CAR_Public/150713.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 138


                            Headlines


AMER SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Speedcross 3 CS Shoes, Suit Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bidgoli" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Lavin" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Hersh" Suit Over Airfare-Price Fixing
APPLE INC: Faces "Jacobson" Suit Over Devices Storage Capacity

APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Sarasota Firefighters' Suit Over OM Merger
AVALON RAY: Sued Over Alleged Bogus Legal Fees and Charges
BALTIMORE OPTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Initial Appellate Brief in Walker Case Filed
BIOSCRIP INC: Entered into MOU in Shareholder Class Action

BRASKEM SA: Faces "Vitolo" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Removed "Quijada" Suit to C.D. California
BROWNS HILL: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices
C SCAPES: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CCB CREDIT: Faces "Chung" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

CELLADON CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CLARENCE DAVIDS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CLEAN HARBORS: 11 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed
CLEAN HARBORS: Expects Approval of Fee Class Action Settlement
CONTRACT SECURITY: Faces "Spinner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CUSTOM CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Orta" Suit Says
CUYAHOGA, OH: Illegally Collects Convenience Fee, Suit Claims
CYNOSURE INC: TCPA Case Appeal Remains Pending in 2nd Cir.
DELTA AIR: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Illegal Payroll Policies
DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DIANA ORIENTAL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Stockholder Case Accord Held
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Against Remaining FLSA Lawsuits
ESPAR INC: Faces Myers Suit Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing
FIBERGLASS SHOP: Faces "Estopinan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Gancfreid" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
FLOWERS FOODS: Sued in Tenn. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Rufo" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
GALT SERVICES: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GEORGIA: Public Safety Dept. Faces "Abramyan" Class Suit
GERON CORP: N.D. Cal. Court Dismissed Securities Case
GESSHIN LA: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu
HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Charvat" Suit Says
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Amended Class Action in Early Stage

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate
INTL FCSTONE: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed
JB HUNT: Does Not Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Silfani" Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Bedtime Products, Suit Claims
KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, Action Claims

KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger
LKH LLC: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu
LUCKY PEARL: "Galvez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Sequential Merger
MD PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Cases Dismissed in Q1 2015
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Nhan T. Vo" Case in Discovery Phase
NAPA CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Yossef" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
NATIONAL RETAIL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Limon" Suit Says
NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

NCJ SERVICE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Card Purchase
NISKA GAS: Faces "Pappey" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger
NISKA GAS: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Proposed Swan Merger
NRG ENERGY: Supreme Court Affirmed Ninth Circuit's Holding
NRG ENERGY: Contests Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Complaint

ONSTAR LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Funds Transfers
OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims v. Redbox
PACIFIC PREMIER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held
PALMETTO PRINTING: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PDC ENERGY: Class Action Regarding Partnership Purchases Tossed

PFIZER INC: $400MM Accord in Off-Label Promotion Suit Approved
PFIZER INC: Motions to Dismiss End-Payer Claims Remain Pending
PFIZER INC: Expects Neurontin Marketing Lawsuits to Be Resolved
PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases in Quebec Remain Stayed
PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Celebrex-Related Complaints Sought

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Respond to Amended Class Action
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Kader" Action
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Early Stages
SHALEV SENIOR: Faces "Carani" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery

STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit
STEINER LEISURE: Facing "Nesbitt" Class Action
STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Join "Marlow" Class Action
SUNEDISON INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss "Jerry Jones" Case
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Preliminarily Approved Colonial Settlement

SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiff in "Bickerstaff" Case Loses Appeal
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Class Actions Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Appeal in ERISA Cases Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Case Stayed Pending "Tibble" Decision
SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of "Morales" Class Action Sought

SUNTRUST BANKS: Thurmond Reinsurance Class Action Remains Stayed
TAQUERIA LOS: Faces "Garces" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Elpidio" Trespassing Suit in N.D. Cal.
UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues Pending in Panola ISD Case
UTMOST BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Soda Products, Action Claims

VAGOS SERVICES: Faces "Asbun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEST LOOP: Faces "Laguna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Merger With Energy Transfer
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Denial of Tolling Motion to Reduce Class Size
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Expects Stipulation in Case Over Integrys Deal


                            *********


AMER SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Speedcross 3 CS Shoes, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendon Martin, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company and
Amer Sports Company, jointly d/b/a Salomon North America, Case No.
2015-CH-10239 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the consumers who purchased Salomon Speedcross 3 CS shoes,
that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as having a
Climashield membrane that provides the shoe's waterproof
protection.

The products at issue are not waterproof because only a portion of
the front of the shoe is covered with Climashield membrane. The
remainder of the shoe is merely treated with a chemical barrier
that repels rather than blocks water.

The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, and marketers of
technically advanced sports equipment, footwear, apparel and
accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian
      Benjamin H. Richman
      Christopher L. Dore
      Amir C. Missaghi
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cdore@edelson.com
              amissaghi@edelson.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bidgoli" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anooshirvan Bidgoli, Barbara Hunter, and Annie Migdal v. American
Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc.,
and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05903 (N.D. Ill., July
2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to
unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
domestic airfare in the United States.

The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Hart, Esq.
      Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
      Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
      SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
      233 South Wacker Drive
      Sears Tower-Suite 5500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 645-7800
      Facsimile: (312) 645-7711
      E-mail: shart@smsm.com
              rmclaughlin@smsm.com
              beldridge@smsm.com

         - and -

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433 9000
      Facsimile: (415) 433 9008
      E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
              asheanin@pswlaw.com
              bshiftan@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Bobby Pouya, Esq.
      Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
              dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
              bpouya@pswlaw.com
              asafyan@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9010
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Lavin" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Lavin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.  3:15-
cv-03090-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
              bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              hscherrer@hausfeld.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Hersh" Suit Over Airfare-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Hersh, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03908-KAM-MDG (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57TH Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Jacobson" Suit Over Devices Storage Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Jacobson, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. BC586787 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to
disclose to consumers that a significant percentage of the
advertised capacity of the 8GB and 16GB iPhones, iPads, and iPods
will be used by the iOS8 and therefore be inaccessible for
consumers who purchased devices with iOS8 installed.

