."

In addition to the approximately 1,100 women already involved in
the case, Ms. Stanway's lawyer Douglas Lennox said more women in
B.C. will have the chance to sign on within the coming year.

"The deadline for people outside of the province expired last year
but it still remains open for people within the province.  There
will be an ad in various B.C. newspapers beginning Monday, June 29
announcing the settlement and the final claims deadline for
people," Mr. Lennox said.

Residents of B.C. will have one year from the date of the
announcement to sign onto the class action suit.


ZORIA FARMS: Settles Sexual Harassment Case for $330,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Khokha, writing for KQED, reports that the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has announced a $330,000
settlement in a sexual harassment case involving 10 Latino
farmworkers at Zoria Farms, once one of the largest dried fruit
processors in the country.

The EEOC case alleged that since 2007, at least two supervisors
for the Madera-based company would make unwelcome sexual comments,
hug and kiss Latina farmworkers, and pressure them for dates or
sex.  Court filings say that both female and male farmworkers
reported the harassment, but the company failed to take immediate
action. After Zoria Farms sold the company to Z Foods in 2008,
many of the workers were denied jobs at the new operation, and the
EEOC charge says that was because of retaliation for complaints.

"The agricultural industry in particular needs to recognize the
susceptibility of its workforce to sexual harassment and make
protecting workers a priority," says Anna Park, regional attorney
for the EEOC in Los Angeles.  She's also featured in a series as
the lead prosecutor in a class-action lawsuit involving janitors
who were sexually harassed and raped in the Central Valley.

The five-year consent decree recently signed not only provides
monetary relief to the 10 farmworkers, but the company also agreed
to change its policies and practices should it decide to re-open
-- including a centralized tracking system for complaints of
discrimination and retaliation.  Similar agreements have been
reached in EEOC settlements involving the janitorial industry.

The $330,000 settlement is significant, but not as large as other
settlements that farmworkers have been paid for sexual harassment.
As we reported back in 2006, a farmworker who said she was raped
at Harris Farms was awarded $1 million in damages and lost wages.

The EEOC filed a case against both Zoria Farms and Z Foods in
federal court in Fresno in September 2013.  The case against Z
Foods is still pending.


* 349 Side-By-Side UTVs Recalled in Canada Over Parts Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 349
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015293TC
ID number: 2015293

On certain side-by-side UTV's, the fuel pump retaining ring could
crack due to a defect in the molding process. If the machine were
to tip on its side, fuel could leak through these cracks,
resulting in a fuel leak, which in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel pump retaining
ring.


* 950 Vehicles Recalled in Canada Due to Airbag Defect
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 950
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015294TC
ID number: 2015294
Manufacturer recall number: 57

On certain vehicles, the driver's side frontal airbag could deploy
in a rotated orientation due to an improperly assembled driver's
side airbag module. This could increase the risk of injury to the
driver in a crash where airbag deployment is warranted.
Correction: Dealers will replace the driver's side airbag module.


* CFPB Posts Grievances Against Financial Services Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Horwitz and Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released
thousands of complaints on June 25 from disgruntled customers of
banks, credit card companies and other providers of financial
services.

The bureau posted a database of the grievances on its website over
vehement protests from the financial industry.  The database
contains 7,700 complaints filed online by people who agreed to air
their complaints publicly.

The CFPB offers a disclaimer that it does not investigate the
substance of the complaints before posting them.  Some postings
come with spelling errors, some with gratuitous capitalization of
words.  The Bureau hopes the compilation of the grievances will
point both it and the general public to the personal financial
trouble spots of the day.

The targets of the complaints vary widely, and include small debt
collection companies as well as Wall Street giants.  Among the
complaints: U.S. Bank supposedly gave a Wisconsin parent's young
son a credit card with a $4,500 limit that he didn't request, and
a California couple reported finally catching up on mortgage
payments to M&T bank, only to be told they were still a month in
arrears.

The database represents a small fraction of the 627,000 total
complaints the bureau has received in the four years it's been
operating.  The CFPB began offering the option of allowing people
to publicly share their complaints in March.

"We believe the disclosure of this information is one of the best
tools government agencies can use to improve the operation of the
marketplace," said Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's director, calling the narratives "a valued
educational and shopping tool."