Based in Cupertino, California, Apple, Inc. is in the business of
manufacturing and marketing its line of iPhone cellular
telephones, iPad, and iPod.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Jennifer Duffy, Esq.
      Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 217-5000
      Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
      E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
              jhh@kbklawyers.com
              jld@kbklawyers.com
              lp@kbklawyers.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Sarasota Firefighters' Suit Over OM Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apollo Global
Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 11249-VCN (Del. Ch., July 3,
2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of OM Group, Inc. to enjoin the agreement and plan of
merger with Apollo Global Management, LLC by means of a flawed
process and for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Friedlander, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
      Benjamin P. Chapple, Esq.
      FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
      222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 573-3500
      E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
              jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
              bchapple@friedlandergorris.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
              DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert A. Sugarman, Esq.
      SUGARMAN & SUSKIND, P.A.
      100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 529-2801


AVALON RAY: Sued Over Alleged Bogus Legal Fees and Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Lessoff, Howard Chung, all other plaintiffs similarly
situated v. Avalon Ray Communities, Inc. and Avalon Bay Glen Cove,
Case No. 6119/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 3, 2015), arises from the
Defendants alleged scam of not notifying tenants of legal fees,
making up bogus legal fees and charges, sending out bogus 30 day
Notices to quit the premises, keeping all security fees and did
not return them at the end of the tenancy.

The Defendants own and operate apartment buildings in the State of
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lessoff, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF JEFFREY LESSOFF
      125 Maiden Lane, Suite 3E
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 219-9257


BALTIMORE OPTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Veltman v. Baltimore Optical, Inc., trading as Charm City
Optical and Alla Deller, Case No. 1:15-cv-01961-ELH (D. Md., July
2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' willful and unlawful
conduct in failing to properly compensate the Plaintiff for all
earned wages.

The Defendants own and operate eye care center located at 6412
Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Judd Garrett Millman, Esq.
      LUCHANSKY LAW
      606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 522-1020
      Facsimile: (410) 521-1021
      E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Initial Appellate Brief in Walker Case Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and its
banking affiliate have filed their initial appellate brief in the
appeal related to the Walker class action lawsuit.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV-12-6043. The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair, and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that
the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately
disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are
ambiguous, deceptive, unfair, and misleading. The complaint in
each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a
count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the
cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank
account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory
judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee
policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and
the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in
Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis. On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of
the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling
and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of
entering an order compelling arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed petitions for reconsideration and review before
the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court,
respectively. On October 30, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration. In January
2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition
for review. Oral arguments were presented to the Arkansas Supreme
Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court
vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision, reversing and
remanding the case to the trial court to determine, in the first
instance, whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes
between the named plaintiffs and the Bank.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the
arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court took the
matter under advisement. On October 30, 2014, the trial court
issued an order once again denying the Company and Bank's motion
to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that
the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement containing the arbitration
provision was not enforceable because of a lack of mutual
agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The Company and Bank have
appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court on
an interlocutory basis. The Company and Bank filed their initial
appellate brief on April 14, 2015.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BIOSCRIP INC: Entered into MOU in Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
entered into the Memorandum of Understanding in the Shareholder
Class Action Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Subsequent to March 31, 2015, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") on
April 30, 2015 to settle two separate putative class action
lawsuits filed in connection with the so-called PIPE Transaction.

As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on
April 8, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement"), the Company is seeking
Stockholder Approval. Until Stockholder Approval is obtained, the
terms of the Series A Preferred Stock and the 2015 Warrants
contain caps on the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock
into Common Stock and on the exercise of the 2015 Warrants to
purchase Common Stock (the "Conversion Caps") and a cap on voting
power (the "Voting Cap" and, together with the Conversion Caps,
the "Caps") that prevent the issuance of Common Stock if a single
holder would own or vote more than 19.99% of the Common Stock or
have more than 19.99% of the voting power. If the Company does not
receive Stockholder Approval by September 30, 2015, then the Caps
will remain in effect and the dividend rates on the Series A
Preferred Stock will increase (the "Dividend Rate Adjustment")
from 8.5% to 13.5% for cash dividends and from 11.5% to 16.5% if
the dividend is accrued and added to the liquidation preference of
the Series A Preferred Stock.

Subsequent to March 31, 2015, two separate putative class action
lawsuits were filed on April 9, 2015 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "Delaware Court") by purported stockholders Lawrence
Cline and Roger Rubin ("Plaintiffs"), respectively, against the
Company, the individual directors of the Company and the PIPE
Investors. The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the
Dividend Rate Adjustment if the Company did not obtain Stockholder
Approval by September 30, 2015 was invalid, that the Board had
breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote on
the Stockholder Approval scheduled for the 2015 Annual Meeting was
coercive and based on inadequate disclosure. The Plaintiffs'
complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining
the vote on Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting,
additional disclosures, certain declaratory relief, and costs and
disbursements, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On
April 17, 2015, the Delaware Court ordered expedited proceedings
and set a preliminary injunction hearing for May 8, 2015, where
the Delaware Court would have decided whether to enjoin the vote
on the Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting.

On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were
consolidated by order of the Delaware Court as In re BioScrip,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the "Delaware
Action").

In consideration for the full settlement and release of the
Delaware Action (the "Settlement"), the Memorandum of
Understanding provides for, among other things, agreement that:
(1) additional disclosures will be made by the Company to
stockholders regarding the PIPE Transaction and Stockholder
Approval, as set forth in the supplement to the Proxy Statement
filed on May 1, 2015 (the "Supplemental Disclosures"); (2) if
Stockholder Approval is obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting,
causing the Caps to be removed and the Dividend Rate Adjustment to
never go into effect, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with
prejudice; (3) if Stockholder Approval is not obtained at the 2015
Annual Meeting, the Caps will remain in place and the Dividend
Rate Adjustment will not go into effect unless the Delaware Court
determines that the Dividend Rate Adjustment and the Caps are
valid after a trial on the merits with a final judgment to be
entered into no later than August 31, 2015, and (4) the Company
will commence a previously announced rights offering (the "Rights
Offering") on or before June 30, 2015, subject to confirmation
regarding any required regulatory or other approvals. In addition,
the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the withdrawal of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in respect of the
2015 Annual Meeting.

While the Company has entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Settlement will be subject to the parties
entering into a formal stipulation of settlement and approval of
the Delaware Court, which the parties to the Delaware Action will
use their best efforts to agree upon, and execute prior to May 11,
2015. There can be no guarantee that the parties will be able to
agree upon and execute a formal stipulation of settlement or, in
the event that they do, that the settlement will receive the
requisite court approval. In the event the Settlement is not
effectuated for any reason, the Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims, although there is no assurance that
the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance
will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment
or the litigation costs of these actions.


BRASKEM SA: Faces "Vitolo" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmine Vitolo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Braskem S.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05183
(S.D.N.Y., July 2, 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.

Braskem S.A. is the largest petrochemicals producer in Latin
America by sales. Braskem is also the largest producer of
thermoplastic resins in the Americas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              csadler@glancylaw.com


BRINKER RESTAURANT: Removed "Quijada" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Belinda Quijada, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brinker Restaurant
Corporation, Ziosk, LLC, Tabletop Media, LLC, and Robert M Dawson,
Case No. BC581254, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-05016 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action from the Defendants'
alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Belinda Quijada
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert M. Dawson, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      555 South Flower Street 41st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 892-9200
      Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
      E-mail: robert.dawson@nortonrosefulbright.com


BROWNS HILL: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Hite v. Browns Hill Engineering & Controls, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01417-MJW (D. Colo., July 3, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged employment discrimination based on religion.

Browns Hill Engineering & Controls, LLC is a Colorado Limited
Liability Company and operates an electrical engineering
consulting firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claire E. Munger, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY AMATUZIO DUSBABEK CHASE, LLP-DENVER
      4100 East Mississippi Avenue, 16th Floor
      Denver, CO 80246-3048
      Telephone: (303) 592-6683
      Facsimile: (303) 592-6666
      E-mail: cmunger@hkm.com


C SCAPES: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Juarez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. C Scapes Artistic Landscaping, Inc., and
Christopher Holmstrom, Case No. 1:15-cv-05904 (N.D. Ill., July 3,
2015), overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business in Will County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 219-6838
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


CCB CREDIT: Faces "Chung" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Soon Chung, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. CCB Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-05198-KM-MAH (D.N.J., July 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CELLADON CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Fialkov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Celladon Corporation, Krisztina M. Zsebo and Rebecque
J. Laba, Case No. 3:15-cv-01458-AJB-DHB (S.D. Cal., July 2, 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.

Celladon Corporation is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
which is focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy
and calcium dysregulation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: dwalton@rgrdlaw.com


CLARENCE DAVIDS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Balderrama-Baca, a/k/a Balderrama-Baca and Salvador Mateos
Sr., on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated
plaintiffs known and unknown v. Clarence Davids and Company, Case
No. 1:15-cv-05873 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Clarence Davids and Company provides landscaping and maintenance
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


CLEAN HARBORS: 11 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that from January 1, 2015
to March 31, 2015, 11 product liability claims against Safety-
Kleen were settled or dismissed.

Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are
currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout
the United States, including approximately 54 proceedings
(excluding cases which have been settled but not formally
dismissed) as of March 31, 2015, wherein persons claim personal
injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning
equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically
involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts
cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-
Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the
contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their
use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen
failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,
including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace
amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide
coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured
retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for
punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or
excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these
claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of
its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject
to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of March 31, 2015. From
January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, 11 product liability claims
were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and
the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as
Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such
claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits
in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may
not be available.


CLEAN HARBORS: Expects Approval of Fee Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that court approval of the
settlement of fee class action claims against Safety-Kleen was
anticipated to occur in June 2015.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar
lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and
Missouri.

On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement of
the pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to include
similar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginia
and Arkansas. The settlement must be approved by the court in a
fairness hearing, which was anticipated to occur in June 2015. The
exact settlement cost is not yet determinable, but it is not
expected to be material.


CONTRACT SECURITY: Faces "Spinner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shauntay A. Spinner, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Contract Security Forces, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-00849-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., July 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Contract Security Forces, LLC operates a security services company
located at 15338 Colonel Tansill Ct., Woodbridge, VA 22193.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara Allyn Queen, Esq.
      LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES
      701 E Franklin St, PO Box 495
      Richmond, VA 23218-0495
      Telephone: (804) 643-9343
      E-mail: bqueen@lawrencelawyers.com


CUSTOM CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Orta" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Orta and all others similarly situated v. Custom Controls
Technology, Inc. and Gerardo Gallo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22520-JAL
(S.D. Fla., July 3, 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 manufacturer of custom control panel systems.

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


CUYAHOGA, OH: Illegally Collects Convenience Fee, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Haire, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated v. Cuyahoga County, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01308 (N.D.
Ohio, July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the customers and
users of Cuyahoga County services who have been charged an
unauthorized, illegal convenience fee for payment via a financial
transaction device, while paying for county services.

Cuyahoga County is a charter-form of government operating under
its own county charter and subject to Title 3 of the Ohio Revised
Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Harvey III, Esq.
      Matthew B. Abens, Esq.
      Jason T. Hartzell, Esq.
      HARVEY ABENS IOSUE CO. LPA
      3404 Lorain Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 651-0256
      Facsimile: (216) 651-0233
      E-mail: Dvdharv@harvlaw.com
              Mbabens@harvlaw.com
              Jhartzell@harvlaw.com


CYNOSURE INC: TCPA Case Appeal Remains Pending in 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has notified the parties in a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation that it will not hear
oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs.

The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as
putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint
against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
TCPA, in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County,
captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior
Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the
TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are
entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent
violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful
violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff
alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on
our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.

"In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion.
In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded
the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff
filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme
Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued
a Notice of Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No
further appeals are possible in Massachusetts. In addition, in
July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported class action, based
on the same operative facts and asserting the same claims as in
the Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District
of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No.
1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court, Eastern District of New
York).

"In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion
seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of
the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a
response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August 2013,
plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the deadline
had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court objecting to
this untimely motion and requesting sanctions. In February 2014,
the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied our request for
sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal of the
court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the
Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not hear oral
arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs."

No further updates were provided in the Company's quarterly
report.