The public posting of the database is a sharp break from the
traditional practices of other financial regulators.  How and
whether the data gets used, whether by fellow regulators,
plaintiff's attorneys or people shopping looking for a new bank,
won't become apparent for a while.

For now, many people making complaints to the CFPB are choosing to
share them.  According to the Bureau, more than half of the people
who've filed complaints since March chose to make them public.

The individual grievances and the public database were created
despite repeated protests from the financial services industry.

The American Bankers Association, which has been against the
database since the bureau proposed it last year, said the database
would be "a purveyor of at best unsubstantiated, and potentially
false, information."

"The public disclosure of unverified consumer complaint narratives
doesn't advance that goal and may threaten consumer privacy," the
organization said.

Credit reporting giant Experian, which has just over 21,000
complaints in the Bureau's overall database, argued that the
complaints would likely contain "inaccurate, misleading, or even
derogatory or offensive statements."

Consumer advocates supported the Bureau's plan, praising the
potential to lead researchers and regulators to newly emerging
objectionable practices.

In previous retail banking controversies, such as the practice of
banks re-ordering daily debit card transactions to produce
additional overdraft penalties, people complained for years before
regulators took notice.  Meanwhile, banks such as JPMorgan Chase
were logging thousands of overdraft complaints each month,
according to documents later produced in a class action lawsuit.


* Marc Henzel Firm Announces Securities Litigation Class Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (www.henzellaw.com), a firm
focusing on shareholder litigation, gives notice to purchasers of
the following securities for the following class periods:


   COMPANY                                 CLASS PERIOD

3D Systems Corporation (NYSE: DDD)    10/29/13  thru  10/22/14

Dealertrack Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: TRAK)

Home Properties Inc. (NYSE: HME)

Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: KYTH)

Louisiana Bancorp, Inc.(Nasdaq: LABC)

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (NYSE: MSO)

If you purchased securities in any of the companies during the
class periods described above and/or own shares in any of the
companies and would like to learn more about any potential claims
or you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights, please contact Marc
S. Henzel (610) 660-8000, email at Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com or to
sign up online, visit the firm's website at www.henzellaw.com

The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel is a national shareholder
litigation firm representing shareholders & investors in various
areas of securities laws including but not limited to: class
actions, derivatives, transactional (buyouts/takeovers/mergers)
and FINRA & NYSE Arbitrations.


* Ted Frank Defends Acceptance of Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that even after all
the decision has cost him, Ted Frank of the non-profit Center for
Class Action Fairness believes he was justified in accepting
$250,000 in fees from a plaintiffs' lawyer who engages in tactics
Mr. Frank considers "repugnant" and "unethical."

"I felt I was doing it for the greater good," Mr. Frank told
Reuters' Frankel on June 25.  "I think good results are more
important than good intentions."

Mr. Frank was explaining and justifying his business relationship
with a Texas plaintiffs' lawyer named Christopher Bandas, who,
like Mr. Frank, frequently represents clients objecting to class
action settlements.  But Mr. Bandas, unlike Frank, is a for-profit
objector. Frank's retainer agreements contain a provision barring
clients from dropping their objections in exchange for payments
from class counsel.  Mr. Bandas, at least according to Mr. Frank,
makes such deals.

Mr. Frank's consulting agreement with Mr. Bandas fell apart
earlier this month, under circumstances Mr. Frank described in a
June 10 declaration at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as
"lurid, complex and Grishamesque."  Their dispute arose in
objectors' appeal of a $75.5 million settlement with Capital One
for debt collection robocalls.  Both Messrs. Frank and Bandas
represented class members protesting a $16 million fee award to
class counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  Mr. Bandas,
according to Mr. Frank, worked out a deal with Lieff Cabraser to
drop his client's appeal.  After he told Mr. Frank that Lieff
Cabraser would pay Frank's client $25,000 to abandon the appeal,
Mr. Frank ended his retainer agreement with Mr. Bandas.

And when Mr. Frank's client decided to take Lieff Cabraser's
offer, Frank withdrew as counsel and informed the 7th Circuit of
the whole affair.  Mr. Bandas promptly obtained a temporary
restraining order against Mr. Frank in Texas state court, claiming
that Mr. Frank improperly disclosed privileged and confidential
attorney client information.