DELTA AIR: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Illegal Payroll Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Lopez, Eunice Delgadillo, Umberto Mendoza, and Aveia
Tautolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. BC586813 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1,
2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal payroll
policies and practices to deprive their non-exempt employees all
wages earned and due.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that operates an
airline company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia R. Khalil, Esq.
      Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
      Serena M. Patel, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
              dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
              mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
              spatel@maternlawgroup.com


DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DHL Express (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22505-CMA
(S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

DHL Express (USA) Inc. operates global logistics company providing
international express mail services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Barry Solomon, Esq.
      MCLAUGLIN & STERN, LLP
      525 Okeechobee Blvd, Suite 1530
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 659-4020
      Facsimile: (561) 659-4438
      E-mail: nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com


DIANA ORIENTAL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Hua Zhu Chen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Diana Oriental Nails LLC, Diana Trim, and John Does and Jane
Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05037-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., July 1, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a nail spa located at 266 White
Horse Pike, Pomona, NJ 08240.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Michael Graziadei, Esq.
      FRANK M. GRAZIADEI, PC
      130 Water Street, Suite 10-B
      NEW YORK, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 785-0885
      E-mail: Grazlaw78@gmail.com

         - and -

      William Brown, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Stockholder Case Accord Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a settlement
hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2015 in a purported stockholder
class action complaint.

In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee
(21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors.
This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to
certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic
transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The
complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise
appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed
a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is
not currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining
the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the
Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance
procedures for a period of at least three years. This settlement
has not yet been approved by the court. The settlement hearing was
scheduled for May 22, 2015.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Against Remaining FLSA Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in June 2012,
a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
against us and certain of our subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well as liquidated damages.
The Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the
Company's hourly employees, but recently decertified the class.
After the class was decertified, the law firm initiating the
action filed three new separate actions in federal courts in
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas, naming as plaintiffs many of the
individuals who had filed claims in the first Arkansas action. The
new actions assert the same claim as was asserted in the original
Arkansas action. The original action has been settled and
dismissed. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits
vigorously.


ESPAR INC: Faces Myers Suit Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Myers Equipment Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Espar Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03872-
JG-JO (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
fix prices for parking heaters sold in the aftermarket for use in
commercial vehicles.

Espar Inc. is a Canadian company that manufactures and supplies
fuel operated air and coolant heater products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Third Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415)421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@steyerlaw.com


FIBERGLASS SHOP: Faces "Estopinan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Fernandez Estopinan v. The Fiberglass Shop of Ft.
Lauderdale, Corp., Loman & Company, Inc., and Richard Loman, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61384-WJZ (S.D. Fla., July 2, 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 conducting fiberglass repair
and fabrication, painting, rigging, and modification of vessels in
South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Howard Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 230-4884
      Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
      E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Gancfreid" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gancfreid, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. First Financial Asset Management, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03883-RJD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on
September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class action
against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas
alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code in
connection with the repossession and resale of financed vehicles.
This matter is in the discovery stage.  At this time the Company
cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential range of
loss.


FLOWERS FOODS: Sued in Tenn. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacky Stewart and Brandy Anderson, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers
Baking Co. of Batesville, LLC, and Ambassador Personnel, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01162 (W.D. Tenn., July 2, 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 bakery with its principal place
of business located at 1919 Flowers Circle, Thomasville, Georgia
31757.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
      WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
      P.O. Box 266
      112 S. Liberty St., Ste. 321
      Jackson, TN 38302
      Telephone: (731) 423-5565
      Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
      E-mail: Mike@weinmanandassoc.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Rufo" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Rufo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-05197-ES-JAD (D.N.J., July 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


GALT SERVICES: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anibal Oscar Gaythan Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Galt Services, LLC and Oil Mop, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02456 (E.D. La., July 4, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing cleaning and
remediation services to vessels and watercraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, LLC
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1430
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


GEORGIA: Public Safety Dept. Faces "Abramyan" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dmitriy Abramyan, Abdilahi Awale, Lennybenuihis, Mohamed A.
Hussein, Dmitry Mogilevich, and all persons similarly situated v.
State of Georgia and Georgia Department of Public Safety, Case No.
2015CV262742 (Ga. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the owners of at least one CPNC (Certificate(s) of Public
Necessity and Convenience) issued by the City of Atlanta, who
suffered diminution in the value of their CPNCs as the result of
the Defendants' conduct and enactment of new state laws affecting
their constitutional rights.

State of Georgia served upon it by serving Governor Nathan Deal at
his offices located at 203 State Capitol Building, Atlanta,
Georgia 30334.

Georgia Department of Public Safety may be served upon it by
serving its Commissioner, Colonel Mark W. McDonough at 959
Confederate Avenue, SW, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William A. Pannell, Esq.
      WILLIAM A. PANNELL, PC
      433 Chateau Drive, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 353-2283
      Facsimile: (404) 237-2384

         - and -

      Keith E. Fryer, Esq.
      FRYER, SHUSTER & LESTER, PC.
      1050 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338-7701
      Telephone: (770) 668-9300
      Facsimile: (770) 668-9465
      E-mail: kfryer@galegal.com


GERON CORP: N.D. Cal. Court Dismissed Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a California district
court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to
some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
Company and denied the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to
other allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
Company.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as
a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual
background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that
commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June
30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the
purported class actions filed in the California District Court and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the purported
securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the
California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi
District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the
California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with
the class actions. On November 18, 2014, we filed a motion with
the California District Court to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

"The plaintiff's opposition to our motion to dismiss was filed on
January 20, 2015, and we filed our reply in support of our motion
to dismiss on February 25, 2015. A hearing on the motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint occurred on April 10,
2015. At the hearing, the California District Court granted our
motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss
with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements
made by us."


GESSHIN LA: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyntia Erickson, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Gesshin L.A., Inc., d/b/a
En Sushi, Chang Won Lee, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC586833 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendants' misleading
practice of selling cheaper mislabeled seafood to consumers
instead of what they actually ordered from the menu.

The Defendants own and operate En Sushi restaurant in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wade A. Miller, Esq.
      WADE MILLER LAW
      235 East Broadway, Suite 424
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 437-6300
      E-mail: wmiller@wademillerlaw.com


HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Charvat" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip J. Charvat and Eric Olson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Health Benefits One, LLC, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61388-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2015), arises from the
unsolicited calls made by the Defendants to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiffs and others using an automatic
telephone dialing system and to residential telephones of the
Plaintiffs and others by using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Health Benefits One, LLC operates a call-center based insurance
enrollment center engaged in the business of selling insurance
products to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bret L. Lusskin Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      125 Summer St., Suite 1030
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

          - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Amended Class Action in Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the amended class
action lawsuit is in the early stage.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer
alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of
our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well
and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic
of Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages
based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court
and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been
appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to
dismiss has been entered by the Court."

"On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint
adding our current and former chief financial officers as
defendants, and defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July
11, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response
to our motion to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19,
2014. We have assessed the status of this matter and have
concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible,
but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the
consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this
dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss;
however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have
a material effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in two class
action lawsuits await a ruling on the motion to consolidate.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of
the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated our stock prices.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May
12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion
to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The
parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. Given the
early stage of these disputes, we are unable to estimate a range
of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this
dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition
and results of operations."


INTL FCSTONE: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's reply in
support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
the Securities Litigation was filed on April 27, 2015.

In January 2014, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The
complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws, and
claimed that the Company issued false and misleading information
concerning the Company's business and prospects. The action sought
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013.
The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2014. The
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in July 2014.

At the court hearing on February 4, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted and the amended complaint was dismissed, however the lead
plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint. The lead
plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on March 6, 2015,
and it narrowed the purported class to persons who purchased
Company's shares between December 15, 2010 and December 16, 2013.
On March 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's memorandum in
opposition was filed on April 13, 2015 and the Company's reply in
support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
filed on April 27, 2015.


JB HUNT: Does Not Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Silfani" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abe Silfani, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. MICV2015-04837 (Mass. Super.
Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of
its contractual obligations to its truck drivers, specifically by
failing to pay them in compliance with the rates in its own
contract.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. is an Arkansas company that provides
freight and package services throughout that United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617)607-3260
      Facsimile: (617)488-2261
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Bedtime Products, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Gallagher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No.
L-002557-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., July 2, 2015), is an action
to obtain redress for those who have purchased the Johnson &
Johnson Bedtime Products that were falsely marketed to be
clinically proven, help baby sleep better.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc. is a pharmaceutical and consumer packaged
goods manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Trimble Jr., Esq
      Katrina M. Geary, Esq.
      TRIMBLE & ARMANO
      Washington Professional Campus
      900 Rt. 168 Black Horse Pike, Suites Bl-B3
      Turnersville, NJ 08012
      Telephone: (856) 232-9500
      Facsimile: (856) 232-9698
      E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com
              katrina.geary@trimbleandarmano.com


KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Milagros Quinones-Gonzalez, individually on her own behalf and
others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01892 (D.P.R., July 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
consumers, in the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S.
Territories, seeking to redress the Defendant's false advertising
of the Kraft Natural Cheese - Shredded Cheese -Cheddar Fat Free as
all natural cheese, while failing to adequately disclose that such
products contain artificial color, synthetic ingredients and
additives.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing and
processing company, with principal place of business located at
Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois 60093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq.
      JOSE R. FRANCO RIVERA
      B-24 Mirador de Borinquen Gardens
      San Juan, PR 00926
      Telephone: (787) 407-7041
      E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com


KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Barbour, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11239-CB (Del. Ch., July 2, 2015), is brought on behalf
of the public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to
enjoin the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the
Company to Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair
price.

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

Allergan PLC is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing, and commercializing innovative branded
pharmaceuticals, high-quality generic and over-the-counter
medicines and biologic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com
              mfortunato@kmllp.com


LKH LLC: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cyntia Erickson, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. LKH, LLC, Jung Woo Kang,
and Does 1-10, Case No. BC586489 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' misleading practice of selling cheaper
mislabeled seafood to consumers instead of what they actually
ordered from the menu.

The Defendants own and operate Sushi of Naples restaurant in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wade A. Miller, Esq.
      WADE MILLER LAW
      235 East Broadway, Suite 424
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 437-6300
      E-mail: wmiller@wademillerlaw.com


LUCKY PEARL: "Galvez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Olegario Galvez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Lucky Pearl, LLC, Nomad Hospitality, LLC, Wisewiz,
LLC, Yorkville Hospitality, LLC, Atul Malhotra & Co., LLC, Atul
Malhotra, Evan Stein, and Nercys Stein, Case No. 1:15-cv-05177
(S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate four restaurants under the common trade
name Shorty's in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Sequential Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et
al., 11241-VCN (Del. Ch., July 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of
the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.,
to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the
Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed
process and for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516
      E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
              rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


MD PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Rogelio Garrote, and all others similarly situated v. MD
Professional Group Corp. and Lazaro Moreira, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22519-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 3, 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 hospital management services
company that regularly transacts business within Miami-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


MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Cases Dismissed in Q1 2015
-------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the remaining five
RESPA class action cases against mortgage lenders and insurers
were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2015.

Since December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders
and other mortgage insurers has been named as a defendant in
twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts. The complaints in all of the cases alleged
various causes of action related to the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that
the lenders' captive reinsurers received excessive premiums in
relation to the risk assumed by those captives, thereby violating
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Seven of
those cases had been dismissed prior to 2015 without any further
opportunity to appeal. The remaining five cases (listed below)
were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2015
pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiffs.

  Date Filed    Court                      Date Terminated
  ----------    -----                      ---------------
12/31/2011      U.S. District Court for
                the Eastern District of PA    03/04/2015

04/05/2012      U.S. District Court for the
                Western District of PA        03/02/2015

06/28/2012      U.S. District Court for the
                Middle District of PA         02/24/2015

12/06/2012      U.S. District Court for the
                Western District of PA        02/26/2015

01/04/2013      U.S. District Court for
                the Eastern District of PA    02/24/2015


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Nhan T. Vo" Case in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. is in the discovery phase of the case,
Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.
Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this
matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending
on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded
in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results.


NAPA CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Yossef" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Roisy Yossef, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., d/b/a
Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:15-cv-03885-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., July
2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL RETAIL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Limon" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Limon, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. National Retail
Transportation and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. RG15776483 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay straight time and overtime wages, and rest and meal
period compensation.

National Retail Transportation owns and operates trucks,
industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites
and has conducted business in Alameda County and elsewhere within
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2433
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturney@turneylawfirm.com
              dmara@turneylawfirm.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica K. Thomas, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. NCB Management Services, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10,  Case No.
2:15-cv-05189-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., July 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


NCJ SERVICE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Card Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Barnes, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. N.C.J. Service Station, Inc. a/k/a Millis Service
Center, Case No. MICV2015-04906 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 3, 2015),
is an action for monetary damages as a result of the Defendant's
failure to disclose that consumers who used their debit cards to
purchase gasoline and other motor fuels would be charged the
higher credit card price.