Messrs. Frank and Bandas have now reached a settlement, Frank told
me.  On June 24, Mr. Frank withdrew a motion at the 7th Circuit to
be appointed a guardian of the Capital One class.  Mr. Bandas
dropped his Texas state court suit.  Absent a court order
(presumably from the 7th Circuit in the Capital One appeal),
Mr. Frank is not permitted to disclose the details of the
settlement.

But he agreed to talk on June 25 about why, in his view, he didn't
do anything wrong -- not in entering the agreement with Mr. Bandas
and not in disclosing some of its details to the 7th Circuit.
Mr. Frank seemed to be remarkably unbowed by all the fallout from
the Capital One appeal, confident it won't hurt the mission of the
Center for Class Action Fairness, and eager for the 7th Circuit to
start an investigation of Lieff Cabraser's payments to Mr. Bandas'
client and other objectors to the Capital One settlement.  Lieff
Cabraser asked Frank to withdraw his assertions of unethical
behavior by the firm but Mr. Frank refused.

"They've said they will seek an ethics ruling against me,"
Mr. Frank said.  "I'm confident I haven't disclosed client
confidences and wasn't acting against my former client's
interests.  The more the 7th Circuit investigates, the better I
come out." (Jonathan Selbin of Lieff Cabraser declined to
comment.)

Mr. Frank conceded that, in some ways, he has lost the right to
claim moral authority by accepting payments derived, as least in
part, from a business model he has loudly deplored.  But he was
willing to make that compromise, he said.

"What's the greater evil?" he said.  "Saying, 'I refuse to be
involved in a situation where Chris Bandas can make money' or
standing by and doing nothing when class counsel rips off the
class?"

Because of his consulting fees from Mr. Bandas, Mr. Frank said, he
was able to take less money from the Center for Class Action
Fairness, which, in turn, permitted the nonprofit to bring on more
lawyers, take up more cases and hire expert witnesses.  Through
Mr. Bandas, Mr. Frank won one of his most notable victories, a
June 2014 decision from the 7th Circuit that struck down a
"scandalous" class settlement with the Pella Corporation.  "It
seemed to me the greater good was being able to stop occurrences
like the Pella settlement instead of being able to say I'm the
holiest man in the world," Mr. Frank said.

Mr. Frank acknowledged there will be more consequences to come
from the Capital One fracas.  He said the center may have to
tighten up its client screening to prevent future class members
from accepting payments in exchange for dropping appeals.  He also
said he may have to explain to the Internal Revenue Service how it
worked out that Mr. Bandas, a for-profit objector, obtained a
settlement for his client in the Capital One case on the basis of
a brief written by the Center for Class Action Fairness, a
nonprofit.

But in the end, Frank said, his falling out with Mr. Bandas shows
exactly the structural problem with class actions he's been
complaining about for years: Once a settlement has been reached,
the class's interests aren't safeguarded.  Class counsel want to
get settlements approved, and, according to Mr. Frank, for-profit
objectors can make big money just by agreeing to go away.
Objectors like him and his clients, meanwhile, are rarely rewarded
for seeing appeals through, even if they deliver value to class
members.

"The judicial system says it values for-profit objectors more than
nonprofit objectors," Mr. Frank said.  "That's a problem."


* Transfat Ruling to Spark PHO Regulation-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that to no one's
surprise, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed its
November 8, 2013 initial determination that the agency no longer
considers the main source of trans fat in Americans' diet,
partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), "generally recognized as safe"
(GRAS).  In its announcement, FDA emphasizes how the three-year
window it has granted food companies to comply with the order
would "allow for an orderly [transition] process."  Before anyone
applauds FDA for being reasonable or magnanimous, however,
consider what else the agency says, and doesn't say, in its
Declaratory Order ("Order").  FDA's statements and omissions
essentially set the table for an explosion of private lawsuits
that could require PHO-containing products to be reformulated, or
removed from the market, far earlier than June 2018.

What the Order Says. Under federal law, an FDA determination that
a substance is no longer GRAS is not the equivalent of it being
"unsafe."  It means that because some level of uncertainty has
arisen from studies of the substance, food producers must seek
approval for its use in specific products through a food additive
petition.  The Order, however, glosses over this inconvenient
nuance, and instead consistently and repeatedly states that FDA
has concluded PHOs are unsafe.  The media has slavishly echoed
FDA's distorted conclusion to an American public that includes
prospective judges and jurors for the lawsuits to come.