N.C.J. Service Station, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation that
operates as a retail dealer of gasoline and motor fuels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. O'Connor Jr., Esq.
      NICKLESS, PHILLIPS and O'CONNOR
      625 Main Street
      Fitchburg, Ma 01420
      Telephone: (978) 342-4590
      E-mail: joconnor.nandp@verizon.net


NISKA GAS: Faces "Pappey" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Pappey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No.
11238-CB (Del. Ch., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public unit-holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of Niska by Brookfield Infrastructure
Partners, L.P., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

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

Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, L.P. operates utilities,
transport, and energy businesses in North and South America,
Australia, and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


NISKA GAS: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Proposed Swan Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Peterson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No.
11234-CB (Del. Ch., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public unit-holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of Niska by Swan Holdings LP, for an
unfair price and inadequate consideration.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

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


NRG ENERGY: Supreme Court Affirmed Ninth Circuit's Holding
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the pending Natural
Gas Litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the holding by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that plaintiffs'
state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The
lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the
District Court.

On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the
lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. On July
1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21,
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding
that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field-
preempted.  The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims
were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption and directed
that the case be sent to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada for further proceedings.


NRG ENERGY: Contests Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Coompany is
contesting plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended
complaint in the Cheswick Class Action Complaint.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating
facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents. The
Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought
nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking
both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class that consists of people who own property or live within one
mile of the Company's plant.

In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the District Court.

On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a petition for rehearing
with the Court of Appeals which was subsequently denied. In
February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal
of the Court of Appeals' decision. On June 2, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of GenOn's petition for
a writ of certiorari, the case continued to be litigated before
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
After briefing by the parties on GenOn's motion to strike class
allegations in the complaint, the court granted GenOn's motion,
but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to re-file their
complaint. On February 3, 2015, plaintiffs sought leave to file an
amended complaint, which the Company is contesting.


ONSTAR LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Funds Transfers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OnStar, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 201500022176-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., July
2, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants unauthorized electronic funds transfers and credit card
charges.

OnStar, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and a fully
owned subsidiary of General Motors LLC. OnStar provides
subscription-based communications, in-vehicle security, hands free
calling, turn-by-turn navigation, and remote diagnostics systems
throughout the United States, Canada, China and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
      Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
      EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
      12555 High Bluff Dr., Suite 155
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 350-1500
      Facsimile: (858) 350-1501
      E-mail: sme@eppsteiner.com
              ajk@eppsteiner.com

         - and -

      Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
      Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
      THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94194
      Telephone: (415) 546-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
      E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
              krogers@kraloweclaw.com


OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims v. Redbox
--------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit against Redbox has appealed the dismissal of all
remaining claims.

The Company said, "In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie
Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our
Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November
2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox
moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for
summary judgment in February 2012."

"The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and
an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the
court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January
29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition
for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class
certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on
mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on
December 11, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. We
believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual
has been established as it was not possible to estimate the
possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate."


PACIFIC PREMIER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing was
scheduled for June 2015 to seek final approval of the settlement
from the court in the case entitled "James Baker v. Century
Financial, et al."

In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al,"
which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act
(the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank.  The lawsuit
alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and
related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA.  While
Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own
and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege
creates potential liability under the MSMLA.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in
2000.

After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by
plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and
prepare the case to go to trial in 2015.  The Board of Directors
of the Company determined to establish a $1.7 million reserve
related to the lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which
the Board of Directors believes to be a reasonable estimate of the
Company's exposure as of December 31, 2014.  In March and April
2015, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement
with plaintiffs to resolve the litigation as to the Company.  The
court granted preliminary approval for the settlement, and
plaintiffs are currently in the process of notifying class members
about the proposed settlement.  A hearing was scheduled for June
2015 to seek final approval of the settlement from the court.

The Company is not involved in any other material pending legal
proceedings other than legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary
course of business.  Management believes that none of these legal
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse impact on the results of operations or financial
condition of the Company.


PALMETTO PRINTING: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ninoska Moreno, and other similarly situated v. Palmetto Printing
Inc. and Eduardo Rivas, Case No. 2015-014975-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
July 2, 2015), seeks to unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial printing company,
having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PDC ENERGY: Class Action Regarding Partnership Purchases Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
regarding the 2010 and 2011 partnership purchases has been
dismissed with prejudice and all class claims were released.

In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
unit holders of 12 former limited partnerships, related to its
repurchase of the 12 partnerships, which were formed beginning in
late 2002 through 2005. The mergers were completed in 2010 and
2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and was titled Schulein v. Petroleum
Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleged that the
disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the
mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty.
In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the
court.

In October 2014, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel reached a
settlement agreement. That settlement agreement was signed in
December 2014 and was given final court approval in March 2015.
Under this settlement agreement, the plaintiffs received a cash
payment of $37.5 million in January 2015, of which the Company
paid $31.5 million and insurers paid $6 million.  In March 2015,
the class action was dismissed with prejudice and all class claims
were released. As of December 31, 2014, the Company accrued a
liability of $37.5 million related to this litigation, which was
included in other accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet.


PFIZER INC: $400MM Accord in Off-Label Promotion Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2015, that the Court has preliminarily approved
the settlement in the Off-Label Promotion class action.

The Company said, "In May 2010, a purported class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Pfizer and several of our current and former officers. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by
failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material
information concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain
pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote
the sale of those products and government investigations related
thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. In
March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S. stock
exchanges between January 19, 2006 and January 23, 2009 and were
damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer common
stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. In January
2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
matter for $400 million. In March 2015, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement."


PFIZER INC: Motions to Dismiss End-Payer Claims Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2015, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to
the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Antitrust
Actions related to Effexor XR.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing
certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation
settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect
to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for
itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative
class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the
end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Expects Neurontin Marketing Lawsuits to Be Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. expects the Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers
to be resolved without a material impact on Pfizer, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2015.

The Company said, "A number of lawsuits, including purported class
actions, have been filed against us in various federal and state
courts alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of
Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to
represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of
persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit
plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed
patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for
indications other than those included in the product labeling
approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal
courts, including individual actions as well as purported class
actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales
Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts."

"In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions
by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer
proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the
District Court for further consideration, including
reconsideration of class certification.

"In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for
certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision
reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class
action. In April 2014, we and the attorneys for the proposed class
representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual
actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
third-party payer purported class action, subject to court
approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party
payers, for an aggregate of $325 million. In November 2014, the
District Court granted final approval of the settlement.
Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to dismiss with prejudice all
Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers, and have dismissed the
purported statewide consumer class actions in California and
Illinois. Some counsel have advised that certain plaintiffs can no
longer be located. We expect the Neurontin marketing lawsuits by
consumers to be resolved without a material impact on Pfizer."


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases in Quebec Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against Pfizer Inc. in Quebec, Alberta and British
Columbia related to the Chantix/Champix drug have been stayed in
favor of a similar action in Ontario, which is proceeding on a
national basis, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 2008, purported class
actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District
of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages."

In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following:

     (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the
period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at
least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse
events;

    (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect
of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their
relationship with a class member; and

   (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in
respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis.


PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Celebrex-Related Complaints Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. has filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
and end-payors' amended complaints related to Celebrex class
actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015.

The company said, "Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of
Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S.
nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or
entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly
purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase
price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The
plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in
violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact
of sham litigation through settlement activity that further
delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court
granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct
purchaser and end-payor cases, and all such cases were
consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, we
filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payors'
amended complaints, respectively."


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Respond to Amended Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that purported class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014. The
complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v.
Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court on June
23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and
November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that
Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pursuant to the court's
June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2014, and argument on
the motion was held on March 12, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs in the
Corban suit have filed an amended complaint and the Company
planned to file a response by the deadline provided by the court
in May 2015.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Kader" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
December 3, 2014 by William Kader, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc.,
Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta
et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
against the Company, Christopher Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleges
that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions
during the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October
27, 2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for
submission of an new drug application for eteplirsen and the
likelihood of the Food and Drug Administration accepting a new
drug application based on that data. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and fees. The Company received service of the complaint on
January 5, 2015. Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
on May 4, 2015, pursuant to the scheduling order entered on
February 20, 2015.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Morning Song Bird Food Litigation is still in the early
stages, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement,
restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. "Given the early stages
of the action, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate
a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to the action.
There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of
an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said.


SHALEV SENIOR: Faces "Carani" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Carani, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Shalev Senior Living, Inc., The Crestview School,
Marissa Levi, and DOE One through and including Doe Ten, Case No.
BC596950 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate retirement homes in Van Nuys,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA
      2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (424) 248-0510
      Facsimile: (424) 204-0652
      E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com

         - and -

      Briana M. Kim, Esq.
      BRIANA KIM, PC
      249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (714) 482-6301
      Facsimile: (714) 482-6302
      E-mail: briana@brianakim.com


STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the multi-district
litigation involving alleged excessive price increases is in the
early stages of discovery.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our
answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally
denying the allegations therein.

Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have
issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made
on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided
whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the
early stages of discovery.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court
in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized
pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action,
generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in
the early stages of discovery.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of
these lawsuits.

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and
we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of
reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to
make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature
uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the proceedings are at an early
stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable
proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance
in making estimates."


STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery in the Junk
Fax Lawsuit is proceeding.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual
plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other "similarly
situated" persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to
plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks
certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to
class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500
for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the
TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if
the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On May
22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying
the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding."

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of the TCPA action,
and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range
of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to
make such an estimate because (i) the proceedings are at an early
stage and discovery is ongoing and (ii) other reported TCPA claims
have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being
dependent on its own unique facts and circumstances.

"We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel
quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably
possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when
we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible
loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our
financial statements."


STEINER LEISURE: Facing "Nesbitt" Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited is defending against the case, Nesbitt v.
FCNH, Inc. et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On April 7, 2014, a former student at our
Schools Division's Denver School of Massage Therapy brought a
putative class action against our Schools Division, Nesbitt v.
FCNH, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws. The plaintiff
alleges that, in performing certain therapies on individuals from
the public as part of the requirements that students perform
clinical services (required for a massage therapy license), she
was acting as an employee for purposes of the FLSA and applicable
state law and was entitled to wages for those services. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated at
the schools operated by our Schools Division.

"At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be
found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to
pay in connection with such liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."


STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Join "Marlow" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that 20 individuals have
joined the lawsuit, Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp.,  to
date.

On November 17, 2014, a former sales consultant brought a putative
collective action against Ideal Image Development Corporation,
Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the FLSA. The plaintiff alleges that she and others working as
sales consultants were not paid the applicable minimum wage for
certain training and travel work and were not paid overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated across the country. Twenty
individuals have joined the lawsuit to date.

"At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be
found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to
pay in connection with such liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations," the Company said.


SUNEDISON INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss "Jerry Jones" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc. intends to vigorously defend its motion to dismiss
the case, Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

The Company said, "On December 26, 2008, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's
401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4, 2007 and
December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted claims
against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees and/or
other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that
the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

"On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.

"On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The
SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was
fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted
the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its
order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and
stated that it will revisit the issues raised in the motion to
dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments relating
thereto. Both parties filed briefs supplementing their arguments
on November 1, 2010.

"On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action. The parties each have continued to file additional
notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto. On
September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral
argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel
Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral
argument on October 9, 2012.

"On March 24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss but
the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a
motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court
decision in a case that could have implications in this matter.
That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district
court, based on that Supreme Court decision."

"We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal
and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

"SunEdison believes the above class action is without merit, and
we will assert a vigorous defense. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate
outcome or resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or
estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings. An unfavorable outcome is not expected to
have a material adverse impact on our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We have indemnification
agreements with each of our present and former directors and
officers, under which we are generally required to indemnify each
such director or officer against expenses, including attorney's
fees, judgments, fines and settlements, arising from actions such
as the lawsuits described above (subject to certain exceptions, as
described in the indemnification agreements)."


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Preliminarily Approved Colonial Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
preliminarily approved a settlement reached in the Colonial
BancGroup Securities Litigation.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or STRH,
certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain
debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.