FDA's Order also concludes that no measurable level exists at
which PHOs won't increase disease risk.  The agency does not,
therefore, back off the rather alarming statement it made in its
initial PHOs determination that "any incremental increase in trans
fat consumption increases the risk of CHD [coronary heart
disease]."  Such Naderite "unsafe at any speed" assertions are
manna from heaven for plaintiffs' lawyers.  They not only
exponentially expand the number of plaintiffs that lawyers can
claim to represent in class actions, but they also further magnify
public fear and may encourage precautionary judicial decision-
making.

The agency further encourages litigation with its curious
assessment of the Order's impact on state or local laws regarding
PHOs.  After noting that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act contains no
express provision that limits state or local laws or common law
duties (i.e. court-made law), FDA then "decline[s] to take a
position regarding the potential for implied preemptive effect."
But in the very next sentence, the agency turns on a dime and
makes the bold, unsupported declaration, "FDA believes, however,
that state or local laws that prohibit use of PHOs in food are not
likely to be in conflict with federal law, or frustrate federal
objectives."  If the Order's objective was in part "an orderly
[transition] process" away from PHOs over three years, the
agency's unsolicited opinion on federal preemption begs the
question: how do successful state-law consumer protection suits,
requiring immediate product withdrawal, not frustrate that
objective?


What the Order Fails to Say. Two key omissions from the Order also
support regulation by litigation of PHOs.  First, despite being
urged to do so by numerous stakeholders, FDA refuses to include an
explicit statement that PHO-containing products currently on the
shelves or introduced into commerce up to June 2018 are marketed
lawfully.  Products containing unapproved additives are considered
adulterated and subject to seizure. Plaintiffs' lawyers suing food
companies will argue that the presence of PHOs renders the
targeted product illegal under federal law, and thus in violation
of identical state laws.  Companies will argue that in setting a
two-year compliance period, FDA implicitly concluded that PHO-
containing foods would be compliant until June 2018.  Why would
FDA leave it for the courts to divine whether this was the Order's
intention? The agency also could have stated it would exercise its
enforcement discretion and refrain from seizing PHO-containing
food during the compliance period. But it includes no such
statement.

Second, FDA says nothing about its GRAS-status decision having
only prospective effect.  Food industry stakeholders had sought an
assurance that PHO-containing products on the market since the
1950s had been marketed lawfully.  Companies are probably not
concerned that FDA is going to punish them for past marketing.
Rather, apprehension over ruinous retroactive private or even
government-led lawsuits likely motivated companies' request for
this clarification.  Private class actions could assert product
liability claims, public nuisance claims, and claims for medical
monitoring.  City attorneys and state attorneys general may sue
for reimbursement of public health care expenditures for the costs
of treating cardiovascular disease, Type-II diabetes, and other
conditions.

A Silent Delegation? At best, the Order's statements and omissions
reflect an FDA that is woefully naive about the larger public
health crusade against "Big Food."  At worst, FDA is silently (and
improperly) delegating the job of forcing rapid removal of PHOs to
private lawyers and politically-ambitious state officials. For the
past five years, FDA has sat on its hands as hundreds of class
action lawsuits have sought to enforce federal food labeling rules
on nationally-marketed products.  Even if FDA is not consciously
setting the table for PHO-oriented lawsuits, targeted companies
should not expect the agency to step in and defend its regulatory
turf.

The suits have already begun. Just two days after the Order's
release, plaintiffs' lawyers at the Weston Firm filed their latest
lawsuit, Backus v. Heinz (the firm's 19th PHO-oriented suit by our
count).  The complaint cites the agency's GRAS decision and claims
that the company's frozen potato products are now unlawfully
adulterated.  Commenting on FDA's Order, name partner Gregory
Weston told Politico, the action "should have taken place at least
20 years ago, and there is no justification for any sort of
further delay or phasing."

Regardless of whether FDA meant to aid attorneys like Mr. Weston
or blundered into doing so, the fear, uncertainty, and needless
expenditure of resources that a wave of PHO-related litigation
will provoke are decidedly contrary to public health and the
public interest. If FDA is unwilling to provide additional
guidance and undertake other measures that can ensure orderly
compliance with its Order, it may be necessary for other branches
of government to step in and remind the agency of its duties under
federal law.


                            *********

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  * * *