On February 3, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement of this
matter which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 13,
2015. If finally approved by the Court, this settlement will
resolve all remaining claims against STRH.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiff in "Bickerstaff" Case Loses Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal by the
plaintiff of the denial of class certification in the case,
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was denied by the Georgia Court of
Appeals.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this
decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that
the appeal was prematurely granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February
26, 2014. On March 30, 2015, this appeal was denied by the Georgia
Court of Appeals.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants in the
putative ERISA Class Actions currently have a motion to dismiss
pending with the District Court.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the
Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On
March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its
decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this
decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this
appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to
employer stock plans. The Eleventh Circuit has remanded the case
back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of
Dudenhoeffer. Defendants currently have a motion to dismiss
pending with the District Court.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Appeal in ERISA Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated appeal taken by plaintiffs over the dismissal of
two ERISA class action lawsuits remains pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to Suntrust
Banks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims.  On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in
this action.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion
to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Case Stayed Pending "Tibble" Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc., et al., remains stayed pending a decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court in another case, Tibble v. Eidson International,
according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a
putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court
issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. A decision
was expected in Tibble by the end of June 2015.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of "Morales" Class Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that STM has filed a motion
to dismiss the case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al,
a lender placed insurance class action.

STM has been named in four putative class actions similar to those
that other financial institutions are facing which allege that STM
violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing
for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other
improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. Three of
the cases involve activity relating to STM's relationship with QBE
First Specialty as STM's lender placed insurance vendor. The first
case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case,
Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et
al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

STM filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case.
The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern
District of Florida. STM has entered into an agreement to settle
these cases in the context of a nationwide settlement class, which
was approved by the Court on October 24, 2014. However, the
plaintiffs in Mahdavieh have opted out of the class action
settlement and have settled separately from the Hamilton
settlement.

The fourth case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al, is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and involves activity relating to STM's relationship with
Assurant as its lender placed insurance vendor. STM has filed a
motion to dismiss.  No further updates were provided in the
Company's Form 10-Q Report.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Thurmond Reinsurance Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Thurmond
reinsurance class action has been stayed pending a ruling in a
similar case currently before the Third Circuit.

STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been
named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that
the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance"
arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically,
plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage
insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans
referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the
form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs
contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the
detriment of borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.

The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al.
v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew
its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in
these cases were lifted.

SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was
granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery
surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for
certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond has been
stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the
Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their case.


TAQUERIA LOS: Faces "Garces" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Garces and Josefina Gutierrez v. Taqueria Los Comales
#12, Inc., Ana Luisa Garcia, and Juan Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05900 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant and banquet hall in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 957-9005
      Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Elpidio" Trespassing Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rodriguez Elpidio and Maria J. Barahona, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03071 (N.D. Cal., July
1, 2015), is an action that seeks to recover to the class of
California property owners unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as
a result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's real
property and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the
subsurface of the railroad right-of-way.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com
              ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues Pending in Panola ISD Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the merits of
Plaintiffs' claims in the case, Panola Independent School District
No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District
Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, will remain stayed while class
certification issues are pending.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including
that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due
to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if
any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009,
the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11,
2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court
for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition
was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second
request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly
smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have
further amended their proposed class to just include royalty
owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in
Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014,
a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition
to the defenses described above, we argued that the amended class
definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals
opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing
arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for
when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs'
claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are
pending.


UTMOST BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Soda Products, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Toussaint, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Utmost Brands, Inc., Case No. 508127/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers in the State of New York who purchased any of the Utmost
Brands' Grown Up Soda products, that were falsely marketed as
"100% Natural".

Contrary to the Defendant's claim, representation, and warranty,
the products are not "100% Natural" because they contain synthetic
ingredients caramel color, ascorbic acid and beta carotene.

Utmost Brands, Inc. is a beverage company that owns the Gus Grown-
Up Soda and Grown-Up Soda trademarks and brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      77 Water Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4266
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
              sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


VAGOS SERVICES: Faces "Asbun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlett Anne Asbun, and all others similarly situated v. Joao A.
Resende and Vagos Services, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61370-KAM (S.D.
Fla., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation off the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Vagos Services, Inc. is a Florida for-profit corporation that
providing trucking or moving services for long distance moves
cross interstate borders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wayne Hudson, Esq.
      HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
      355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-6628
      Facsimile: (305) 444-6627
      E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com


WEST LOOP: Faces "Laguna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Laguna, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. West Loop Auto Spa, Inc. and
Anthony Vula, Case No. 1:15-cv-05905 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a car wash located at 850 West Washington
Boulevard in Chicago, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 957-9005
      Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Merger With Energy Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. The Williams
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11236-VCN (Del. Ch., July 1,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of The
Williams Companies, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
the company by Energy Transfer Equity, for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is one of the leading energy
infrastructure companies in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
      U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
      Joseph R. Seidman Jr., Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-1414
      E-mail: Bernstein@bernlieb.com
              Ottensoser@bernlieb.com
              Seidman@bernlieb.com


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Denial of Tolling Motion to Reduce Class Size
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a court has denied
opt-in plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company
anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington
Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants
in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage
Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company
classified its loan originators and compensated them for their
work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On
September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice
recipients joined the class. On September 26, 2014, the Court
stayed actions by opt-in plaintiffs with arbitration agreements,
which reduced the class size by more than 40%.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Expects Stipulation in Case Over Integrys Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation anticipates that a Stipulation of
Settlement in the litigation relating to the acquisition of
Integrys Energy Group, will be presented to the Court for approval
after the merger closes, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Since the announcement of the proposed acquisition, Integrys and
its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been
named as defendants in ten separate purported class action
lawsuits filed in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases --
Rubin v. Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera
v. Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the
cases -- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.),
Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et
al. and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v.
Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and
Collison v. Integrys, et al.). In the Tri-State Joint Fund case,
Wisconsin Energy's CEO was also named as a defendant. The cases
were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
shareholders of Integrys.

"The complaints allege, among other things, that the Integrys
board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize the value to be received by Integrys' shareholders, that
Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty,
and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material
misstatements and omissions," the Company said. "The complaints
seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin defendants from
consummating the acquisition; (b) rescission of the Merger
Agreement; and (c) to direct the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain the highest value possible for the
Integrys shareholders. The Brown County and Cook County cases have
been dismissed in favor of the Milwaukee County actions. On
November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. We anticipate that a Stipulation of Settlement
will be presented to the Court for approval after the Merger
closes."

On June 29, 2015, Wisconsin Energy issued a statement announcing
it has completed the acquisition of Integrys Energy, and forming
the WEC Energy Group (NYSE: WEC).  The deal is valued at $5.7
billion, according to a Chicago Tribune report.


                            *********

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  * * *